UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Sep > Sep 16

Re: Bob Shell Was A 'Marked' Man?

From: Gerald O'Connell <gac.nul>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:31:22 +0100
Archived: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:33:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Bob Shell Was A 'Marked' Man?


>From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:29:54 -0500
>Subject: Re: Bob Shell Was A 'Marked' Man?

>>From: Gerald O'Connell <gac.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:06:55 +0100
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Subject: Re: Bob Shell Was A 'Marked' Man?

>>Ecker may be a 'tired old cop', but that doesn't make him
>>wrong.

>The inverse of that is pretty obvious, too.

It most certainly is. But it is reassuring that you seem to
agree that the original contention which I was refuting doesn't
stand up.

>>A lot of old cops get tired because of all the lowlife stuff
>>they see - and they know a pattern when they see it.

>Right. You know, I get pretty tired of that "thin blue line"
>effluvia when I've seen abundant evidence of the corruption in
>that line too often facilitating the maintenance of the low-life
>referred to, eh?

I am as one with you on the effluent in question. It clogs the
arteries of rational discussion at every turn. But I am
mystified that you draw attention to such odium at this point.
Are you implying that all men in blue are on the take,
compounding the problem, part of the criminal structure? No?
Then what, precisely, is the connection with Ecker here? Do you
have an accusation to make, or are you merely attempting to
discredit the man's point of view through an insupportable
guilt-by-association trope of ad hominem rhetoric?

>Rows are unpredictably hoed in a suspicious
>authority knowing a pattern "when it sees it," you know?

Enough of this nudge-nudge, wink-wink, 'know what I mean' stuff
Alfred! It should be beneath a man of your evident erudition.
What I 'get pretty tired of' in reading such periphrastic drivel
is a not-so-subtle process whereby the specific misdeeds of a
convicted felon are somehow converted into the generalised guilt
of an ex-cop who dares to comment on the character of the felon.
Bark as it (or you) might, that dog won't hunt.

>>Shell opened some particular doors in his life, and he was old
>>enough to know that if you are going to open those doors you
>>have to be ready for what comes through them.

>Which is only mentionable, at all, in as much as you so
>transparently 'disapprove' yourself?. Any fulsome pride in that
>disapproval?

What is transparently clear is that what is transparent to you
is opaque to others. My approval or disapproval, proud or
otherwise, is neither here nor there. I merely point out that
sympathy for Shell's predicament should be conditioned by an
informed awareness of the situation that he voluntarily, perhaps
eagerly, put himself into.

>>As for the 'there but for the grace of God...' angle, well,
>>thanks for the tip - I'll keep it in mind next time I fall in
>>love with a teenage junkie thirty years my junior and I want to
>>make a few dollars out of tying her up and taking snapshots of
>>my handiwork.

>You'll be in my thoughts when it happens. I suspect I'll be
>concerned if you get a fair shake, too, minus prejudices and
>bigotries and other assorted hurdles to rational thought and
>real justice as we'd like to have it.

Amen. Thirty two years is draconian by any standards.

>>One last thought: how many of Shell's old buddies and apparent
>>defenders on here would be whining about the justice system if
>>it had been their daughter on the slab in this 'tragedy for all
>>concerned'?

>I _love_ a hot-wire hypothetical, especially when it's meant to
>produce a strawman supporting a dodgy, biased and canted
>contention.

Your love affair with the solecism in question is more than
amply demonstrated by your regular deployment of it.

>Let's examine this one, shall we?

>To begin? I suppose I would have to review with myself why or
>how it is she ended up on hard drugs and despair in front of the
>lens of an alleged

'Alleged'? Are you so lacking in confidence as to the legitimacy
of this aspect of Shell's work that you wish to imply that his
photographic interests may have been confined to pleasing
sunsets and swans on the lake? Come now Alfred, if you have
liberal leanings in this regard, this is the time to lean on
them!

>soft-porn or 'Art' photographer

Here, I must declare an interest. See:

http://www.gacoc.demon.co.uk/lr.htm

One man's art is another man's source of outrage. But then, none
of my models have been exploited as a result of the need to
support a heroin habit - all part of my (here Alfred, feel free
to interpolate a synonym for 'pious' all of your own) zero
tolerance attitude toward opiates and cocaine.

>and go on
>from there, eh? I might be able to take some personal blame for
>her plight, or not, but if I loved her I suppose I'd have to
>mourn her inauspicious passing and regret the tragedy of her
>wasted life. Then I think I'd be reminded of her place in a sea
>of faces of such persons, more every day as the middle class
>erodes, many of whom feels disgusted and betrayed by a
>collective society of malignant authoritarian blue-noses
>prosecuting egregious hypocrisies

You are a fine one to cast such aspersions Alfred, sitting there
in the relative comfort of a narco-dollar sustained consumer
society that grants you the dubious right to pontificate on the
rights of individuals who contribute, directly or indirectly, to
the creation of misery, for profit, on an industrial scale.

>as they further limit the
>potentials and opportunities of those they judge _beneath_
>them... as low-lifes and such. Untouchables.

We all have to draw the line somewhere, and I have indicated
where I choose to draw mine. This in no way implies that I
adhere to or approve of any form of caste system whereby all
life's unfortunates should be regarded as beyond the pale. I
don't believe that, I don't behave as if that were the case, and
I resent the suggestion, unwarranted as it is, that I do.

>If I was of small imagination, lesser intelligence, and even
>tinier humanity... I might wish upon this "evil" perpetrator an
>excessive penalty - like life in prison, outright execution -
> and, if a real _manly_ man, I may even proclaim I want to do it
>myself!

>>Think about it.

>I suspect you should take your own advice, Mr. O'Connell.

I already have - at great length...

>You
>aspire some pretty passionate pronouncements given you don't
>know a damn thing about the set and setting, the people
>involved, ancillary conditions and situations, or the remotest
>history.

None of us has all the facts. You and I are no different in the
sense that this deficiency has not prevented us forming an
opinion.

>No, you shove your likely privileged moral banner in
>the air and judge without hesitation.

There are situations where to fail to judge is to condone. We
all have to make a call on this, it is unavoidable. All I have
done is to call it as I see it, expressing my view in terms
calculated to draw a little fire from those who might believe
that they can somehow evade the issue. You have not, Alfred,
disappointed me.

>Be judged.

I get the feeling that, 'likely privileged' as you (knowing not
'a damn thing about the set and setting') appear to regard me, I
already have been.


--
Gerald O'Connell



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com