Question du jour: How would you feel if you found out that a UFO "researcher" was conducting background checks, including criminal checks, on people who were just commenting on a UFO blog?
Maybe I'm out of touch, or just too old school, but I know how I view it: unethical and antithetical to a free and open debate in the new media era.
Paul Kimball
16 comments:
A question for your question…..
I think the backstory of context like a backdrop to this question as if it were a stage play with characters strolling the floorboards might be useful to answer it. The subject of the so called UFO is tainted by charlatans, the entertainment factor much like vaudeville full of competing acts ,and media personalities and most of all..gossip.
To do a background check prior to making a comment would be ridiculous but then...perhaps a more reasonable question should be asked in it’s place.
If you were a publisher in a media outlet and a certain individual was allowed to use your venue to promulgate their views and then you find their background had some serious disturbances within it that would further taint, negate and cause a misdirection of attention by making an uproar should this taint of character be disclosed..what would you do? Proceed, or quietly forgo the opportunity to publish this persons views?
The ends don't justify the means, Bruce. We all have stories, some good, some bad. Should everyone who wants to comment on a post anywhere (the New York Times, for example), be subjected to a background check just to see whether they are... what - clean? Do we really want that? The fact that the individual in question (and let's not pussy-foot around here: it was Joel Crook) was found to have a criminal record is irrelevant to the matter of the principle - namely, that Anthony Bragalia, who takes paranoia to a whole new level of crazy, shouldn't be running background checks on anyone who is simply posting at a blog and offering an opinion. If he ran one on Crook, for no apparent reason, can you really believe that he hasn't run them on others (answer: of course he has, despite his denials). A blog, or subculture, that countenances that kind of thing is not a blog nor subculture I want anything to do with.
PK
You did not answer the question. What would you do? Once again..It was not a comment, it was an essay published under The UFO Iconoclast banner.
Which is more important, the character as to be judged by others that suggests such and such, or what such and such conveys? This is the issue that has plagued the topic and everything becomes subjective, reduced to gossip. Joel ‘s character rather than what Joel conveys is a microcosm of this misdirection of energy. This is not a free exchange filled with objectivity nor has it ever been. If you think so then you have an admirable naivety wrapped in idealism's. Do we avoid further character assassination and stick to the object of the subject or do we open the door for simply more of this? What would you do?
I infer that you would do nothing. Last night Greg and yourself spent the entire show talking about what? Personalities, character, who is trustworthy and who is not.
And so, we have Joel the potential subject of this same gossip.
His criminal record was not simply a traffic ticket. It was his choice to post and it was Rich’s choice to excise the post to avoid more of the same whirlwind of blather. A quagmire.
Which do you think would be paid more attention to? What his thoughts are on the phenomenon or his character? Is there an editorial necessity to avoid this sort of swimming in off topic muck? I think so. Joel has a target painted on his back. My take on this is anyone has the right to do a background check to avoid a potential issue. It’s Rich’s blog and as for Joel..
Does he want this attention to his character? I think not. Does he deserve the attention and what of the actual subject he was discussing? I thought his post was interesting. Should we avoid more of the same character games that I can give many many examples of? AJB is a paranoiac..this one is that..so and so lied about this.
You said this has become the study of sociology. Last night your discussion with Greg was one of sociology. I would vote to avoid just more unproductive focus on personalities and by setting Joel up for this by doing nothing would eventually come back to haunt him and ironically enough his ideas have merit.
Your post and it’s subject..what does it tell us about this phenomenon? Its all distracted to the point of not even being on the same field as the exercise and that is what should be avoided in my view.
We simply disagree.
To me your question is irrelevant, Bruce, to the central issue which, as is the usual case, is missed by people within ufology. Bragalia's checking people's backgrounds is appalling. Everything stems from that. Oh well. C'est la vie.
P.S. By the way, just so you know, when Rich Reynolds forwarded to Bragalia my e-mail wherein I stated to Rich that I thought Bragalia was absolutely wrong in running background checks on people who were posting comments at the blog (and I have no problem with Rich forwarding that e-mail to Bragalia), Bragalia's reaction was to threaten me (by way of an e-mail to Rich which he told him to forward to me) with a full background check, because I "must be hiding something" if I objected to such checks. Chew on that for a bit, Bruce, and understand just who you're dealing with in Bragalia, and why he's dangerous.
PK
This is the reason I am walking away without any regret. The subject has become crass, abstracted and unseemly as a contest of personalities that is pointless.
You have a personal issue with Tony and your post read like platform not about the issue of editorial purview but with him.
This means nothing to me in terms of interesting ideas, theories about our place or purpose which was the object of the subject before all this feuding lowered the bar to non existence.
I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors and have "no bone to pick" with you.
That you see this as a "personal issue" between Bragalia and yours truly is wrong-headed, and shows you don't understand the issue. We've been down this road before, Bruce, and this is where it's going to have to end, I'm afraid. We just view the real world in different ways. Happy trails.
I read the UFO Iconoclasts in a desultory fashion, even so i'm less than shocked that the ever-histrionic AJB has been running background checks on all and sundry. Of course it's beyond the pale, but so what? Paul, do you really have a hope in Hades that 'the ufo community' is going to be coming up with any substantive ideas about unknown phenomena? I have not for at lest a couple of decades, and i can see no real road forward for 'the usual suspects' to cohere into any type of productive, interesting group. However, in the last while i have been pursuing knowledge about the weird and wonderful on my own, in a diverse range of areas of knowledge, and have managed to squeak out an insight or two in that time.
Paul. 'these people' are indeed behaving abominably. They will continue so to do, and your outrage is only giving you agita and turning off the few kindred souls you may run across in your search for answers. I actually turned off Radio Misterioso last sunday nite, i just couldn't take your exaggerating about 'cults of Vallee' (oh, good one! i'm calling dibs as a title for a great 'mars needs women' type of sci fi movie!); growing up 20 minutes south of Berkeley in the 1960-70's i saw the Bhagwan Shree Rajhneesh, Hare Krishnas, TM, various Buddhists groups, and of course the daddy of them all Jim Jones up close. I know you disagree with how people respond to Vallee's ideas, and it's galling he has all that money and what not to go researching all over without returning any of our phone calls, but he's not poisoning salad bars or vats of kool aid whilst sending his minions out to gun down nosy congressmembers. Drawing the comparison makes you look as nutty as those you seek to describe as such.
I understand your frustration with 'the ufo research community'. It's appalling, when not completely laughable, criminal, or downright depressing. But i fear contact with it is warping your personality. You can yell and scream all day long, it won't make a difference. Do your health a favor, take the advice of your worried friends and back away while you still can...........yours in this crazy world, steph
Thanks for your concern, Steph, but I have nothing to "back away from." It's all just a hobby, and a very, very small part of my life that seems exaggerated to some because of the odd media appearance, or the public profile. My health is just fine.
But yes, I stand by what I said re: the cult of Vallee. You should broaden your understanding of the term "cult," because you have placed a meaning on it that I not only never mentioned, but never even implied.
Best,
PK
"...because you have placed a meaning on it that I not only never mentioned, but never even implied." I would be thrilled to hear your definition of 'cult'! Maybe i became confused when you referred to Vallee as a 'guru'? Don't know, but an explanation of your meaning would be quite welcome, Happy Friday! steph
I would recommend that you look at some sociology texts that deal with the term... and also understand that it has a colloquial usage as well. But from Merriam - Webster:
": a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous;
: a situation in which people admire and care about something or someone very much or too much; or
: a small group of very devoted supporters or fans."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult
The latter two relate to what I was talking about, and I definitely stand by the usage in that respect.
Best,
Paul
As i suspected, like many words 'cult' has numerous definitions. In such cases the listener must depend upon context in order to discern which meaning applies. When a person pipes up about 'cults' on a show devoted to the paranormal and ufos, with a host mesmerized (as it were) by stories of the contactees and their doings, and the speaker refers to Vallee 'as a guru' and imputes nefarious intentions to Vallee's lack of relation with his purported 'devotees' - how in heaven's (gate?) name could i have come to the conclusion i did? Silly me.
How edifying of you to bring up sociology in this context, as the most discussed sociological work in the ufo 'field' must of course be Leon Festinger's "When Prophecy Fails". As i understand it, the book didn't focus on the consequences of spending too much money on, say, 'the cult of beaujolais'. But then, perhaps it's too embarrassing to admit you simply got a little carried away with your argument in the heat of the moment.
This exchange has been illuminating as to how you treat your 'ufo hobby'. Thank you for your time and attention here as it's cleared up any questions i may have had on that subject. The next time my peregrinations take me past Fort Point i'll certainly drop the deepest of curtsies in your direction. Until then i remain, Stephanie Quick
Not embarrassing for me at all. I meant what I said. The fact that you completely misconstrued my point / didn't understand it (and apparently still don't) is on you, I'm afraid, not me.
Best,
Paul
I was off the grid when all this happened. I assume the post got deleted. Did anyone save a copy with the comments intact?
I like the psychology of these things. The way fringe proponents argue is hilario-- I mean, instructive!
There was no post, Terry. It all happened via e-mails that were forwarded to me with Bragalia's knowledge by Rich Reynolds. I consider the matter closed - Bragalia is dangerous, paranoid, and not to be trusted in my opinion (which means folks should avoid any site or blog he frequents), but everyone else will have to make up their own minds. Once again... caveat emptor.
PK
A comment from the "evil guy" in this skit:
I wish to correct Bruce Duensing's comment that "...what if a certain individual was allowed to use your venue to promulgate their views..."
It was not a case of "allowed" -- it was a case of "invited to write a post". The post was considered "Good ideas for a posting, which... I could put on line for you." was the way Rich Reynolds put it.
In fact Rich shared with me a conversation he'd had with someone--
He said to that someone: "Is leaning in your direction. I'm trying to talk him into a byline at the blog."
To which that "certain someone" replied: "Great idea. Hope he takes it in as much as he seems to be more cosmopolitan than most. A nice contrast poised next to AJB offering a fuller palette so to speak."
I did what I was asked for no other motivation than friendship. Unlike some in this "scene" I don't have a book or film or media event or any real agenda. The topic is interesting and my father had some ideas. What *does* my long ago past history matter? Really?
I wanted to share ideas. Nothing more. I certainly did not want to embarrass anyone or abuse their kindness or stab anyone in the back. I have painfully learned the price of bad behavior over many, many years. I care about people these days and do not want to see anyone harmed. Funny how friendship is repaid.
I don't want to beat dead horses. I am, after all, the guy that Mr. Bragalia has painted as the "evil guy" and as it is apparent in the puritan heart of most Americans: "evil guys" are forever evil... I have no defense -- haters gotta hate.
Give Pete Townsend's "Behind Blues Eyes" a listen and realize something-- No one in their right mind seeks to be evil. No one in their right mind becomes so obsessed with punishing someone that they ignore all of the innocent by-standers that might surround the target of their animosity as Mr. Bragalia has done.
There were easier ways of having done what they did. I was willing to leave quietly and without a fuss. Mr. Braglia received copies of my conversations with Mr. Reynolds concerning my past. But the whole thing turned into a "bull in a china shop"-- they did not think about the unintended consequences--They did not think about innocent by-standers. I had to in effect shut down my G+ page because I don't want further vigilante action against people that have nothing to do with my "evil history".
http://zerothcircle.blogspot.com/
I've put up a blog about some of the ideas my father had about the subject of UFOs / UAPs and I've re-posted the piece I was invited by Mr. Reynolds to write. Want to talk about the subject of that post? Fine. Want to defend an vigilante? I'm not interested.
Post a Comment