From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:38:07 -0500 Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:46:16 -0400 Subject: Re: Got Sack? - Lehmberg >From: John Velez <email@example.com> >To: firstname.lastname@example.org >Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 22:04:10 -0400 >Subject: Re: Got Sack? >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >>Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 14:51:50 -0500 >>Subject: Got Sack? <snip> ...More than willing to respect an individual's wishes regarding consideration for their personal lack of "desire" and "inclination" to respond, respected, tolerant, and patient reader, I share that writer's post regarding my "...Got Sack?" piece with you, along with my response to it. >Hello Alfred, >Wow, and I was wondering why it's been oh so peaceful on the >List for the last couple of months. :) The writer of the preceding artfully assumes an amused tone, good reader, all jocularity and trademark smiles... forgetting unjust behaviors, inappropriately prosecuted attitudes, and a cornucopia of trashed feelings. But remembering he's only fiddling tunelessly while a ufological Rome burns, the reader should be reminded, ".Rock your head back and they are there, while we quibble, after all." >My thoughts? Were this writer to demonstrate that he was considered (if _not_ considerate), non-canted (if _not_ perfectly balanced), and sincere -- bereft of pointlessness and cheap, groundless, or unsupported insult ? Yes! Of course. Where have _I_ ever indicated otherwise. >Never have I seen _anyone_ go the lengths that Mr. Mortellaro >has gone to to promote himself, and to (forcefully) gain >acceptance for his 'case'. Mortellero has made a _total_ of two radio show appearances, I remind the reader. How many has the writer made? Dozens? How many times, on this List alone, has the writer rather forcefully attempted to gain acceptance for his own case and the reality of the abduction phenomena in general? Too many times to count. I ask the reader: Who is the more self-absorbed? >Most abductees have to be prodded and cajoled into going public. >Mr. Mortellaro seems to be engaged in a non-existent popularity >contest which he approaches as if it was a sanctioned Olympic >event. And why wouldn't he, given what _some_ have done to derail his honest attempt at formally and publicly examining his experience for the benefit of researchers and abductees alike? And _have_ some born apparently false witness that Jim was a 'liar' -- that he'd stolen the abduction accounts of others "word for word"? I've seen evidence of some of the whispers flying around behind the scenes and given an opportunity to see just how strong the language used was. One called Jim a "f__king liar." Just what, besides the writer's personal experience, perhaps, gives the writer any more authority to judge the reality of Jim's experience than Jim himself. Wounded pique? Threatened turf? What... really? But some wouldn't stop there. Some continued a whisper campaign to inform others on the List that Jim was _indeed_ lying about his experience. When that tactic didn't seem to pan out, one attempted to smear the research attempt (the true facts of which Jim's detractors knew and know _nothing_ about [no fault of Jim's]) in that the methodology wasn't... acceptable. Acceptable? Isn't it decidedly odd when a highly educated medical team gets criticism on research techniques from someone who has never conducted any. ...Irony one can cut with a knife. >He came onto this List and informed everyone that he was an >"abductee." .And the writer is perhaps different in some substantial (telling) way, I point out to the reader? >Everybody seems to have accepted that and taken him >at his word. It seems that the only one hung up on Mr. >Mortellaro's status as an "abductee" is Mr. Mortellaro himself. >It makes me wonder just 'what' it is, _really_, that he is >trying, with almost breathless desperation, to prove to >everyone. No, I must point out to the reader that the only one seemingly hung up on Mr. Mortellero's status as an abductee is the _writer_ by all reports and indications. If Jim is "breathless" about anything, it's to get to the bottom of the abduction enigma, is my experience -- over _many_ years now. In fact, it is only significant 'others' that seem "breathless" in their attempts to set up fallaciously invalid and duplicitous roadblocks in a scurrilous campaign to bring that innocent effort down. Although it seems to be difficult for the writer, the writer could get honest about this for a moment. There are countless examples of how the misbehavior of some is egregiously suspect when it comes to Jim. The most cursory glance at archival posts speak to this. And by the way, if one wanted to discuss inherent honesty, the writer could juxtapose _his_ language about abduction with Jim's, who continually uses the words, "perceived abduction" to describe his and other's encounters. Jim isn't pushing his interpretation of the reality of his experience on anyone -- least of all himself. Others could be accused of that long, long before Jim would be expected to bear _that_ particular cross. >If I recall, it was _his_ choice not to post because _he_ was >'upset' with the lack of response from List members. Now _we_ >are supposed to "invite" him back? And according to you, with an >"I'm sorry," and a "pretty please with sugar on top." (?) No, the writer ignores the macro to embrace the convenient micro, respected reader, given the fact that Jim's story is now supported by the well respected likes of a Medical Team, Budd Hopkins and potentially David Jacobs and that he is now involved in the most comprehensive bit of research the abduction question has ever garnered, it seems to me. No, I'm simply asking that some grow up a little, forget past differences and petty prides for the sake of the issue at hand, and extend some common courtesy. ...In a word, though, yes! ..."Pretty please with sugar on top" would be _most_ welcome. ...Serge and Bobbie could be invited back too, while we're at it. >In his quest for recognition and attention maybe he now realizes >how he has cut off his own nose and spited his own face by making >the premature melodramatic Hollywood exit that he made. The writer does not take into consideration, good reader, how wounded and betrayed one can feel when one makes a disclosure among friends and subsequently discovers fewer friends present than one had thought were there! I can _testify_ how badly wounded Jim was, very needlessly, as it turned out. Appealed in a higher 'court', Jim's vindication seems assured if not complete. He _is_ the real deal, as I have indicated. Some should just get _used_ to it. >EBK did >not throw him off the List, and neither did any of its members. >Why does anybody have to "invite" him back? _We_ didn't go >anywhere. He did! The writer blithely misses the point, reader. not 'unsubbed' but ejected, none the less, like if _I_ walked away right now it would be because of some of the more repellant principals in principle running me off with their odious behavior -- like UpDates was use-net. Like somebody was corrosively flatulent in the UpDates 'room' and was serially flatulent with extreme prejudice... I'm run out. Oh sure I can go back in, even speak... but if I'm blowing chunks...? >Hey, how about _he_ asks us if he can come back on the List? >After all, it was he who chronically complained about how >screwed up the List is. The writer could be reminded, honored reader, that in some places an inability to tolerate criticism is the first step to a tyranny serving the few at the clear expense of the many. >As far as I'm concerned he can post or not as he wishes. >Personally, I haven't 'missed' him at all. The reader can be assured that there is no surprise _there_. >BUT... (big 'but') >I _reserve the right_ to respond to his on-list proclamations >and to express my opinions (as I choose to or not) when he does >post. No 'special' treatment. We're all adults here. More irony, good reader, as the writer has exercised his rights many, many times without prejudice and should find no need to campaign for it now. Additionally, I wonder how many others can similarly reserve the right to reply? That would be, oh let me count them up, that would be, ah... everyone! Anyone, on the list at any rate! Even if some continue to believe that Jim Mortellero is a liar, good reader (or in the words of one, "a f__king liar") wouldn't it be the "adult" and consequently _more_ effective thing to let Jim play this out without harassment. After all, aren't we ALL dedicated to finding out the "ultimate truth" of this conundrum? Additionally, shouldn't some have more faith in an entire medical community, Budd Hopkins (whose name has been invoked by the responding writer many times) or Dr. David Jacobs... to arrive at the truth of Jim's experience? Or, is all that some are interested in, really, is belittling and discrediting Jim. The writer has belittled Jim, good reader, belittled him so much, after all, it may have, by now, just become a point of pride and easy reflex. >"If you can't take the heat... stay out of the kitchen." Which, in this case good reader, is a little like saying, "If you don't want a bullet in the face, don't stick your head up over the counter during the robbery," not to put too fine a point on it. Lehmberg@snowhill.com ~~=D6~~ EXPLORE "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his VSN URL. http://www.alienview.net JOHN FORD RESTORATION FUND -- John will be released eventually. He'll need a tax free cash stake to get on his feet. Let's put one together for him; the bigger it is -- the more attention he gets. It could have been you. E-mail for detail. $350.00 pledged -- $200.00 collected! "I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, scourged by the scabrously specious scurrilous.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp