Friday, July 22, 2005

F....................acile Nonsense


It is common to criticise the Ufological community when it turns in on itself, as it frequently does, and starts hacking itself to pieces. Frankly however, I love it, and just at this moment, we are having a fabulous time. Battles are being fought on more than one front, the emotional temperature has shot through the roof, and one or two folk are out a' hunting. With knives to plunge deep into other people's backs.

Firstly, it was my turn to have my ass kicked by Paul Kimball over at his blog, in relation to this conference business in Toronto in September. While I have one or two minor issues with what Paul wrote, it is nevertheless interesting to see another viewpoint and to see how someone else has processed what he has read. But, it just goes to show that you can't pigeon hole someone permanently and somebody you had tucked away in your mind as "OK" (me) suddenly starts shooting his mouth off and turns out to have weird ideas, a nasty turn of phrase, and a line of sarcasm that is deeply irritating.

Paul too has had the boot put in very firmly between his two cheeks, but by a master of the art. Masquerading as a dear, sweet elderly lady in ill health, Wendy Connors, who I love dearly and will forgive anything, drove a stake right through Paul's torso by ripping his professional approach asunder while at the same time managing not to name him. This is vitriol at it's sweetest. Only someone who actually takes an interest in Ufology, unlike the rest of us who are consumed with our own agendas, would have failed to recognise who she was talking about. There is no love lost between the two of them. Paul "bottled" it as we say here. He replied to Wendy's comments but not face on. A nod, a wink, a little dig was about all we got. Paul; we want full scale warfare please - bodies, wreckage, machinery.

In the meantime, with all this going on in the background, there are a group of people busy grandly reorganising the future of Ufology. This involves the usual ritual of innovative ideas being placed before "the people" with earnest pleas for action now, if we are to get out of the mess that we are currently in and move forward. The suggestions are pretty flawless and of course are no sooner read than forgotten. No one will do anything because no one ever does. In fairness, it's not that we're lazy or indifferent. It's because we have no money, aren't properly organised, can't agree among ourselves, and no one can sacrifice the time that would inevitably ruin their lives and their relationships that would be needed to implement these schemes. Gosh, we're even busy trying to rename this particular "ology" because after all, that's really important.

Gildas Bourdais is busy in the meantime, trying to hack away at Nick Redfern's new theory on Roswell. It is like watching a man drowning slowly. He keeps coming back but each time he is a little weaker and a little less sure. At the moment he is now treading water. In a shorter while, I expect him to sink.

Sat on the sidelines, watching all this, is a man with a supercilious grin on his face. Of unknown origin and source, is James Smith..............

12 Comments:

Blogger Paul Kimball said...

Stuart:

What people fail to realize is that, while I could dish it out (a lot better than most people in ufology, I might add), I generally choose not to, simply because the petty personal crap that goes on (and has been going on LONG before I ever popped my head up above the parapet) has nothing to do with the serious study of the UFO phenomenon.

There are occasional exceptions to this rule, particularly if it serves the purpose of exposing those who have nothing to offer but vitriol and personal attacks (and I never said Connors had "nothing" to offer), but the whole thing is, to me at least, simply a waste of time, and crass.

A spirited debate on the facts can often get rough - but it should never get personal (attacks on frauds and conmen notwithstanding).

A final word - why I seem to threaten some of these people is beyond me. The only possible explanation that I can come up with is that, when faced with someone who does have academic and professional credentials, has done his or her homework on the subject under discussion, and offers a different conclusion than they do, they are simply not emotionally or intellectually equipped to respond in kind, and so lash out with the personal stuff.

Paul Kimball
www.redstarfilms.blogspot.com

P.S. I haven't pigeon-holed you; I just think you were dead wrong this time, and should apologise. We all make mistakes, after all. But, for what it's worth, you're still okay in my books - a person should never be defined by one relatively minor incident.

Friday, 22 July, 2005  
Blogger Stuart said...

I would add this Paul.

Where Wendy's comments are now slightly askew is that you have produced some maginficent research work on your blog. In particular, the material on Wilbur Smith I thought was not only excellent but, as I think I might have told you, brave as well.

You have however, poor judgement when it comes to women. I have no problems with your selection of Ufology's "most shagable" but it was the pecking order that got me. How you could have rated Traci Lords as merely an "honourable mention" beats me. Appalling.

Saturday, 23 July, 2005  
Blogger Zorgrot said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Saturday, 23 July, 2005  
Blogger Paul Kimball said...

Stuart:

I like Traci Lords, but she wouldn't even have made a Top 20 List. Frankly, I liked the "message girl" that the Space Vampire guy lured to the house and then fired off to his planet (perhaps he was a Plejaren??) better. If you saw Not of This Earth, you know of whom I speak.

Paul

Saturday, 23 July, 2005  
Blogger Paul Kimball said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Saturday, 23 July, 2005  
Blogger Paul Kimball said...

Stuart:

Egads... I just realised that you said "Ufology's Most Shaggable."

I couldn't even have come up with a Top 1 list for that, much less a Top 10 list!

It was "Sci-Fi's sexiest women."

Truth may be stranger than fiction... but fiction is usually a lot more attractive.

Paul

Saturday, 23 July, 2005  
Blogger RRRGroup said...

You two are very cute...

Now Wendy Connors? That's a whole other matter.

RR

Saturday, 23 July, 2005  
Blogger Paul Kimball said...

Stuart:

I forgot to add - good to see someone read the Wilbert Smith materials! I can track which pages get the most hits, and what I find somewhat disheartening is that the serious research stuff (whether it be Aztec, Smith, or MJ-12) that I have published almost always trails in hits behind the commentary materials, or the joke / amusement stuff (e.g. Top 10 Sci-Fi babes). I wish more people had read the Smith stuff - it finishes the Smith story once and for all, I think (and I would be happy to debate that conclusion, in a reasoned way, with anyone who disagrees AND has looked at the materials). Still, this is the state of ufology today (whatever "ufology" means) - the personal stuff is apparently more interesting than serious research.

Sad.

Paul

P.S. It wasn't "brave" to write that stuff (thanks for the compliment anyway). Brave is serving overseas, as people I know are doing right now in Afghanistan with the CAF.

Saturday, 23 July, 2005  
Blogger Stuart said...

I accept your definition of brave but it has a broader meaning than that as well and I think to take an icon in Ufology and offer up a well researched critique and to run the risk of the load that might fall upon you as a result, takes some nerve.

I should have know "shaggable" had two "g"s. Damn. No wonder I'm not getting any at the moment.

As for Wendy, Rich, find her mailing address and send her a bunch of flowers. I'm serious! And, if this isn't too twisted, learn from the pain of others. As bad as it was for you, it's nothing compared to what Michael Salla has had. "Politics" aside for a moment, just look at the man and the crap he's had to take. And he's still there, batting away, without a care in the world.

Saturday, 23 July, 2005  
Blogger RRRGroup said...

But, Stuart...

Michael Salla is not of this world.

His skin is a lot thicker than that of human beings.

RR

Saturday, 23 July, 2005  
Blogger Stuart said...

You may actually have a point Rich. Never was the term "water off a duck's back" more appropriate.

Sunday, 24 July, 2005  
Blogger Paul Kimball said...

Stuart:

I would add that a careful read of Dr. Salla's posts (at various sites) shows that he's just as good at dishing it out as he is at taking it (in fact, I don't think he "takes it" very well at all, but that's another story).

Paul

Sunday, 24 July, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home