UFO Silencers target researcher Isaac Koi

[Gene Steinberg]

The nonsense over whether someone should use a pseudonym for whatever reason. We're past that now.

 

[mike]

Being entitled to privacy isn't an answer as to why we shouldn't care. All things being equal, if we simply want privacy, then fine. But if we want privacy because there is stigmatization about something that shouldn't be stigmatized, then there's something wrong and I think we should care. The specific subject matter is irrelevant. It should just be stopped. So the question becomes, at what point does hiding contribute to the stigmatization and at what point does freely expressing one's interest become a positive force for change? Do we not have more admiration for those willing to risk their reputations to end stigmatization than for those too afraid to freely express themselves in the open? I don't know about anyone else, but I do.

But this is where the rubber meets the road isn't it ?

The reality, or more importantly the practical reality is most people will remember the nutter walking down the street with his sandwich board proclaiming the nephilim are here to end the world with references to UFO's and the Illuminati than they are likely to know who Maccabee or Vallee are.

A solicitor looking to hire a barrister to bolster his case and given a choice of several candidates would almost certainly pick someone who had no stigma attached to his reputation.

Roe should be ashamed of himself, Fighting the stigma that like it or not is still a factor in this genre, Isn't served well by threatening and driving away people of Isaac's character and dedication.

 

[Randall]

The nonsense over whether someone should use a pseudonym for whatever reason. We're past that now.

Agreed. I made my point that we should care about the issue of stigmatization, and I wasn't attacking Koi or Roe or anyone else in the process. I thought maybe you were referring to my response to Kimball, but it looks like there may be some deleted posts related to that. Good work if that's the case. We need more active forum moderation to keep them off the board, otherwise I will respond to them, and you know how that can go.

 

[mike]

doxxing is a thing, and personal safety is always an issue.

You are quite correct.

Doxxing, swatting and the new trends in online harassment

Doxing - Wikipedia

It's a relatively new thing born of the internet and can be devastating to those targeted.

What is doxxing?
Doxxing – named for “documents” or “docs” – is the act of release of someone’s personal and/or identifiable information without their consent. This can include things like their full legal name, social security numbers, home or work addresses and contact information.

There’s no set format for a “dox”; the doxxer simply publishes whatever information they’ve managed to turn up in their searches. Sometimes this even includes the names and details of their target’s family or close friends.

As a tactic of harassment, doxxing serves two purposes: it intimidates the people targeted by invading and disrupting their expectations of privacy; and it provides an avenue for the perpetuation of that person’s harassment by distributing information as a resource for future harassers to use.

Technology and security expert Bruce Schneier argues that 2015 will see even more doxxings, as “everyone from political activists to hackers to government leaders has now learned how effective this attack is”.

Isaacs personal choice to protect his privacy and by extension his family is his to make. No one should feel they have a right to take that away from him.

In some jurisdictions Roe's threats constitute a criminal offense.

 

[Randall]

A solicitor looking to hire a barrister to bolster his case and given a choice of several candidates would almost certainly pick someone who had no stigma attached to his reputation. Roe should be ashamed of himself, Fighting the stigma that like it or not is still a factor in this genre, Isn't served well by threatening and driving away people of Isaac's character and dedication.

I don't want to push this because Gene asked me to drop it. But it also looks like an important point has been deleted. Lawyers are openly associated with particular criminal elements or political parties. It happens all the time and that is of far more relevance to their work than a personal interest in UFOs, not to mention that so far as I know, there is zero evidence that any lawyer's personal interest in UFOs or the paranormal has ever influenced the decision of the court since the time of the witch trials. Hawking's comment doesn't deserve to be taken seriously and I'm sure he knows it.

Now please, if Gene wants me to drop this then I will, but for me to have to be the only one to do so doesn't seem fair, so unless everyone else drops it too, should I not have the right to comment? If the issue has actually run its course and the situation is that nobody should comment, the logical solution is to close the thread.

 

[mike]

I don't want to push this because Gene asked me to drop it. But it also looks like an important point has been deleted. Lawyers are openly associated with particular criminal elements or political parties. It happens all the time and that is of far more relevance to their work than a personal interest in UFOs, not to mention that so far as I know, there is zero evidence that any lawyer's personal interest in UFOs or the paranormal has ever influenced the decision of the court since the witch trials. Hawking's comment doesn't deserve to be taken seriously and I'm sure he knows it. Now please, if Gene want s me to drop this then I will, but for me to have to be the only one to do so doesn't seem fair, so unless everyone else drops it too, should I not have the right to comment?

Officers of the court which includes solicitors are charged with "Getting to the truth of the matter".
And from what i can see Isaac has taken this mantra and applied it to the topic if Ufology. It would be a pity to lose this.

Even if we discard Hawkings quote, We both know that if you go to a UFO convention the "lunatic fringe" is always represented. That has been my experience with no exceptions. And these people stand out and stick in your memory.

What Hawking espouses here is representative of a very sad attitude maintained by many in the scientific mainstream, and if anything, it is the result of sheer ignorance. Statements like these are most often afforded us by individuals who, with their focus kept strictly and at all times on the matters of physics and the sciences, probably have never really had proper exposure to UFO reports that are more justifiable than those outlandish episodes to which Hawking refers.
Hardly, Hawking: Physicist Relegates UFOs to the Lunatic Fringe | Mysterious Universe

These people actually revel in it, with topics like did jesus throw plasma balls.
LunaticOutPost - Conspiracy - Ufo - Fun - Discussion Forum

Perhaps there shouldn't be any stigma attached to this topic, But where the rubber meets the road the practical facts of the matter are there is.
Add to the mix the ultra conservative nature of the judicial profession, And i can see why he would choose, As is his right to wish to be anonymous.
It's Isaacs choice to make, Only he can know if its the right or wrong choice. Others can have an opinion on that choice, But once they make that choice for him,Once they rob him of that choice, They have crossed a line.

My view, And its worth no more than the proverbial two cents, Is that addressing the stigma issue is better served by encouraging ppl like Isaac, And discouraging the obvious nutters.
Because as the Hawking example shows, Its the lunatic fringe aspect that percolates to the position of prominence especially in the minds of the conservative by nature.

 

[Han]

@Randall

You should know by now you have my utmost respect.

I was talking about general perceptions when I said something like: would you want the lawyer defending you to be into UFO's etc.
As mike eluded to.

As an outsider looking in, (I know less than average about Ufology) I think that you are missing the point in this instance, if you want a "fringe" subject to be taken seriously than you must provide a safe "environment" for people to share and provide information.

The situation with Isaac Koi is not fair.

There are much bigger fish to fry, in terms of Ufology.

For what it is worth, I always try to hear or learn both sides of an argument before trying to pass judgement, and I feel in this case you are arguing against your own interests.

Best wishes.

 

[Randall]

... from what i can see Isaac has taken this mantra and applied it to the topic if Ufology. It would be a pity to lose this.

If Koi chooses to quit ufology because Roe barfed out some unpleasantries, that's his or her call. Now and then we all need a break. I've been subjected to far worse, and IMO we should stand up to bigotry regardless of what job we have. No lawyer in modern times in any civilized country is going to be disbarred for their personal interest in UFOs and again, there's no evidence it has made any difference to what happens in the courtroom. The assumptions are based on stigmatization and fear only, and hiding only further entrenches it.

But the bottom line, as others have suggested, is that if that's what Koi wants to do, it's his or her call. Also bear in mind that my comments are about the issue, not what I think of Koi. I've liked virtually every post I've run across and his or her contributions here are an asset to the forum. For all I really know he or she has very good reasons for remaining anonymous. None of us actually know, and it's not all that important that we do know. If no reasoning had been brought into the picture, I could care less. But the reasoning we're discussing has an impact on the image of the field, and therefore has relevance to anyone who is interested or takes it seriously.

 

[Randall]

There are much bigger fish to fry, in terms of Ufology.

Maybe that's the misunderstanding. I'm not trying to fry anybody. I'm just speaking to the issue of anonymity and stigmatization in general and Koi just happens to be in the spotlight.

For what it is worth, I always try to hear or learn both sides of an argument before trying to pass judgement, and I feel in this case you are arguing against your own interests.

How is taking a stance against stigmatization of the field arguing against my own interest? It seems to me that my views about anonymity and stigmatization are causing people to assume I'm taking a hard stance against Koi. I'm not. I am saying that it would have been better to have left the reasoning out of why to remain anonymous. However because it wasn't, the stigmatization has been launched into the realm of law. I think that works against the interest of the field far more than me supporting the idea that we shouldn't be afraid to take a stand against it.

 

[mike]

But the reasoning we're discussing has an impact on the image of the field, and therefore has relevance to anyone who is interested or takes it seriously.

You are right image is important, and its central to Isaacs problem as i see it.
Appearances are very important in a judicial setting, Any lawyer worth his salt will encourage you to wear a suit to court. I once saw a magistrate throw a defendant out of court because he was wearing a Superman T shirt.
I kid you not, He was told to go home and change into attire more suitable for the seriousness of the situation. Was warned that if he returned wearing anything less than suitable attire , He would be spending the next few days in the cells for contempt.
Issac has to weigh up which is more important to him, his professional image or that of his hobby.

You are right when you say there should be no stigma attached to the topic, But i am right when i say that like it or not there most definitely is.

Image and appearance are very important in the legal profession.

As far as i am concerned the issue here isnt Isaacs perfectly reasonable choice to remain anonymous, The issue is someone taking that choice away from him. Threatening to expose him and others

Even more worryingly to me, given my concern not to have clients know about my interest in ufology in
case this adversely affects my income, he has now posted today after various people were kind enough to
support me in the relevant discussion on Facebook

He called those supporting me "little butt sucking followers"

And said "just watch how I make these malcontents famous anytime someone searches their name"

It appears to be implied

Although not entirely clear that Ted intends to cause my interest in ufology to appear in search results anytime someone searches my (real) name. Given that Ted knows people that have met me (with Ted repeatedly referring to Jacques Vallee in the relevant posts), he could be in a position to do this.
I'm not willing to take this risk.
I've been prepared to share resources freely with the UFO community for over a decade without asking
anything in return, simply seeking to be allowed to participate using a pseudonym to avoid risking any
potential damage to my career. The above issues suggest that I cannot do this.

Personally I'm more concerned with how this behavior impacts the fields image, Than the perfectly justifiable desire for anonymity under the circumstances, Both as it relates to his personal and professional life and the lamentable reality that the UFO topic does bring to mind in the minds of many, The lunatic fringe. Like it or not they are part and parcel of this topic and they stick out. Especially to conservative onlookers.

Its Ted who's bringing the field into disrepute here imo.

 

[mike]

I was talking about general perceptions when I said something like: would you want the lawyer defending you to be into UFO's etc.
As mike eluded to.

Exactly, As my Superman example demonstrates.
You can wear a Superman T shirt to the mall, you can even wear one to a UFO convention if you like. But as i have seen first hand wearing one to court is a mistake.
Image and appearance are something the courts and legal profession are very sensitive about, to a degree we don't normally see in general social contexts.

And as we've seen here in this thread and elsewhere the subject of anonymity is a touchy one, Issac foresaw this and when he first hit the scene i remember him explaining why he was choosing to contribute to the field in an anonymous capacity.
His choice and explanation were perfectly reasonable then and they remain so today. At least they were to me, But that may be because i have a higher than usual association with that profession and have seen how it works up close.

The sensitivity and importance of image and appearance are of a much higher focus than just about any other field i can think of.

The internet has made privacy even harder to maintain, Look at the link below they are now suggesting miners clean up their FB pages ?????

Social media plays important role in securing work in mining

"And you need to utilise social media in a positive way, and start by tidying up anything that relates to you in social media.

You've got to be squeaky clean, have a good record, have a clean medical history.


Chris Kent, head of mining, Hays Recruitment

Prepping Your Facebook For A Job Hunt - Onward Search

Top 10 Ways to Clean up Your Social Media Profile for a Job Hunt

Clearly your social media persona can and will affect your ability to earn a quid, This is doubly so for the legal profession where image and reputation are even more important than say mining.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

@ Randall - when did you change your screen name? I just posted about a comment you made and I hadn't noticed it was you! I have only been off the forum for about 10 days!

 

[Randall]

You are right image is important, and its central to Isaacs problem as i see it.
Appearances are very important in a judicial setting, Any lawyer worth his salt will encourage you to wear a suit to court. I once saw a magistrate throw a defendant out of court because he was wearing a Superman T shirt.

That's entirely different than a person's free time personal interests.

I kid you not, He was told to go home and change into attire more suitable for the seriousness of the situation. Was warned that if he returned wearing anything less than suitable attire , He would be spending the next few days in the cells for contempt. Issac has to weigh up which is more important to him, his professional image or that of his hobby. You are right when you say there should be no stigma attached to the topic, But i am right when i say that like it or not there most definitely is. Image and appearance are very important in the legal profession.

Like I said before, compared to affiliations with politics and crime, which are commonplace in law, a personal interest in UFOs is immaterial, and there is no evidence since the witch trials that it has mattered or ever will make a difference to courtroom decisions. Besides that, we don't even know Koi actually is in law. We just know that's where the focus of this went, and it didn't have to if the reasoning had never been disclosed. For all we know, Koi wanted to be taken seriously in ufology and put on the barrister persona to gain credibility, then by hiding behind the veil of fear of stigmatization, nobody would question it. Or maybe his story is true. Either way just using a pseudonym would have been enough, and a smart lawyer IMO wouldn't have given any reason at all.

As far as i am concerned the issue here isnt Isaacs perfectly reasonable choice to remain anonymous, The issue is someone taking that choice away from him. Threatening to expose him and others

Good point.

Personally I'm more concerned with how this behavior impacts the fields image, Than the perfectly justifiable desire for anonymity under the circumstances, Both as it relates to his personal and professional life and the lamentable reality that the UFO topic does bring to mind in the minds of many, The lunatic fringe. Like it or not they are part and parcel of this topic and they stick out. Especially to conservative onlookers.

That may be true, but it's also largely inconsequential. Again it's stigmatization and fear, and talking a stand against it is the most honorable thing to do.

Its Ted who's bringing the field into disrepute here imo.

You'll get no argument from me there. Last time I checked, the image management strategy of NARCAP was clearly damaging to ufology, but Roe basically said he doesn't care. His comment on Koi doesn't help either. I made the point that trying to pretend NARCAP isn't investigating the same phenomena as those he's trying to distance himself from by using a euphemism like UAP, isn't all that much different in principle from Koi's use of a pseudonym. Certainly people should have choice in these matters, but choices have consequences, and the only point I was just trying to convey is that the choice to stand-up against stigmatization by responsible open participation is more respectable in my opinion than hiding and entrenching it.

 

[Han]

Maybe that's the misunderstanding. I'm not trying to fry anybody. I'm just speaking to the issue of anonymity and stigmatization in general and Koi just happens to be in the spotlight. How is taking a stance against stigmatization of the field arguing against my own interest? It seems to me that my views about anonymity and stigmatization are causing people to assume I'm taking a hard stance against Koi. I'm not. I am saying that it would have been better to have left the reasoning out of why to remain anonymous. However because it wasn't, the stigmatization has been launched into the realm of law. I think that works against the interest of the field far more than me supporting the idea that we shouldn't be afraid to take a stand against it.

With the greatest respect: you are Ufology.

We all are, If Isaac's ability to put bread on the table is effected by his interest in Ufology which do you suppose he should choose?

I believe you when you say it shouldn't be an issue, but I genuinely think it is.

The reason I said that I thought you are fighting against your own interest was because: I have personally witnessed your passion for the free sharing of information, in which we share, but things are as they are, and the field is suffering, not because of you, and not because of I koi, but because it wastes time on battles of personality.

Like I said before Koi could be a coffee maker (Barista) but it doesn't change the veracity of the information he provides.

When roe et al went all "ad hominem" in a previous thread I didn't hesitate to speak up.

By all means attack what I. Koi says but: who he is is moot.

Also I did my own deciphering of his alias and came up with this: Isaac Walton wrote a a book Called the complete angler: hence Isaac, this book is about fish and fishing, a Koi is a type of ornamental Carp, but is also an "alternate" spelling of the word "coy" (shy) so you have "shy fish".

it matters naught.

 

[Randall]

@ Randall - when did you change your screen name? I just posted about a comment you made and I hadn't noticed it was you! I have only been off the forum for about 10 days!

Hey there Goggs. Hope you are doing OK. I had considered a change several times, but finally went through with it yesterday, coincidentally right in concert with this discussion ... lol.

 

[Randall]

With the greatest respect: you are Ufology. We all are, If Isaac's ability to put bread on the table is effected by his interest in Ufology which do you suppose he should choose?

That's his call. Personally I wouldn't tolerate the repression. I would be open and transparent about it. I have been all along. A job is less important than the principle here. It doesn't even have to be about UFOs in particular. I've been threatened with being fired for refusing to accept unfair user agreements connected with the sales of computers. I didn't care. I just found a way around it. Being fired is no big deal, and anyone who is any good at their job, especially if it's a private practice should have nothing to worry about. The worry should be about having to cower to away out of fear over a completely morally justifiable personal interest. I wouldn't stand for it.

I believe you when you say it shouldn't be an issue, but I genuinely think it is.

It's overblown.

The reason I said that I thought you are fighting against your own interest was because: I have personally witnessed your passion for the free sharing of information, in which we share, but things are as they are, and the field is suffering, not because of you, and not because of I koi, but because it wastes time on battles of personality.

This particular aspect of the discussion isn't a battle of personality, it's one of personal freedom, respect, and dignity. If we have to hide away out of fear over a reasonable interest of any kind, then there is something serious wrong that should be fixed, and the best way to fix it isn't to cave into the repression.

Like I said before Koi could be a coffee maker (Barista) but it doesn't change the veracity of the information he provides.

I agree, and it's all the more reason I would encourage him to proudly come forward.

When roe et al went all "ad hominem" in a previous thread I didn't hesitate to speak up.

And it's well that you did.

By all means attack what I. Koi says but: who he is is moot.

I'm not attacking Koi at all, just the issue of stigmatization and anonymity. The only thing about Koi that can be said with respect to this issue is that his reason for remaining anonymous would have been better left out of it, and therefore disclosure of that reason seems like an odd position for a smart legal person to take, which makes me question the veracity of that claim. But lawyers have done stupider things. So maybe it's true. I dunno.

Also I did my own deciphering of his alias and came up with this: Isaac Walton wrote a a book Called the complete angler: hence Isaac, this book is about fish and fishing, a Koi is a type of ornamental Carp, but is also an "alternate" spelling of the word "coy" (shy) so you have "shy fish". it matters naught.

A shy fish ... perfect ... lol .

 

[Han]

That's his call. Personally I wouldn't tolerate the repression. I would be open and transparent about it. I have been all along. A job is less important than the principle here. It doesn't even have to be about UFOs in particular. I've been threatened with being fired for refusing to accept unfair user agreements connected with the sales of computers. I didn't care. I just found a way around it. Being fired is no big deal, and anyone who is any good at their job, especially if it's a private practice should have nothing to worry about. The worry should be about having to cower to away out of fear over a completely morally justifiable personal interest. I wouldn't stand for it.
It's overblown. This particular aspect of the discussion isn't a battle of personality, it's one of personal freedom, respect, and dignity. If we have to hide away out of fear over a reasonable interest of any kind, then there is something serious wrong that should be fixed, and the best way to fix it isn't to cave into the repression. I agree, and it's all the more reason I would encourage him to proudly come forward. And it's well that you did. I'm not attacking Koi at all, just the issue of stigmatization and anonymity. The only thing about Koi that can be said with respect to this issue is that his reason for remaining anonymous would have been better left out of it, and therefore disclosure of that reason seems like an odd position for a smart legal person to take, which makes me question the veracity of that claim. But lawyers have done stupider things. So maybe it's true. I dunno. A shy fish ... perfect ... lol .

does the name of the vesicle matter?

 

[Randall]

does the name of the vesicle matter?

McKenna has a way of making what he says sound reasonable, but is he really? That little clip harbors assumptions that I don't think should be taken at face value. However I also don't want to discard the value of whatever positive interpretation might be gleaned from it either. To answer your question I'd need a more unambiguous interpretation. A vesicle is essentially a hollow area within something; the body, a rock, a plant, sometimes filled with fluid, so yes the name could matter. I like geodes better than cysts for example. What are you getting at specifically there?

 

[mike]

Again it's stigmatization and fear, and talking a stand against it is the most honorable thing to do

Stigma is a mark of disgrace that sets a person apart. Negative attitudes create prejudice which leads to negative actions and discrimination.

Why should the onus be on Isaac to to the honorable thing, At the expense of his career and family's security , When its Ted whose engaged in intimidation and harassment.
I guess its easy to trivialize the effects of such stigma, When its not you who will have to wear the consequences of it.
Its not your identity, Your livelihood, Your family Ted is threatening, Why then do you think you should dictate the terms of the actual victims response ?

 

[Han]

What are you getting at specifically there?

Does it matter if you took the train, bus or chauffeur driven Limousine? we are all at the same "event" .