From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:38:20 -0500 Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:25:21 -0500 Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO - Stanford >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:23:32 -0500 >Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO >>From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker.nul> >>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:23:13 -0500 >>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO >>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul> >>>To: ufoupdates.nul >>>Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:42:17 -0500 >>>Subject: Re: The Beveridge UFO >><snip> >>>I demand a public apology for the way you have spoken to me, >>>and as for _your_ 'alleged' credentials, I await copies. >You respond: >>No need to send me copies, as I am inclined to accept what you >>said. >It's easy to say that after the fact isn't it? You have been in >receipt of my credentials for two days. Sorry, John, but the image of your credential came as just from "John" with the subject line, "For you". I get so many spams these days from people who think I have both tensile and dimensional needs with the masculine appendage, that I just thought it was one of those and sent it into the delete file. Only after I received another private communication from you with Berveridge UFO in the subject line did I begin to realize over a late dinner last night, that the deleted message might have been from you, so when we got back home, I went to the delete file and wrote you, privately: "Congratulations! I believed you at your word with this morning's post from you, but now I have before me the 'ocular evidence'." I further said to you last evening, via email, privately: "I only spoke of suspicions and did not call you a liar. Read it again, but keep in mind that... that first letter was never intended to be sent as I explained _on-list_, describing the mistake of how it was accidentally sent. In fact, I can't understand how Errol even mistakenly posted it because it clearly was sent by me accidentally (Would you like to see a copy of what got sent accidentally to Errol with all the stuff from your letter retained at the bottom?), since it definitely was not in keeping (because of all the text I left down at the bottom) with his clearly delineated rules of submission, but accidents and oversights happen." That happened, however, so I think it incumbent upon me to apologize for my private, off-the-cuff pondering, that inadvertently got published in this List. So, John, please accept my apology. I also want to apologize for doubting (albeit only temporarily and intended privately) what you had said about your training, for as I see on the certificate from Long Island University School of Continuing Studies, dated November, 1995, you satisfactorily completely and satisfied all program requirements at their Computer Graphics Training Center. As I said last night and meant it, "Congratulations!" I am positively impressed. I certainly did not intend to insult your intelligence (even when I sometimes question your reasoning), because you are obviously among the real thinkers on this List, and I often find myself in agreement with points or even complaints you make, although at other times I differ. Anyhow, John, you have my apology, my congratulations, and my best wishes, Ray Stanford P.S.: And hey, List, my apology for inadvertently starting an un-called-for mess. You will not have to put up with me much longer, because soon I must be signing-off to get more serious work done on three books, a couple of them with a fellow ufologist-author. But I will remember each of you fondly, whether you be believer, skeptic, serious researcher, friend, enemy, critic, fellow-traveler, and whatever you might be. Tiwud with good wishes to all.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp