Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Rich Reynolds: Psychopath?

RRRGroup (Rich Reynolds) published a new comment on the post "Lies and Moore Lies": a piece by Kevin Randle on his highly rated blog "A Different Perspective." This is a site devoted to sincere and rational discussion regarding UFOs and the Roswell mystery in particular.

In the commentary to the above referenced piece and after a revolted assessment of Rich Reynold's particular "commentary" by myself —exploring fact and fallacy of same— Rich Reynolds published the upcoming response to Randle's un-moderated blog for the world to see.

The preceding activity is in addition to a mass mailing for any persons following Randle's weblog. The potential readership and mailing list is international and numbers many hundreds, I suspect, if not many thousands.
Persons read:


One would think that a person whose name showed up in a child porn site during a Google search would be circumspect about the alleged shortcomings of others.


Gods and Devils!

We'll forget for a moment that this egregious, insane, and libelous charge regarding my behavior has been completely debunked, roundly discredited, and abundantly exposed!

Yet here it is, published yet again in a public forum like it is an authoritative fact!

Too, I am entirely at this psychopathic bastard's mercy because I must prove damages or pay Rich Reynolds' own legal fees, plus my own! He can do or say anything he wants as a result.
Sir or madam reading, I'm an aspiring author trading on reputation and some small talent to achieve that end. How am I not being damaged?

This has been going on for years, admittedly ... I can't let it go.

I can't give this guy a by because it's not just me effected, see? It's the memories of my father and grandfather and son. We all have the same name as it's turning out...

This is all not to forget that tolerated behavior such as this throws a monstrous blanket over freedom of expression for all of us. Finally, Reynolds needs to be brought to account so no one else has to suffer similar treatment from him.

Persons better than myself offer "well meant advice" in regards to my struggle with Reynolds given that it must be patently obvious to all that he is the "salt" in my wound, the "thorn" in my side, and the ultimate "pain" in my ass!

They say; however, that they've found that the "best solution" to individuals like Reynolds is to "ignore them." It takes "two people" to engage in a fight, these counsel, and in these instances there is "no winner." In their view the only way to win is to "not engage." "Don't play!" these say...

The man published authoritatively, just recently, that I have sex with children, Reader. This is no teenage pique on my part.

My refusal to contest that slander is a signal that he is correct and my silence is then not mature; it becomes —to the disinterested— something of an admission, am I right?

Advice is well taken but my removing myself from the "playing field" allows the craven rape of my reputation to go by uncontested. Moreover, Reynolds et al will be emboldened to do it again, perhaps, to another. Maybe once the reader has fallen afoul with Reynolds they themselves could be in the sights of this seeming monster for a similar maliciousness, eh?

RRR is no good for anybody, provides no service, and is not sincere — I think this plain in my opinion. Clearer air has prevailed in his absence. Of course, I'd see him made professionally extinct. The man is unrepentantly suggestive that I have sex with children, reader! That's the cruel upshot.

He owes me damages and apologies... neither of which is now remotely forthcoming. I must resort, then, to the court of public opinion. People will know "who" he is and "what" he does for my effort, at all cost to me. I think the reader would do no less in my shoes.

Would the reader give up? How about after that first time a grandchild reads something dodgy about you on the internet? My print publisher Nancy Birnes is embarrassed. My electronic publisher and pod-cast project chief Errol Bruce-Knapp is appalled. My writing partner on another project, Alan Graham, is embarrassed; my wife and son are fit to be tied, my brother is supremely agitated, and my friends, in and out of ufology are aghast!
How are we not damaged? Also, when must I become a discomfiting liability to them.

I really don't think the reader would or could forget this. Sex with children, ladies and gentlemen! That unsupported charge is unconscionable, without conscience, and unscrupulous behavior on Reynolds' part. As bad as it gets.

It remains, Reynolds cannot be rewarded by my inaction. I'll ensure he has a bigger reputation as a smear-or than I ever ever have for being a smear-ee. Honor demands it, eh? An Army officer for 23 years, I know something about honor and integrity.
Whew! Sorry about the longwinded kerfuffle.

Thanks again for your understanding, and feel free to pass this on, to anyone, as a sample of my thinking on this issue. If you don't understand or think I make a mountain out of a dung-pile it is because no one has looked at you penetratingly and asked why this "kiddy porn" thing keeps coming up about you, eh?

Know I'm sincere if nothing else. Reynolds damages me with malice aforethought. An effulgent swine, he owes me effuse apologies and seven figure damages.