|
From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul> Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 10:13:59 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 11:22:29 -0400 Subject: Re: 'Fleet' Is Biased Term - Lehmberg >From: Martin Shough <mshough.nul> >To: <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 16:27:52 +0100 >Subject: Re: 'Fleet' Is Biased Term >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul> >>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:22:47 -0500 >>Subject: Re: 'Fleet' Is Biased Term >>>From: Martin Shough <mshough.nul> >>>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>>Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 10:04:22 +0100 >>>Subject: Re: 'Fleet' Is Biased Term >>>>From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul> >>>>To: ufoupdates.nul >>>>Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 09:30:33 -0400 (GMT-04:00) >>>>Subject: 'Fleet' Is Biased Term >>>>Who on the List believes that the very term "Fleets" used to >>>>describe the Mexican UFO videos is biased and leads the reader >>>>to believe the video is of a collection of intelligently >>>>controllable vehicles which may at least (though highly >>>>unlikely) have origination from contemporary Earth and at most >>>>derive from alien (off-world, time travelers, whatever)? >>>I do. >>In as much as this may be the reflex expression of the ready and >>inflexible ideologue? Pity. There are fleets of 'something'... >>be assured... past, present and likely future. >Now listen up Alfred! Whoa, Mr. Shough, that tone won't wash. One man's expression's _another_ man's "tosh"? Lehmberg's the name, and append, please, a "Mister" Or I'll be compelled to raise you a blister. <g> >Reflex? Inflexible ideologue?? I did append "may" to assuage any flame... But you would be angered and demonstrate same. Shout what you want from your spot in the dark..... But the depth of your pique shows we're close to the mark? <g> >What the hell is this? Ok - poetry time's over... this is a moderated forum where interested persons express their unfettered thinking on contentiously strange issues. In the debate that ensues the first man to anger is the one that would lose. Ooops, that just slipped out, sorry. I got the music in me... Mr. Shough, did it ever occur to you that it was not _you_ who was the inflexible ideologue, but that I merely point out that you, too quickly, agreed with one? >What are you rambling about man? I think I was pretty clear, Sir. I think your reactionary response here demonstrates you thought I was pretty clear, too, or you would have either ignored me or responded with a "huh"? or a "what"? Any more, a protestation that I'm "not clear" seems to be the last refuge of a scoundrel, present company excluded, of course. You just got a _lot_ less of the scatter gun blast than you thought you did. You lay down with a metaphoric dog and I allowed you may have come up with a flea? I wasn't clear enough you weren't the 'dog'? I apologize, but not by much. >Why you should go out of your way to insult me with utterly >unjustifiable tosh like this astounds and baffles me! What >credit do you think it does you? Credit is as credit does, Sir. I'm not concerned overmuch with the credit perceived as I am with how I define it, myself. None are discredited by that which they do as much as that which they would _affect_ to do, sometimes. If I may, your affectation may be a reliance on concern regarding how others credit you for your expressions while dismissing how you, first, feel about them yourself... so you keep safe relying on discredited conventional wisdoms regarding 'evidence' and 'proof' so as to stay safe within the box? I think you have it backwards if you do. Many times the credit you give yourself ('respect' a synonym?) primes the pump for the credit from others. That's my experience. To thine own self be true, and all that? As it was? There was no insult. >For a thoughtful and articulate (if sometime inscrutable) man >you show a depressing lack of sense and an abysmal unfamiliarity >with the target of your insult. Oh - I think I'm pretty 'scrutable. Likely I'm a little too 'scrutable for some, is the problem... a little too willing to go where some would fear to tread? I apologize that I depress you with an abysmal unfamiliarity, that was not my intent. I merely pointed out that your too quick response to a very *certain* Mr. Smith may have been taken as a "ditto" for the thinking proffered... thinking that could be termed reflexively obtuse, or the thinking of an ideologue, flatly. >I'm certainly no ufological celebrity, but hell! Check out >Trindade (loads of posts on this very List and a website), >Lakenheath-Bentwaters (another site) Minot AFB (major report >pending), Operation Charlie, Duncanville/RB-47, Iran 1976 etc >etc, dozens of complex and fascinating cases for pete's sake, >RADCAT under construction at P1947 or the catalogue on the >NARCAP site, and even some stuff in proper books with covers and >everything. Mr. Shough, that we are in concert at all now or have ever been in the past is not the issue. Our communications must be minute to minute if we are to be truthseekers. Response 'content' based on ideology is for repugnicans and pelicanists who make a point of not disagreeing with each other where real truthseekers can hear them. You've done good work, and we've agreed in the past... I suspect we'll agree again in the future. >Lots of work, much of it spent in logical wrangling with the >likes of Andy Roberts, Kentaro Mori and others for whom you >regularly express generic contempt. Yeah - but... so? The collegiate relationship I would have with you by far and away would exceed that with Mr. Mori or <shake, shudder, dry-heave>that whiner Andy Roberts (... can't wait for your usual tripe-mail, honey bumps... do hurry!), but that can't preclude the odd point... and should it? The point, as I wrote, is that there are "fleets" (... armadas, clutches, covens, herds, coveys, flocks, nests, gaggles, schools... a lot?) of _something_ out there, over many parts of the world and for an extended period of time. A dissembling admonishment about word 'bias' by a known quantity like the lovely Mr. Smith only allows for continued plausible deniability, ongoing insentient debate, and more raised dust precluding clarity. I merely suggested that you support the 'opposition' to readily... and that that was a "pity." >And for what? By this point you may agree that you went off on me too soon. >So you can sit there on your cybernetic backside and sneer at >_me_ for an unthinking reflex pelicanist, an inflexible >ideologue? Ouch - given how you initially took my mere observation, I'll just let that slide. Besides, you elected to perceive a sneer where there was none. And what's up with that? >Sheesh! Wake up - or shut up! This is where a HAL 9000 would suggest you take a stress pill and relax, "Dave." You protest too much. You have my regard and respect, Sir. I'm wide awake, and my silence is not in the cards. But you knew that. <g> alienview.nul -:|:- www.AlienView.net
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp