UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Feb > Feb 27

Re: Woods/Jacobs - A Salient But Missing Point

From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:15:42 -0600
Archived: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:34:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Woods/Jacobs - A Salient But Missing Point

>From: Gene Steinberg <gene.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 07:33:46 -0700
>Subject: Re: Woods/Jacobs - A Salient But Missing Point

>>From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:22:25 =E2^'0600
>>Subject: Re: Woods/Jacobs - A Salient But Missing Point

>>Nor does it detract from the _irrelevancy_ of same, Mr.
>>Steinberg! Jacobs admits to _everything_. Where the admission is
>>not forthcoming, he's on tape self-admitted.

>Actually he says that the recordings are taken out of context.

Really, Mr. Steinberg? Really? No, Sir. He only says that, _too_.

See, he's admitted the suggestion that Woods had a _dangerous_
and largely _incurable_ pathology. He's admitted that he
requested her soiled undergarments. He's admitted that there
existed a medieval 15th century technology that might defeat the
ongoing brutal sexual assault Jacobs had hypnotically suggested
to Woods, in the first place, that she had been experiencing...
like a star-faring ETI would be stymied by a leather and pig-
metal girdle. There are no Dremel Tools in space apparently. I

After these admissions he, then, allows that they were "taken
out of context."

No Mr. Steinberg, "taken out of context...," in this case only
seems the refuge of a scoundrel.

>>More preening irrelevancy Sir, and embarrassing for that. Your
>>expertise, only ever brought up by you, is not _remotely_

>You are the one who referred to digital experts. You made it
>germane, or don't you read what you write before it spews forth?

Quite so, Mr. Steinberg. I read, consider the relevance of a
reply, write such, let simmer at low heat for an hour or so,
proof read, make additions or subtractions, proof read again as
it's made necessary by a small dyslexia often found in the left
handed, then, at last, I send. I presume that you have a similar
mechanism you used to write your response, eh?

To your point: at the start, and _first_, you made the veiled
insinuation the Woods recordings were bupkis, contrived,
hacked... whatever faux-discursive word you want to use here, by
a "disturbed woman", implying that her testimony is valueless.
That's the long and tall.

I only informed you that that was not the majority opinion of
experts; three of them I wrote. Your admonition to me that you
were an expert yourself is just not germane in the context

See how that works? You imply 'bupkis' I reply that, no, expert
survey says the antithesis, you then respond that you're an
expert too... the equivalent of "Oh yeah?" ... followed by
_nothing_. Question is: don't _you_ read what you write before
its own issuance? Not well, I advise.

>>Facile. Simplistic. Superficial, Mr. Steinberg. Both sides have
>>explicated for years: Woods in factual audits and largely
>>uncontested recorded data sets, and Jacobs, less effectively, in
>>angry proclamations regarding his non-expert speculations of
>>Woods "mental illness", supported, it is said, by a host of
>>mental health professionals... all entirely on board, mind you,
>>with hypnotic suggestions to Woods that Woods had a _severe_
>>psychological pathology and that she required professional care.
>>Excuse me?! C'mon!

>You still don't get it.

I'm too old, too well educated, and have too much world
experience to be remotely moved by your unwelcome patronization,
Mr. Steinberg. Best refrain from it in the future.

>When someone is faced with the
>possibility that they might be named in a legal action, the
>advice of a lawyer is usually to just shut up!

That begs the question, Mr. Steinberg, why he has not done so
vis a vis his ever-changing explanation of the affair on his web
site, radio appearances nationally, showing up on podcasts
(yours notably) and the platoon of ready cyber-thugs on your
Paracast board doing business in the service, knowingly or
unknowingly, of David Jacobs. I add that, once an admirer, I
would have been in the service of David Jacobs myself, but then
I heard the tapes.

>That puts Jacobs
>in a very dangerous position here, and one that anyone who faced
>the possibility of a lawsuit might understand. He's ignoring the
>advice writing what he has so far.

Ha! You noticed! Yet... that raises no questions with you? I
submit that should raise a flag with the disinterested fence
sitter, eh?

>>How can you let this slide as "He said, she said"?

>Because he has a version and she has a version. Simple!

That's patently ridiculous, Mr. Steinberg, where it is not
wholly ludicrous. Jacobs _says_, Good Sir, where Woods _proves_!

Remember in the courtroom of public opinion I conjectured where
Emma Woods finishes up a compelling two year summation with
dozens of numbered evidentiary items, vetted documents, expert
witnesses, pictures & charts, some pertinent prosthesis, and
several PowerPoint presentations? She rested in stunned silence.

Further recall that Doctor Jacobs stood up, fidgeted with blank
pages, cleared a sonorous throat, and said, "She's _crazy_ your
honor... and, uh... the Defense rests."

Beaming a George Bush "I-just-said-a-big-word" smirk, he sat
back down to hearty cheers from the opposition, vested persons
reflexively if inexplicably supporting Jacobs.

Like I said... these positions are not remotely equivalent, Mr.
Steinberg. Though, they are _forced_ equivalent by the statuses
of the principals. You champion the manor lord... I champion
the, IMO, raped virtuous maiden. Likely too much metaphor for
you so don't pay too much attention, even as it is not

>>Additionally, I submit that Jacobs has had ample opportunity to
>>cover his 'side', such that it is, in the last year _anyway_,
>>and, moreover, has a host of celebrants, such as yourself, to
>>cover a... let's call it a "weak procedural backfield" littered
>>with inappropriate, unprofessional, and unsettling
>>proclivities... to be kind.

>Read my paragraph above, and Jacobs' own statement on the issue.

Right... well, let me just redirect you in a similar fashion to
what I've written above, myself.

>>I eagerly anticipate one that is 'backward compatible' with the
>>proclivities alluded to above.

>More vomit spewing on your part.

Really! Really, Mr. Steinberg?

So, requests for soiled panties, directions to don 15th century
chastity belts, and hypnotic suggestions to otherwise healthy
persons that they have life threatening cognitive disorders are
in no way required to be explained? I submit, Sir, that were it
a wife or daughter trifled in such a ham-handed manner of glib
sociopathy, you'd feel differently.

Too, I suspect my "vomit spewing" is your inability to make, or
making, qualify, your points.

>>First? You must stop making up stories about me making up
>>stories about you! You are defined by your entirely one-sided
>>activities and expressions, Mr. Steinberg. Don't count on me to
>>cover or make excuses for _your_ behavior.

>My opinion about Jacobs and his conclusions has been expressed
>over and over again. You have this attitude that if someone
>isn't for you, they must be against you.

Nonsense, Mr. Steinberg. I have an attitude that what waddles
and quacks like a duck may indeed be a duck. Your quacking
waddle indicates that you, undeniably, are a first water
supporter of David Jacobs only trying to appear apart from
personal attachment in the matter for pragmatic reasons and
failing hugely at same.

>>>is no "student" defense of Jacobs on my part, or any other

>>_Strident_, Mr. Steinberg, strident.

>It's a typo, bud!


>>Too, we must agree to disagree, it seems, as the more
>>_plausible_ perception is the you have provided a defacto
>>defense historically, ongoingly, and currently. You provide
>>defense as it pertains to soft-ball questioning on your pod
>>cast. You provide defense in the canted operation of your
>>message board. You are all defense brushing off valid concerns
>>regarding psychological abuse as, say, 'two sides to every
>>story'... I _sincerely_ hope there are no women living in your
>>stair-well regularly beat up by their husbands.

>More irrelevant content without substance.

Uh-huh, followed by another of your errant proclamations on the
validity of content you are loath to address, Sir.

>>None of this is germane, remotely relevant, or in any way
>>pertinent, Mr. Steinberg. Your observations are noted as
>>tepid 20/20 hindsight, at best. At worst, what? We can go there
>>if you want.

>Further irrelevant babbling.

Followed again by errant proclamation as inaccurate as it is
biased. Face it, you have a dog in the hunt and should recuse.

>>>a mental health therapist on board when he first started
>>>working with 'Woods', a woman who is clearly very, very troubled.

>>You are basing your estimation of "troubled", on _what_ exactly,
>>Mr. Steinberg? Jacobs' diagnosis as supported by a team of un-
>>named mental health experts entirely... OK... with in-expert
>>hypnotists hypnotically suggesting dangerous pathologies to
>>persons in their charge? Or maybe you have some clinical
>>experience of your own. Stay in a Holiday Inn recently?

>I think anyone who examines 'Woods' obsessive behavior fairly
>would conclude that she has issues.

One man's obsessive behavior is another's professional
thoroughness, unwavering focus, practiced diligence, and an
otherwise lauded stick-to-it-iveness, Mr. Steinberg. I suspect
that all of that would be fine were it in your service, it is
unfortunate that it is not.

>She has created a fake
>persona for herself, and used it to make herself into a

That's an _opinion_, Mr. Steinberg. My opinion, on the other
hand, is that Jacobs raped and abused the wrong gal and is in
the furious process, as we speak, of trying unsuccessfully to
kick a bucket of flaming lighter fluid off his foot.

I'm certain he wishes that she had just walked off the set into
oblivion weeping into an embroidered hanky, but surprise
surprise surprise... here's a woman to stand her ground and
fight. Good for her! It'll put the "next guy" on notice, eh?

>She has a Web site devoted solely to trashing Jacobs,
>she has written to everyone in creation on the matter and then
>some, posted on message boards under this fake persona and
>others (including ours, where she support herself under a
>different name), written magazine articles on gone on radio
>shows. All because she couldn't bring herself to just hang up
>the phone and stop working with an investigator whom she felt
>didn't treat her properly.

Rofl! "Didn't treat her properly..." IMO, raped, abused, then,
in farewell when pecuniary concerns went south, _infected_ with
psychological disease...

>In the end, she may have a case, but making it the sole focal
>point of her life isn't going to help her if she ever hopes to
>take it to court.

Well, well, well... you're already a psychologist and moral
arbiter and so now you're a trial lawyer?

>>Yeah - uh-huh... and so another dodge from Steinberg ironically
>>sans a similar substance but _fraught_ with all manner of wholly
>>irrelevant accuracies... this is going on a little longer than
>>you'd gotten used to at the Paracast board, eh?

>I realize having an adult conversation with you isn't possible.

I sympathize with your complete inability to qualify,
substantiate, or even _make_ your points, and so must now
disparage _my_ maturity in closing so you can declare victory
and step off nose in the air. Not at this station, eh? Too, not
that mature in its own right.

AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
U F O M a g a z i n e -- www.ufomag.com

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com