Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New 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 Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Feb -> Re: Friedman v Randles - a new trial (was: Libel)

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Steven Kaeser <skaeser@konsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:56:35 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 22:19:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Friedman v Randles - a new trial (was: Libel)

> Subject: Friedman v Randles - a new trial (was: Libel)
> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 97 13:57:05 -0000
> From: Bob Rickard <rickard@forteantimes.com>
> To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>

> In the very interesting interchange between Andy Roberts and Stanton
> Friedman about a defamation suit brought against Jenny Randles and a
> Manchester newspaper, Mr Friedman said:
> >Why not post the article and the letter and the apology?

> As the affair was some time ago and probably new to many members of
> this list and as ufology itself has moved on, this list would provide
> an ideal forum of peers. Could we not see the evidence (so many of us
> have not) ... the original article and objections ... and let us judge
> for ourselves. Andy could speak for Jenny (she has no email) Mr Friedman
> would no doubt argue his own case.

While I would agree that it would be to the advantage of most of those
here to see the original article, apology, and related information, I'm
not convinced that an open ended debate on the merits of this issue will
serve much of a purpose.  Since both parties involved in this debate are
obviously biased, the arguements would likely be both predictable and
repetitive.

> This is not a frivolous suggestion as the issues are central to how we
> challenge the opinions of high-profile 'professional' researchers and
> whether they have any right to object to being questioned, and whether
> any of this actually undermines their ability to earn a living or damages
> their reputation.


>                            Bob Rickard - editor
>                          rickard@forteantimes.com
>                    FORTEAN TIMES - www.forteantimes.com

One should not be challanging opinions, but the facts that are used to
support those opinions.  This becomes a different matter when those
"opinions" involve charactor assasination, either directly or
indirectly, which can lead to civil suits such as is the case here.  We
should become involved in some sort of peer review of the facts upon
which we base out theories, not a peer review of the personalities
involved.