[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Response to Coleman

Forwarded or sent by:

Terry W. Colvin <colvint@cc.ims.disa.mil>       Voice: [520]538-5392
U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program      FAX: [520]538-5435
Air Tasking Orders [Desert Storm I]               DSN: 879-5392
Fort Huachuca (Cochise County), Arizona USA
"No editor ever likes the way a story tastes unless he pees
in it first." -Mark Twain

______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: Response to Coleman
Author:  forteana@PrimeNet.Com at smtp
Date:    8/6/1995 2:38 PM

<On  Tue, Jun 6, 1995 Loren Coleman wrote:

<My point was one of whether there was a clear distinction <between "a 
definite hoax" and "an accepted hoax."  Sorry to <those folks that missed my 

You seem to have either missed your own point, Loren,  or are backpeddling. I 
think that anyone reading your Moa post would conclude that your point was 
that there was no hoax in evidence in this case. Indeed, you begin your post 
by writing:

< As various readers on the forteana list may have received the <wrong idea 
about a hoax being said to exist where no hoax is <in evidence, the following 
is shared...

As much as I would like to stick to the facts of the Moa case in discussion, 
I am forced to respond to the following Coleman remarks:

< It is obvious Mr. Chorvinsky is going to use every opportunity <to inform 
the world as to his insights into various affairs we <might have ever been 
involved in during the past few years.  He <is welcome to spend his time 
doing thusly. I have better things <to do. 

As do I Loren!  Could we stick to the Moa case in discussion?  I am hardly 
using every opportunity to discuss my problems with you. Indeed, I have never 
even discussed or mentioned my grievances against you on-line or in print, at 
least for the time being, so I don't know what you are whinging about. I could 
have questioned various aspects of your Wallace lecture at the Unconvention, 
put out my own press releases countering yours, and gone on-line criticizing 
your alleged investigation in great detail. I did not. (Although I may very 
well do so in the future in the interest of scholarship and for the record, 
despite your feeble attempts to stifle me.)

<As many of my close friends and colleagues know, we have <two views of many 
incidents that did occur, how they <transpired and who did what, but it all 
merely reflects our <own perspectives. 

Loren, there are such things as facts and they cannot be taken lightly. 
Subjective perceptions are one thing, but the facts of a case are another.
 There are many serious points in each of these cases to be discussed that go
beyond personalities and transcend our disagreements.

 <Engaging in debates and feuds at this point in my life, for
<me, is counterproductive to my wishes and desires for <cryptozoology.

I agree that feuds are counterproductive, and that is why I have avoided 
public discussion of the matters that Loren alludes to in his post. Even 
though I have serious grievances, I would prefer not to escalate matters at 
this time lest we both lose valuable time that should be spent on new 

However, and this is the main point that I wish to make in this post (and the 
raison d'etre for it)--is my belief that engaging in debates is far from 
counterproductive. If you are being honest and you do not wish to engage in 
debate, then what was going on vis a vis the Moa controversy? Weren't you 
debating the other fellow when I entered the discussion? I thought that 
alt.misc.forteana existed largely to allow serious debate and discussion of 
controversial issues! If someone is not engaging in rational discussion of 
the facts, then I can understand how debating such an individual could be a 
waste of time, but I would suggest that I have raised serious and substantial 
issues. You certainly have no obligation to answer any post, but if you 
debate someone on-line and criticize them, as in the Moa  posts, then you 
must be prepared to follow-through with the discussion. If you can't stand 
the heat, get out of the kitchen. 

Now can we get back to the facts of the case? And perhaps from here on out we 
can keep private email and personal discussions private and off of 


new address: strange@cais.com