UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 17

Re: Piggy-Backing Monkeys?

From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:28:27 -0500
Archived: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:49:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Piggy-Backing Monkeys?

>From: Stuart Miller <stuart.4.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:22:54 +0100
>Subject: Re: Piggy-Backing Monkeys?

>>From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:59:47 -0500
>>Subject: Piggy-Backing Monkeys?

>>Why does Stuart Miller keep putting Rich Reynold's stuff up?

>Because he's an idiot.

Mmmm-no, Sir! He is _not_ an idiot even if he is a strutting
pompous gas-bag. He is a crafty, crafted, and thoroughly
crafting sociopath spreading pestilent stories in maddening
whisper campaigns about persons who call him on his crap. He is
doing this currently. He is _not_ an idiot, but if he is, he is
the same kind of "idiot" as Joe McCarthy or Karl Rove or Kal

>>I would have surmised that behavior RR's engaged in would get him
>>a permanent 'time out' for not working or playing nice with
>>others. Moreover, he's allegedly engaged in _another_ witch hunt
>>where the persons to be harassed are 'secret' and dispensed only
>>to those 'serious' enough to appreciate the data.

>Firstly, I apologise if my publicising Rich's work causes you
>pox-related angst of a puss-related continuance. You would be

Given the facts and past history I would say so, without reservation.

>He's an interesting phenomenon.

Then let him go find occupation in a side-show as a slug-eating
carnival freak!

>Barred from this club (see, you
>do have friends Alfred despite what Kimball says) and not
>prepared to sit here quietly, he has picked his ball up and gone

Let him go straight to hell, sans passing go and without

>But it has to be said that of late, and in the main, he has been
>writing direct, hard hitting, observant, relevant and worthwhile

What!? Socorro and Roswell were 'balloons' and Father Gill
needed glasses - Case closed? _Very_ arguablely he may have been
the broken clock correct twice a day... but he keeps fiddling
with the adjustment knob himself so he screws up even _that_.
This hardly qualifies as "direct, hard hitting, observant,
relevant and worthwhile," and even if he did as you say his
other behaviors _obviate_ all that. Hey! Hitler cleaned up crime
and Mussolini had the trains run on time! The former was
poisoned, shot, and then burned and the latter hung by piano

>He has said things that have needed saying.

Well - Stuart. Then hear me _now_.

>He has cut
>through the BS and, aside from me, there aren't too many others
>around doing the same thing.

He's produced much, much more BS than he could _ever_ cleave,
Stuart. On my watch he's an insipid abundance, not a appreciated
minority. I loath a dirty fighter... and he's the dirtiest!

>But from time to time the old Rich emerges and the bile he feels
>towards those here who closed the door behind him resurfaces and
>we get this scatter gun and meaningless backlash like the one
>you have highlighted. And the phrase "I won't name names - you
>all know who I mean" gets rolled out again. On this point, did
>you notice the pleading in the comments section?

Oh - you mean those comments in fawning accordance with an R-
cubed 'party-line' and so making it past his smothering
moderation, or produced _himself_ as another of his poison pen,
but obsequiously agreeing little sock-puppets. Which one of
those did you mean?

As to closed doors? Mr. Reynold's wrote that script himself.

>Its true, he could have had you in mind this time round Alfred
>but there is one thing I would suggest that you remember; its
>Rich Reynolds.

Right! Right!! Rich Reynolds! A rat who airily intimates that it
can be demonstrated where his opponents _may_ be shown to have
had sex with children! Sex with Children, Stuart!  A line is
decidedly crossed!

That scurvy dog's response? That _I_ "doth protest... ...too much"!
I want that bastard's head rotting on a Tower of London's spire like

>It isn't Dick Hall. Now if Dick was saying nasty
>things about you, you'd have to get your hanky out and mop your

There can be _no_ comparison between RR and DH. That is a red
herring unworthy of you, Stuart. There are some things which shall
not be said if untrue, on this side of the pond, anyway. That
someone has sex with children is one of those things.

>Chin up. Christmas isn't far off.

Santa Clause is dead, Stuart. So also is RR's potential for any
worthwhile contribution to our shared community interests.

Now - all that said. Every time I see that unrepentant crap-
artist's head above the berm I'll be taking a literary swing at
it. That's owed to all the persons who he would intimidate or
slander or otherwise libel. Let me say, too, that I am saddened
by your cavalier attitude in RR's regard and not a little
confused by it.

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