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: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:43:37 -0500
Archived: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:44:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Bob Shell Was A 'Marked' Man?


>From: Gerald O'Connell <gac.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:31:22 +0100
>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.

Now, see? Right here... your facile attempt to mock a pretty
humble writing style renders you just about unintelligible where
I was only trying to be clear. Moreover, I suspect that you are
mystified by everything not falling into line with the way you
think things should be. You should disabuse yourself of that
notion.

>Are you implying that all men in blue are on the take,
>compounding the problem, part of the criminal structure? No?

Yes, frankly! Certainly off in that direction! It's just that
simple! Congratulations for coming directly to the point! All
the 'dirty' cops out there and all the rest not doing everything
they can to stomp that ilk out. Certainly not all, Mr. O'.
That's as ludicrous as your thinly implied contention that it
doesn't exist enough to get concerned about. But a sizable
minority, Sir... and more than you'd allow for here. I get tired
of having a veracity applied to something when that veracity has
not been entirely accounted for. We won't forget that you were
using it to make a point with a neck as short as it is red.

>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?

Why go there, Mr. O, when I'm only discounting _your_
moralistically haughty viewpoint? I don't know Ecker from bunny
pants except that he's as bombastic as I'm supposed to be and
has a smaller imagination. This conversation was about you
making value judgments and pronouncements on something you know
less than nothing about. Stuff your ad hominem distractive
claptrap, Sir. This is about _you_. You used Ecker in a reverse
ad hominem rhetoric. Don't gripe and thrash now that you're
getting called on it.

>>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.

Here's another! Perhaps you're too prepared to mock what you
_refuse_ to understand. Plainly, it seems you get enough of a
point with the "nudge-nudge, wink-wink, 'know what I mean'
stuff..." when maybe you're the kind of guy who really likes to
get his nose ground into it. I'm game.

>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.

That depends entirely where you want to stand when you observe
what's going on, doesn't it? Moreover, I feel some concern with
where this justice system seems to be going with regard to a
police state, eh? You believe it if you want, but I'm eyes
askance and arms akimbo in your regard. Oh, Not only does that
dog hunt? It saunters up and pees on your leg before it craps
all over your argument, which is as complacent as it is canted.

>>>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.

Awww, balls. It _dripped_ with same. It was the arrogant
officiousness that alerted me to begin with.

>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.

Nonsense - your bias was obvious and none of the just preceding
was remotely in it. You are being mendacious even as you are
being disingenuous. At least have the courage of your
convictions, Sir; you'll agree that Mr. Ecker has at least
_that_. You were so willing to take his lessons... take that
one.

>>>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.

Pity - nothing cute to say?

>>>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.

No lettered expert and not a _master_ of the language, sir, I
still have respect for it. I still write to be understood at
least on a subsequent reading. What would be _your_ excuse,
then.

>>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!

Hey! Back off 'skippy'. Dash down all the cute little side-bars
by yourself!

Alleged, Sir, is alleged! I know less about Shell than I do
about Ecker. But when I read from both sides of the column sheet
I'm left with doubts regarding smirky rushes to judgment by
persons at _least_ as uninformed as myself, eh? That would be
_you_ by the way... and again that's not really part of the
discussion, is it?

>>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.

How wonderful for you! I'm sure your handlers are beside
themselves with joy. It keeps the price high, after all, and
maintains its status as a criminal activity and not a disease
which might be treated. Good work.

>>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.

I was born where I was born and paid freight for same, Sir, in a
quarter century's military service and a college education
wasted on a teaching credential as disrespected as it is was
expensive. How about you? Additionally, you can keep your dodgy
assignations to yourself. I walk what I talk. I won't apologize
because I can. You can push a sock in _that_.

>>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.

I'm sure you must be _very_ proud on the Spartan employment of
your two dimensional convictions .

>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.

No? I'll have to take your word for it.

>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.

No apologies here!

>>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...

Something else I'll take your word for.

>>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.

I'm not the one pronouncing glibly on the morality and ethics of
persons I don't know.

>>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.

No, Sir. It's always a mistake when you don't have all the facts.

>We
>all have to make a call on this, it is unavoidable.

And your call is based on what, exactly? The infallibility of
our justice system? Clear moral transgression? The inherrant
innocence of young women and the infallable guilt of old men?
What?

>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.

I suspect your vision is as such through 'puce' colored glasses
Mr. O'Connell. Additionally, nothing you have written thus far
in your short tenure on this List seems calculated to draw
minimal fire... counting the other very cogent posts in response
to this post of yours alone. I'm sure you'll be as thorough with
them. You're just getting started with me.

>You have not, Alfred, disappointed me.

I'm certain that is up-coming, Sir. And call me Mr. Lehmberg,
please. Our contention demands a formality.

>>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.

Waddling and quacking? I thought you were a duck.

alienview.nul
www.AlienView.net
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

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