UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 7

Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Miller

From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:15:43 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 00:43:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Miller


>From: John Harney <magonia.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 20:54:39 -0000
>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen


>>From: Stuart Miller <Stuart.Miller4.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:55:46 -0000
>>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen

>>>From: John Harney <magonia.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:15:29 -0000
>>>Subject: Re: Review Of Sight Unseen - Harney

>>List

>I don't live near Mortlake Cemetery - aren't you confusing me
>with someone else?

<snip>

>>How do you get off, John, giving Gerry Clark a hard time about
>>where he lives when you dwell under a slab with a load of
>>stiffs?

>Again, you are confusing me with someone else. Wouldn't it be
>best to be clear as to who you are replying to before you start?

In this case, not really. It's either the monkey or the organ
grinder but which ever way it cuts, it's still the same.

<snip>

>>To follow this fatuous argument through to its childish
>>conclusion, on that basis then John go back to Liverpool where
>>you were born.
>
>I was not born in Liverpool. Who told you that?

No one. I made it up.

>>You cannot live in London because you weren't
>>born there, just like Budd cannot speak or write about
>>abductions because he started life as an artist. There is a law
>>that says that once you start something in life, then that is
>>what you stick to. Thankfully for the rest of us, that law
>>exists only in the terribly compartmentalised brain of John
>>Harney.

>Ah, at least you spelt my name right.

The mis-spelling of the other zombie's name was not a mistake.
I'm surprised that one got through.

<snip>

>>He does tell us what his methods are for checking as to whether
>>someone is telling him the truth or not. He makes mention of it
>>twice. Go and have a look for yourself. Here's a clue; the
>>second reference can be found, errrrr after the first!

>I have read the book, but don't have it to hand at the moment
>because the person you are obviously confusing me with is
>reading it. Anyway, if Hopkins really did have a technique for
>telling true from false abduction reports, it would need more
>than two "mentions" to describe it.

OK. Pick a number then. Has this got anything to do with that
bingo game that Chemical Andy was on about? Can I play too?

>>>Reasonable explanation? What reasonable explanation? You're
>>>joking, surely?

>>I don't tell jokes John. I have a sense of humour bypass. Having
>>said that, something amusing did strike me the other day. Have
>>you noticed how, in English upper middle class society, there is
>>a very close proximity in pronounciation between the words
>>"John" and "Yawn"?

>What is the relevance of "English upper middle class society" to
>this thread?

None. It was a spiteful and malicious attempt on my part to
indicate the close proximity between yourself and ennui. Package
yourself upYawn and sell yourself to insomniacs.

<snip>

>>Carol has based all her possibilities on hard fact. She has
>>taken solidly accredited, peer reviewed terrestrial based
>>scientific advancements and experiments and said, "This is what
>>we on earth can do already. It is therefore reasonable to
>>conclude that a more intelligent species can do the same thing
>>and possibly do it better." Darn! Isn't pseudo science a pain!

>All Carol Rainey's stuff about scientific advancements is the
>sort of thing you can read about in "New Scientist" every week.
>It is hardly reasonable to attempt to use it to explain stories
>which are unsupported by physical evidence and which are more
>rationally explained, or at least described, with reference to
>delusions, unusual mental states and distorted memories.

Oh this is funny. I take it then that you are dismissing New
Scientist as some pop rag filled with Readers Digest style,
spoon fed simplistic nonsense. Or something similar. I've no
idea where Carol drew her material from but even if by chance,
some came from New Scientist or some other similar publication,
does that somehow make it invalid? Are you saying New Scientist
publishes lies and disinformation?

So its all in the show is it John? The superficialities, the
source? As long as that appeals to your vanities then that's OK,
is it? And while I'm sure the barbs you aim at those who claim
to have been abducted are nothing they haven't heard before,
perhaps it might be a good idea to keep those private thoughts
just that. At least on this List.

>>>That's right - so long as it's a good read, why bother with the
>>>details or whether it makes sense or not? If you like fantastic
>>>yarns, why not read science fiction?

>>I do. I read some rag called Magnausea. Are we talking about the
>>same publication? The one I read is a good laugh if one wants to
>>enter the world of clenched buttocks and the overly anxious.
>>Filled with grovelling acolytes all laying prone at the feet of
>>King Yawn.

>Yes, as Magonia - or whatever rude name you like to call it -
> doesn't indulge in sensationalism and pseudoscientific
>nonsense, some people find it a bit boring. But, unlike certain
>other UFO journals, we have never attempted to turn it into an
>entertainment magazine and get a big readership by publishing
>amazing claims and fuzzy photographs by assorted cranks and
>frauds.


So Magnausea is neither entertaining or interesting. Well, fair
enough, you can't be accused of using this site to garner
further readership then. So while you directly accost UFO
Magazine readers, you indirectly label your following as boring
and devoid of any interest as Human Beings. John, we agree.
Trouble is, most of your readers would be quite happy to be
labled that way.


Stuart Miller




[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com