From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:24:18 EST
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:08:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Ad-Review Submission For The Bolling AFB -


>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 22:40:01 +0000
>Subject: Re: Ad-Review Submission For The Bolling AFB

>>From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 11:22:16 -0600
>>Subject: Re: Ad-Review Submission For The Bolling AFB

>>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 17:40:37 +0000
>>>Subject: Re: Ad-Review Submission For The Bolling AFB 'Beam'

<snip>

>>>Why do you phrase your advertisments in such a deliberatly
>>>confrontational way? Is it because you actually *want* them to
>>>be refused in order to provide confirmation for your theories
>>>government censorship? If fact, from the wording above, it's not
>>>even clear what kind of information you are seeking that might
>>>attract "whistleblowers".

>>>I suspect that really you're just trying to wind-up the
>>>authorities for your own satisfaction, and I think a more
>>>neutrally phrased advertisment might produce more productive
>>>results.

>>Be that as it may, this was a disheartening drubbing on a guy
>>who asked for feedback in the first place, when all that really
>>needed to be said was an inclusive admonition that a little more
>>tact might harden the point of his pick a little bit. I can
>>understand Mr. Bryant's outrage, at any rate, and can admire his
>>constructive and lawful approach in dealing with it. I admire
>>his pluck and courage... why can't you?

>Because it is pointless, ineffective, and makes ufologists look
>like motivated cranks. I'm sure Larry Bryant knows this, but he
>seems to have his own agenda in attempting to put these
>unnecessarily provocateive adverts into service newspapers, and
>letting us all know about it when they are understandably
>rejected.

He has completely ignored the "feedback" telling him to tone it
down if he wanted to get the ads accepted and, instead of
listening to the friendly advice, he comes back with ever more
hostile and confrontational proposed ads for "feedback" which
will be ignored again. So no wonder the "feedback" is getting
more outraged and less 'friendly'.

Nick Pope on Nov 28 even drafted out for him a smartly worded ad
that might have had a better chance of being accepted and
published, but he chose to _stonewall_ Pope and not even give
him the courtesy of a response. See Pope's post:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2004/nov/m28-005.shtml

And he complains about official "stonewalling"! How about
responding to Nick Pope, Sir! And I don't mean you in Canada
either.

Furthermore the complaints against the government are not even
about withholding of UFO documents anymore but about an entirely
secondary issue of SEARCH FEES being waived. The actual core
issues of UFO documents and coverup are receding farther and
farther into the background, Sir.