From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:35:33 +0000 Archived: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 06:32:11 -0500 Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins >From: Carol Rainey <csrainey2.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:09:01 -0500 >Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins <snip> I have been fighting my impulse to take part in this thread for some time, but I think it is time I contributed a a couple of broad observations. I doubt that Carol or Emma have ever heard of me, my views have been expressed on this List and elsewhere so to summarise them for the benefit of anyone who doesn't already know them (and is in the slightest bit interested): - I have always doubted the value of hypnotic regression. - I consider that the use of HR outside a clinical context to be irresponsible, and potentially dangerous to the (person) subject and damaging and misleading for the (UFO) subject. - I regard people who apply HR without a clinical background to be nothing more than 'dabblers', unable to recognise the dangers involved and unprepared to deal with the problems caused by their actions when they arise. I also have the (admittedly subjective) impression that the dabblers are prone to shirk responsibility for their actions when things to go wrong. - I also feel that HR has become a form of entertainment. At one time, I recall that someone was actually advertising along the lines of 'let us create a full-blown abduction experience for you for $100. Mastercard and Visa accepted', much in the same vein as past-life regressions (just how many Henry VIIIs and Joan of Arcs were there?). That isn't to say that I consider all dabblers to be bad people, just as people who conduct car repairs or home repairs badly aren't intrinsically bad. However, I struggle to understand why they persist in dabbling when others have pointed out to them the dangers of their actions and to that degree, they are at least negligent. I was especially disturbed by Budd's focus on children who are in the main far more vulnerable and impressionable than adults. Without knowing the individuals concerned personally (Carol, Emma, Budd, and David) it is difficult to reach a meaningful conclusion based on the internet traffic in progress at the moment as to who is at fault, but given my viewpoint as expressed above, I am naturally inclined to sympathise with Carol and especially Emma. I have had some minor dialogue with David in the past, and he was helpful and friendly. I suspect that all this stuff has led to delusion on his part. I don't recall having any discourse directly with Budd. When I first read the paratopia article from: http://tiny.cc/2pzis which was also posted to the list at: http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2011/jan/m17-001.shtml one of my first thoughts was and still is that Carol appears to me to have deliberately avoided turning the situation into a post marital breakdown bitching session against her ex partner. I think the suggestion that she has done so is extremely unfair. I am sure if she wanted to, there is probably a lot more dirty laundry she could pull out of the basket, but it wouldn't be relevant to the topic in hand. I don't know where this current situation will lead, I actually hope it does end up in court and that David Jacobs finds himself having to pay out massive damages. That might cause people to think twice before dabbling with people's minds. That's my tuppence worth (ten cents for our colonial readers). regards, and respect to Carol and Emma, Joe Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp