Jami Lin edited my reply and responded only to what she wanted to address. Here is the email with her rebuttals (in green areas) to portions of my email (in blue areas). Additional comments are provided in black areas.

And your point is…..?

You don’t like that I quote you verbatim and point out where you have a great deal of ugliness in what you tell people?

If you have the courage, kindly publish our replies too, unless you are going to take more out of context to serve your own propagation. I am not perfect but I have never written anything ugly about anyone.

Logical Fallacy, Red Herring

Another remarkable transition: quoting her word for word (what verbatim means), and analyzing her words, is interpreted as taking out of context which becomes ugliness. Maybe she doesn’t understand what "taking out of context" means. Enough context was included to prevent that very thing from occurring.

She is really objecting to the conclusions of the analysis. Had the subtext matched the superficial reading of the article she would not have complained.

Love the malapropism serve your own propagation!

Lin claims to have "never written anything ugly about anyone," whatever that means; but that has not prevented her from writing untruths and transgressing some basic tenets of what she claims is her religion.

It was a small article — removed from a book, not a treatise of the Kabbalah (which is also not what the book is about).

Red Herring, Logical Fallacy

Remember the earlier red herring:

I never said that Kabbalah didn’t have ties to Judaism (you said that’s what I said)

"I never said" changes to "not what the book is about," and they’re both red herrings.

Notice the “Do you know that I’m a Jew?” argument has disappeared. She has to find some other way to displace the scrutiny.

Look at the book where this article appears, and look at the article: Why is Kabbalah identified as alchemy, a pagan practice?

Are you so well read that you know every book written? What an ignorant statement! Kindly note: I said the statement was ignorant, you on the other hand directly insult people based upon ignorant judgment.

Red Herring, False Dilemma

Textbook examples. She engineers a leap from specific books to "every book written." If you aren’t exposed to Professor Cohn’s books through discussions at your synagogue, you typically stumble onto them at college. And as for my comment she thinks she’s rebutting: I rest my case.

Exactly! That was the point, which was obviously what you have appeared to miss!

Red Herring, Logical Fallacy

And not quite grammatical, either, which makes it even more humorous.

Thank you!

Re:Re: Cate Bramble, Publish This!

A rebuttal, but one that sticks to the original argument. Of course that makes it "ugly" for someone like Jami, because none of her control words and other flashpoints were addressed in a way she recognizes. She doesn’t know how to respond.

Hey Jami,

I intend to publish everything because people have a right to know that you whine and cry and carry on when someone has the effrontery to hold you accountable for what you write and points out your factual errors.

It’s too bad that you cannot differentiate between academic disagreement and personal attack. This is a common failing in the New Age crowd. I don’t suffer from that ailment; I am glad when people look at what I write and point out factual errors. It’s not personal with me. But then, I’m a professional technical writer, and you get used to critique or you don’t work. You’ll find discussions about the failing of New Age thinking on my web site — including areas on pages that you were careful to avoid in your lifting of texts for email.

If you’ve looked at my site enough then you know that you’ve had your books reviewed by me (I think the word "execrable" fits nicely). In my so-called "manifesto," which was published as part of the proceeds of the YCH Conference in Germany (and which is available as a download on my site), I quote from one of your vanity publishing efforts regarding your feeble knowledge of science. I allude to your weird notions in my soon-to-be-published book — I’m publishing in the next few weeks actually, an academic book on feng shui. (Academic books mean their facts are checked and the books are peer-reviewed for accuracy.)

Now, let’s stick to the facts:

• The piece you posted does not make mention that it is an excerpt from a book. You and those who published your piece failed to follow standard publishing procedures for lifting excerpts from books. If you don’t know what those are, learn. All of the materials to do so are readily available on the web and in your local bookstore.
• I followed standard procedures for analyzing your writing. If you don’t know what those are, learn. All of the materials to do so are readily available on the web and in your local bookstore.

• I left a documentary trail so anyone could follow where I got my information, read, and draw their own conclusions. Again, standard procedures.
• It is not my problem if you’ve never heard of something or read something. The reason that good research has a documentary trail is that anyone can follow those leads and thus the evidence, and make up their own minds. The books I mentioned are very popular, oft-quoted, and profound works, but probably not everyday reading in New Age circles.
• If you want to respond in a credible fashion, then create a rebuttal with some merit. Follow the documentary trail. Otherwise, none of us has time or energy for your whining.

Re:Re:Re: Cate Bramble, Publish This!

And now the punchline, typed in at the top of my previous email.

Deleting email — not read—this is a waste of time, be ugly on someone else.

Jami Lin
Fulfilling Your Heart’s Content
Feng Shui, Interior Design, and Self-Development bringing YOU home to the
 Spirit

Rather than defend her work, Jami Lin chose to use the time-worn tactics of the gossip to maintain social control and elicit emotional support. Gossip-mongering has always been used by women in an attempt to demoralize adversaries and restrict behavior.

The issue is power, not facts; whatever facts may be available are typically ignored amidst the histrionics.

The language Lin uses reflects the feminine values common in a patriarchial society, where female beauty is highly valued — not abilities or erudition — and where the social economy demands that women maintain social bonds no matter the circumstances or personal cost. It is a world where women have less value than men (rather than one person, one vote as in the US), and where making a big noise (what Professor Capp calls "street theater" or "public confrontation") draws attention.

Lin’s repeated use of ugly is a dead giveaway that the premodern form of social control is at work. The language is more modern than gossipry at its height (Elizabethan England), but the same principles apply: to wield what power and influence can be had in a patriarchial society where females are generally excluded.

She sidestepped her accountability by using histrionics. The histrionics distract you momentarily, but the fact remains: now everyone knows — you don’t have to let her off so lightly next time.