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 -> Jun -> Re: Dennis Stacey 'Outing' Abductees

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: HONEYBE100@aol.com  (Linda Cortile)
Date: Wed, 11 June 1997 17:12 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 00:58:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Dennis Stacey 'Outing' Abductees

>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 12:30:48 -0500 (CDT)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Dennis Stacey 'Outing' Abductees

Dear Dennis, (you wrote):

>You're getting as difficult to respond to rationally as Mr. Komarek,
>but let me try.  I have not been trying to out you personally for
>years.  I've already posted a list of articles I published about your
>case in the Journal over the last five years or so, 12 articles in
>favor of, one against.

No, Dennis.  I'm not a difficult person to respond to when I'm treated
fairly.  However, I'm much more difficult than Ed Komarek, (whom I
have a great deal of respect for) when I'm provoked.  You have a bad
habit of belittling people and then you'll moan and groan because the
replies to your posts aren't polite.  You have a right to your opinions,
but if you're going to get arrogant, most rational people will not reply
favorably (if they reply at all).  Remember, we usually get, what we
give.  If you try to be nice and fair, you'd be amazed.

As far as the articles you have written for the MUFON Journal, etc.,
regarding my case, I remember some nice ones in 1992.  However,
most of them after that weren't so nice.  They were arrogant in an
annoying fashion.  Especially the one you wrote in 1994, after I had
my *first* talk in Austin, Texas at the 25th Anniversary of MUFON.
Your sentences were run-on sentences, which implied, how tired you
were having to hear about the "Witnessed" case.  It also suggested
that everyone should follow your lead.  You're a good writer Dennis,
why the run-on sentences, huh?  That's just one of many things you
have done to try and 'out' me.

>But had I been trying, you can bet your Yankees' cap that it
>wouldn't have been unsuccessfully.  I could have mentioned your
>last name any time I wanted to in a number of media outlets
>that I write regularly for, beginning with Foretean Times, and Omni
>magazine.

Dennis, Dennis, Dennis, you're flattering yourself.  You should know
better than that.  The "Witnessed" case has held up under harsh
scrutiny for several years.  I wouldn't bet my Yankees' baseball cap
on your 'outing' the "Witnessed" case successfully.

Yes, you could've mentioned my real name in articles, etc., as the
debunkers did.  But it would've made you look very bad in the public
eye.  Is that the reason why you haven't made a habit of publishing
my legal name?   Or do you have better ethics than that?

No, I'm not distorting the facts.  I'm giving them to you as I know
them.  I pay very close attention because much of what is said
regarding my case, doesn't just reflect on Budd and me, it reflects
on abductees in general.  I don't want *them* hurt on account of a
hand-full of inconsiderate people.

>Again, you're into mind-reading.  I have disagreements with some
>of Budd's interpretations of the abduction evidence, beginning with
>his interpretation of the Roper Report findings.  In the interval, I
>can't think of anything he has offered to the Journal that I haven't
>printed.

No, I'm not a mind reader, Dennis.  I'm an abductee from N.Y.C.
who is a surviver.  It isn't your difference in opinions that bothers
us.  It's the way you say and do it.  No one is going to agree with
each other, all of the time.   However, it seems to me that,  you
can dish it out, but you can't take it.  That's not very good sports-
manship, or whatever one would call it.

>Again, you misconstrue my statements, which were intended to
>imply that more care could have been taken.  In other words,
>someone needs to ask why your name was entrusted to them in
>the first place if absolute privacy was the first priority.   There *are*
>ways to keep state secrets, you know, just ask the Air Force.

My name was entrusted to no one.  That wasn't the situation at
the time.  Before the *Witnessed* case went public and before an
abductee in our group, *went debunker* (because he wasn't getting
enough of Budd's attention), everything was fine.  But as soon as
Budd brought my case public, this particular abductee became
one of the three debunkers from South Jersey.  He knew my legal
name, as most of us were on a friendly and close basis.  No one
knew, including Budd and me, that my case would go public at the
time.  These days, are sorry days, if one can't know a friend's
legal name.  From there, my name was given to Jim Moseley.

>Have I offended Eddie Bullard, for example?  Did I offend David
>Jacobs by asking him to review Budd's "Witnessed" in the Journal?
>Do I offend John Carpenter by running his column in the Journal?
>Did I offend Ray Fowler by asking him to write about the Allagash
>case for the UFO book?  Have I offended Walter Webb, Richard
>Haines, Jacques Vallee, Jerry Clark?  Maybe you should stop
>confusing the whole of ufology with the NYC circle?

Let's just put it this way.  No one would want to write an article for
the MUFON Journal if you did.  There wouldn't be a MUFON Journal
if you had offended everyone.  No, I'm not confusing the whole of
ufology with the NYC circle, you are.  You have absolutely no idea
how our circle in NYC functions.  By the way, our group is one of
the best in all of the United States and more.

>In fact, this whole field needs to seriously psychoanalyze itself
>to see whether its going to allow honest differences of opinion
>and interpretation to exist, or whether it's simply going to lump
>everyone into two opposing camps, as in you're either for me or
>against me.  The latter is certainly Komarek's approach, and
>from where I sit, kit seems to be the one you're taking as well.

If everyone behaves the way you do, when you have a difference
of opinion, people *are* going to lump themselves into two oppos-
ing camps. After all, you provoke them to.  Dennis, kindness and
tactfulness goes a long way.

We all have our own approaches, including Ed Komarek, you, me
and many others.  However, it isn't the difference in opinions, it's
the way you present them.  If you're going to be tactless and unkind,
people are going to react.  You can catch more bees with honey,
not vinegar.  Or, you can catch more honey's without vinegar.  <G>

If I didn't accept your apology, I wouldn't be a lady.  I am a lady.
So, I forgive you.  However, I cannot forgive you for everyone else.
In fact, there were times that I have agreed with you.  But not this
time, Dennis.

Linda Cortile