From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <aj.nul> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:12:23 -0300 Archived: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 09:23:34 -0400 Subject: Re: Shirley MacLaine >From: Kentaro Mori <kentaro.mori.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 17:07:41 -0300 >Subject: Re: Shirley MacLaine >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 13:11:25 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Shirley MacLaine >>>From: From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <aj.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 12:34:48 -0300 >>>Subject: Re: Shirley MacLaine >>>I must say that, so far, among the info that I got about her, >>>yours isn't majority, while shared with several people. ><snip> >>If by "very influential" your source meant that Shirley MacLaine >>knows people in politics... well, yes, of course she does. >It must be remembered the same words have been said when AJ >hyped the relevance of Farrakhan for supporting the Disclosure: >http://ufoupdateslist.com/2011/feb/m28-005.shtml >And that the same hyping has been done when the Brazilian UFO >mag gave full coverage for the prophecies of another "prominent >author" who actually foretold Jesus would return leading a fleet >of flying saucers: >http://ufoupdateslist.com/2006/nov/m17-010.shtml That's what I meant in a previous message when I spoke about your intellectual dishonesty. Now you finally say here, about that interview, that "the Brazilian UFO mag gave full coverage to prophecies of someone who said Jesus would return etc etc etc...". But in those years, 2006, being absurdly dishonest with the facts, as it is your M.O., you widely published that "the Brazilian UFO _announced_ the return of Jesus". See the difference, Kentaro? I guess that now, several years have passed, you finally do so. That means that you are evolving. Which is, after all, good news. However, while commenting here something from over 5 years ago totally out of context, even so doing things properly at last (now you seem to have learned the difference), what does that mean? I will ellaborate on it soon. Well, I will take this chance to correct the bad journalism you did in you website at that time by saying here what you should have said and never did: that the Brazilian UFO magazine _published_ an interview with someone - yes, someone very influential in the spiritualistic mainstream in Brazil - and never the magazine itself _announced_ anything at all, as you dishonestly implied. The magazine only played its role as specialized media and conveyed someone's declaration of this or that, not endorsing, nor supporting, nor questioning and nor denying. That is what magazines do when they publish interviews. Understand the difference? I will give you an example: if Rolling Stones magazine publishes an interview with Bono Vox, and he says that he believes that Elenin comet with cause tsunamis of Earth etc etc, do you now understand that it was Bono Vox saying so, and _not_ Rolling Stones magazine? Understand the difference now? That is basic, Kentaro. You may question what the Brazilian guy said in the magazine, as anybody else did - and everybody did - but you cannot be so appalling dishonest with the facts by distorting them as you please. But I see that you still keep that behavior by completely ignoring that the same Brazilian UFO magazine, in the following editions, did a widely open debate about that guy's prophecies, accepting and publishing pro and against comments of all sorts, democratically and seriously. That you simply never mentioned.Why? Intellectual dishonesty. >For a Brazilian researcher, it's no personal matter to bring >these things up. If the hyping is trumped internationally in the >List, one can imagine how these things are promoted in our own >country. >Skepticism is more than necessary. Naturally, one has to speak >up, if only to simply list a couple of past events. Yes, always some skepticism is necessary in any situation. But not yours, Kentaro. What is necessary is _honest_ and _intelligent_ skepticism, not a foolish, childish and empty skepticism done with all sorts of biases by someone who only does so motivated by his rage and sense of rejection. That is not only prejudice, but is also sick. And that, again, is what you always show to be, Kentaro. I sincerely hope that someday you will be able to survive that sense of rejection I caused to you by not publishing your article in my magazine when you sent me one, and that you can go on with your life and produce something really useful with your skepticism, something that helps to lay a new brick in the Ufology wall, that you so intentionally try to bring down for personal matters. A. J. 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