From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 23:55:02 -0500 Archived: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 05:53:12 -0400 Subject: Re: Annie Jacobsen's Roswell Source Cracked? >From: Joshua Laudermilk <joshua.laudermilk.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 15:15:56 -0400 >Subject: Re: Annie Jacobsen's Roswell Source Cracked? >>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 10:01:29 -0400 >>Subject: Re: Annie Jacobsen's Roswell Source Cracked? >My statements aren't sexism. There was nothing sexist about what >was said or about what I said. You're [sic] total lack of logic in >this instance is profoundly disturbing. In this instance, you >haven't cared about defined logic at all, so you can stop trying >to portray me as an enemy of defined logic. Obviously you're >upset that some parts of the UFO community don't buy into Annie >Jacobsen's lies and you're going to try so hard to defend her >but the only thing you can come up with is an accusation of >sexism, against the original post and against me. It's an >outlandish accusation, based entirely on the gender of the >claimant. I don't discriminate based on the gender of the >claimant, the claimant can be third gender, transgender, etc. >I'm interested in the claims being made and that's what I'll >focus my attacks on. >>You think we should belittle people because >>you happen to disagree with their sources or methodology, or >>because they are simply foolish? >She wasn't being belittled, you're drawing that conclusion and >it's a false conclusion. You're making things up. >>I think a valid subconscious >>bit of sexism has been exposed here and agree with Jerry. >Think it all you want, but you and Jerry are wrong. <blah blah blah snipped> To the non-misogynists reading these words, Jacobsen is just one more victim of dubiously credible Roswell assertion. Aside from the fact (apparently important, even if unconsciously, to some) that she's a woman, she is far from alone in being the victim of questionable Roswell-related information. In fact, the history of the Roswell controversy is practically defined as a case history in questionable information. In that sense, all Roswell observers, whatever their ultimate conclusions, are in agreement. What her informant gives her, however, backs much of the case for Roswell as an extraordinary event: this version concedes a crashed saucer and strange-looking occupants. That's why Roswell deniers so furiously reject what she reports; after all, it opens up a can of worms. That being the case, if sexism is not the reason for the special fury, or at least chauvinistic condescension, that has met her appraisal from a (fortunately) small handful of male Roswell advocates, I am at a loss to discern a more plausible explanation for the otherwise curious hatred she appears to have ignited. Jacobsen may be - almost certainly is - mistaken, but that doesn't make her either a liar or an evil person. Or, beyond that, anybody we haven't encountered before in this tangled controversy. Finally, if I may repeat myself from my earlier post: It' s 2011. It's not 1911. Let's conduct ourselves, guys (and I do mean guys), accordingly. Jerry Clark 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 | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp