From: Michael Wayne Malone <wayne@fly.HiWAAY.net> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 04:19:22 -0500 (CDT) Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 09:00:59 -0500 Subject: Re: Abduction Sat 5 Oct > From: email@example.com [Lawrie Williams] > Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 03:04:06 +1000 (GMT+1000) > To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com > Subject: Re: Abduction Sat 5 Oct > > Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 03:40:20 -0500 > > What full truth? You didn't give them a "truth" you gave them > > your "belief" based on unsupported data..... > My truthful opinion. Your baised, if truthful opinion. > > While you were at it, why did you hold back from giving the girl's > > parent's the "full truth" if you are so ethical and everything? > So as not to involve confidential information. Oh I see, a kidnapping and what in your "truthful opinion" will end with a rape and pregnancy of a minor falls with-in the bounds of "confidential information." > mwm>>> If they have any experiances that in any way match what you told > >>> them, there is no way of knowing the real from the imaginary planted > >>> by you. > I have been abducted, it is not like that at all. It is very hard > to lead abductees. You've based this entire learned aproach on a data-set of one? Your abduction does not make you an expert on anothers abduction. > I supplied the information needed to help them know what to watch for. > Who is the most scientific? Who has the biggest one? Who is reacting > in the most extreme way? You told the subject "what to watch for?" Perhaps you should read the extensive studies on "Medical Student Syndrom" before you give a subject something to watch for. > Abductees are above all else just people who want honest opinions. > True, if I was still trying to prove the humanoids in saucers axiom > I could have withled that knowledge from her, but that has already > been accepted on this list. I know because I put it up and there > were no valid objections to that step forward. Remember? You were > part of the decision. Is it going too fast for you? And I posted an unreplied message denying the axiom that humanoids in hovering crafts is valid without further proof of these humanoids or these craft. I've talked with Errol before, and haven't seen a list of "accepted axioms" that one must follow to participate on this list. Your deluded sense of what is "accepted" looms large. Even if we do accept the axiom that these things exist, we don't automatically accept the axiom every time some one screams abduction. > > ... I thought we were on a UFO discussion list, and were discussing > > ufology and abductions. Perhaps you and I can discuss the evils of > > modern media in an approprate mailing list. > No. You were discussing how flawed information gets transmitted and > you and several other guys wanted to make me a scapegoat. You > cannot trick me that easily. I was discussing bad investigation, not transmision of information. > > As a counsler, your job wasn't to give advice, but to help the > > subject deal with the unexplainable emotional side-effects of her > > alleged abduction. > The only drama comes from you and 2 or 3 others. You've already admitted to the list that you haven't met the subject, so this entire discussion is moot. Your poor investigations have extended to far beyond simple taint. > > As a ufologist, you were to investigate without taint, without > > bias, and without preconcieved ideas as to the end result of your > > research. > I know exactly what I am doing. Apparently not. > > And as a responsible human being, you were not to scare young > > women with the worst case senerio. > There is a continuum? > 1 share freely with old males, > 2 With old women or young males you have to withold some data, > 3 With young females you have to withold a lot more for their own good > This is ufology? Is this to be part of some code of conduct? > BTW I assure you I know of "worse cases"! Hardly, but if you wish to fence... 1 Share freely with researchers for the subject of peer review 2 Take care not to taint your subject or extrapolate from bad data 3 proceed with caution > > What evidence did you have that this is how her abduction > > experience would turn out. > Plenty. Had you the same experience, you would know. Point in fact, I have been "abducted." But since you've already decided the truth of abductions, the fact that my experince doesn't fit into your scenerio probably eliminates me from you acceptable database. > > .... Perhaps if you had recieved stronger peer review before, you > > wouldn't have made such an untrained rookie mistake. > You are my peer? The current state of ufology makes everyone who participates in this forum your peer. Sad as that may be. > > But that aside, how objective are you in your research? > If I was dishonest with myself then I'd learn less. I've never implied nor suggested that you are dishonest. Simply closeminded and a poor researcher. > > From the post, I found you to have closed your mind completely to > > everything but what you've already determined as TRUTH. > I reported a simple conversation for the benefit of science. And that is supposed to deny what?
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp