Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Dec -> Here

From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark]
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 11:17:51 PST
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 13:01:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Clark and ETH (and ELs)


> Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 17:58:14 -0800
> From: John Koopmans <john.koopmans@sympatico.ca>
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Clark and ETH (and ELs)

> > From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark]
> > Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 22:40:03 PST
> > To: updates@globalserve.net
> > Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Clark and ETH (and ELs)

> > > > <big time major snip>

> > Give me a break. Please read what I have read about Keel's
> > theoriesl in my books and articles. (Please read my UFO
> > Encyclopedia, incidentally, if you want to learn something about
> > "professional scholarly advancement in this field," which is what
> > reviewers said they thought this was.)  Though I have my private
> > suspicions, I have not once written of Keel as crazy, socially
> > inept, or pathetic -- adjectives he habitually hurls, in print
> > and elsewhere, against all who disagree with him.  If Keel were
> > to write articles challenging my ideas, precisely as I have done
> > with his, there would be no problem, only healthy, entertaining,
> > and (one would hope) ultimately enlightening debate.

> > Personal attacks are pointless, counterproductive, and boring.  I
> > need no lecture from you on that score, since this was precisely
> > the point I was making (and apparently you were missing) when I
> > raised the issue of Keel's ad hominem excesses. I wish John Keel
> > believed, as I do and I presume you do, in rational debate, but I
> > simply fail to see by what peculiar logic my criticizing him for
> > that makes me morally equivalent to him. Perhaps you could
> > explain it to me.

> > If, on the other hand, you want to direct your words to Keel,
> > which is where they ought to be addressed, I'll gladly give
> > you his address.

> > Jerry Clark

> Dear List:

> Wow! Since this topic seems to be getting a little personal, I have
> chosen to respond to this message by e-mailing Jerry Clark personally.
> Someone on this List was kind enough to give me some helpful advice, and
> before I leave this thread permanently and go back to "Lurker" and
> "nerve-hit" mode, I just wanted to say a few things (anyone listening?):

John, three quick points before we drop the subject:

(1)  Calling someone else's theories "half-baked" or "paranoid,"
as I did about Keel's, is well within the accepted parameters of
debate and discussion; anyone who follows debates in scholarly
journals will have no trouble recognizing either adjective. It is
essential to bear in mind that I have written at great length on
what I see as the problems with Keel's approach. Responding to
such skeptical analysis of one's ideas by calling one's critic a
social misfit or a mental case is way beyond the pale.  The two
are, obviously to me anyway, in no way morally equivalent.

(2) If you can't get a copy of my essay on "Paranormal and Occult
Theories" (High Strangeness, pp. 367-89, or [in abridged form]
The UFO Book, pp. 429-44), I'd be glad to send you a xerox of
same, if you'll supply me with your regular mail address.  Agree
or disagree with what I write there, this is what we ought to be
talking about.

(3)  I have not the slightest doubt that you are a good guy.
You have always struck me as thoughtful and articulate.
It's just that, in my view, you happen to be wrong on this
particular issue, one obviously dear to my heart.  Nothing I have
said is intended in any way to discourage you from speaking your
mind now or in the future.  I for one am always interested in
what you to have to say.

All best,
Jerry Clark