[meteorite-list] Bigfoot and the "Nakhla Dog"

[al mitt]

Sorry list last post on this topic for me,

>How long does one have to be in the meteorite world before they're no 
>longer considered a newcomer (noob) by you<

I'd say when you grow up and learn to respect other people's view points. 
Not off topic posts. Also keeping your noise out of business that isn't 
yours in the first place. Your not the authority here as you have tried to 
appoint yourself and I'll post as I see fit.

>You are accusing me of being arrogant? That's funny.<

Yes, your are very arrogant. Your need to try to show me up for a simple 
request to respect other peoples believe systems. I feel this is a place for 
everyone except for those who try to use it to their own benefits without 
regards to others. Your one guy who simply can't keep your fat mouth shut 
when you want to control what someone else is pointing out is wrong. Well 
eric you can't do that with me.

Now for another petty shot at your magazine (your standards).

>Truthfully, how many people have or haven't (more have than have not)< 
>received the magazine is none of your concern<

What a joke eric, you admit you aren't providing copies to people who have 
them coming in the above statement.

I think fraud concerns everyone on this list when there are questionable 
dealings. I saw a number of posts stating that after paying for their 
magazines you had not shipped them for months. A number had not even 
received their copies. That is what they said. Not me. I just got a couple 
of emails saying they still have not received their copies yet. That should 
concern everyone on this list if you are still not providing something that 
has been paid for!!!!

I would suggest that if someone has not received their copy, and if the 
magazine is sent in the mail, and if you paid for your copies in the mail, 
to file a complaint with your post office, as they are always interested in 
fly by night outfits using the mail for questionable means.

>Aren't you also being a hypocrite by complaining about Mike's post being <
> off topic, then slamming me publicly with something completely <
> irrelevant to the topic at hand simply to save face <

Mike's comments were off topic to the theme of this list. The issues about 
your magazine while not related to the original post were warranted, as soon 
as you tried to control my simple post. Going back over your posts, I see 
you do this. I feel there are a lot of people wanting this brought up so why 
not here since you seem to think you are so much better than the rest of us 
eric.

I'm sure you don't want me to respond to this publicly but since you asked 
for it here it is. Your right I have not cared for the way you have handled 
yourself on the list. Tried to pull people off here to your site. You are a 
control freak. You think you can shut people up by posting private messages. 
You remind me of a spoiled little brat that will do what ever they can to 
get their way.

I usually don't send an email unless I mean it. I have been quite honest 
while you are trying to sweep the issues of your magazine away and call me 
dishonest. It is you who are not being honest with people who have paid you 
money for your magazine and I think that speak volumes.

I am sure you will try to use every word against me as an attempt to control 
as you always do. Be advised that I will hold you to things you say or put 
in my mouth on this list.

I deleted the posts to save bandwidth and people can easily go and read the 
thread post by post. They don't have to do that in our posts but forgot you 
are trying to control again when nothing disingenuous was meant by that at 
all and can't see that it was a big deal. I often clean up long threads and 
address the post I am responding to. We don't need the thread repeated with 
every response to a post. Go back to the archive and you will see that I do 
this. Perhaps you are trying to smokescreen the real issues here.

Enough of this nonsense.

--AL Mitterling



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Witchman" <eric at meteoritesusa.com>
To: "al mitt" <almitt at kconline.com>
Cc: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Bigfoot and the "Nakhla Dog" - what do they 
have in common?)


> (sorry list for the harshness of this email, but this has been a long time 
> coming)
>
> Hi Al, Thank you for pointing out I'm a newbie in this arena. Technically, 
> I'm not a newbie anymore, at least I thought I wasn't since I've been 
> doing this 24/7/365 for 4 years and have spent more than 15,000 hours 
> researching and studying meteorites and astronomy, have more than 100,000 
> visitors to my websites per year and over 1250 online subscribers to my 
> Meteorite Hunting & Collecting Magazine. But I am curious though. How long 
> does one have to be in the meteorite world before they're no longer 
> considered a newcomer (noob) by you. Is there a standard? 5 years? 10? 20? 
> Seems rather shallow and small of you to point that out.
>
> You are accusing me of being arrogant? That's funny.
>
> Aren't you being rather arrogant yourself by implying you've been here 
> longer and know better than me the ways and working of this niche we call 
> the meteorite world? That is pretty conceited if you ask me. But what the 
> heck do I know? I'm an inexperienced noob.
>
> As for your obvious and extremely petty dig on me and my magazine, I'm 
> very tempted to write a long string of profane and quite insulting words 
> to you, but I think your own careless knee-jerk post does a much better 
> job of showing your colors than anything I could write.
>
> Truthfully, how many people have or haven't (more have than have not) 
> received the magazine is none of your concern, and completely irrelevant 
> to this topic. But since you you felt the need to drag me and my magazine 
> into a completely unrelated topic just to suit your personal and petty 
> satisfaction to embarrass me somehow (which it doesn't by the way) I will 
> say this ONE last time.
>
> Everyone will get every magazine they paid for. I promise that. I've 
> always promised that and I've been keeping everyone updated on the 
> progress of the magazine. If you personally are too self centered and lazy 
> to go to my website and read what I've posted very publicly to everyone, 
> then that's your problem, not mine. It has nothing to do with anyone else 
> and goes to your own issue. You know nothing about what's going on, you're 
> not a subscriber, you never have been, and you've made it clear you've 
> been against my magazine from the start. You've never supported me in 
> anything (not that you should), and obviously have always had some bone of 
> personal contention with me for years Al. If you deny that you're not 
> being truthful (I have past emails which prove your contempt for me), if 
> you admit it, you simply prove your personal issue with me because much of 
> your previous correspondence to me has had this same arrogant overtone.
>
> For you to bring my magazine into this unrelated topic shows EVERYONE 
> reading this right now the kind of person you are Al, and that you care 
> nothing of the magazine really, nor of my subscribers, but only are using 
> it to embarrass me in some way. Basically a sucker punch when I wasn't 
> looking or expecting it. Only cowards take sucker punches.
>
> Aren't you also being a hypocrite by complaining about Mike's post being 
> off topic, then slamming me publicly with something completely irrelevant 
> to the topic at hand simply to save face and take a cheap shot to gain 
> some kind of personal satisfaction at my perceived embarrassment in your 
> eyes, not realizing of course you're only making a fool out of yourself, 
> and everyone here knows it.
>
> I would advise that you, starting right now, NOT respond to this publicly 
> with any other false statements. Choose your next response very carefully, 
> or do not respond at all, because I will use every word against you.
>
> Whatever Al...
>
> Regards,
> Eric
>
> P.S. Since you neglected to change the subject line of the thread, and 
> deleted the thread posts before this one in a  way to focus disingenuous
> the attention on me and my magazine, I've been considerate enough to 
> repost the full thread [below] which you've attacked me in to show that 
> your cheap and obviously personal and contemptuous attack was completely 
> and utterly irrelevant to the topic that you were complaining about 
> earlier.