…Like I said, ladies and gentlebunkies, just rock the freaking head back! Look to see!
Visibility was about 80% of "as good as it got" around Chopper Town that Monday morning... One can wash the dirty buttermilk glass from the last "Odd Ob" to get an approximation of it. There was a perceptible starfield all around which is a great aid in rate detection of those "things" that go over, bumpless, in the night... hmm...
Ironically, it is these individuals who are first to desert their reductionist positions to pule that "last refuge of a scoundrel" protestation that they "no longer have the 'time' nor would they desire the 'inclination' to continue the debate..." these can have it their way, I say true.
Too much Aristotle. Not enough Plato.
What follows was a response to all a single opposition, as stated above, but all persons like-minded who want to shake their hubris at me like a finger askance in a shallow-draft reductionist's fussy scolding can take a lesson:
"Sightings are 'down' friends and scabrous bunkies, not because UFOs are going away, but because there are fewer people LOOKING for them these days! Lately, people who might otherwise be pondering the skies are, instead, only looking over worried shoulders for 'enemies', real AND imagined. They have no TIME for a puzzling enigma in the skies over their heads while staring down the suggested barrel of a terrorist's gun! All part of the master plan (uneasily?) dismissed by Jerry Clark?"
It's an amazing thing to watch someone take a leaping swan dive into the deep end of an empty cement pool. Oblivious to the fact that there is no water beneath to break the fall.
Forgetting for a moment the limp attack on character that this string of empty cliches would convey, this is the same writer who indicated on the radio recently an ability to "hear" veracity, honesty, and sincerity in the tone of one's voice tones. That's scientific? No, that's scientistic. ...A real Cartesian sage.
Moreover, that's a claim unquantified, eh?
Since you mentioned (made wild accusations about) the 'abduction report' thread I'd like to point out the following:
See, all defense to the contrary aside, it's a personal thing, publically shared, when a private note would have been, perhaps, less embarrassing for everyone. Now it's history. Let's continue on to see what the writer would "point out."
So, the writer, name dropping like a huffy poseur, would then "point out" what was actually an inexplicable defense of the scabrous bunch at CSIcop, the scurrilous bunch in the, at the time, Bush/Ashcroft administration, and too many other blighted psychopaths among us capering like imps around a book-burning hell-fire, hindering disclosure and discouraging even a provoked curiosity? These were the identified groups earning an evaluation of "sinister," not Mark Rodighheir of CUFOS.
Mark Rodigheir of CUFOS made the statement that 'new' abduction reports to that organization were down for the last couple of years. I wrote a post that was in agreement with it. Will Beuche, the former Webmaster of PEER wrote in to corroborate my and Marks statements. Simple statements (or reporting) of fact. Nothing as 'sinister' as you imply ever transpired.
The writer, clearly conflicted and with a singular ax to grind, and failing to read to a reasonable period, would interpret my commentary as he has interpreted it here—when the same post a week or a month ago may have even gotten a public "right on" or a private "well done"! What had changed in the interim?
The writer seems to have convenient sensibilities that change as the wind blows! Moreover, he seemingly apes the most mercurial of ufological vagaries, while I think it could be argued that the only one maintaining a rational consistency or even tone in this exchange is me. I'll leave that call to a respected reader.
For some *reason* the writer has significant difficulty seeing a consistent hand in front of his face and seems to prefer some terse literary razzle-dazzle (with no support) as opposed to real contribution to the discussion… what I would aspire to. I'll leave that to the reader, too.
You create a fantasy in your own head,
Resolved: a pretty juvenile take on things after five years of collegial cordiality, if you ask me, demonstrating only the suspect provenance of his, perhaps, not so inexplicable irritation.
Fantasies? Not likely. We're likely wrong about everything that has always been much bigger than we ever knew...
...your 'imaginings' piss you off,
LOL! Like they don't piss off the writer! That would become clearer as time went on, I could have predicted. And finally—no rational person would agree that there is not an awful lot to be righteously pissed about! Why the anger? Well, there might be plenty about which to be angry? That's a start. The writer seems to conveniently forget that.
...and then you express anger toward people in the *real world (*those who live their lives outside of your fantasy) as if they were actually responsible for their behavior in your somewhat fevered dreams.
How you manage to turn a simple series of posts into the convoluted and genuinely paranoid plot that you suggest above, boggles my mind.
Lately you've taken to attacking some of the 'good-guys' Alfred.
Maybe a short vacation from the fray is in order.
When you start to perceive plots and schemes everywhere, and you see 'spooks' lurking in every corner... it's time to do a Dave Brubeck and 'take five' bro.
Get a grip.
Really? What are the mechanics of that exactly? What concessions are demanded and where's the writers reason for an expectation of my trust in the quality of the writer's admonitions? I think it may be that the writer makes this dismissive suggestion only because he suspects that he's losing his own. Ironically, the writer needed to let go.
You've created a veritable soap-opera out of what was essentially a pretty dry, innocuous and short-lived series of posts. Check the archive and reread 'em. Nothing 'heavy' going on except inside your head. :)
So, when confused missiles of attacking cant sail out from the inconstant and conflicted shadows from persons you'd thought simpatico, or pedant deniers alike, do as I try to do. Are you required to accept their premises? Do they expect your external validation of their personal faith? Do they presume while they make their bland assumptions? Are they reflexively reductionist proposing their fundamentalist scientism be the default arbiter of that which it refuses to investigate? Do they patronize you?
Then unsheath your literary sword and see them driven before you like a decadent Cartesian hoard and hear the lamentations of their butt-hurt fanboys!