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