From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:13:31 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 09:29:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Ad-Review Submission For The Bolling AFB -


>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:24:18 EST
>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

<snip>

>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'.

Steaming monkey paffle from high in an elitist canopy, Mr.
Sparks. That is not _remotely_ a justification for the
criticism's escalation, which I think is a result of another
underlying process (we can get into if you wanna) and otherwise
comes from some suspect sources, besides. Moreover, ignored or
not, Mr. Bryant has _your_ attention, Sir.

>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:

With all respect to a very even handed Mr. Pope, who _did_
provide a reasonable response or feedback based on the most
conventional of shopworn conventional wisdoms (_no_ criticism to
Mr. Pope) Mr. Bryant might have thought, as I would have, that
_that_ advice hasn't really moved us along substantively on the
ufological path for all its sterling collegiality, placating
calmness, and superior rationality. The opposition, Mr. Sparks,
is not predicated on following the same gentility or honoring
the same law. Perhaps, as a result of the shine-on we've all had
to endure for 50 freakin' years, Mr. Bryant would use what
remains of dwindling due process and evaporating rule of law as
a 'pick' to more forcibly pry at the lid we, every one of us,
know is there... ...roll up some legal paper into a few tight
tubes and poke out a few eyes. They grow back.

>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.

You don't know that he didn't, Mr. Sparks, in the first place,
and where is it written that he has to demonstrate a touch-back
to you... an obviously hostile individual, in the second... and
hostile for reasons which could otherwise be explored for some
intellectual profit, I would think. One guy shooting off his
mouth to assorted government agencies shouldn't bother you so
much, given that he's been doing actionable things for years now
without a comment from you thus far, I recall. And please don't
say he discredits the field with his efforts. He wouldn't even
be doing what he is doing (...me either, for that matter) if the
ufological "knowledge void" contained any 'quality' information,
at all, and was catalogued there by data following science,
forthcoming government, and progressive philosophy/religion.
 Mr. Bryant, and myself, are symptoms of a condition, Sir, and
not its cause.

>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.

Which in _no_ way is non-pertaining, Mr. Sparks. Why should Mr.
Bryant pay _too_ much money for information we should, all of
us, have for _free_ anyway... especially when the cost is made
prohibitive so you _can't_ get the information out.

>The actual core
>issues of UFO documents and coverup are receding farther and
>farther into the background, Sir.

...And on that largely inaccurate note, Mr. Sparks, allow me to
admonish you for hiding behind Mr. Rimmer's very suspect
response and not communicating with me directly. The "Sirs"
were the tell tale on who you're really addressing, Sir... and
Mr. Rimmer 'shan't' save you.


alienview.nul -:|:-
  www.AlienView.net