From: Michael Wayne Malone <wayne@fly.HiWAAY.net> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 03:59:47 -0500 (CDT) Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 08:55:27 -0500 Subject: Re: Questions for Abductees > From: email@example.com [Lawrie Williams] > Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 04:57:14 +1000 (GMT+1000) > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: Questions for Abductees > Reluctant as I am to confuse such cerebro-avian reasoning with > actual facts, you should know that the person in question K was > not distressed before or after the experience. I have never even > met her in fact! How can you know the distress level of someone you've never met? > I did recount a conversation with her friend D, which file 4 - > now 5 - people have clearly failed to read carefully enough > despite its brevity. They have instead larded on their own > preconceptions of where I am at. This says more about them than > me. And perhaps even more about the perceived rights of free > speech between abductees by believers and skeptics alike. I must > some time slip in another couple of buzz words and watch if the > same identities get in a flap. Don't know that anyone but you have ever made this a "free speech" issue. But free speech doesn't give you the freedom from responsibility when you say something that hurts someone else. > Nobody can say I am not even-handed in the people I upset. That > is the benefit of being a moderate caught between extremists, one > so foolish as to insist his very real experiences are very real, > and the other insisting on mental theories more elaborate than > the simple and factual explanation - humanoids in a hovering > craft, based on axioms that were readily accepted by this list. A moderate between extremists? Hardly. You've closed your mind to any phsyological or pshycological explination to the abduction phenomenom, that defines you as an extremist. The moderates are those who don't know what the abduction phenomenom is and are keeping an open mind to all possible explinations until evidence removes one or elevates another. And currently there is no solid evidence to accept the axiom that humanoids in a hovering craft steal people out of their homes. > As for the person in question, I did not introduce any ideas > other than the one I mentioned, which was intended to alert her > to any possible reproductive system anomalies. Any memories of > being on a spaceship on a table and surrounded by entities remain > as pure as the driven snow, ready to be scooped up and placed in > a sterile container, to no doubt be labelled "iatrogenic". Hardly pure. You've not only solidified any past experience, but you've told a young girl, albeit through a friend, that not only is the experience 100% authentic, exactly as she "remembers" it, but that it is going to get worse. Everything from now on is tainted. But not only that, you told this child that she was abducted by "humanoids in a hovering craft" and you've never even met her. When I jumped to the assumption that you personally told this child she would get pregnant and the baby would be stolen I thought it was bad. That was a kneejerk reaction, I admit. But to then learn that it is even worse, you tainted everything this subject may have been able to share because you diagnoised her situation THROUGH ANOTHER. That's low. > At last report D and K are happily getting on with life and still > there is no sign of the trauma so eagerly anticipated for their > mythical counterparts by fantasizers elsewhere on this globe. How do you know, you've never met her. You sure know a great deal about the mental trauma of someone you've never met. > How anyone can draw such extensive inferences both factual and > moral from the minimal information I provided is quite beyond me. > My file was brief and lucid before consumption, and related to a > very real event. Now it has become a mini-myth and has taken on a > life of its own. I am mightily entertained. Mightily entertaining to watch you as well. How did you draw such an extensive inference of facts about a child's experience without interviewing the subject? You actually took second hand information, drew a definite conclusion, predicted an uncheckable hypothesis, tainted an abduction information source and insulted field researchers all without leaving the comfort of your chair of interviewing the original subject. Nice peice of work.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp