-- News that shows you something...

Richard Dolan - Reply to Critique of My Work

Hello to the people at Paracast.
...

Richard Dolan

--------------

Richard Dolan: A Reply to Michael R. Schuyler's Critique of My Work

I suppose I might consider it something of an honor that Michael R. Schuyler has taken it upon himself to write a 15-page critique of my work. I would consider it more so if it were done with a sense of objectivity and professionalism. Unfortunately, in that regard, it misses the mark by a wide margin.

To paraphrase his critique, I might call this “a general systems theory against Richard Dolan.” For although Mr. Schuyler protests that he is confining himself to a critique of my book, he goes far beyond this.

Let me comment on as many specifics as I can, within reason. Early on, Mr. Schuyler criticizes my choice of cases, arguing that they are included with very little discrimination and are little more than rehashing accounts written by others. He cites a case I included from 1984, describing an odd ball of light. Schuyler feels this was an unworthy case, and criticizes my paraphrasing of the MUFON account itself.

Well, in fact, that case was in a section that I titled “Triangles and Balls of Light,” and given in the context of my treatment of the noteworthy Hessdalen phenomenon – which concerned some very strange light phenomena in Norway. The case in question was of interest to me for that reason, and I defend its inclusion in my book. There are, certainly, a number of alternate choices a researcher could have made, and undoubtedly if I were to do the entire book over again, I might well select alternate cases in certain instances. Overall, however, I think my selections are fair and representative. Regarding so-called paraphrasing, Schuyler misrepresents my work. Yes, there are instances where I paraphrased prior descriptions. Throughout, however, I sought to provide the most concise yet complete descriptions I could of every case I handled.

A more serious criticism is Schuyler’s claim of so-called ‘dead-end’ citations. He cites, for example, my use of Greenwood’s and Fawcett’s Clear Intent. He might as well have censored me for using their book at all, as they offer NO proper citations. There are many reproduced documents, certainly, but ... citations? The two authors frequently describe how they obtained their information, but unfortunately did not provide satisfactory source data. That is a problem, for sure.

A researcher is therefore faced with a problem. To use Clear Intent, or not? I elected to use it, as all serious researchers have subsequently done. I find it curious that Schuyler – apparently – would not.

My citations of Richard Hall are misleadingly described by Schuyler. Citations of "Richard Hall" are most typically of the "UFO Evidence," a two-volume collection of reports that Mr. Hall edited. The first volume was published by the organization NICAP, of which Mr. Hall was a long-time leading member, and many of those came directly from NICAP files. He includes these citations as among the so-called “dead end” citations. Really? In what way is using Richard Hall's collection of NICAP records a dead end?

Schuyler writes: “What Dolan has essentially done is summarize sightings reported and summarized by other authors, condensed them a bit, paraphrased the originals (or not, often using the original phrasing verbatim), then woven in some contemporary history surrounded by conspiracy theory. This is a daunting task by itself, but it isn’t exactly original research.”

Well, what I did certainly was a daunting task, I will agree with that. What I tried to do was to create a first-ever history of the period under review (1973-1991). As I should assume Mr. Schuyler would know, no history ever written, certainly not mine, should ever claim to be final. All historical research is a work in progress, mine included. I should hope that other historians of today and the future will correct my work wherever it is needed.

But when Schuyler claims that my work is “not exactly original,” he writes as if I did no independent investigation of these cases. I think that readers have a right to know that this is not true. I conducted direct interviews of dozens of direct participants in this story, often in great detail, frequently obtaining fresh information that existed nowhere else. But the real task was in attempting to consolidate an enormous mass of research into something that made sense – at least, to me. In every case, I had to review cases and events that were of enormous complexity and uncertainty, to find a way to understand them for myself, and to do so in a way that was careful and not sensational – despite Mr. Schuyler’s protestations to the contrary.

For instance, my treatment of several controversial cases: MJ-12, Gulf Breeze, and Bob Lazar. I think it is fair to say that these are among the more contentious and complex. In these and all other instances, my first goal was simply to describe as clearly as possible what actually happened. Sometimes that is difficult enough. Regarding MJ-12, I will quote one of those Amazon reviews that Mr. Schuyler disparages. It is from Brian Parks, someone that serious researchers into MJ-12 certainly do know about:

“A fine example is the way this author has handled the MJ-12 Controversy and related matters. From personal knowledge I can say that Dolan has done an excellent job of presenting these events and personalities in a well summarized form. He accepts the possibility of a very active Counter-Intelligence role in the UFO cover-up while examining this issue. And he presents all of this without jumping to conclusions!”

Well, I suppose Mr. Schuyler does not agree, or maybe he does – he didn’t really comment on my handling of MJ-12. But what I attempted to do with MJ-12, I attempted with every hot-button issue of the period.

Aside from what appear on the surface to be substantial complaints, Mr. Schuyler engages in no small amount of innuendo and even name-calling. Seeing these examples in his critique made me smile, as he complained that it was I who at times engaged in innuendo in the course of my book. But, my goodness, such statements as “to Dolan, there is a conspiracy behind every blade of grass.” Really.

He then (apparently) tries to dismiss the REAL problematic intelligence community connections that do crop up constantly within ufology. Names like John Lear, J. Allen Hynek, Gene Pope, Phillip Klass, Bill Moore, Charles Berlitz. Well, sorry, but these are problematic and do need to be discussed. The fact that Charles Berlitz’s NYT obituary mentioned his decades of work with the Counter Intelligence Corp (CIC) is something I find interesting. Perhaps others do not, and that is their prerogative.

Regarding Klass, I truly wonder what it is that Schuyler is unhappy about. I was the person who found direct evidence of Klass’s underhanded dealings while researching in the Canadian National Archives in Ottawa. I offered the opinion – clearly stated as such – that “the ducks certainly appear to be lining up” in the matter of Klass’s possible work for the U.S. intelligence community.

Regarding Gene Pope and the National Enquirer – something Schuyler spends a great deal of energy discussing – I will agree that there is much more detailed work that is out there. I certainly did rely on Terry Hansen’s work – and several conversations with Terry as well – for my primary ‘take’ on Gene Pope. To me, it does look like Pope worked for U.S. intelligence. At no point, however, do I state definitively that he worked for the CIA. Pope was a man who rubbed elbows with America’s political elite. He was friends with Richard Nixon. Former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird gave the eulogy at his funeral. There is good reason to wonder about Pope’s agenda, and I raise my concerns. I think it is very clear that the reader understands that I do not make the claim definitively. When dealing with the U.S. intelligence community, unfortunately we are seldom in a position to make definitive statements.

This is why, in fact, most academicians do not touch UFOs. Getting to government source material is extremely difficult. One simply cannot plough through old volumes of collections like Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) – which contains a wealth of first hand U.S. State Department records. It’s an unfortunate situation indeed, and in fact this is one of the problems when one is dealing with a cover-up – a point that Mr. Schuyler blithely ignores.

Which means that source material is often going to include information that does not come out of a government archive. I am quite aware that I took a chance on some of the sources included in my book, although Mr. Schuyler grossly misrepresents this aspect of my research. For instance, he cites Sean David Morton. To which I reply – you have got to be kidding me. Morton appears one single time in my book. He was one of several UFO watchers who was involved in publicizing events at Area 51/S4. I obtained his testimony from an interview he gave, featured on a video produced in the early 1990s. I spent exactly one paragraph describing his experience.

Then there is Steven Greer. Once again, Mr. Schuyler seems willfully incapable of understanding my treatment of Greer as a “source.” His fixation on this smacks of no small amount of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), and I have seriously begun to wonder whether he is afflicted. I used several testimonies from Steven Greer’s collection, which Greer published under the title of “Disclosure.” Dr. Greer did not write any of those testimonies. I was very clear on this, and no other reader has been incapable of recognizing the distinction between the words of Dr. Greer and those of someone he interviewed. Notwithstanding this, in the few cases that I used testimony from that collection, I presented it with clear qualifications that it was not verified.

There is more I could deal with regarding Mr. Schuyler’s critique, but it just goes on like this. Still, I will say a word or two about Linda Moulton Howe, someone that he goes out of his way more than once to insult. He refers to her as “the Drone Queen” and seems to imply that she is part of “the lunatic fringe.” At one point Mr. Schuyler discusses researchers who have made great contributions to ufology, and those who have contributed nothing. He then states that those who have contributed nothing are in little position to attack those who have contributed. Well, I think this reasoning is weak. But one might use his logic against him in his schoolyard smearing of Linda Moulton Howe, a person who for over three decades has done some of the most demanding investigations of any researcher out there. Any one who does that much work is going to make mistakes. Her contributions, however, have been formidable. What, exactly, have been Mr. Schuyler’s contributions?

Schuyler also seems to complain that I don’t discuss the aliens themselves. Odd, since elsewhere he complains that I draw too many unjustified conclusions. One wonders what would make him happy.

Finally, there are the previous critics of my work. It is perfectly fair to bring these up. Other commentators are entitled to their opinions. Of course, I am allowed to take issue with them! Richard Hall, who wrote the first negative review of my book, was actually “offended” (his words) by how I criticized the Central Intelligence Agency and discussed people like James Forrestal and James McDonald. Mr. Hall, now deceased, was typically described by those who knew him as a “curmudgeon” (I heard this more than once). He did not like my politics, such as they were, and did not like how I wrote about him personally. I did, incidentally, write an extended reply to his review, which was published in the IUR. Dr. Swords, in his turn, borrowed very heavily from Richard Hall, almost to the point of being derivative. Fair enough, that is his choice. The people at Magonia – well, if Mr. Schuyler wants to focus on them as doing the kind of research that he thinks we need, what more can I say?

I am happy to receive any corrections and constructive criticism of my work. That is the only way any of us learns and grows. For the record, I do know that an E-4 is a Corporal, and I thank Mr. Schuyler for pointing out that I made that oversight. It is unfortunate, however, that his critique descends so frequently to name-calling, insults, innuendo, and even smear tactics. That is not true criticism. Sadly, however, it is an all-too-typical tactic taken by certain people. Those who engage in it, as Mr. Schuyler does, diminish their own reputability.

Nevertheless, I certainly would encourage Mr. Schuyler to try his hand at writing an alternative history. Clearly, he is up to the job. I for one would appreciate his contributions to the field, provided that they are made with a serious tone, and not mere name-calling.

Richard M. Dolan
Rochester, New York
February 1, 2010

WHO SMELLS CAMEMBERT!

I won't let this pass.  Daniel (Camembert Boy) Brenton, he who would walk among us as an enlightened philosopher-saint in pious robes and humble sandals, recently writes the following on the Para-crat's message board. It is in response to someone with a minimal consistency upbraiding Brenton for Brenton's paucity of same:

Daniel Brenton
Jack of All Trades, Master of 1 or 2

Har!  In what universe is Daniel Brenton a master of anything save resembling a runny cheese and an effortless hypocrisy:

"Gareth" writes:

Re: Most Annoying Person in the Field
Originally Posted by "Gareth"

Oh give me a break. YOU are the one that made the comment.

Hypocritical much?
 

Camembert Boy responds with the usual flaccid unctuousness:

You misunderstand me, Gareth. I stand by my statement. I'm fed up with the troublemakers in the "community," and I am fed up that these idiots aren't locked out, pushed aside, blacklisted, and cast into the outer darkness as they should be. I am pleased Gene and David have banned Ritzmann, Vaeni, et. al., because they got tired of taking the crap from these people that they had no business dishing out.


It is sheer spinelessness that this kind of thing is tolerated elsewhere.

OK, we'll forget for now where we have to push aside, blacklist, lock out, and cast in outer darkness rather conveniently identified "idiots" and "trouble makers." All that's just Camembert's runny course par.

No, pilgrims, all that's forgiven, presently, where we read that Darling Danny would have the unmitigated gall to lecture on the subject of "sheer spinelessness"! Har! Squirty guffaws!

Oh, the irony!  The burlesque, contrariness, mirrored criticism, and self-derision! Zounds, but the raucous humor, bland incongruity, self-imposed jibing, and patent mockery! Unbelievable, the inordinate paradox, fatuous quip-age, errant raillery, and facile repartee!  Coal to Newcastle, I know, but the laughable reproach, self-revealing sardonicism, brilliant self-satire, cretinous taunting, and, finally, authoritarian witlessness...[puff pant] ...

I'd laugh out loud, but it's bad form to laugh at the arguably retarded, even if they are smarmy and stuffed, brim up, with the fecal matter of male bovine quadrupeds!

Great suffering ZOT, but does this decided pontificating cretin have the smallest degree of memory apart from the one self-serving him?

Reader!  Scan the page following this one and some pages after that!  Camembert was every bit of what he would seem to decry as regards "spinelessness."  He was a back-shooter who initiated the sordid whisper campaign, shadow slithering as he used pecuniary guns to extort the  blacklists he alluded to above.  He avoided direct confrontation as a coward might, preferring to gossip from the shadows.  A well poisoner of the first wash! One word sums him up perfectly.  That word, reader, is "feh"!

Har! This has to be an irony so thick it sucks off your shoes!  Such is life, I imagine, in the life of a runny Camembert.

What a piece of work!  Moreover, Vaeni and Ritzmann are as freakin' Gods, reader, when compared with Runny Cheese boy, but I digress...

Hell — as a classic example of same, perhaps Brenton is uniquely positioned to lecture us on "sheer spinelessness," after all!  Har!

Read on!

Lehmberg: Nastiness is always justified where civility endorses the behavior of conflicted, I'm betting self-loathing, psychopaths!  Remember pilgrims, one has to be terrifyingly sane to be a true same.

Lehmberg:  What follows is Rich Reynolds latest whiny, inappropriate, and irrelevant smear directed at Kevin Randle, PhD, where Bitchy Richy invariably tries to pole-vault over tick turds, and fails:

WRAPPED FROM REYNOLD'S "WEBLOG" w/my commentary.

Reynolds: Randle writes is not quite right. The RRRGroup did have a piece a few months back that indicated that the old-guard would, indeed, die, because they are old. No one wrote or wished that any one of those men die.

Lehmberg: Ever as disingenuous as you are fatuously self-serving, you are a known confabulator, arch character assassin, and a caster of the direst aspersion, but you are _forever_ famous for wishing death on your betters! This has been pointed out by persons as diverse as myself and Paul Kimball, persons who additionally point out that you re-write or delete wholesale your own history as you go along to cover errant tracks.  Terry Groff also notices.  Errol Bruce Knapp notices. Indeed, Reynolds, you are _everything_ you criticize.

Reynolds: Everyone is going to die, eventually, and our writer merely set down that inevitable maxim.

Lehmberg: This is a statement as pompous as it is a duplicitous spin! Moreover your "royal we" invoked only adds to the pomposity _ever_ as turgid as a backed up cistern in post Christian Rome!  Push a sock in it Reynolds, can't you?  Enlightened people know you for what you are, a wanna-be mouth-piece and whiny literary profligate.  Feh!

Reynolds: But Mr. Randle, as he probably does with his Roswell and UFO research, conflates our writing and intent for some personal reason that adjusts his agenda, whatever it may be.

Lehmberg:  His agenda, Reynolds, is to kick over your scurvy psychopathic rock and expose the squirming inconsequence that is your whole fetid shtick!  You whine and back-pedal, but he has you _spot_ on.

Reynolds: Then he writes that he missed the boat with a key Roswell witness, a man named Easley, whom he talked with by phone, and who indicated that Randle’s extraterrestrial scenario about Roswell was on the right path.

Lehmberg:  Swing and a miss, Reynolds.  You report the admissions of others as if you were the discoverer and reporter of same.  For the life of me I cannot comprehend how you don't choke on your own nose bubbles!

Reynolds: Unfortunately, Mr. Randle didn’t have a tape recorder handy, and only took notes, missing a chance to get that witness’s ET suggestion down in a format that others could hear:

“There are some who said that the very instant that Easley made that admission, they would have gone out, bought a tape recorder and called him back. While I thought about it, I believed, at the time, I would have an opportunity, several opportunities to discuss all this with him again. I did not anticipate his illness. If I had it to do over again, I would have called him the first chance I got and hade him repeat the information.”

Reynolds: This is one of those botches that the RRRGroup chastised in its Old Geezers posting that spurred Mr. Randle’s current and earlier broadside.

Lehmberg:  Wrong again!  The spawn of any "broadside" at the rotting timber that is your worm-ridden hull is your inconstant philosophical aspect, your shamelessly errant ufological revisioning, and your crass inability to provide for _any_ productiveness.  Randle perhaps figures you're due for a literary fist in your _own_ aging wattled throat.  I agree and am _happy_ to add my own.

Reynolds: Then Mr. Randle gives away his modus for his UFO obsession – to make money. Here’s what he writes at the end of his latest blog posting:

“As a final thought... if those who wish that the old geezers would get out of the way, I say this. Buy my files, records, tapes, microfilms and photographs for one million dollars, meaning that after taxes are paid, I have one million dollars, and I’m gone. I won’t write anymore UFO books, I won’t appear at anymore [sic] conferences or symposiums as a speaker, and I will take down this blog. Then you youngsters can have the open field. Just let me know when you have the money.”

Lehmberg:  Excellent!  I could have illustrated your piqued childishness, lack of imagination, and cloying irrelevance in no better way!  Rofl!  You don't even know when someone is _mocking_ you, do you?!  Seriously!  You are the very person for whom the "c" word was coined!  Explore that!

Reynolds: If this isn’t an admission of a mercenary modus, we don’t know what is. That Mr. Randle is now seeking a million bucks for his efforts tells us why he’s been at the UFO game all along, and we’re embarrassed for him and by him.

Lehmberg:  Rofl!  That's still down on your side of the net, Reynolds!  Immaterial, wholly irrelevant, and only your blatant self-admission that you don't get the joke, a joke otherwise understood handily by morons and cretins! The very definition of a steaming pile! Why do you even play when you're not even a good example of a bad example?  You're no example at all!

Reynolds: We understand his attempt to make us look like , who wish death upon him and others in the UFO community, but that he would admit that his work is up for sale at a price goes to the heart of an effort that deserves research, not for money but for truth.

Lehmberg:  Reynolds!  You and your little murder of vomiting and inconstant crows, real _or_ imagined, are the very epitome of "nasty buggers," make no mistake and I'll accept no substitutes!

Reynolds: Shame on you Mr. Randle…shame, shame, shame….

SHAME!?  You dare!  You intemperate and incompetent slanderer!

http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/2005/11/smoke-and-fire.html

I'd presume your dank home is bereft of any mirror or reflecting surface at all!  Keep it up with Dr. Randle!  I presume it's soon your fate to owe him retractions and damages like you do me!  Unqualified, abject, and seven figures, Reynolds!

David Biedny, taking care of first things first!

This just in!  David Biedny, Uber-Paracrat, image expert, and crack photo-chopper, reveals that the issue #150 cover of UFO Magazine was hacked and contrived: read photo-shopped... "no question about it" propounds the stout image maven!  Great Zot and little sputniks! 

Indeed!  What was photo-shopped... and why?  What are Bill and Nancy Birnes up to, now?  What monstrousness would they currently prosecute?  I mean really!  What lovely young women would kiss Larry Bryant on the cheek in the first place, eh? ...Much less on a magazine cover! And those bug-eyes!  What dime store novelty shop would have those?  Credulity is, indeed, buggered! 

This story bears the closest observation, readers!  Consider, how could David Biedny be this wrong in a field where he has so much "lauded" expertise.  I mean, the cover must be 'shopped, fellow pilgrims, or maybe our "Calvinistic Curmudgeon" Biedny... "don't know his click 'n drag from a contrast adjustment."  More, as it happens.

UPDATE: 15 July

Heavens to Moratoria and Sufferin' Succotash, but what duplicitous slight of hand works winsomely at the Lair of the Gene and Dave's Paracrats?  After much sturm and drang, impassioned pleas, and other assorted psychopathic nonsense in the aftermath of Nancy Birnes' appearance on Paratopia, the ten page thread where photoshop Czar David Biedny "identified a fraud" at UFO Magazine:

http://forum.theparacast.com/we-need-your-help-t4795.html ...

...has disappeared! 

What grinds my gears?  Not so much as a backhanded apology is forthcoming.  That's cowardice boys and girls.  By any other name and smelling as sweet?  Cowardice!  A particularly scurvy example of same too, and getting the back of this writer's hand every time the opportunity presents itself, too, you bet'cha!

Feh!

UpDate: 15 July... 2 hours later...

Well wadda ya know... the thread is back again... for some strange reason. 

I retract nothing, consequently, and it remains that Mr. DeeBs owes an explanation with regard to faked covers at UFO Magazine... where and how.  Step up or step off DeeBers!

UpDate: 22 July... David Biedny's (Deeb) unwelcome E-mail expectoration in my E-mail box...

Deeb -- Alfred, I think you've made a mountain out of a mookiehill - regarding the UFO mag cover, if the canned red logo treatment isn't Photoshop, I'll eat the issue. If you are implying that I've somehow stated that Photoshop was used to make a composite of two separate people, or the plastic eyes (I've got a handful of them somewhere in a box, from Archie McPhee), let me set the record straight - it's obviously 100% real and untouched.

Lehm -- Much too little much too late, "David."  See, every cover of every magazine is "Photo-shopped" by that definition.  That's not what had your panties in a wad, eh?  It was this particular cover on this particular magazine having your sweaty chubbies all bunched and anxious, right?  Additionally, while I can't begin to touch your "self-celebrated expertise" in the graphics world, I suspect that the quality and resolution of the photo on the cover of #150 is such that the ability to determine its "non-shopped" verity falls somewhere short of 100%, am I right? Though, maybe you've developed a taste for pulp magazines over the years ... nes't ce pas?

Deeb -- My professional background is extensive and my integrity is quite sound, but thanks for expressing your qualified opinion.

Lehm -- Yeah... another swingannamiss!  See, the only one walking out on the thin ice with an opinion is, well... yourself, actually.  Caught short, you whine and equivocate — sneer and vacillate... a scurvy mendacity is plain, eh?

Deeb -- Nice burns on the graphic, I dig it!

Lehm -- Thanks... next time I'm compelled to do one of these I'll tweek in that nasty little "dirty Sanchez" moustache you sport.

Lehm -- ...We done?  I suspect we are.  Oh, and by the way — you and I are not on a private mail standard, Sir.  When you write to me you write for my, albeit limited, readership.  Thanks.

A Poem Beyond Belief by Phil Plait

Italicized Poetic Commentary by Alfred Lehmberg

A is Ad hominem, attacks quite insulting,
They may feel good but no good is resulting.

• The irony is that his lead admonition is what he would practice with gross imprecision.  His is the insult he seems to decry.  It's facile and weak and at core?  A prat's lie.

B is for Bible, they swear it’s all true,
But so do the Muslims, and Buddhists, and Jews.

• …And what does Plait offer for spiritual needs, forgetting religion's presumptive disease?  The false God of Science then worshiped the same?  Dismissal of Plato!  Begins there the blame!

C is Creation, 6000 years past;
But when looked at the evidence is always half-assed.

• Here is impertinence "beyond all belief"!  Plait would pretend he was off of his knees.  Plait would imply that he had better answers where science was worshiped as _the_ default master.  But how can that be where adherents propound on that which is outside their thinking, I've found.

D is Debunker, it’s said with a jeer.
But we cannot debunk without bunk, that is clear.

• ...Also, at once and abundantly clear, is the fact that Plait's clueless, uninformed, and in fear.  Jeering is earned where the homework's not done.  "Debunkers" bring "knives to a gun-fight," old son! 

E: EVP, hearing voices of dead,
but it’s really just patterns of sound you are fed.

• This indeed sucks, then, as bad as it blows.  "There's more than is dreamt," proud Horatio!

F: The Face that’s on Mars is really a butte,
Is there on the obverse a giant patoot?

• Such "wit" we are shown… if ignoring the facts of a strangeness to Mars in the questions unasked.  The "face that's on Mars" shows mysterious features.  These go ignored with a "Plait" as the teacher.

G is for Geller, a spoon he will bend,
Is it magic or powers, or more likely pretend?

• Or, perhaps it's a "fourth thing" of which Plait's not thought.  The mind is unknown and a Gordian knot!  Suggested are powers inherent in scope, implying it's likely that Plait's the big dope.  Secrets withstanding on what is not known show Plait's a might short for Alexandrian thrones.

H, Homeopathy, infinite dilution,
Perhaps better known as persistent delusion.

• Now, it's true I can't know... but when given the record, which is spotty and bogus and phony and checkered, I am so moved as to give it a try... if Plait takes the time to bemoan it and cry!

I, Ideomotor, the dowser’s director,
It fallaciously points on a randomized vector.

• ...But then it is likely that Plait just "defames."  I'm betting he parrots what others just "claim."  

J is Junk science, it’s always reforming,
from alt med to New Age, and anti-global warming.

• The apples and oranges he's trotted out here?  Profoundly devoid of the "sense" he'd hold dear.  See, what has been "junk" is redeemed as a "treasure"!  That happens more often than thought, by my measure.

K is for Karma, you reap what you sow,
but if it’s not coincidence, then how would you know?

• A reach exceeds grasp, or what's heaven for?  Karma suggests there is "consequence," more: living as if there was "karma" extant?  We'd live better lives and be free of Plait's cant!

L’s Levitation, they claim that they float
but I think it’s just bouncing they’re trying to promote.

• Such a Cartesian!  Such a reductionist!   "It's flatly impossible!"  Our Plait's an obstructionist.  I don't propose, then, these "take to the sky," but if Plait says "they can't," then I bet they do fly!

M: Mayans said: doom in Twenty Oh Twelve,
In 2013 those predictions we’ll shelve.

• The Mayan's don't say that and only predict on the end of an age, as if Plait had some wit.  This is example of Plait's dodgy tripe... as smelly as herring, and lo!  ...Just as ripe!

N is Nibiru, a planet of vapor,
It never shows up but it looks good on paper.

• Poor Doctor Plait, with it all figured out... as brilliant as God, but a God with a pout!

O: Oxygen water, marks can’t get their fill,
What they don’t understand is that they don’t have gills.

• There is much, I'd presume that's beyond understanding, and Plait would presume what's "beyond" has no standing.  Though, he's a few decades of Occam, well flogged, and for all of his pride?  He is lost in that fog.

P: Faces in patterns is called Pareidolia,
In clouds it’s mundane but in pastry it’s holier?

• Seeing Christ in "breakfast cakes" is proof Plait's science fails its case!  See, with its sneer, and seldom forthright, science then occludes its birthright!  Arrogant and sans inspection, Science co-opts said inspection, pronouncing what it does not know like Holy Grail!  Really!  Whoa!

Q is for Quacks, their science is lacking,
They’ll sell you snake oil with the government’s backing.

• Yeah... Quacks like Reich and K. McCully or Tesla, Clark, or Rife, by golly!  These are men and women, friend —who go beyond Plait's rhymed pretence— to show a system minus bravery which Plait supports... for all its knavery!  

R: Repressed memories, bad things you’ve forgotten,
But it’s really the premise behind it that’s rotten.

• ...Another thing not understood where Plait pretends he's got the goods!  Before proclaiming what it's not... he might discover "what" is "what"!  Though, he won't have a clue on this... on this, et al, he is remiss.

S: Sylvia Browne, who randomly guesses,
That people believe her is why it depresses.

• What's depressing is an arrogance unleavened by insouciance.  Plait has got his ax to grind, that facet of his "perfect" mind.

T’s for Trudeau, and the trash that he’s sellin’,
But credit card fraud? FTC: "He’s a felon."

• ...A felon I, of needs, decry!  ...But you want fraud?  Then CSI!

U, Unidentified, the definition’s specific,
But it doesn’t stop cranks thinking they’re scientific.

• Now ain't that sweet!  At least he tried!  He's mocking what confounds our skies!  But science loses points with this.  See?  UFOs?  They do exist!

V is Vaccines, which clear germs up quick,
But some folks don’t like them, they fight little pricks.

• Uh-huh... one one-hundredth of our kids... are ravaged by disease!  Autists!  Now, what is in these medications... providing for such infestation?

W’s for Woo-woo, Randi’s favorite word choice,
And who’ll argue with him? He gave us our voice!

• Woo-woo is as woo-woo does and Randi wears some specious gloves.  If he's Plait's voice, Plait sings off key.  If he's Plait's voice, Plait courts disease.

X is for Xenu, scientologist’s Satan,
Give us all of your money, your engrams we’ll straighten.

• He can write what he wants on the L. Ronner's scam; Plait's just a purveyor of CSICOPian spam!

Y is for Yeti, the Bigfoot, Sasquatch,
A whole lot of nonsense without a single hair swatch.

• Yet, Dr. Jane Goodall is intrigued by him still... a named anthropologist; this is Plait's bitter pill? 

Z is for Zetans, those E.T. mind readers,
But they disappeared as they followed the Lieder.

• ...And these are the ilk as sucked up in that vacuum... produced by a science that shan't make its case; a science which proffers is status as "arbiter," but sans small regard for the Science at stake.

• Plait's "ABCs" would profess only ignorance.  Bereft of researches implied but not made, he disserves a science he'd wield as cudgel... to make up for errantry hastily made.

• Forget that Doc Plait's an impacted curmudgeon bereft of an open, inquiring mind; forget he disserves reductionist science defining to nothing enigma we find.

• Too, forgive the preceding, but know this for fact: a poem's far more than he'd use it for, Jack!

• So now in conclusion, to go to the bone: As one shows his ass?  So his ass shall be shown!

Feb 18, 2009, 3:57am,  [the immanently (sic) ineffable] garethb "wrote" on the message board for Paratopia:

"But who is alfred [Lehmberg]? I've seen him posting around the net and some of his comments are quite insane. Like on Kimballs blog for example."

..Mr. Vaeni responds with his "usual" cleverness:

"I'm sure he would thank you for noticing because who wants to be sane in an insane world? He obviously is tapping something much, much deeper with his thesaurus-vomit and if you don't get it...it's cuz YOU don't get it, maaaaaan, not cuz he has contempt for the reader."

Now stop being an authoritarian, Gareth. I bequeath thee: cudgel thy brain extrinsic to the octa-receptacle divided by two, anon!"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...We'll forget for a moment how gobsmackingly disappointing people can be on a turned dime, but I remind Mr. Vaeni my writing style was not an issue when it was in his service, so mocking it now seems ... disingenuous, to be kind.  Good show Mr. Vaeni!

As per:

http://tinyurl.com/craxhq

and

http://thedebrisfield.blogspot.com/2009/02/note-to-mr-jeremy-vaeni.html

more kafuffle via  "Squidward" and "Patrick" from a Paratopical Bikini Bottom

Ritz:  Jeff Ritzmann

Lehm:  Alfred Lehmberg

.,¸¸,.»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«***»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«·.,¸¸,.

Alfred,

Ritz:  Clearly you cannot engage in a rational argument, without resorting to name calling and personal attacks galore.

Lehm:  Bat squeeze.  Your inability to make your tedious little case, your facile and unwarranted elitism, and your inability to ironically handle disagreement provokes your ironic protest, Sir.  Moreover assessment is not name-calling and personal attack is seemingly more your stock in trade.

Ritz:  A standard of evidence shouldn't be such a threat to you, as it's there to separate the "shit from shinola".

Lehm:  Another of your charmless mischaracterizations, factual distortions, and convenient memory patches.  There are more.

The "standard of evidence" referred to is not remotely threatening apart from the way you assign its status as never questioned holy grail.  That's juvenile hero worship.  Immature!  "Shit from Shinola," on the other hand regarded your other shallow canard, "Common Sense," contested because it is "Common" and based on 5 inadequate "senses" leavened by increasingly dodgy "filters."  You're so damned smart you'd think you'd have that right.

Ritz:  In your argument, every component of an inability to debate the point or issue is present: venomous personal attacks, moving goalposts, and attributing non-events and characteristics to the opponent.

Lehm:  I suspect you reflexively take disagreement as "personal attack," contested convention for "moving goal posts," and if you're down with a, in my opinion, libelous dog like Rich Reynolds expect to come up with a few fleas.

Ritz:  Perhaps if you were more involved in this study past being a sideline commentator, you'd have a different view.

Lehm: Rofl! That's so laughable I have to clench up or soil myself! What presumption. What hubris.  What arrogance!  Forgetting that some of your "commentators" are of needs on the sideline, what makes you think that your contribution is any more "valid" or "center-tacking" than theirs.  Perhaps because you can gleefully shout "Retard" at the top of your lungs? Because you can write long sullen testaments to your own whiney boxed-in intransigence?  Because you are so insentiently unaware that you only practice what you preach against?   I'm something less than terrified or impressed.

Ritz:  Perhaps if this enigma had impacted your life in some profound or terrifying way you would as well.

Lehm:  That's it!?  That's all you've got justifying social obnoxiousness so complete I don't know how you get air past your nose bubbles?

Ritz:  Perhaps if UFO hoaxers had phoned death threats at your or family members because you have proven their case fraudulent, you'd also have a different view...and would want to leave these "cases" in the dirt where they so richly deserve to be. These exposed cases by the way, were not based on opinions, but again, demonstrable facts which were presented publicly and freely available to everyone for review.

Lehm:  Yawn.  This may impress the rubes and un-initiates, sonny, but I see no dues paid here.  No, just another guy too willing to make others pay for culture that betrays you, society that demeans you, Government that misleads you, Corpocracy that cheats you... all nicely marbled with your own patent inability to come to grips with the very real highly strange. Waaa!

Ritz:  But sadly this isn't the case. You feel the need to impose dissenting views with no real substance, experience or knowledge behind them, and my guess is it's because you desire drama or confrontation. That's just a guess.

Lehm:  A convenient one, as it turns out, nicely buttressing your flaccid assumption that you must have the superior contribution to make.  See, I don't remotely support that entirely valueless premise.  Rolling out of bed in the morning to scratch my mottled ass gives me all the authorization I need to "impose dissenting views."  My smallest interest supplies the necessary "substance," skippy, and my interest is huge.  60 plus years on the planet, a completed and very highly decorated career all over that world, and a recent college education satisfies "experience," you fatuous pup.  Confidence of more than a few quality ufological principals and constant reading and writing for the last 15 years or so satisfies "knowledge." oh, frosted gray one.  Finally, it would be enough to simply impose my dissenting views as apart from my own self-determined qualifications...

See?  That's what you do... errant confrontation and a drama ensues!  What's come first here?  Your chicken or my alleged egg?

Ritz:  Or perhaps you see this argument as imposing some sort of authority. It's not. It's about simple common sense, and examining data. I am certainly not the first to suggest that we ignore nonsense and use critical analysis, as a portion of this field has done it for decades. But, perhaps you have some deep seated need to oppose anything you *think* is authoritative in any way.

Lehm: Yes! It is an appeal to authority.  See ...been all over the "common sense," the "rules of evidence," the "conventional wisdom," the "logic," and the "scientific method,"  good tools all... when used consistently, but they're not used consistently and so not the holy grail with which you would beat your opposition over the head. Perhaps you have some deep seated need to be angered when someone won't queue right up to validate your tedious little world view, eh?  You are barely authoritative, Sir, but oppressively authoritarian... ...And you call yourself an artist.

Ritz:  Next, I do not know Rich Reynolds, have never met him, and was only aware of his blogs recently when another researcher forwarded me his "UFO Destroyers" post regarding of all people, yourself. As he refers to you:

Lehm: ...Down with the dog, boyo. Up with the vermin.

Ritz:  "They gather ideas from others, either stealing those ideas or bifurcating them with gossipy innuendo and a mental haze that puts their psychological well-being into question.

Lehm:  ...And it seems that challenged to substantiate same they were just as successful as you were, when similarly challenged.  Too, remember this nebulous knot of noisome nit-wits (or single nit-wit) to which you have aligned yourself is the same lot (or individual) putting themselves ahead of every ufologist on the planet, or maybe you didn't read the post you referenced. See the stories immediately proceeding this one on this page.

Ritz:  They are UFO Destroyers because they degrade the phenomenon with their ignorance and wholesale purloining of ideas that others generate about UFOs."

Lehm: Yeah yeah yeah... forget that this SOB owes me cash damages and effuse apologies for "Slander per se."  The scurvy bastard injected a meme into my community that I am interested in sex with CHILDREN, Ritzmann! Did it again just recently!  How does that stack up to your whiney and prosaic even-when-true little "death threat" story!

Ritz:  Jeremy and I both were astounded at this post, because it's accurate to what we're seeing...only it's months old. Obviously, we're not the first to notice.

Lehm:  Rofl!  I'm thinking certainly the first... of a similar caliber... to notice. Obviously! You feelin' those fleas yet Ritxmann?  Don't worry.  You will.

Ritz:  Apparently, Reynolds engaged in some sort of personal attack on you which I wasn't aware of - but it was apparent that it was highly distasteful and completely uncalled for. So, I'm sure you see him as an enemy who attacked you, both in a personal nature and in the "Destroyers" post.

Lehm: You know?  I'm starting to get an impression of how convenient, fickle and arbitrary your much vaunted cognitive ability really is.  You've just shown your partisan colors, Sir! Sincerely, I'm amazed at how contrived and dependant your straight-jacketed cognition really is.  With regard to Reynolds... in for a penny in for a pound, sport.

Ritz:  However, by your own thinking and the venue in which these attacks happen: the aliens/trickster/enigma are responsible for his behavior...so why be upset with him? I mean, he didn't really do anything...it was him being told or controlled by the trickster, right?

Lehm: Cute, nice turn-around!  Golf clap!  Only... ...I'm not the trickster guy!   Ta-da!

Sorry.  I don't espouse "the trickster"  — never thought, wrote, or talked about it to my recollection... so that little device just blew up in your hands.  Gee -- how "with it" and "erudite" was that?

Ritz:  So, exactly where does figuring in your "alien control/trickster" idea help this field? It's another dead end from the start, where every aspect is attributed to the phenomena. According to your "theory", nothing can be quantified, disproved, or gleaned from experience, direct or otherwise. Sure, the enigma does some very strange things, and further tangles it's path - but there's also human nature, greed, stupidity, and self gratification.

Lehm:  ...Don't know, Stretch.  You're ascribing all that to me, you see.  You have not touched one of my points.  Example?  You're fighting me when "official authority" is the set and setting of every scrap of ignorance endured and so where every scrap of your anger should be directed.  Another?  We are betrayed by duplicitous culture?  Another?  The mainstream is a craven mechanism of the corpocracy... See?  I'm that guy!  All you appear to do is make up the attributes of your opposition to suit what you'd contrive to say to them... how disconnected and disingenuous is that.  Not a question.

Having got the facts all wrong you're entirely on your own, now.  You expect me to bail you out? Let me know before you land so I can alert the media for the crash.  See, with regard to human nature, greed, stupidity, and self gratification... seems like you do OK... entirely of your own devices even if it is to hoist you on your own petard.  How 'bout them apples.

Ritz:  You would roll that all together?

Lehm:  Eh... like I said... hoisted. Did you want help with the word?  I do so want to be clear.

Ritz:  That's further muddying waters already clouded with decades of nonsense.

Lehm: ...Yes, nonsense provoked by Culture, Society, System, Government, Church, institution, and agency facilitating a status quo... a status quo you and Vaeni too slavishly support.  Precious little "cloud" from me, Sir, and you fan (and breath) from the same detritus as myself.  You're just a little more graceless and whiney about it, is all. 

Ritz:  "Destroyer" may not be far off the mark. However, perhaps Reynolds overstates it: I don't believe you hold enough meaning in this "field" to really destroy anything. And perhaps the reason why you aren't recognized more is due to your defensive attitude and inability to see others points...or for that matter the soft thinking of attributing every UFO malice to "aliens" or the trickster rather then examine it with critical reason.

Lehm:  One can only wonder what prolapsed pore you must suck this stuff from.  Are you trying to be hurtful or insulting?  Dude, you're falling way short, and I know your little hopes were so high.  See.  I'd have to forget the source and accept a facile premise.

Whereas, you don't even really know yourself and you would pretend to pronounce on me. Rofl. 

Ritz:  Or again, perhaps it's because you are simply a commentator...like a movie reviewer - you don't make films, you just write about how good or bad you think they are.

Lehm:  Oh, I think I've got it now.  Commentator -- bad!  Silent head-bobber in agreement with you genuflecting to the conventional wisdoms -- good!

Ritz:  Or a sports commentator - you don't play the sport, you just critique everyone else who does. Reviewers are a funny sort, who are often failed at what they attempt to do, and so, write about others as if they have an "authority" to even speak of the subject.

Lehm:  Is this what passes for more than facile premise on your street?  If so?  ...You fumble, miss the hoop, take a puck in the teeth, and Don't. Go. All. The. Waaaaay! 

I'm my own authority on my own self-expression.  I don't need, require, or respect your permissions or assessments.  But thanks, I know you meant well!

Ritz:  "Courting the mainstream" meaning actually going outside UFOlogical circles to look?

Lehm:  No, skippy!  I mean accrediting a mainstream too corrupted by corporate interest to credit anything you handed to them even as it was scientifically buttoned and forensically bowed! 

Gawd!  Breathe!  That's what you do, see, thinking you're being smart.  You validate and credit that which shines you on and laughs in your face.

Ritz: Yup, guilty as charged -however this is not to "court" anyone. This is about seeking new directions of thought in a community or field of study that has been stagnating for years now.

Lehm:  Oh squirting monkey piffle!  So! How ya doin' so far?  Got anything figured out, yet?  You know.  We're all waiting.

 Ritz:  The answer or new directions won't (obviously) come from inside the field. Progress comes from doing things in new and unpredictable ways, in areas we may not be familiar with.

Lehm: Sweet!  Oh, btw, and just in the interest of consistency... but were you going to credit Stanton Friedman for your use of his idea?  You know... "stealing that idea or bifurcating it with gossipy innuendo and a mental haze that puts your psychological well-being into question"?  I'd tend to think the latter.  You thought you were immune and a complete original?  Rofl!  You've been done a dozen times.

Ritz:  I see many aspects of your insults to me as nothing but projection, especially in the sense of "egotistical" and "elbowing". I've personally witnessed such activity from you around the net: Glass Houses...and all that.

Lehm:  Ah -- more of that formidable psychology.  And throw your rocks, Sir, as I shall continue, myself.  My house comes down, my house comes down.

Ritz:  I've let fakes, idiots and cultists "get to me" before, I'm not proud of that, and I freely admit my wrongs.

Lehm:  Oh?  I've missed the latter and interpreted the former otherwise.  See, I suspect you're a little closer to fake, idiot, and cultist yourself than you'd care to realize.

Ritz:  But in the end, the point was made and I realized there's little to be gained communicating past making your definitive case. All the rest is adding more noise and a useless waste of time.

Lehm:  but, but, but... you don't make your point, see, as you're so quick to point out to others.  You saying something tedious and ill mannered and then slurking off in a huff is not a point made.

Ritz:  I think it wasn't until today that I realized why the use of three dollar vernaculars permeates your writing to near incoherency for the public: It's a distraction from the aspect that you're not really saying anything. It invokes an air of disdain for your "reader's" when even your writing style is confrontational. "I dare you to try and read this" comes to mind. "Egotistical" and "elitist" defined.

Lehm:  I refuse to remotely apologize for presuming the high intelligence, spacious imagination, and high school vocabulary of anyone reading me.  As a trainer of Army officers I confirmed that if you shot high you achieved high. Additionally, I will try to use the right word as the more communicative one. 

Your angered proclamations don't establish accuracy actually, and I don't feel any need to qualify my very considerate writing style to someone as combatively dreary as yourself.  Appreciation is abundantly provided as it happens.  Enough is as good as a feast. Thanks for your concern.  ...And folks!  Keep those cards and letters comin'in!

Ritz:  Of course I'm sure the response for this is that it's a problem with all of us, rather then communicate in a way for a mass audience to understand your point. Then again, there isn't a point there anyway. You hold something truly similar to the trickster - we humans who love communication can gain very little from what either of you are trying to say.

Lehm:  Well, you read my response and it's not what you said, so the question is how is that "spring-heel trickster" you flog for everyone is going to work for you here.  See, skippy, you're just trying to aggravate and be otherwise hurtful with such discursive commentary and that's going to be saying a little more about you I think, than me, as times accelerate.  Especially when compared cheek by jowl right here... and the internet is "forever," eh?

Ritz:  But, whatever. Just be aware I don't exit this conversation because I don't have an argument.

Lehm:  Yeah -- that's what you say.  And said... true?  Mmmmmmmno.

Ritz:  I laid out a perfectly reasonable, detailed argument - and you essentially spit right in my face for it.

Lehm: ...disagreed equals face-spitting ... got it!  And the way things are going I suspect I should charge you for the wash-up, regardless!

Ritz:  I leave it for the same reason I left the Meier argument - it's ridiculous and insulting.

Lehm:  You are ridiculous and insulting.  And that's not all.

Ritz:  And, not worth the time or aggravation when there's far better ways to devote what time I have, to studying and investigating the anomaly or speaking with others who might have serious guidance in looking for new directions.

Lehm:  Don't step off mad.  Just step off.

Ritz:  Tangling with you becomes an effort in futility, and irrelevance.

Lehm:  Yawn.

Ritz:  So, goodbye

Lehm:  Um-hmm...

I suspect I'll not have seen the last of you.  That said, enjoy me as I find opportunity to be so far up your nose you feel my knees on your top lip.  ...Say hi to Ritchy!

RRRGroup (Rich Reynolds) published a new comment on the post "Lies and Moore Lies": a piece by Kevin Randle on his highly rated blog "A Different Perspective."  This is a site devoted to sincere and rational discussion regarding UFOs and the Roswell mystery in particular. 

In the commentary to the above referenced piece and after a revolted assessment of Rich Reynold's particular "commentary" by myself  —exploring fact and fallacy of same— Rich Reynolds published the upcoming response to Randle's un-moderated blog for the world to see. 

The preceding activity is in addition to a mass mailing for any persons following Randle's weblog. The potential readership and mailing list is international and numbers many hundreds, I suspect, if not many thousands. 

Persons read:
 

.,¸¸,.»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«***»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«·.,¸¸,.
Lehmberg,

One would think that a person whose name showed up in a child porn site during a Google search would be circumspect about the alleged shortcomings of others.

RR

.,¸¸,.»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«***»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«·.,¸¸,.

Gods and Devils!

We'll forget for a moment that this egregious, insane, and libelous charge regarding my behavior has been completely debunked, roundly discredited, and abundantly exposed!

http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/2005/11/smoke-and-fire.html

Yet here it is, published yet again in a public forum like it is an authoritative fact! 

Too, I am entirely at this psychopathic bastard's mercy because I must prove damages or pay Rich Reynolds' own legal fees, plus my own!  He can do or say anything he wants as a result.  Sir or madam reading, I'm an aspiring author trading on reputation and some small talent to achieve that end.  How am I not being damaged?

This has been going on for years, admittedly ... I can't let it go.

I can't give this guy a by because it's not just me effected, see. It's the memories of my father and grandfather and son. We all have the same name as it's turning out...

This is all not to forget that tolerated behavior such as this throws a monstrous blanket over freedom of expression for all of us. Finally, Reynolds needs to be brought to account so no one else has to suffer similar treatment from him.

Perhaps a study in Psychopathia?

What a right bastard Rich Reynolds is, albeit predictably.

Still, there is his flurry of pompous genuflection I'd link to reader, only he'd take it down so his pathetic little scuttle could go unsubstantiated.  He's performed such and so in the past. Why bother citing him?

...But friends of mine, one Regan Lee and and equally significant Lesley Gunter (spell their names right you prolapsed flock-wits!) lately stand to bear the insentient and repellant reptilianism that is Rich Reynolds and his alleged murder of flatulent were-crows: "RRR Group," "UFO Iconoclasts," "UFO Reality, (no truth in advertising there)" and other sites of hissing and suppurating spoor even less relevant, in my opinion.  Such has been so.

Lately, I am not the egregiously libeled innocent owed effuse apology and seven figure damages, you see.  No, today I am no less than representative, along with Regan and Lesley, of the destruction of the study of UFOs. Pause for squirty giggles.

After the three of us are contrasted to the likes of "well meaning" if "misguided" ufological persons from Friedman through Vallee to Hynek, we are panned when compared to "hopelessly lost" second tier "mavens" and "enthusiasts" Kimball through Bishop to Tonnies! Michio Kaku is no "UFO Destroyer," don't you know, "but his views are so amorphous that they are platitudinous and useless." Friends close, enemas (sic) closer?


"Platitudinous And Useless" Kaku...

At last Lesley, Regan, and myself are relegated to the said woo-besotted ranks of the much contested and controversial contactees.  These are persons who are pretty much solely responsible, Reynolds propounds, because of their frivolity, self-involvement, and stupidity for the destruction alluded to. It won't end there.

Further, we are (I am) accused of "purloining" something curiously unsubstantiated, but that is also par for the Reynolds course.  Reynolds lacks all substantiation, you see.

More as this Reynolds wrap-rap seems instructive, eh?  Though I contemplate the contemptible I am reminded that to give up is to give in, righteous victory is necessary even if Phyricc, and an inch given is a mile taken.

I know you're reading Ritchie, too vain to do otherwise...  Consume fecal manner and expire. 

A leaner-meaner Paul Kimball is lately back from bigger and better things, his ufological batteries charged and buzzing anew like a proper reductionist's Tesla coil. 

He'd institute the initiation of his 2008 Zorgy Awards...

For reasons that would become clear as one scrolled down this and many following pages, I am offended at my inclusion this year.  I ask that persons friendly to me don't vote for me or change their vote if they can to Jeremy Vaeni or one of the others.

I'm disappointed with Paul Kimball and bottomed out with regard to friendly consideration, actually. The more I think about it the more irritated I get.  Idiosyncratic balances are decidedly overdrawn.  A return to contentiousness is regretfully contemplated.

Understandable if tedious umbrage with specious slanderer Rich Reynolds is exacerbated (if that were possible), escalated, and otherwise extenuated. 

The exchange thus far, as the un-requested utility of being cast as someone's performing monkey is considered:

<b>Alfred Lehmberg</b> said...

<b>Alfred Lehmberg</b> said...

Paul Kimball said...

<b>Alfred Lehmberg</b> said...

"Perfectly fine" is a decided stretch even as it might be "fair enough," Paul. It remains in the interest of discovery and even-handedness that I inform you I consider your ... thoughtlessness here an overdraft on your idiosyncratic account with me. Make of that what you will... Sir.

That scuttling, errant, and mawkish back-shooter, the piteously mal-petulant Rich Reynolds, lately whines in proxy or person from the flaccid cesspool of weblogs he odorously officiates:

"Errol Bruce-Knapp has created more harm than good by his choice of persons to put forward, no matter how screwy or evil they are."

Well, there you have it.  Errol Bruce Knapp creates more harm than good.  We have that on such good authority from one leaving a trademark fecal slime trail everywhere he goes.  It remains: just who are the "screwy" and "evil" to which he would allude?

Stuart Miller?  Dave Furlotte?  John Velez?   Chris Rutkowski?  Don Ledger?  Michael J. Woods?  Dick Hall?  It must be Wendy Connors; he was once very clear with regard to wishing her death.  It must be her. Yep.  She's the one.

I mean, he can't possibly mean... ...me?

Richey-Twitchy-Bitchy ... What a corrosively irksome insect he can so effortlessly be, seemingly without ruse or resentment.

Too, the irony!  The stupefying irony!  As an easy purveyor of the most abusive kinds of "screwy evil" imaginable —in my opinion— he indeed holds a cracked mirror, Dorian Gray-like, to his leering visage, beholds what he sees, and then reports it to the rest of us like he sees it apart from himself.

 Astonishing.  Grotesquely pathetic.  A leper on the street with a sandwich sign and a battered cup.  The stench is overpowering...

Buyer beware, Reader.  Bitchy Richey is trouble with a capital "T," which rhymes with "P"... 'cause he is that cesspool.

Have a fine day, Richey, eh?

Dick Hall called for "Something" on UFO UpDates!

<click