From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:16:14 +0100 Archived: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:35:05 -0500 Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins >From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 08:45:00 -0600 >Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins >>From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:01:45 +0100 >>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins >>>From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:39:45 -0600 >>>Subject: Re: Budd Hopkins <snip> >>>Budd Hopkins stands foursquare behind David Jacobs' _entirely_ >>>suspect, _baldly_ suspicious and _serially_ salacious ...where >>>the forthcoming are not mean, misogynistic, and utterly >>>mendacious, mind you... methods, practices, and activities. >>>Foursquare! >>Mr Lehmberg: >>It matters a lot to me. It is plainly wrong to say that Budd >>Hopkins entirely agrees with David Jacobs. I know that. >Sir! All respect! That is _immaterial_! Budd Hopkins stands >foursquare behind the conduct and activity of David Jacobs as >regards the Emma Woods affair! Ulterior, exterior, or peripheral >disagreements between the two are not, and have never been, the >issue! >>And I just want to tell you that I am shocked by your tone and >>vocabulary in this difficult discussion. >You want to know what shocks _me_ Mr. Bourdais? That there is >not _more_ "tone and vocabulary" with regard to one person >throwing another under a pathological bus, seemingly for self- >interested pecuniary concerns, and then hiding behind another's >_illness_ while prosecuting, facilitating and otherwise >nurturing _foundationless_ slanders against the person run over! >That's 220 over your 110. >>Now, I don't have a real opinion about the problem of Dr Jacobs >>with Emma Woods, but I do have a few things to say. >If you have no opinion re: Dr Jacobs or Emma Woods, Sir, then we >would have nothing to talk _about_! See, that's the issue at >hand. >>First, that >>I met David Jacobs several times and remember a very courteous, >>friendly, calm and decent man. >Me too! I can bear out everything you say here! Moreover, I >bought his books, attended his lectures and workshops, talked to >him (and Hopkins too) for hours on the phone for podcasts last >century. Hugely courteous! Certainly friendly! Warmly calm! >Unquestionably decent! So? No really, so!? >>The present accusations against >>him don't fit with that. >No! No they don't! Begs the question! Where the _hell_ can such >accusation raise its ugly head ,at all... but that the >_evidence_ for such must be wide and deep. >>Secondly, regarding legal aspect of the >>case, I ask again: is it legal to tape private conversations >In as much as the _provenance_ of significantly damning taped >conversations, extant, are not germane to the issue of >_evidenced_ extreme psychological abuse, I don't _know_ or >_care_ what the legal aspects are Mr. Bourdais. That's for the >guild of white powdered wigs to fret and otherwise drool over... >and a _dodge_ from the issue at hand: Mind Rape/assault, I >submit, okeydoked, it would seem, by the more landed members of >our community, a community turning a convenient blind eye to >impropriety, unprofessionalism, and even sociopathy in the case >of Emma Woods. >>during one or two years and publish a montage selected to >>discredit the man? >Have you reviewed those montages, yourself, Sir? They are not >montages you'd come to find; they are, I feel, an audit path >for evidentiary maliciousness and unequivocal in that. Mr Lehmberg: I have listened de to about 45 minutes of that montage, and I what struck most was loud, agressive sneers by two people whose names I did catch. Could you tell who they are? The question here is not just that Emma Woods recorded during two years her private conversations with Jacobs - a fact alone which raises questions, like possible premeditation for future action - but that she published a montage of the most damaging parts of them. Would you accept to be treated that way, Mr Lehmberg? A question: why did she ask for his help and send him hundreds of pages about her case, in the first place? That behavior looks rather peculiar to me. Another question: do you know who sent Dr Jacobs a message to make him believe that he was threatened by a "hybrid"? What was going on, there? Looks like she was not alone in that story. Simply stated, that case is not at all clear to me. Gildas Bourdais 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