UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: jvif@spacelab.net (John Velez)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:00:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 23:03:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Dennis Stacy 'outing' abductees
>Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 15:21:41 -0500 (CDT)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Dennis Stacy "outing" abductees
>Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 15:33:49 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: jvif@spacelab.net (John Velez)
>Subject: Dennis Stacy "outing" abductees
>>Hi Greg, Dennis, All,
>>I can't improve much on Gregs comments about Dennis' thoughtless
>>use of Linda's real name. Everytime someone does it they immediately
>>(try to) distance themselves from their unethical act by claiming
>>that Linda's real name is "already out there." That's just plain
>>bullsh*t, and doesn't justify the callous invasion and disregard
>>for Linda's (or anyone's) right to privacy and anonymity *or that of
>>their family members.* You and the Greys have a lot in common that
>>way. The degree of violation is equal.
>>JV
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dennis responds,
>Sorry to disappoint John or anyone else, but I did not 'out' Linda or any
>other abductee. Once someone is outed, they're outed, period. If you want
>>to call me insensitive for repeating the out, that's fine;
O-K, I'll see your 'insensitive' and raise you one, 'unprincipled'!
>I've already admitted as much and apologized if I caused Linda any
>>additional suffering.
Your appology (after the fact) and 50 cents (may) get her a bag of M&M's.
Once the damage is done what the hell is 'I'm sorry' good for! I would
accept your remorse as genuine if it had been done in ignorance or
inadvertently, but you did what you did in the full light of day (and
reason) and _intentionally_ I might add. That puts a whole different slant
on it.
>But it's not the same thing as outing someone to begin with.
Oh yeah, how so? Linda's real name is not as 'out there' as I'm sure your
guilty conscience would want it to be. I stand by my original statement
that, "There is NO EXCUSE for 'outing' against their will!"
I don't care how many verbal song and dances you do, you are dead wrong!
Period!
>then there's no help for you.
All 'projections' are valid Sasquatch! <G> If you don't understand my
remark ask a mental health professional they'll explain it for you.
>And just out of curiousity, what suddenly makes you so familiar an
>>authority on journalistic ethics?
Paul Vitello, a Pulitzer Prize winning news journalist, (currently a
feature writer with New York Newsday) is my wifes cousin and has been a
very close friend of mine for over thirty years. We talk! <G>
Also, you don't have to know much about 'ethics' journalistic or otherwise
to know that what (you did) was wrong!
>Is it ethical, for example, to continue insinuating that Perez de Cuellar
>was abducted, along with Linda, when he maintains, in no uncertain terms,
>that he wasn't?
"In no uncertain terms?" That's another cowpie you're selling Stacy! What
the third man _did say_ was, "_I cannot but deny_ that I have been involved
in any abduction,..."
That's one hell of a long way from, "in no uncertain terms". To anyone
other than yourself, his statement is ambiguous at best! I'll get to your
"objectivity" in a minute. But first,...
>Grow up. Get over it. Go on. If you want to rage against someone, try the
>primary investigator in the case.
(snip)
>Give me a break. The gaping black hole here is not where my heart is
>supposed to be, but in the space between your ears. And note that I
>didn't call you a sorry excuse for a human being.
No, you didn't call me a sorry excuse for a human being because it would
not apply in my case. What you (do) call me is 'stupid'! I leave it to you
to post some convincing evidence for 'that' little theory of yours. I may
be many things Stacy, but 'stupid' has never beem among them. Again, in
regards to 'empty headedness'...all 'projections' are valid. <G>
Let's get down to brass tacks Dennis. Linda brought this up already so
according to your own standards it's O-K for me to repeat it! <G>
About (your) objectivity;
You have had a serious 'hard on' for Budd Hopkins for quite some time.
Ergo, anyone connected with him gets colored with the same brush. You
simply don't know me or Linda well enough to say that I am a 'stupid man'
or that Linda is a 'hoaxer and a liar,' so where does that come from?
I'll leave it to the intelligence of the reader to answer that one.
It's true that we often say to others the things we need to hear most
ourselves. You accuse Budd of not being 'objective' and you are guilty of
it yourself! Again, by your own standards, you have no business in ufology
either! You have a "preconcieved notion" about abductions and abductees.
Holding preconcieved notions is the same thing that you accuse Budd of!
If he has no business writing books or being involved in UFOlogy because of
those reasons then neither do you! Headline: Pot calls Kettle Black!
I don't agree with a lot of things connected to Budds work, but they are
mostly proceedural differences. Your case against Budd (and us I might add)
is purely vindictive in nature and yet you attempt to disguise your venom
(thinly I might add) with mere words.
Doesn't work Dennis, the pettyness comes through loud and clear _everytime_
you speak to one of us. You don't seem to have the necessary emotional
control over yourself to hide it effectively. You don't seem to grok the
fact that your transgressions and rants against us make (you) look bad,
not us! <G> You're the one that's supposed to be "objective" and
"openminded," man, have you missed the mark!
I _can_ vouch for the fact that regardless of whatever else he may be, Budd
Hopkins is an honest, decent, careing, and honorable man. Can't say the
same for you Sasquatch, sorry.
>Dennis Stacy
>Non-Human Being
>Scoundrel
>Professional Outer
>MUFON Dragoon
>Controller & Suppressor of Dissent
>Unethical Journalist
Your own self assessment, not mine! <G>
>(Did I leave anything out?
Yeah,..
1. Insulting
2. Vindictive
3. Closeminded
4. Prejudiced
If you really want me to go on we can continue this pointless discussion
privately. I hope not, I haven't got much belly left for your particular
brand of pure BS.
John Velez :) Poor, but honest.
*
***
*****
*******
=======================================
* jvif@spacelab.net *
* * * INTRUDERS FOUNDATION ONLINE * * *
* www.spacelab.net/~jvif/bhhp.html *
=======================================
*******
*****
***
*
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com