On 3 May 2008 16:26:58 -0400, jfk297x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>On May 3, 12:47 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On 2 May 2008 19:28:27 -0400, howardp <ho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 30, 11:02?pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> Hi, Howard.
>>
>> >> Did you author these?
>>
>> >In fact, I did not respond to David R's question about several e-
mails,
>> >but he publishes anyway. Whether or not I wrote any of the several
10-year
>> >old posts he sent me, it was clear to me that he will use any tactic
at
>> >all -- in this case, trying to smear me as a UFO nut in his
intellectual
>> >inquiries. I would prefer to debate the issues at hand, of course, but
not
>> >with someone for whom attempted character assassination is regarded as
a
>> >viable tool of debate.
>>
>> >While I have your wandering attention, David, please remove from your
Web
>> >site a 5-year-old outline I sent around to my then-associates. It was
>> >never more than a working do***ent. It was never intended for
publication.
>>
>> Which doesn't explain why it contained so much nonsense.
>>
>> >It was like a re****ter's notes.
>>
>> Are the typical re****ter's notes nonsense?
>>
>> >I can't and won't vouch for the truth of
>> >any of it, as it was not a public post, and it contains material I
later
>> >determined was not true.
>>
>> How did that happen?
>>
>> I know, Judyth told you that stuff!
>>
>> And you believed it!
>>
>> >I have the right to get things straight, don't I,
>> >before I go public?
>>
>> Translation: I have to get an early account that was a pack of lies
>> and could not stand up to scrutiny sanitized before people start
>> picking it apart.
>>
>> Howard . . . for decades buffs have been attacking the WC on the
>> grounds that the first accounts, and the primary sources don't sup****t
>> the later conclusions.
>>
>> You expect to be exempt from such scrutiny, eh?
>>
>> Fat chance.
>>
>> >Possibly even the obligation (though you never let
>> >that stop you). If it is not removed immediately, this notice should
>> >suffice to render your inaction grounds for litigation.
>>
>> Be careful of threats, Howard. You may not understand just how
>> vulnerable your participation in this affair makes you.
>>
>> >Nothing surprises me about the (lack of) ethics of your tactics or
your
>> >tortured rationales for them. Correct me if I am wrong, but you and/or
>> >McAdams were also involved in the publication of copyrighted material,
>> >weren't you, specifically an early draft of an early book that was
stolen
>> >by Dutch hackers? You do know this made you an accessory to extortion,
>> >don't you?
>>
>> Nothing on my site came from any Dutch hackers. My page was finished
>> before Judyth got cozy with those folks.
>>
>> >Apparently, the censors of this group have not yet seen fit to write
>> >ethical guidelines more exacting that McAdams's judgement that a word
or
>> >two is offensive to HIM.
>>
>> It has to be offensive to Peter too, or the message gets on the group.
>>
>> >Do you have at least one rule of professional
>> >conduct you follow, or do you simply skip each ethical question that
comes
>> >along?
>>
>> Oh, my!
>>
>> Howard, I don't think you really want to raise "ethics" here. Being
>> party to a fraud is . . . well, not too ethical.
>>
>> >More likely, you don't even notice them. It's easy to shoot from
>> >the hip and sound clever and much more difficult to engage in real
>> >discussion. You're a clever guy.
>>
>> >Hey, David -- I WAS ABDUCTED BY ALIENS OVER 100 TIMES. THAT'S WHY I
CAN'T
>> >GET THE JFK ASSASSINATION STRAIGHT.
>>
>> That's more plausible than Judyth's story.
>
>The Team McAdams process starts with a very narrow position -- "she
lied."
>When additional information is provided, they claim "she is changing her
>story". How credible is this process?
HILARIOUS coming from YOU!!!!
At least you seem to be keeping a sense of humor about this shambles,
I guess.<>g>
|
