UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 19

Re: 1956 Lunar Path Light - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:18:18 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:37:29 -0500
Subject: Re: 1956 Lunar Path Light - Velez


>From: Amy Hebert <vanguard.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:56:32 -0600
>Subject: Re: 1956 Lunar Path Light

>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:30:36 -0500
>>Subject: Re: 1956 Lunar Path Light

>>>From: James Oberg <joberg.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 07:18:23 -0600
>>>Subject: Re: 1956 Lunar Path Light

>>>>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul>
>>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>>Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:11:45 -0500
>>>>Subject: Re: 1956 Lunar Path Light - Velez

>>>>Has anyone mentioned the possibility that the bright object in
>>>>the photograph may be 'intra-atmospheric' and nowhere near the
>>>>surface of the moon at all?

>>>Am I the only one curious about missing data such as date/time
>>>of the image and the reported angular rate across the face of
>>>the Moon? Seems to me that obtaining such information would go a
>>>long way towards constraining the speculations that have been
>>>offered.

>>Herr Oberg,

>>Ya know, part of the reason why I always call you 'Herr Oberg'
>>has to do with your 'brown-shirt' attitude toward myself and
>>others in regard to force feeding us what _you_ think we should
>>or should not be saying.

>>Instead of being so concerned about "constraining" my comments
>>maybe you should pay some attention to problems that are closer
>>to home, such as dealing with your own serious, (not to mention
>>rather annoying) 'control' issues.

>>If you were raised as a Christian you'll recognize the reference
>>I'm sure:

>Dear John, James, List:

Hello,

You interject,

>Why do so many interesting and
>productive discussions degenerate into name-calling, accusations
>and word-fights?

Amy, why is my response to James Oberg any business of yours? If
you don't "understand" the why of it, or you just don't like the
tone of it, you can simply trash it!

Don't fret over it or let it bother you. It's between James Oberg
and myself. We're both grown men who can speak for ourselves.
I didn't address it to you. Why are you even responding to it?

Am I (or any one else) not allowed to respond _in_kind_ to snide
List without _you_ jumping in and posting yet another
unsolicited 'critique' of it. Somehow it's okay with you if
people throw insults around or consistently  misinterpret and
twist the meaning of what I might say, but heaven forbid if I
choose not to take it.

If you don't like or understand what you read in a post... trash
it and move on. Simple!

>In a professional setting, many of the tiffs and fights we see
>on this List would not be openly tolerated

This is not a "professional" setting.

>Extend the same
>respect to others as you would have extended to yourself.

It would be really nice if everybody practiced what they preach
too.

Relax Amy. When I'm talking to you I promise I will use your
name so you'll know it is you I am addressing. The post you are
so concerned about was intended for James Oberg. Who, like
yourself and more recently Ray Stanford, think it's ok to insult
me or to misinterpret just about every word that comes out of my
mouth.

>IMHO,

MYOB. I wasn't talking to you.


John Velez




[ Next Message | Previous 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