Abduction Digest, Number 45 Wednesday, January 29th 1992 (C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved. Today's Topics: Apology Abduction Report Apology Abduction Research ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff) Subject: Apology Date: 28 Jan 92 04:50:02 GMT David, This came as a great shock to me, but apparently the echo coordinator, Doug Rogers, and others on this network, believe that I have been "attacking" you with my line of questions and comments regarding your recent posts. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have the utmost respect and admiration for your work, and am most appreciative of your participation in this network. When I see something that doesn't quite ring true with me, I ask questions and make comments based on my limited experience from my dilettante perspective. If I have offended you, I sincerely apologize, and I can assure you that no hostile assault was intended. I know I can learn a great deal from you, and perhaps make some small contribution to abduction analysis. The pursuit of truth and knowledge has been my objective, yet Doug seems to feel I have been attacking the way you administer to your patients and do your research. What follows is extracted from Doug Rogers' statement regarding my correspondence with you. Once again David, I must offer my defense of complete obliviousness to the fact that I was acting in an ostensibly inappropriate manner. I hope we can carry on with our dialogue. Sincerely, Sheldon ------------------------------------------------------------------- In a message to Sheldon Wernikoff <21-Jan-92 20:14> Doug Rogers wrote: DR> The crux of my complaint to you has to do with your persistance DR> in voicing your unsuported opinions in areas where you have no DR> expertise, especially in the face of those who have proven to DR> have expertise. I'm especially talking at this point about your DR> posts to Dr. Jacobs. I am a practicing counselor in addition to DR> being a professor of mass communications. Let me assure you, DR> Dr. Jacobs is posting a rock solid, defensible line in this DR> work. He has too great a reputation to do otherwise. Yet, you DR> take up bandwidth asking him questions that attack the way he DR> treats his patients and does his research. -- Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff) Subject: Abduction Report Date: 28 Jan 92 04:50:03 GMT Hello Keith, I wanted to advise you that I am having a woman from the Chicago area write to you re: her abduction experience. Coincidentally, she has also spent some time in Australia a few years back. If you like, I can forward your response to her via this network, as she has no objection to our discussing her case in this forum. I trust you will find her material of interest. Take care, Sheldon -- Sheldon Wernikoff - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: Apology Date: 29 Jan 92 07:41:00 GMT > In a message to Sheldon Wernikoff <21-Jan-92 20:14> > Doug Rogers wrote: > > DR> The crux of my complaint to you has to do with your > DR> persistance in voicing your unsuported opinions in areas > DR> where you have no > DR> expertise, especially in the face of those who have proven > DR> to have expertise. I'm especially talking at this point > DR> about your > DR> posts to Dr. Jacobs. I am a practicing counselor in addition > DR> to being a professor of mass communications. Let me > DR> assure you, > DR> Dr. Jacobs is posting a rock solid, defensible line in this > DR> work. He has too great a reputation to do otherwise. Yet, > DR> you take up bandwidth asking him questions that attack > DR> the way he > DR> treats his patients and does his research. Sheldon: I thought that your points were well taken, expressing legitimate concern about something Dr. Jacobs will surely be expected to explain once he starts "making the circuit" upon the release of his new book. I found nothing hostile about your questions. There is a distasteful odor of "believerism" around when people are discouraged from having the chutzpah to question the "Authorities" in this field about their methodologies. I am similarly disturbed about the outrage expressed in _UFO_ magazine over Jerry Clark's treatment of Jaques Vallee. I found "The Sage of Canby" to be much more restrained in his recent article than he was in his earlier critique of _Confrontations_. Even *if* those two guys hate each other, their debate is an important one for the rest of us who share an interest in these topics. If some of us want to take sides, fine. Trying to squelch the opposition is another matter. -- John -- John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@f9.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill.Chalker.UFORA.Associate.NSW@f8.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Chalker UFORA Associate NSW) Subject: Abduction Research Date: 26 Jan 92 19:26:00 GMT Sheldon, Here are some comments re your message: > Bill, what were your principal criteria in evaluating > and ultimately selecting your associate > hypnotherapist/psychologist? 1. professional & qualified psychologist 2. extensive experience in practical therapuetic use in hypnosis 3. no strong opinions either way on the UFO subject. 4. open mind 5. a willingness to use Richard Haines 3 stage technique and protocol as a guide I was fortunate to find the one I did. The psychologist is also on the board that registers professional psychologists in my state, so she is well regarded by peers. > Thus far, I would have to say it's ourselves. But as > everyone in > this forum is aware, there are many cases that just > cannot be > explained away though psychological methods. Yes I agree. This is why I am open as to the explanations and am very keen to learn of the work of others. > BC> I still feel that until the similarities that occur between > UFOBC> abduction and shamanic initiations etc, are > reconciled and > BC> satisfactorily explained we will be left with an incomplete > BC> picture of the abduction question. > > Could you elaborate a bit on this area Bill? Yes I will, however it will have to be next time as I have run out of time in my polling window. Stay tuned. Regards, Bill. -- Bill Chalker UFORA Associate NSW - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Bill.Chalker.UFORA.Associate.NSW@f8.n1040.z9.FIDONET.ORG ******************************************************************************** For permission to reproduce or redistribute this digest, contact: DOMAIN Michael.Corbin@paranet.org UUCP scicom!paranet.org!Michael.Corbin ****************A**B**D**U**C**T**I**O**N****D**I**G**E**S**T******************* Submissions UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom!abduct Submissions DOMAIN abduct@scicom.alphacdc.com Admin Address abduct-request@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu Mail to private Paranet/Fidonet addresses from the newsletters: DOMAIN firstname.lastname@paranet.org UUCP scicom!paranet.org!firstname.lastname ****************A**B**D**U**C**T**I**O**N****D**I**G**E**S**T*******************