From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 13:18:31 -0500 Archived: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 07:06:16 -0500 Subject: Re: Scrap Propaganda Address The Issues >From: Gene Steinberg <gene.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 05:52:09 -0700 >Subject: Re: Scrap Propaganda Address The Issues >>From: Carol Rainey <csrainey2.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 12:55:08 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Scrap Propaganda Address The Issues <snip> >Based on the two hate letters I got from you, I realized you'd >try to deflect the blame from yourself in an immature fashion, >but sent my comments anyway. In pointing out the documented fact that you baldly reported in your 'newsletter' that Rainey's very cogent Paratopia article was about the, and I paraphrase, "scorned wife bedroom tales regarding Budd Hopkins' sexual proclivities with women in his charge," which it was _not_ remotely, she has unmasked vast cant, bias, and remarkable 'proclivities' of your own, Mr. Steinberg. Too, let's see what you call 'hate' mail. Even angry, I'm betting that mail only pointed out your mendacious distortions, errant journalistics, and bald-faced prevarications. I offer that any 'anger' on her part is _entirely_ justifiable. >Hopkins' autobiography is very revealing of the things he's done >in his life. Citing information that is known doesn't imply a >"dig." Excuse me.?! You're in oxygen debit. You reported that her article was about objectionable sexual activities of her ex- husband. Now, plainly, you either did not read the article, or you lied about its contents to grind a personal axe. Which? >I was given an erroneous interpretation of your slash and burn >article and properly corrected myself once I had a chance to see >it. On the other hand, you are still hiding from your offensive >behavior as evidenced by your "dying man" narrative. Ok, so let me get this straight... You did _not_ read the article but reported on it authoritatively anyway. Is that a fair accounting? So, you didn't lie... you were just _incompetent_. Additionally, you printed your smear on 'Page One,' Mr. Steinberg, but any retraction or apology was in the 'obit' section and I never saw it. Once again, too little too late. Last, Rainey has hidden nothing as regards the "dying man narrative," and points out that the "dying man" still has fire in the furnace enough to spryly walk up 16th street for groceries and beverages. Truly, it seems the only ones holding Hopkins' foot in the grave is _your_ lot... and what's up with _that_? >More to the point, having read Sean Meers' piece dissecting your >Paratopia article to shreds, it's clear you have a lot of >"splainin" to do. It's time you get off your high horse and >answer the questions that were raised. Nice deflection. Not! We'll just bat that little mock-fest out of the way as wholly immaterial. See, I expect she'll get off her spirited stallion when you get off your flatulent burro for your own 'splainin', Mr. Steinberg. Besides I've read some of the stuff produced in Hopkins' defense, where it is not lurid, revolting, obnoxious, slanderous, insulting and obscene, it is cut and pasted claptrap from Ms. K. Wilson and so full of holes it can't get a sea-worthiness certificate to be operated on a dry sponge! Too, you may get your wish on the dissection of that to which you so glibly refer. Stay tuned. >I correct my mistakes, small or large. Now are you prepared to >own up to the huge errors you've evidently made, not to mention >you ill-timed attacks? That first sentence sent me into paroxysms of squirty giggles. Do you think that's true because you report it so? ROFL! How _utterly_ Rovian. Finally, I must ask: When are _you_ going to be prepared to own up to the huge 'errors' you've evidently made with decided well-timed attacks of your own? Do _you_ not have the remotest shame! >I have nothing further to say to you. Well, I have plenty left to say to you, eh? What this is about regards whether we as a community of persons with very specific interests are going to accommodate the mal- use or abuse of research subjects, countenance questionable research without oversight where human subjects are involved, or let slide professional malfeasance and/or professionalism with regard to same because the antagonist has a world class reputation. There's the long and tall, Sir, and you prosecute the wrong side. "Waiter!" alienview.nul www.AlienView.net 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 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