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 -> 1999 -> Jun -> Here

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:57:02 +0100
Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 00:21:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome


>From: Jim Mortellaro <Jsmortell@aol.com>
>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:50:36 EDT
>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
>>To: UFO Updates
>>Subject: Re: Mad Max: Beyond the Blunderdome
>>Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:45:43 +0100

>>Thanks for all the messages that flooded in over the weekend. To
>>be honest I had not even noticed that UFO UpDates was on the cc
>>list of the original Robert Moore and I thought I was only
>>talking to a few UK UFOlogists. I was quite surprised to see my
>>'spoof' went global. But no matter, it was an interesting
>>exercise.

>>Let me qualify 'spoof'. This was not really trickery. Rather it
>>was a deliberate exercise in taking an idea to its natural
>>extreme. Many people in the UK have been furious over the Max
>>Burns lecture saying BUFORA lost the plot by inviting him. THere
>>were demands for mass walk outs over the issue.

>Boy, did you put one over on us.  Whew! We _all_ thought you
>were serious. What a bunch of maroons we are!

>However, I do understand how this can happen. On more than one
>occasion, I have attempted, thru hummers, uh, thru HUMOR, to
>yell at somebody or other for saying something which I
>originally thought was out of line while in reality, I was out
>of line all along.

>Just one last question, and I do not expect you to answer it as
>I am without portfolio, have not published anything (on UFOs)
>and am not a recognized researcher... nor am I an unrecognized
>researcher.  Having said all that, I expect nothing from anyone,
>except either a chuckle, or a chuckle and some personal
>recognition that the offendee, not the offender (that'd be me)
>got the message. So my question is, based on your more recent
>admission that you were merely joshing, my question is, Dear Ms.
>Offendee, what is the temperature of the sand?

>Jim Gesundt & Jaime Mortellaro, UFO Research without portfolio
>but a lot of Moxie... we mix it with our Gripple and rhubarb
>wine.

Hi,

Er never very hot in Britain, if thats what you meant. Our
summers and winters tend to blend into one season known
colloquially as 'by eck its nippy' (see 'Northern dialect phrase
book' by E By Gum  for translation)

I have been quite amazed as a newcomer to this net thing (only
six or seven weeks of it - seems like forever, but no matter)
how what starts as a nice discussion degenerates rapidly into a
brawl. Why? Can't we argue facts and theories minus
personalities and accept other peoples views? I can.

The asrgument about Budd Hopkins is nothing to do with him as a
man nor with his sincerity - both of which are above reproach as
far as I have seen. It has all to do with the position he adopts
on  the evidence and, because he is so admired, the effect that
has generally on the UFO community. He is, absolutely, entitled
to hold his views and stand his corner defending them. But he
has to appreciate that what he says is regarded very seriously
by thousands of people simply because of who he is. For that
reason people who have influence must be willing to have their
views debated. But we must also do that in a civilised fashion,
accepting that they can be right and we can be wrong.

The very same thing applies to Nick Pope - the MoD man in the
UK. I like him too, but because he is taken so seriously by so
many people he has to consider carefully what he does and says
because many will perceive that as an endorsement. As such I was
not happy with his decision to tell the story of the Florida
tollbooth abduction without giving his readers a proper insight
into the matter. But my being willing to answer questions on the
issue to the London Times earlier this year (after much soul
searching, three years of pleading with Nick to  do it himself
and when they asked me - rather than me approach them) had
nothing to do with my wanting to get at Nick. Far from it. In
fact it was all about doing the right thing by UFOlogy. We all
have a right to do what we believe in, just as we all have a
right to dispute those who feel differently. But this has to be
done with compassion and moderation - not as cat calling and
personal abuse.

Seems easy enough to me.

My response, by the way, was less a joke than an attempt to push
an idea to a logical conclusion and see how people liked where
we then were. This is known to science as developing an
experimental model and its an acceptable way of trying things
out without actually blowing up the planet in the course of ones
mistakes.

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles