-- News that shows you something...
The pipes, the pipes were calling... and with so much left to be said.
Weeee!
When he found out, somehow, that Stanton Friedman was going to immigrate to Canada, the late Philip Klass once wrote an official letter on a letterhead admonishing the Canadian Government that they were about to admit a viper into their embrace.
Based as it was on erroneous bupkis, vicious slander, and slimy innuendo, I'd say that this was a clear violation of Friedman's civil rights, a pursuit of happiness, and a malicious threat towards an honorable pecuniary nexus — a paycheck. Klass tried to ruin Friedman because Klass knew he was, himself, old news, without relevance, and intellectually inadequate to the ufological task blossoming before him — and Friedman made Klass look bad... like a mouth-breathing moron, actually.
Friedman would have had Klass' ass if he'd found out before the withered old klasskurtzian died.
See -- Phil knew he had no chance to take Stan out on the issues, so he tried to torpedo Stan —and Stan's whole family— the only way he had... whisper campaigning, poison pills, and fulsome well-fouling behind duplicitous scenes.
...Sound familiar?
It has just been confirmed to me that "Camembert Boy" has leaned on the publisher of UFO Magazine to have me removed from its stable of writers, summarily and with some prejudice I would presume.
I wrote below that it would have been the penultimate "chicken-shit thing to do" were I to use my small influence over at the magazine to try to keep him off...
Chicken-shit! By any other name and smelling as sweet, Danny Boy!
Don't fall foul with Danny "Camembert Boy" Brenton, folks. Poison pills go to friends, associates, and employers, and personal fall-out or collateral damage won't seem to matter, much, at all.
How Christian is that?
Why is Camembert Danny's behavior unethical? This is because one should have the opportunity to confront ones accuser as damage is being done, after all. Brenton would seem to abrogate natural law, ethical standards, and all fairness, for his own convenience. How's that sit with the reader after standing in my shoes?
...And all this only because he knows I'm not likely to validate him in our community, contest his every expression, implode every meme -- or the inverse of those things, reader! Won't know until he resurfaces... but whatever I do will be done in the full light of day, reader!
Brenton can confront his accuser!
Yoo hoo... Camembert!
Flushing faster now... soon to be an animated gif...
My Stars and little sputniks, reader, but is it possible —is it even conceivable— that a paragon of engaging wit, suit-coated taste, and staunch Enlilian ethics like our "Camembert Boy" would remotely consider strong-arming, bribery, or unethical quid pro quo to rid the ufological corporeal of your favorite trouble-maker? Camembert may have just pointed out his way back, eh? More on that, perhaps, later.
Those are intimations in the morphic resonance, nes't ce pas?
Hey, two years running folks... the polls have closed. By a landslide! I'm your guy! The coveted Zorgy is mine! You gonna' turn on me now?
Camembert's had its run[ny] and don't think for a minute I can't appreciate the irony of "Camembert" given the "Limburger" dishing it out this time... See, I've always had to "take it" backwards two generations from same. Yeah -- I'm allowing myself a spot of enjoyment at that, only. The rest is just takin' out the trash, follow? Unpleasant but satisfying at day's end.
I wonder. Is "anything" acceptable in the service of your lord, and if so... what's that say about your lord?
"Camembert Danny B" escalates his cowardly little back-door war to another level of corrupt smarminess! What a running-dog little ferret he is, reader. Just received a note from another of the "poison pilled and well poisoned" reporting on DBs unbrave shenanigans. My response to them was:
"Whew -- glad you're cool on this as
the dark side of Neptune's smallest moon.
On DB... Wow -- You can forward anything to me that you want... but if you
say you're getting letters from him making threats and demands that's good
enough for me.
I regret that. I really do. I regret that this back-shooting Christ-ian Crap
Bastard can so casually impose on my friendships, associations, and
attachments with such impertinent impunity!
I regret that you have to suffer any inconvenience by my inability to go along with the conventional wisdom of lambs-blood sociopaths and other uptight if ironically stealthy bible-thumpers.
If I thought for a minute that I
was going to back off on my throttle of imposition regarding the
transmission of his ufologically fatuous reactionary meme, I was in
arrears. I've disabused myself of any notion regarding leniency.
I'm a soldier. I'll redouble my efforts, now. He won't be able to fart in a
hurricane but I've got a comment for it.
He tasks me. I'll see his literary hide tacked on my shed wall.
...Imposing on my friends! The gall!
Once again, I apologize for inconveniencing you... by not validating one
Daniel Brenton.
Who died and elected him institutional arbiter, eh? Piss on 'im.
That's right Danny. Piss on you. I was in for the penny. Now I'm in for the pound. Your move! Stick your head up somewhere, Skippy!
To the reader losing patience:
"Camembert Boy" Brenton is
operating right out of the Roveian neo-con christo-fascist scut-wit
play-book, or my name is Ferris Beuller!
Do you want a —back-shooting net-weasel— like DB to set the ufological
agenda as he works behind the scenes to pick and choose the "approved"
paranormal players... in my opinion?
Not for me, pilgrims! I must be entirely opposed to behavior which
has not worked, at best, in eight long years!
I get more understandable all the time, don't I, camembert boy!
Well, buckle up, Falstaff!
We're just starting to roll.
Yoo hoo? ... but has anyone seen him bring his mal-ethical U-Boat to the surface anywhere? ...Can't run on electrics forever, eh? Gotta' surface and fire up those diesels, recharge those batteries, and flush out the bad air below decks. They didn't call them "pig-boats" for nothing. ...Have to be rank by now, I'd expect.
...Well - maybe I'll just go away. Maybe. Let me go check stores and see how many depth charges I have... Oh yeah, we can be out here, awhile. Anybody wanna shoot skeet off the fantail?
In UFO MAGAZINE #143, Regan Lee writes>>>
Daniel Brenton’s Signal to Noise
Daniel Brenton has a blog and it's called The Meaning of
Existence and all that: The Odd Little Universe of Daniel Brenton. What
makes his blog different from many blogs, is that it’s a very good blog.
Lehm: ...mmmmmmmno, if I may! It's a little too pompous, patronizing, and proselytizing for my taste. Moreover, mired in hubris and anthropomorphism it reeks stealthily of reflex reductionism and "carry-on" Cartesian-ism...it's two steps back for every one grudgingly taken forward for my draw, and otherwise chaps my guarded nethers...
...but one man's rotten milk is another woman's cheese... so maybe DB remains to be a good camembert. An especially soft and squishy one. Runny even?
Brenton writes insightfully about what’s on his mind concerning UFOs, UFOlogy, and many other topics, including his own connection and responses to the spiritual or metaphysical side of things. But these things aren’t the only reasons why his blog is among the best; it’s because he’s also a good writer.
Lehm: Plebian hacks and prolapsed pundits can bang the keys in pleasing ways, too. Still... ain't nothin' like a "meme pimp" scurrying around in the black-guarding shadows prosecuting in secret what he paints in daylight as above board best practice via his fatuously suspect "Signal to Noise," a suspicious ax to be ground. ...As we may see in the proceeding.
Daniel is also co-author with David S. Micheals of of
the recently published Red Moon, a fictional story about finding a surprise
on the Moon. Explains Brenton:
“It's 2019, and a crew of a "return to the
Moon" expedition discover a Soviet manned spacecraft
that's been hidden for half a century. They discover it holds the darkest
secret of theMoon Race, which in turn may help them find an elusive lunar
resource that could very well be the last hope of
humanity.”
Lehm: Right... science fiction. ...Too, that was in UFO Magazine... because?
The book has been getting good reviews, including this
one from Paul Levisnon, ex-president of the Science Fiction and Fantasy
Writers of America:
"This is not just among the best
first novels I've read in years, it's among the best
novels, period.
Red Moon is a masterpiece."
Brenton gives full credit to David S. Micheals, saying:
"David S. Michaels was the real driving force behind it,
but I feel my contribution to the book is still some of my best writing to
date, I think I can say with a pretty good sense
of certainty if you start with the novel at the
beginning of the prologue and get to the end of the
first chapter, you'll either be hooked or you won't. I've literally
met only one person who didn't like it. I'm really pleased
to have been part of writing this novel."
Lehm: All very nice, really -- but it's science fiction! Yo', Adrian!
Brenton writes not only well but thoughtfully, which has led him to create something new: a sort of “point counterpoint” blog thing. Called Signal to Noise, Brenton hopes to offer his view on an aspect of UFOlogy on his blog, and another blogger respond on their blog. Sort of like a UFOlogical intellectual version of blog tag.
Lehm: Wow -- really taking the ufological internet by storm with such an 'original' idea... totally unlike anything that hasn't been done before... over an over again since 1992... dozens if not hundreds and thousands of times... even right here on this electronic page, reader, a little more challengingly than our Mr. Brenton can remotely allow, but still!
His first Signal to Noise was about the
Contactees, with my response following on my blog Vintage UFO. In
that piece, Brenton showed why Adamski and other Contactees could not have
possibly traveled to other planets, given what we know about physics and
space travel. To that I responded, “well, der.” Okay, I didn’t say that. But
that’s obvious, and focusing on that misses the point. If we take their
stories literally, we’re missing out on what the Contactees can teach us.
Instead we’re wasting time debating the logistics and “reality” of their
visitations within the solar system. In other words, when it comes to the
Contactees, I believe them. I just don’t take them literally.
Lehm: IOW, Ms Lee very correctly points out that it is not as
important that questionable persons make ridiculous claims... but
why these persons make "ridiculous claims" based, moreover, on
intimations of a high strangeness Mr. Brenton is just too timid, frankly, to
address head on.
I asked Daniel what he hoped to accomplish with Signal to Noise? He stressed the importance of “reflective discussion,” and underscores the word:
"I'd like Signal to Noise to be a place for reflective
discussion:
underline dis-cus-sion. There are so many fronts in this
subject that folks can't seem to come eye to eye about. Having an ongoing
dialogue can be rewarding in a number of levels,
let alone maybe even being fun and can suggest ideas and approaches that the
individuals may not have come to on their own.
One of the things I admire about Brenton is his
willingness to seriously consider those aspects of UFOlogy that are too out
there for many researchers:
"There are a group of subjects under the UFO umbrella that strike me as being just too strange to be taken seriously, such as the whole Nazi UFO thing, shapeshifting reptilian aliens ala David Icke, or the Branton "Dulce Wars" material. Another: the whole Ashtar Command "faith" is just too far into the "tin foil hat" crowd to even twice about. And yet, maybe by raising the right discussion with the right person something useful could emerge. Looking at the Ashtar crowd, for example -- obviously someone takes this channeled information seriously, even though most of these kind of things are full or logic problems and contradictions. Why do these people take it seriously?
And more importantly, where does this stuff really come from?"
That last statement of Brenton’s is very
important: "where does this stuff really come from?”
Lehm: No, he can push a sock in that, too. Looked at another way, doesn't the material he so earnestly professes should be included in ufology's consideration... cross the line into ready distraction from the aggregate ufology exactly because it is material so full of "logic problems and contradictions"?
Can it not then be used ultimately to discredit the aggregate study of true UFOs suggested by Hynek, Vallee, and McDonald et sig al; the bad, once again, damn-it, effectively pulling down the good?
In effect then using these dodgy "Ashtarian" proclivities of an information starved population to dissuade an interested fence sitting individual... about which they are so information starved? Does Mr. Brenton propose to use a democracy to destroy a democracy, use a dodgy microcosm to invalidate the highly strange macrocosm? I suspect he may.
Daniel is optimistic, hoping that Signal to Noise
will generate “. . . a model for working through a premise to a conclusion,
or at least coming to an amicable disagreement.”
Lehm: ...Cut from the "discussion" with no fanfare amidst meepy
protestations of my inability to be "understood," he then whisper-campaigned
behind the scenes, subsequently, subtly trying to get me disallowed from
any discussion. So much for "amicable disagreement.”
Worthy thoughts, but as we know, and as many of us have experienced, there are many within and the outside looking in within UFOlogy who seem to desire the opposite.
Lehm: ...And surprise... surprise... surprise...! Guess where that just described little ferret-face ironically pops up to bite us on our collective ufological ass! ...Butter-wouldn't-melt-in-his-mouth Danny Brenton!
Who saw that coming?!? Rofl! Reset the sarcasm circuit-breaker.
Like many of us, Brenton’s been “pretty much flamed”
for things he’s written; what’s irksome is that these people didn’t take the
time to fully read his work:
“it was clear the people in question had simply given a
knee-jerk reaction to only part of what I had written
without absorbing the whole message."
Signal to Noise might help to be productive and constructive in the on-going discussion -- genuine discussion -- of the UFO phenomena.
Lehm: Mussolini wanted trains of temporal responsibility. Hitler wanted to write the wrongs of the first great war and reduce crime. George Bush wanted to be a "Uniter and not a divider." heh-heh-heh!
Moreover, I suspect that before me? Our Mr. Brenton was pretty much getting a free ride. He already shows he can't take the heat, whining in private mail inauspiciously to me like a wounded spinster school marm... gushing all manner of dime-store demands, mal-unctuous ultimatums and threadbare threats. Piffle.
There are certain individuals Daniel has in mind that
he’d like to see participate in Signal to Noise; author and blogger
Mac Tonnies being one:
"Mac Tonnies doesn't blog articles as such very often, but I'd be delighted to work with him on pretty much anything."
Whoever participates, it’s important, Brenton says, that
the “right person” is matched “to the right subject for a constructive
discussion.”
Lehm: Right -- until the first time MT diverges from
the party line of the "Brenton Intellectual Box (BIB)," then what?
Maybe MT wasn't the right sort after all... eh?
Some researchers criticize UFOlogy for being the mess
that they consider it to be. I don’t consider it a mess, and the circus like
atmosphere that’s a part of UFOlogy is just what’s to be expected. It’s just
part of the Trickster that’s an inherent part of the anomalous, including
UFOs.
Lehm: ...And in my opinion Ms. Lee shows she's got a little clearer —certainly braver— understanding of the "highly strange" than Mr. Brenton is remotely capable.
Still, some are bothered by this, including Brenton.
Lehm: LOL! Take that to the bank!
In this we disagree, but that’s for another day!
Lehm: ...And what did that subsequent day resolve for Ms. Lee, I wonder?
The point is, Brenton has made some steps toward creating quality discussion, with honesty and sincerity, about the UFO phenomena. And no one can argue against that.
Lehm: I can. That Mr. Brenton took "steps" is certain. But not ones you could see, reader! Not ones of which one could be proud. Time will tell of course, but in addition to askance and akimbo? With Mr. Brenton I am decidedly under-whelmed.
Well, "wall to wall Brenton" translated to two pieces in UFO Magazine # 143 by regular contributors Sean Casteel and Regan Lee.
Addressed in turn:
Sean Casteel reviewed a "science fiction" novel, so... enough said there. I don't contribute to a "science fiction" magazine and don't think UFOs are remotely "science fiction." Perhaps Mr. Brenton believes UFOs are "science fiction" when they are not left-wing college professors, the liberal media, or seditious demons —Satan-spawn from hell's hottest bowel— come to drag humanity from the crown of his white-bread God's creation. I can't speak for Mr. Brenton.
Mr. Brenton may contribute to a cracker-jack "science fiction" novel as "hard" as anything Larry Niven's produced — although, I doubt it.
I just don't care. It's science fiction.
In a subsequent piece —that I'm going to spend some time on— we'll examine Reagan Lee's article entitled "Signal To Noise." It's an ironic title, sincerely, given how laughable it is to me that I would allow Mr. Brenton to define for me either signal or noise. I'm certain he's got them completely ass-backwards or is deaf entirely to what he could be hearing...
"Signal to Noise" is just more science fiction, I suspect, but Mr. Brenton dares to intimate non-fiction regarding a fresh look at UFOs.
Let's see how fresh as we winnow out the ideological memes camouflaged within and trot them out to their conclusions and palsied premises.
Stay tuna.
Foosch!
Still waiting for the arrival of the magazine of ufological record! What wisdom our Mr. Brenton must be prepared to show!
I am pilloried for passions as provoked by unbrave lack-wits, so suspect that I must fight a poet's fight. My rhythms are discomfiting for some, perhaps contentious. Still, the song it sings aspires to truth and light.
Too, what's there is only there because I sing it in a song. What I would express, expressed, is thoughtful, clean, and strong. My points have different colors, and the points that should be made (?) ... in SONG they have a quality crossing flowers with grenades!
Now how much should I have to pay, to say these words this way? And what's the price exacted for expression?
What becomes my crime that's just too heinous to allow, to justify my purging and suppression?
It's true I have a conscience that I wear upon my sleeve. It's true I'd split the heavens; it's true I'd soar and cleave. It's true I find religion's just a cop-out and a drag; it's true there's only guile been implied by ANY flag!
It's true I seek autonomy and the freedom it implies, but that's just not allowed by those who rule. Self-selected men and women blessed by birthright are conniving... to insure themselves a future. We're their tool.
Their clever orchestrations are profound and plainly seen. They decide intolerance, so it's them defines obscene. They would write your script and they would tell you what to think; you're just for their utility.
Too, behind? They nod and wink.
It's true that I would, just as soon, NOT live my life their way. There's just no honor in it, it would seem. Based on lie's invention to manipulate control, it's a carny-pitch divergence from my dream.
I dream of satisfaction that is righteous and complete. I dream of the forthcoming, and the loss of all conceit. I dream we fill the emptiness with the wealth of what we know, and that SECRETS wrongly hidden are exposed to flash and glow!
It's true what I surmise, my friend, that WE ARE NOT ALONE, and thinking such as this gets hard to bear. So, I rise up every morning with some coffee for my spark, and I fix the starry skies, if there, and stare.
What would you expect from me? I've eyes and I can see! Too, well read and educated, I perceive that I'm not free. With ears to match and listening, I've found a cosmic road, and on that trek I'm finding out: I won't be cowed or bowed.
...Distrust of rhyming verse is not my problem, understand? A song's a weave of rhythm and some verse. It seems to me that problem rests with others who would dictate how I tell you what I think, and that's perverse.
Everyone can take the time... to see a different way. Everyone should have their choice to double, put, or stay... Everyone's enhanced anew with choices they could make... to, then, fertilize real learning and improve a person's state.
Yet I must fill a mold been pressed down, HARD, upon my soul; it doesn't matter what perceptions are! A universe, before me, stands ignored in an indifference that would smother up the outburst of a star!
Too, I'm supposed to pack my brain in cakes of social ice and validate hypocrisy to go along... be nice? If yes? Be disappointed. I'd be true, at least, to self — to have respect for others, one must first respect oneself!
I am a poet-warrior... my blades drip dragon's blood, I'm not apologetic; I'm obverse. All that I would wish for is the simple honest insight that I'm chanting here, with you; help lift our curse.
That curse? It is *unknowing* that we labor with, you see? The curse is the erosion of the stuff that makes us free. The curse is persecution of divergence we all need... to aerate potential, be not bored — improve the breed!
Now I'm expected dutifully to make a place for you, except you as the standard — how it's done... But where are all your colors and your levels or your deepness? Where is richness? Where is learning? Where's the fun?
Your thinking's all peripheral, and bereft of any depth. Your focus is too narrow, and it seems you're scared too death. Too, to make me pay your sordid freight for all those fears denied, proclaims your lack of bravery, Sir, for which you're self-despised.
I can hardly wait for the Daniel Brenton Commemorative issue of UFO Magazine. Wall to wall DB I understand! Each line can be weighed and sifted. Each idea parsed and sectioned with regard to cant and etiology. I am filled with anticipation!
Too, isn't it strange how a print magazine is still months in the past when it appears on the stands or in your mailbox. Has "oh, Danny boy..." had his run? ...The magazine pages a strange bloom of a plant or fungus, dead or dieing? Time will tell.
"The pipes... the pipes..."
I wonder, did Dan sneak himself one green beer? Too, I'd guess St. Pat really did drive the snakes from Ireland, eh? It is an odd universe... someone should tell us about it, you know? Someone not a grain of sand on the same backwater beach that the reader is too a grain, but someone.
I'm reminded that it would be the height of chicken-shit were I to use my tiny influence to try to "poison the well" over at UFO-M for Dan... on account of he's Benny Hinn elbowing his way into a social scalar ripe for captivation from which he can profit in some way he believes... to proscribe and prosecute his unctuous shtick of genteel proselytization, eh? But those are only my feelings -- and I may be biased.
But I'm just not wired the way required to stick it to a guy that way, and won't suffer it either -- moreover; it would never have even occurred to me.
But seriously... Danny has a place, still, if he doesn't insist he calls the shots with regard to his own puckered traditions, outdated religious sensibilities, general artlessness, robotic Cartesianism, or persons not quick to validate his questionable paradigm. If he stops sneaking around like Cardinal Richelieu, stops his ultimatums, foregoes all demands... and pretends no threats, eh?
Hey! The Eagles got back together!
Otherwise, I suspect he going to be under-gunned with whatever he walks into the corral with, you know?
Keep your eye on this illio. It appears to be flushing!
3/13/2008 2:16 PM
Daniel Brenton wrote:
I don't recall him specifying who figured this out, though he implied that
this method worked.
...Unlike Mr. Brenton's method, one comes to find: a bilious expression of last century faith-driven elitism, deified Cartesian-ism, reflexive reductionism, a too liberally dosed Occam, secret blacklists, Byzantine secretiveness, whisper campaigns, self-serving duplicity, and intellectual cowardice, just to start.
You have to keep in mind that his story is that he was one of the sailors on board the USS Eldridge when the Philadelphia Experiment was performed.
One should keep in mind that DB is just another "Danny-come-lately," tardy to the party, frankly, so busily in the throes of "earnest" wheel-reinvention. He's not remotely authoritative on the subject of UFOs, reader, offers nothing new, and contributes nothing constructive. Mac Tonnies is who he wants to be when he grows up, I suspect.
Flying saucers enter the picture, then Montauk shows up down the road, etc.
Etc? Our blasé ufological sophisticate might consider: http://tinyurl.com/2lwdro --
...Then wipe that fatuous smirk of his face... he's a handle on exactly bupkis.
A quick Google search will turn up a lot of information that puts his credibility in serious doubt.
A quick Google search of Daniel Brenton will turn up a lot of information... not really demonstrating any real "credibility," at all, putting a current "contribution" into serious doubt. Indeed -- Mr. Brenton has endured no test... not even one of time.
Fun stuff to think about, though -- and I suspect this is the bottom line: the guy had a talent for latching onto ideas that were fascinating enough that people would get caught up in them for a while.
Let's play the "New-Name Game" with DB's last tedious little gasp. From that DB just preceding:
"Daniel
Brenton has a talent for latching onto ideas fascinating
enough for people to get caught up in them... for a while."
Another lovely intellectual loss leader offered at the Culture Of Contact by he who can know no shame...
-
3/12/2008 9:21
PM Daniel Brenton wrote:
In the "for what it's worth" category:
Indeed, I suspect we might be able to categorize all of Mr. Brenton's contributions as such given some pretty conclusive evidence that our newest self-validating teacher, leader and holder of the ufological guiding light is a garden-variety back-shooting blog-bravo. What is Mr. Brenton's contribution worth when your disagreement with same provokes portentous secret pronouncements from this prolapsed popinjay of the paranormal, puling forth from his poison-pen or the forehead used to bang on an equally poison keyboard?
I recall Al Bielek made the claim, I think in the late 1980s, that some
bright boy discovered greys could be prevented from walking through walls by
putting them in Faraday cages. For those unfamiliar with the concept,
Wikipedia has an explanation at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
I wonder what would happen if Daniel Brenton was placed in a Faraday
cage? Could we trust his report on same to be free of peculiar
idiosyncratic baggages or irrelevantly Byzantine exclusivenesses?
Mr. Bielek, in my mind, is one of those folks who
would say some really interesting things, but two sentences later would
plunge off the edge of the world into some kind of bizarre fantasy land.
Yes, yes thank you... which is descriptive of exactly everyone in the field as the crow flies, so then saying absolutely bupkis. Don't believe me? Let's try!
"Mr. Brenton, to my mind, is one of those folks who would say some really interesting things, but two sentences later would plunge off the edge of the world into some kind of bizarre fantasy land."
See, dependant on how you hold your mouth? It works.
Caveat emptor.
New Latin "let the buyer beware..." Amen to that, eh reader? Let that buyer indeed beware...
Too, that's one of those cool conversational punctuators to say when "ya got nothin'... " and lack the institutional fortitude to start every morning with a hot steaming cup of "just shut the f__k up."
Rather like "nes't ce pas," nes't ce pas? LOL! I know you're reading, poots...
Yeah yeah yeah... I hear the internal dialogue... have another sip. I'm banging this tattering drum because something un-admitted festers in the community to which the lovely Mr. Brenton's invited himself, and I'm loath to shake it loose because I believe Mr. Brenton is evil and must be stopped...
Kidding...
But I suspect that our Mr. Brenton would propose to pick and choose among us who would be allowed to express themselves on our small world stage! Moreover, he would diligently work behind the scenes, himself, to discredit, disallow, and defuse that "black list" of which he has been even boastful! There's going to be a problem with that... does the reader begin to see the problem? How evil does evil have to be before it is evil, and evil indeed?
See, if you have to fifth-column your corrosive campaign behind the scenes is a serial sociopathy of well-poisonings and whisper-campaigns... well, it just may be that your arguments for same don't hold up in the light of day. Perhaps these arguments are without quality, relevancy, or imagination as the old accusatory rock is kicked over, eh? Perhaps these arguments can be seen as bigoted, reactionary, and hubritic in an openness or glasnost of genuine forthrightness? Perhaps they just don't sell in sunlight?
Too, if you have to put your ideological daggers in the back of your opponent or "other undesirable personage," it's likely that it's because those daggers can't easily penetrate from the front, am I right?
Finally, how unmanly Mr. Brenton appears to be when he cannot propound his combative activities directly and with some small courage and must sneak in the shadows to deliver same!
Perhaps Mr. Brenton is only trying to spare me my feelings and further public embarrassment by pretending this web page is not getting hit 80 to 150 times a day —Small stage like I said— but its a little late for that. The reader can rest assured I know this is embarrassing, but the condition has evolved passed that. I have to take it too the wall. Why?
Because I refuse to allow the indefatigable Mr. Brenton any input on whether or not I express myself on the boards of others. I'm not convinced, you see, that Mr. Brenton is capable of a constructive input.
A Danny Brenton sighting! He comments at Culture Of Contact where he gloats in self-engineered safety from my evil [TM] clutches or revealing criticisms dependant on the way ones mouth is held:
Mr. Brenton, ever the authoritative wax coating for the stealthy authoritarian, eh? Note the obvious teaser, "especially."
"Oh gee, Mr. Wizard? Why especially?"
Then he can propound eloquently in cheerily toast-mastered —and therefore easy to digest— "glib-sterisms" why "especially," and therefore providing for his own relevancy on an issue one was manipulated to ask him about. See how that works?
I still want to know if he voted twice for GWB. Why? Well, besides being interested in the aggregate quality of Mr. Brenton's suspected ulterior-ism... because Mr. Brenton would judge and so must be judged. It's in the bylaws.
The appearances notwithstanding... that Daniel Brenton is incapable of directness and openness, that he lacks a righteous constitution to take the field in an open debate, or that he is aware himself of the egregiousness of his clandestine activities and is ashamed... it remains, "I've developed a level of notoriety in [my] community..." to mea culpa on error, show consistency, and not hold a grudge. All indications are: a dialogue is always inbounds and accessible.
And I have to wonder, am I that undesirable as a contemporary, as a compatriot, or as a friend... or is it that Mr. Brenton understands all too well that I'm not going to reflexively validate his questionable paradigm and would explore the envelope of every aspect of it wherever the data went... emotional, psychological, or sociological? I would, of course, suspect the latter.
Still, feeling wronged by Mr. Brenton in the community alluded to, I would persevere.
Like a peach in a bucket of rotten meat.
"To my surprise, I have developed a level of notoriety in the UFO community as a relatively level-headed, reasonably intelligent “truthseeker," — Daniel Brenton
"Judge a tree by its fruit, friend, not its flower." — Alfred Lehmberg
.,¸¸,.»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«*¥*»§«,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«·.,¸¸,.
There are wide differences between myself and Daniel Brenton. Brenton would undertake clandestine if combative issue with these differences.
Chief among the aforementioned differences practiced on my side of the wire is an albeit reluctant if consistent willingness to directly confront an outrage. This is a willingness obviously lacking in some "Strange Little Universes." Insulting rocks get kicked over, of needs.
See, it appears some of those "little universes" should get a little more light. Let's roll in a barrel of flaming fuel oil and see what imps run from the rotten stumps found therein:
Mr. Brenton, a coward in my opinion, is content to slink lugubriously behind the scenes by way of clandestine calls and letters — a blackguard's cornucopia of black lists, autocraticisms, and authoritarian unctuousnesses. He is that gleeful authoritarian issuer of canted demands, a shadow-caster of biased aspersions, and a glad producer of ax-grinding ultimatums.
This is a controlling stranger reaching out secretly to others and imposing a view that is as short sighted as it is unimaginative, as limiting as it is restricting, as religiously authoritarian as it is anthropomorphically hubristic... and it is no friend to individual respect, collegiality, or toleration, either, I gather.
See, there is no defense against his kind of unbrave attack on character and reputation. Brenton's brand of attack is like a cancer growing on in secret until it becomes inoperable... and ones perhaps faultless character is invalidated — reputation is wrongfully eroded. All in maddeningly poisonous secret. What is your risk of contracting this same cancer, reader?
If you want to express your own thoughts and ideas? Chances exceed excellence!
This is back-door behavior exceeding even that of a "Rich Reynolds," actually! At least Reynolds has the sack to cast his fatuous aspersions out loud. We point out differences here between easy to see garden slugs and hard to notice scrotal leeches only...
Forgetting the latter allusion immediately preceding, what kind of person is Mr. Brenton? Indeed, who is Mr. Brenton?
One need go no further than his rules for contributing to his own Weblog for the answer to that. See, a more paranoid, insulting, and exclusionary set of intellectual hobbling has hardly ever been keyed into cyberspace.
With no small trepidation let's go there and read between the lines of same and see what's detected in suspicious oozes yearning to be free...
[Cue the thunderous organ music and raise the black felt curtains, reader!]
Fair use claim: the following copyrighted material is a subject of its own parody and quoted from the link immediately above to facilitate critical commentary and satire. [eh-heh!]
DB: It has become clear to me that a commenting policy should be defined and posted at any site, forum, or blog that permits visitors to make them, because, just as driving seems to do do, the internet appears to bring out the worst in some of us.
Yes, I agree. Additionally, pointing away from oneself leaves three fingers pointing decidedly back, you know? The internet is indeed a boon to well poisoners, poison-pen writers, malicious networkers, and other cheerful psychopaths masquerading as the pious, compassionate and calmly rational — the philosophical even!
Yes. We couldn't be in more agreement! The absolute worst!
DB: (Hey, that came out more polite in tone than I thought it would.)
Well... no. No, it didn't. What it did accomplish —to the person forewarned so forearmed— was to preview Danny Brenton as an authoritarian scold and black-water censor right up front. Thanks.
DB: I’m offering these as a way of defining my expectations of what I consider acceptable comments. These are exactly the same as on DanielBrenton.com.
That will be a narrow little door to get through, reader, in the best of times, and it won't be carrying any criticisms of one Daniel Brenton, Technicolor coat-pretender and toxic meme-shill, either. Easier for a rich man to get through the eye of a needle, eh?
DB: Now, I know the rude dogs won’t even bother to read these, and that’s fine, because submitted comments are as easy to delete as spam, though they aren’t worth as much.
Some of us will read them, Banny Doy (sic); some of us will show you how they are used to show you yourself.
Too, I'll take a rude dog over a slinking snake anytime. A rude dog may hump your leg, but a snake's bite lasts and lasts.
DB: Also, it has become obvious that most sites, forums, and blogs need to post a statement regarding the ownership of the content of comments.
Perhaps, only for those bloggers trying to validate their own brand of online megalomania, am I right... ...though, just not a very forthcoming, out-front, or upright one, eh? A good example of a bad example perhaps... that which it would decry, actually.
DB: If this strikes you as needless boilerplate, I have two words for you: tort reform. (If it walks like the devil and talks like the devil, it probably is the devil.)
Daniel Brenton believes he knows who that is reader! The devil walks and talks and one daren't dance with same in the broad moonlight! And tort reform?!? Did Daniel Brenton vote twice for George W. Bush? ...Bet he did. Ask him. Judge a tree by its fruit, reader, not its flower.
DB: Bottom line: if these policies are unacceptable to you, you are under absolutely no obligation to comment here.
Don't worry 'Danny boy'! Forget a lack of desire, some of us realize that there was never a chance for remotely getting a foot in the door at your Jonestown compound!
Who are we? That contrary bunch refusing to validate your scrofulous religious shadow-paradigm! Better get used to that. I'm just getting warmed up! Too, I'm keen on judging a tree by the fruit produced.
DB: If you can’t understand that, your name is probably Brittany Spears. Are you out again?
Understood passed a level at which Mr. Brenton would be comfortable, I suspect, as Mr. Brenton reveals himself further. Too, seems a good Christ-ian could forgive Ms. Spears... you know, "...hate the sin love the sinner"?
DB: Commenting Policy
Posted February 10, 2008
...I mean, seriously, who would remotely need such a massively anal compilation of
unctuous authoritarianism, facile hubris,
and crass intellectual insult as the following?
DB: 1. All comments are moderated by me or a designee, period. This is my site, and I am responsible for it’s content.
"I am the Lord thy God... Thou shalt have no other gods before me"?
DB: 2. I ask that the commentor, out of courtesy to other readers, stay close to the topic of the article commented on. Also, though this site is not geared toward children, I request comments stay “PG” rated. I reserve the right to edit for “harsh language.”
You know! Like "poop," "titty," or "rusty trombone"... "Daniel Brenton is a mendacious bastard and cowardly back-shooter," is sure to qualify.
DB: 3. Comments that are obviously spam won’t see the light of day. I do however recognize some spam may be in the eye of the beholder. My general guideline is if any links provided take me to what is obviously a purely commercial site, I make a personal determination of whether the material on the linked site is relevant (or not) to the discussion at hand.
Read: Anything not IAW Brenton's ardent myopia or otherwise curling Danny's meager little short-hairs is verboten, of needs!
DB: 4. Naturally, comments promoting illegal, treasonous, or blatantly unethical behavior, such as hate crime, will not be tolerated.
This from the best kind of American, reader, am I right? That's the kind believing that a christo-fascism is better than complete godlessness. "Blatantly unethical"? ROTFLMAO! You dare, Sir?! Pot and kettle, as would be predicted, share the obligatory hue.
DB: 5. I reserve the right to remove comments after posting, should I recognize something objectionable after the fact. Out of fairness to visitors, I will try to keep this to a minimum.
Read: Danny Boy reserves the right to flip-flop later... you know, if his arbitrary switch gets flipped, or his autocratic tail gets tromped on and it's not apparent till later after earnest consideration over his hot toddy.
DB: 6. Though most of the material I picture for this blog specifically will not be essays or exposition intended to provoke serious thought, if a commenter is so inclined I invite intelligent discussion on it. This, truly, can be helpful to me, and I think I am honest enough with my self that I can recognize this. By intelligent discussion I mean that not only is an intelligent argument being presented, but it is clear the commenter has understood the entire drift of what I am saying, and not simply “knee-jerking” to one statement without taking the entire context into account.
Meaning: ...any damn thing he wants it to mean, but generally it's comments in agreement are what's desired, and a criticism of a "part" is a disallowed criticism of the "whole." It helps to be conversant with the "jealously officious anal twit," dialect of snake-speak. On reflection, Danny would get a quick appointment to Slytherin House I'm betting; the sorting hat would not hesitate.
Moreover, when his entire premise, that he has a workable approach to ufological ephemera, is rejected out of hand as being pedantically unimaginative, philosophically outdated, and intellectually exclusionary? The whole program falls apart and one has perhaps urgent need for a tablet or stella, its eleven commandments proscribed, to lash a whole rotten gut-sack of hubristic crap together, eh?
DB: 7. I am not perfect and I feel I am capable of admitting mistakes.
Such humility is indeed humbling, c'n ya dig it? And besides, reader, is it your experience that persons compelled to make this particular disclosure don't believe it themselves and are just shining you on for the big con?
DB: I ask that requests for corrections, clarifications, or retractions be made in a reasonable, non-inflammatory manner. .
Myself -- I'd prefer to be treated in a manner showing courage, Sir, and not be sniped at from around corners unheard or shot in the freaking back by someone once shown a degree of collegiality... and all toleration!
I appreciate the opportunity to reward Brenton's too casual betrayal! Besides, Danny boy is a lot further from perfection than he thinks. Rich Reynolds (a scurvy cur owing me damages and an apology) is actually closer.
DB: 8. Comments that are openly insulting naturally will not be tolerated. I am a basically reasonable human being, and comments such as these make the assumption I am not.
I suspect that may be the stupidest, whiniest, and most ironic thing I've ever read. See, Daniel Brenton is by no means reasonable! He's an impotently scolding martinet at best and an authoritarian McCarthyite at worst, imo. Moreover, one who's so grievously nonplussed by insult should refrain from same.
DB: 9. Though I doubt the material to be presented here will provoke much of this, any comments that are clearly based in a “debunking” mentality will not be posted. By this, I mean that it is clear by the content of the comment the individual is not interested in an intelligent discussion and dismisses my observations without sound basis.
"...is not interested in an intelligent discussion and dismisses my observations without sound basis." Right -- just re-read read rule one...
DB: 10. Comments need to be understandable, not just for my sake, but the sake of the other readers. Anything written in what is essentially a personal code, or having extensive references to in-jokes, or in an opaque personal “style” have no place here.I, in fact, went through a phase of writing many years ago, in which I recognized afterwards I was using deliberately obscure references and leaving it to the audience to figure the whole thing out. At the time I felt it was artistic. I now recognize I was being rude to my audience by making unfair demands on them. Because of this experience, I know this kind of writing when I see it.
ROTFLMFAO! Who-ya talkin' to here, honey-poops? That said, I suspect you refuse to understand anything not massaging your doughy thighs or slapping your wadded back. You pedestrian. You hack-writer. You artless Philistine. I trust all this was understandable.
DB: Further, efforts to hide derision behind “artistic language” are immature attempts to humiliate, and are acts of moral cowardice.
This from the craptastic pen of web-doms most recently exposed shadow-running snake and errant back-shooter? "Moral cowardice," Mr. Brenton should know, is more closely typified by sneaking around behind the scenes well poisoning and whisper campaigning, nes't ce pas?
My greatest insult: Sir; You. Have. No. Art!
DB: Additionally, I did read A Clockwork Orange many years ago, and in doing so was forced to learn Anthony Burgess’s “Nadsat” language in order to understand the novel. Burgess later said this was an example of the use of brainwashing and was in fact what he was doing to the reader.
Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange might begin a long list of things that DB could rethink more aggressively, eh?
DB: Been there, done that, not doing it again.
Really? It's pretty clear to me that Mr. Brenton has been nowhere, done nothing, and that he should give something out-of-the-box a try... real soon.
DB: I do not support the efforts of other individuals to brainwash the public, and you should not either. (Mr. Burgess, I want those two weeks back, with interest. Now.)
Anthony Burgess is a massive set of literary shoulders to which Daniel Brenton, I submit, seems incapable of climbing. That said, I predict "A Clockwork Orange" will be in print long after DB's tediously facile "production" is dust.
DB: 11. There is unfortunately a need for a blacklist. This was started at DanielBrenton.com and the same listing will be maintained for both sites.
Um-humm -- I pray I've graced them both! Eleven commandments, still. One better than God, eh?
DB: Comment Ownership
Posted February 10, 2008
DB: Comments posted here become my intellectual property unless a copyright notice is made with the comment. That said, I am not in the habit of “mining” comments or other people’s material for use in my own, and have a very low opinion of those who do. You may have noticed I post very few images here. This is for several reasons, but mostly because I am mindful of Copyright Law and wish to observe the spirit of it. If this is an issue and you feel the need to make some comment about an article or something here, you can correspond with me through my Contact page and we’ll work it out from there.
...Astonishing ZOT! If the contributor fails to append the recognized codicil or legal statement regarding copyright to her contributions, Mr. Brenton claims ownership of same! LOL!
What fraptious brass! That pretty much clears up posting over there for me even if I could. I suspect Brenton's posting "buyer" should beware about data mining.
See -- Our lad, Danny Brenton esq., is not what he appears. Sugar and spice on the day side, he reverts to a weak-wristed and tubercular Mr. Hyde when the sun goes down.
As regards a revealed Mr. Brenton, Best keep one hand on your wallet and the other over your anal pore, eh? No accusation, understand... just sayin'.
We'll keep ya'll posted. If Mr. Brenton comes off his self-annealed reservation to post commentary elsewhere, he should consider each word, carefully. You can read the "on reservation" stuff right here. Stay tuned, and pardon my flippancy — just trying to stay light on a pretty dark affair.
I'm only thrown off the finest Boards or List serves, the constant reader knows. Jeremy Vaeni and his Culture Of Contact are in pretty good company, and, ironically, held in the same high regards as the only other List Serve summarily booting me: Errol Bruce-Knapp's Virtually Strange Network, once upon a time. That's right.
I really love both these guys, and they both really love me, eh? Oh not like civil-unions-in-Vermont-and-adopt-kids appreciative, but substantive and genuine, to be sure. Sincere and serious literary Ninjas respectful of each other's skills. Fellow travelers in a sense... three men of honor and conviction throwing rocks in the klasskurtxian dragon's cave... simpler times.
So how did I get booted from Vaeni's board?
Well, it seems provenance was a whisper campaign behind the scenes to Jeremy regarding the threatened popularity of Vaeni's whole enterprise: blog, book, and podcast... reader... if one Alfred Lehmberg, your humble web-tender, was not removed from the company of these refined and august persons, post haste!
The most visible of these specious ass-hats was a pseudonymed "Will C." Here's a nastier nicky-new guy and sack-less nabob ne're smote the hallowed halls of hyperspace, and piss on 'im!
It was "either him or us" whined this faux-witted gasbag and pseudo compassionate poser... this flaccid gainsayer, this sneering paranormal pretender... this oh so constipated and conflicted Christ-ian. He can be counted upon to pass out the dung crusted pitchforks... ever ready to light the righteous torch.
Pause to shudder in revulsion.
Frankly, the man deserved a thrashing for his uninformed effrontery, his thoughtless mockery, and his mawkish sarcasm. I gave it to him. It was deserved. I'll do it again.
The man is a mouth-breathing dim-bulb masquerading as a dispenser of witty bon mots. I'll spit in his eye and charge for eye-wash.
Though wait! The "most visible," certainly intimates a "least visible."
Surprisingly, this proves to be a person who is newly trying to carve out a reputation for himself as a 21st century Christian-centered ethics master of the Intelligent ufological Design Totem (IUDT), presumably, proselytized lavishly as a faultlessly trustworthy philosophical goto guy buffered by his fatuous proposal, reader, regarding the clean up of a ufological Dodge by an earnest Bible brigade... while being gaggingly saccharin to one another in the tedious bargain!
I only smiled then. I'm laughing out loud now.
Daniel —butter-wouldn't-melt-in-his-twofaced-mouth— Brenton. A murmurer. A Back-shooter. A "whisper campaigner" making demands, giving ultimatums, and casting secret aspersions. Not all that Christ-ian, one would think.
Certainly a coward's indirectness, I suspect, along with a betrayer's aspect. Too, at the denouement, just not "who" Danny boy was making himself out to be, eh?
I suspect the wrong guy was booted from COC.
Judge a tree by it's fruit, reader, and all power to Jeremy, you know? I suspect he was played masterfully by an acolyte toastmaster, and I believe he himself may resent how things shook down. Though, I won't speak for him.
Welcome to Little Danny Brenton's "Odd Little Universe."
Ironically: the same duplicity, the same inconsistency, and the same hypocrisy at which he would cluck disapprovingly, I'm sure, but earning abundantly his observing eyes askance and arms held decidedly akimbo.
That's how DB rolls? Got my eyes on you, Danny-boy. Though, you're not the first Christian pretender to sport a rock in his left hand. See you on the battlefield, boyo. Marshall your busier verbs. Let's see how you hook and jab once you're dragged out from beneath your pious rock.
...And get a suit that fits.
Who's the Piggy-backing Monkey?
Why does Stuart Miller keep putting Rich Reynold's stuff up?
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 self-aggrandizing witch hunt where the persons to be harassed are secret and dispensed only to those serious enough to appreciate the data. Voldemort is back!
Whisper campaigning by any other name smelling as sweet. Yeah... like a bad compost heap, or a hooker's mouth after a busy night.
Here is an example of what he suggests to do to others, I suspect, the threat of which is entirely useful in getting others to refrain from criticizing him I would suppose.
That's nothing but a red flag to me, reader, and this blood-sucking insect can taste my literary blade. Why? Simply:
http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/2005/11/smoke-and-fire.html
Consider, reader, that Rich Reynolds propounds a continuance of the preceding on others. Perhaps even myself... again. I'll let the reader decide.
From the site linked above: RR in bold...
Some UFO mavens investigate and ruminate on the UFO mystery; a few
actually research the enigma, and have for many years.
...And who would know this, you? A mendacious literary pretender who is as tedious a communicator as he is an uninspired commentator? Shove your maven, Reynolds! In pain, of needs, and with prejudice, pound it!
There are individuals who propose far-out ideas and hypotheses, and
considered anathema by their UFO peers.
In the first place you have no peers. Cave wall slime is traditionally sans such. In the second place you can only be talking about yourself. Classic projection.
That’s expected in the rough and tumble world of UFOs where ego is everything.
You'd know you pompous, strutting, and no talent gasbag. You'd
know.
Then there are the parasites and sycophants who pilfer material from
others for their blogs and web-sites, pretending they are actively serving
the UFO community.
Gag! You transcend a normal "ick" factor. Like Bill O'Reily grunting
about German waffles & his slippery soaped-up slicknesses. Phlegm
encountered on a door knob. ...Provokes expectoration, you know?
And of course there are those who do nothing but cavil about the
endeavors of others who are enchanted by the UFO phenomenon.
"Cavil," you fatuous piss-wit. It's you the "caviler," a personification of same, a walking breathing avatar of "trivial and frivolous objections."
Trivial and frivolous? Perhaps, when you're not edge-running libelous or borderline slanderous accusations as over the top as they are untrue. Cavil, indeed!
But the worst are those with a criminal mind-set or psychopathic
predilections who cause harm in the UFO community, but more often perform
criminal acts that have nothing to do with UFOs, yet the phenomenon is used
to cover their nefarious and often obscenely malevolent deeds.
...And here we have our attendant and issue garden variety sociopath
regard himself in a mirror! Everyone just looks down at their plates
appalled!
The UFO community generally – many think always – ignores the
deviants within the community; some noted, decent UFO researchers actually
harboring and supporting these few disgustingly diseased persons.
Yes -- I suppose you ARE over-tolerated, among others. What would you
propose we do with you!
This means that UFO investigators don’t even know who’s performing
felonious acts within their midst, or they choose to look the other way.
I'm looking pretty hard at you right now, boyo!
We’ve exposed three individuals (elsewhere) who show up in various UFO
venues regularly, but who also show up in venues that show them to be
egregiously pathological, and dangerously so.
That's what I want to know! Why are you remotely tolerated? Why
are you linked to? Why are you allowed to crab your cheezy little errant
platitudes -- inflict a writing style more tedious even than my own -- in a
civil community like you had something productive to add at all? Why can't
people perceive you as a clear threat to unfettered discourse and discussion
and shun you like the intellectual leper that you are?
These are persons who engage in acts that would sicken many of those
who are presently ignorant of their activities, or are in a state of denial
about them (having been apprised of the criminality at some point).
That's right! I keep a sick bag handy just in case I run across you or
one of your sites!
(One person protests any accusations against him so rigorously, so
often, that the Shakepearean dictum of “methinks [he] doth protest too much”
exactly applies.)
Outrage!
...And who would we be talking about here ... you
prolapsed and suppurating south end of a northbound toad! You tried this once, you
scurvy bastard. You disappeared for months, I recall, as a result.
Cave wall slime has a tenacity, it would seem.
UFO researchers – the serious ones – are in a world all their own,
consumed by UFOs and related issues.
Ignoring you, you mean.
They don’t let the real world intrude, and thus slips by those who
would use the phenomenon to cloak their underhanded and even dastardly
deeds, going about corrupting those who are naïve or young while seeming to
be reputable human beings because they are tolerated or lofted by the big
names in ufology.
You report on yourself, plainly. That old trick of shouting fire to distract from the torch in your own hand. It's going to be less effective this time, I suspect, and you will even be further marginalized. And consider your facile warning here, so easily discredited, shows you shoot from the hip on this stuff and cannot be trusted on it... kind of like Bush lying us into Iraq... you won't be heard if you've a REAL warning to shout! Like you ever could...
But you don't give a damn about that! You only operate to aggrandize
yourself at the expense of others. You crap bastard.
We’ve disclosed the names and activities that we allude to here to
some in the UFO community, and they have turned their backs on the
malfeasers.
Why don't you and Kal Korff commiserate to each other on it and see if
you can't come to a solution. I'm betting he wouldn't have a thing to do
with you, though, as it is a fact that he is superior to you. Oh in
every way, Rich. In every way!
But there still remains a slew of UFO hobbyists who have yet to find
out that among them are wolves (and worse) in sheeps’ clothings.
Right -- and you're getting too fat for your sheep suit. It's
obvious what you are.
And until those perverse propagandists are made to account for their
private perversities and criminal activities, the UFO world will be tainted,
subliminally by their continued intrusions and parasitic use of UFOs to
provide them cover for their wayward lifestyles and misdeeds.
Christ man! Go take a pill! Zounds, but a village somewhere is missing
its issue mouth breather!
More about this upcoming…
You better hope you don't.
You know what? Encountered on the street or in polite society count on me to spit in your eye and charge for eye wash! [...Thanks and a tip of the hat to my good friend and ardent admirer David Biedny!]
...And there you have it folks! Who's the real monkey piggybacking on the back of a suffering ufology? What say you, Stuart?
...AND HERE'S WHAT STUART HAD TO SAY with my response to same:
> From: Stuart Miller <stuart.4@gmail.com>
> To:
ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:22:54 +0100
> Subject: Re: Piggy-Backing Monkeys?
>
>
>> From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview@adelphia.net>
>> To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
>> 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 [Reynolds]
is 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 Korff.
>> 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
apologize if my publicizing Rich's work causes you
> pox-related angst of a puss-related continuance. You would be
> entitled.
>
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
> elsewhere.
>
Let him go straight to hell,
sans passing go and without
remuneration!
> But it has to be said that of
late, and in the main, he has been
> writing direct, hard hitting, observant, relevant and worthwhile
> material.
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 wire.
> 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 an appreciated minority.
Moreover, 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 bastard 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
Cromwell's!
> 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
> brow.
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. That's owed to an eventual
granddaughter or grandson who must read unsettling histories about grandpop.
That's owed to persons who would speak out but know they are powerless
against an intruded propaganda... so are muzzled . That's owed
to truth, justice, and the American Way... progressive, eclectic,
broadminded, open-minded, concerned with regard for INDIVIDUAL rights, and
free from needless fear or the intimidations of bumptious sociopaths.
Yeah-yeah-yeah... talk to the hand: that's what it's supposed to be. That is what I champion.
Let me say, too, one who I would call friend, that I am saddened by your cavalier attitude in RR's regard and not a little obfused (sic) by it.
~~~
And you Ricardo, you scuttling sub-arthropod (...and I know you're reading because you are too vain to do otherwise). You are the enemy of that preceding, flatly.
Moreover, you damage me, Sir, and where you don't damage, you insult, where you don't insult, you offend, where you don't offend, you..., well -- there's no reason to continue to be tedious, but know we could go on for about a page with the like. See, you're an offense on too many levels to consider, comfortably. But I'll try, Richie... I'll try.
You owe me Reynolds. You have and would continue to damage me, Sir. I would have your head on the aforementioned pecuniary spire.
Given your... behavior (to be generous) how many others are you going to owe before you're through?
Sincerely Richie, I will do everything in my power to insure that the future mob gathered to string you up won't abuse you too badly before they do.
"I remember seeing a 50's sci-fi movie whose entire premise was based on fighting monsters from the id. Damn good sci-fi for its time."
You're thinking of "Forbidden Planet," which was a hell of a movie, especially for the time.