Donna Bassett

[Simonemendez]

I was not sure where to put this particular-entitled thread, since it is in regards to ---abduction--- Ufology. I was deciding between the Ufo forum and 'Contactees'. I was thinking about the Emma Woods-versus-Dr. David Jacobs debacle, and realized that it reminded me of the 1992 Donna Bassett-versus-John Mack one. Below, I have copied some text from a very fascinating article from the Skeptical Inquirer from 1996

“Mack has demanded that NOVA cut out a four-minute interview with [Donna] Bassett, a demand that a NOVA producer yesterday said had been denied.” Donna Bassett, posing as an “abductee,” under regressive hypnosis by Mack on Nov. 19, 1992, described how she had been abducted during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and found herself with President John F. Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev aboard a flying saucer [SUN #28/July 1994]. She described how she had sat on Khrushchev’s lap, trying to reassure the crying Soviet leader that nuclear war would not occur. At this point in the hypnosis session Mack commented: “You know, a lot of people believe that this whole abduction business is some form of divine intervention. And what better way to do it than to pull Kennedy and Khrushchev.” Mack then asked Donna: “Was [Defense Secretary] McNamara there?”
Donna Bassett’s account of the hoax was revealed by Time magazine in its April 25, 1994, issue. Shortly afterward, when Mack (and SUN’s editor) appeared on Cable News Network’s “Crossfire” TV show, Mack indicated he was unsure whether Donna’s story of meeting Kennedy and Khrushchev aboard a flying saucer was true or not. In the segment which Mack tried to get NOVA to delete, he reveals that he remains ambivalent as to whether Donna’s abduction story is true. But in the interview with The Boston Herald, Mack dismisses Donna Bassett as a “wacko.”

The full article is
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/klass_files_volume_38/


BACK THEN, Ufology should have been taking a much much more critical------look at the abduction phenomenon. Granted, even though, as I myself with many anomalous experiences.
Sunday night with George Knapp, I listened to an appearance in the first hour, of one Steven Bassett, on CoastToCoastAM. Not only X-Conferences, but he FYI'd re. a NEW annual conference of his, all about 'abductees' and their abductions.
Stephen Bassett - Guests - Coast to Coast AM

 

[dyingsun]

Thanks for this, Simone

 

[IndigoEyes]

I was not sure where to put this particular-entitled thread, since it is in regards to ---abduction--- Ufology. I was deciding between the Ufo forum and 'Contactees'. I was thinking about the Emma Woods-versus-Dr. David Jacobs debacle, and realized that it reminded me of the 1992 Donna Bassett-versus-John Mack one. Below, I have copied some text from a very fascinating article from the Skeptical Inquirer from 1996

“Mack has demanded that NOVA cut out a four-minute interview with [Donna] Bassett, a demand that a NOVA producer yesterday said had been denied.” Donna Bassett, posing as an “abductee,” under regressive hypnosis by Mack on Nov. 19, 1992, described how she had been abducted during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and found herself with President John F. Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev aboard a flying saucer [SUN #28/July 1994]. She described how she had sat on Khrushchev’s lap, trying to reassure the crying Soviet leader that nuclear war would not occur. At this point in the hypnosis session Mack commented: “You know, a lot of people believe that this whole abduction business is some form of divine intervention. And what better way to do it than to pull Kennedy and Khrushchev.” Mack then asked Donna: “Was [Defense Secretary] McNamara there?”
Donna Bassett’s account of the hoax was revealed by Time magazine in its April 25, 1994, issue. Shortly afterward, when Mack (and SUN’s editor) appeared on Cable News Network’s “Crossfire” TV show, Mack indicated he was unsure whether Donna’s story of meeting Kennedy and Khrushchev aboard a flying saucer was true or not. In the segment which Mack tried to get NOVA to delete, he reveals that he remains ambivalent as to whether Donna’s abduction story is true. But in the interview with The Boston Herald, Mack dismisses Donna Bassett as a “wacko.”

The full article is
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/klass_files_volume_38/


BACK THEN, Ufology should have been taking a much much more critical------look at the abduction phenomenon. Granted, even though, as I myself with many anomalous experiences.
Sunday night with George Knapp, I listened to an appearance in the first hour, of one Steven Bassett, on CoastToCoastAM. Not only X-Conferences, but he FYI'd re. a NEW annual conference of his, all about 'abductees' and their abductions.
Stephen Bassett - Guests - Coast to Coast AM

One point that may be missed is that Donna claims that John Mack sent her a thick manilla folder size package BEFORE she came to her first appointment with him. Inside the package were descriptions of abduction scenarios and Mack's viewpoint on abduction. In other words, the patient was being primed ahead of time to be aware of the kind of alien abduction story that Mack was expecting to hear. If the patient wished Mack's support, this package covertly urged the patient to comply with its alien abduction motiff. Just like Jacobs attacking Emma Woods as being mentally unstable, it is telling that Mack immediately went on the attack and claimed Donna was "wacko" when in fact she was quite aware of what she was doing to expose him. Later, Mack insisted that he felt that Donna had indeed been abducted, but that she was just denying this information from herself. With this kind of circular logic, how can an abduction researcher lose?

 

[trainedobserver]

One point that may be missed is that Donna claims that John Mack sent her a thick manilla folder size package BEFORE she came to her first appointment with him. Inside the package were descriptions of abduction scenarios and Mack's viewpoint on abduction.

If true this certainly takes the wheels off of Mack's "findings." Of course this is sort of thing is impossible to confirm. Have any other folks who worked with Mack made such claims?

 

[IndigoEyes]

If true this certainly takes the wheels off of Mack's "findings." Of course this is sort of thing is impossible to confirm. Have any other folks who worked with Mack made such claims?

To my knowledge, no one has said this publically except Donna. She definitely was a skeptic going into this with Mack, and was able to fake an hypnosis trance and give him the most outlandish details (being on a space ship with Kennedy and Kruschef? Give me a break!!). But Mack bought it because this is NOT a scientific research effort, but a new form of faith and religion. Our ancient gods have disappointed us, but the all-powerful aliens will save our world and encourage us to evolve our consciousness to godlike levels (at least that was the Mack viewpoint as I recall it).

 

[The Pair of Cats]

One point that may be missed is that Donna claims that John Mack sent her a thick manilla folder size package BEFORE she came to her first appointment with him. Inside the package were descriptions of abduction scenarios and Mack's viewpoint on abduction. In other words, the patient was being primed ahead of time to be aware of the kind of alien abduction story that Mack was expecting to hear. If the patient wished Mack's support, this package covertly urged the patient to comply with its alien abduction motiff. Just like Jacobs attacking Emma Woods as being mentally unstable, it is telling that Mack immediately went on the attack and claimed Donna was "wacko" when in fact she was quite aware of what she was doing to expose him. Later, Mack insisted that he felt that Donna had indeed been abducted, but that she was just denying this information from herself. With this kind of circular logic, how can an abduction researcher lose?

Did she request this (or any material) from Mack or did he send it to her unsolicited?

 

[Simonemendez]

One point that may be missed is that Donna claims that John Mack sent her a thick manilla folder size package BEFORE she came to her first appointment with him. Inside the package were descriptions of abduction scenarios and Mack's viewpoint on abduction. In other words, the patient was being primed ahead of time to be aware of the kind of alien abduction story that Mack was expecting to hear. If the patient wished Mack's support, this package covertly urged the patient to comply with its alien abduction motiff. Just like Jacobs attacking Emma Woods as being mentally unstable, it is telling that Mack immediately went on the attack and claimed Donna was "wacko" when in fact she was quite aware of what she was doing to expose him. Later, Mack insisted that he felt that Donna had indeed been abducted, but that she was just denying this information from herself. With this kind of circular logic, how can an abduction researcher lose?

You have said ---exactly--- what I was thinking, after I read my completed thread. About the derogatory name-calling. What is even more telling about Mack, is that he, as: A highly educated trained PROFESSIONAL ---PSYCHIATRIST---!!! For Gods sakes; would resort to spewing "wacko!" At someone who is like (posing as) a patient. How come I'm minimally-educated, but know this? Well, so anyway, I am familiar with the DSM, the diagnostic manual 'Bible' for all mental health professionals, and the 'diagnosis' "wacko" is not in there. Perhaps a new 'condition' will be added in a future updated DSM, called, 'Ufological Personality Disorder'!

 

[tyder001]

I would have to say where is the "package?" Not saying it isn't there just saying was it ever shown as evidence. Also, as another poster asked: Was it requested or just sent out of the blue? I will say this. I don't know much about Dr. Mack although I read some of one of his books But I do remember a quote from a former co-worker. This scientist said Dr. Mack wasn't logical and was sloppy and just wasn't to be beleived. However, someone else brought up a statement the same guy had made b4 Doctor Mack "dared" to step out of the box. In that statement the same person said what a "genius" Doctor Mack was and how wonderful his methods were. Oh well, that's what happens when ya choose to play for a "team" instead of seek the truth. I think Dr. Mack did the best he could with what he had to work with. He certainly rose to the top of his field so he certainly had no reason to make things up just to ruin his own reputation. Still, who knows.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

Those making claims against these abduction researchers should be held to the same standards of evidence as the researchers they attack, no more and no less. Did Ms. Bassett ever produce the package of materials Dr. Mack supposedly sent to her, and was it examined by a neutral party? How much of her story was independently verified?

In extremely well written and logically constructed statements, Ms. Woods -- an impoverished abductee presumably with limited education (?) -- relentlessly attacked Dr. Jacobs on this very Forum, all the time hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. A core tenet of our legal system is that defendants are able to confront those making claims against them in an open court, where everyone's identities are known, and where everyone is subject to cross-examination. Ms. Woods was correctly banned from this Forum when it became clear she had one agenda and didn't appear interested in joining the Forum community.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

So nothing about Ms. Woods' profile, all cloaked in anonymity, struck you as being a little odd? Possible, yes, but likely? Do you feel comfortable that we were getting a true and complete picture of her? Has she contacted Gene to re-instate her posting privileges? I personally think Gene could be trusted to keep her identity a secret, if that is her concern.

n.b.: This is not to say that Dr. Jacobs did not make mistakes, which it appears that he did.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

So nothing about Ms. Woods' profile, all cloaked in anonymity, struck you as being a little odd? Possible, yes, but likely? Do you feel comfortable that we were getting a true and complete picture of her? Has she contacted Gene to re-instate her posting privileges? I personally think Gene could be trusted to keep her identity a secret, if that is her concern.

n.b.: This is not to say that Dr. Jacobs did not make mistakes, which it appears that he did.

I haven't heard from her, nor does that surprise me.

 

[brownie]

In extremely well written and logically constructed statements, Ms. Woods -- an impoverished abductee presumably with limited education (?) -- relentlessly attacked Dr. Jacobs on this very Forum, all the time hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. A core tenet of our legal system is that defendants are able to confront those making claims against them in an open court, where everyone's identities are known, and where everyone is subject to cross-examination. Ms. Woods was correctly banned from this Forum when it became clear she had one agenda and didn't appear interested in joining the Forum community.

Oh my! I remember you writing, in a now-locked thread, that you 'had no dog in this race', regarding the Jacobs/Woods subject, yet you droned on and on and on attacking her......and now on in this thread attacking her after she was banned.

And you are who - "Tom From Hong Kong"? You're "hiding behind the cloak of anonymity" and continuing to spew add hominems relentlessly. Emma cannot respond to your ad hominems (not sure if she would anyhow, considering the source here).

I think everyone who has criticized Emma and her "annonymity" should list their full name and address --that's only what you're asking of her. And since you've called her "impoverished" with a "limited education" - I'd also like to know your net worth and your highest educational degree.

Since you opened up this can of worms........let transparency begin with you Tom and then all the other Jacobs apologists.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

Oh my! I remember you writing, in a now-locked thread, that you 'had no dog in this race', regarding the Jacobs/Woods subject, yet you droned on and on and on attacking her......and now on in this thread attacking her after she was banned.

And you are who - "Tom From Hong Kong"? You're "hiding behind the cloak of anonymity" and continuing to spew add hominems relentlessly. Emma cannot respond to your ad hominems (not sure if she would anyhow, considering the source here).

I think everyone who has criticized Emma and her "annonymity" should list their full name and address --that's only what you're asking of her. And since you've called her "impoverished" with a "limited education" - I'd also like to know your net worth and your highest educational degree.

Since you opened up this can of worms........let transparency begin with you Tom and then all the other Jacobs apologists.

Brownie,

I have some swamp land down in Florida for sale. Are you in the market?

Tom


P.S.: As for my education, I have a bachelor of science and law degrees, and as for my net worth, I am a multi-millionaire. My comment on Ms. Woods' apparent status was based upon her own posts and her website, and was an effort to assess the credibility of someone who relentlessly attacked others without being willing to reveal her identity (even to Gene). My position remains the same: given the seriousness of the charges Ms. Woods should bring her case in an open court where rule of evidence and other procedures protect all parties involved. Note that at no time did I ever 'apologize' for Dr. Jacobs' apparent actions, which should be substantiated in a court of law.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Oh my! I remember you writing, in a now-locked thread, that you 'had no dog in this race', regarding the Jacobs/Woods subject, yet you droned on and on and on attacking her......and now on in this thread attacking her after she was banned.

And you are who - "Tom From Hong Kong"? You're "hiding behind the cloak of anonymity" and continuing to spew add hominems relentlessly. Emma cannot respond to your ad hominems (not sure if she would anyhow, considering the source here).

I think everyone who has criticized Emma and her "annonymity" should list their full name and address --that's only what you're asking of her. And since you've called her "impoverished" with a "limited education" - I'd also like to know your net worth and your highest educational degree.

Since you opened up this can of worms........let transparency begin with you Tom and then all the other Jacobs apologists.

I doubt whether there are many, if not any, "Jacobs apologists" here. I think at the most the majority of forum posters on this matters agree that Jacobs was ill advised to take on the case let alone his subsequent misguided methodology or treatment.

Tom is right.
A court of law is where this matter should now reside. "Emma" and all of her supporters should be concentrating all of your considerable efforts in arranging for this to happen not flogging it on these forums where it has now outrun its course.

Brownie.
If you believe that Dr Jacobs needs to be brought to task for his actions then maybe you should contact "Emma" and help organise some kind of legal defense for her instead of attacking those who are not interested in "Emmagate" and who are wanting to move on from the matter.

 

[ArchieBedford]

I think Dr. Mack did the best he could with what he had to work with. He certainly rose to the top of his field so he certainly had no reason to make things up just to ruin his own reputation. Still, who knows.

Which one of us has not been scammed, or even cheated out of US$10 by a hoaxer, at least once during our lives? Does that mean therefore that our entire character, our integrity in all matters is forever compromised and we should be publicly discredited? No.

Donna Bassett was dishonest, a scammer, a deceiver. Even the most suspicious and wary can be scammed, and John was a fundamentally well-intentioned and not an inherently suspicious individual. The honesty, integrity and generally good intentions so evident in John Mack are obvious for all to see in the sum of his life's work. Compare and contrast to your own publicly-acknowledged contribution to the furtherance of human knowledge to date, people (Let he who is without sin here cast the first stone, and all that...)

To err once in a career makes one human, that's all. John's legacy is a great one, and likely to remain so.

---------- Post added at 06:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 AM ----------

I haven't heard from her, nor does that surprise me.

Me neither. There are plenty of other internet forums where this individual can continue her obsessive campaign of slander and defamation against a single researcher under the cloak of anonymity (until she is banned), so she's unlikely to be back.

Prior to being banned, she made it obvious to us all that she had no interest in engaging with any issue on these forums which did not involve her taking center-stage as righteous "victim" to garner sympathy for imagined wrongs, and endlessly posting multiple links to the heavily edited material her own websiite. It became repetitive and boring for most of us, but that's all she seems to live for so we must hope she eventually grows out of it and gets on with life.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

A court of law is where this matter should now reside. "Emma" and all of her supporters should be concentrating all of your considerable efforts in arranging for this to happen not flogging it on these forums where it has now outrun its course.

A court of law is precisely where this complaint should have been brought from Day 1. However, I seriously doubt it will ever see a courtroom. This is unfortunate because, in certain respects, both Ms. Woods and Dr. Jacobs deserve their day in court. Dr. Jacobs' reputation has been impugned -- perhaps rightfully so -- but ultimately (and unfortunately) we may never know the full story because Ms. Woods' campaign has been waged anonymously on the internet. Not the ideal place to try a case if the truth is the ultimate goal.

When someone relentlessly complains about a public figure like Dr. Jacobs, it is reasonable to assess their credibility and to ask what their angle is. This is precisely my stance vis-a-vis Ms. Woods. If you read what I have written in the past, at no point did I "attack" her character. Indeed, I found her posts extremely articulate and logical -- which raises questions in and of itself. In fact, I don't think she is "bat shit insane"; exactly the opposite. Her arguments were every bit as well written and constructed as anything I (or most other Forum members) could have published for public consumption.

Ms. Woods claims to have received counseling for ten years for "general life issues", according to her anonymous therapist, all apparently at public expense due to her impoverished condition. At one point I recall seeing information to the effect that she did not have a higher education. This all very well may be true -- we won't know so long as she remains anonymous. But does this profile fully foot with the nature of her posts on this Forum and elsewhere?

Perhaps I am jousting with windmills, but you at least have to look at "Emma Woods" with a somewhat critical eye given what is in the public domain.


P.S.: some of these same questions could as readily be asked about Donna Bassett.

 

[Keiko]

I just reread the 2001Times article on John Mack which talks about the Donna Bassett issue http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,164273,00.html
It certainly raises many of the concerns and criticisms that are levelled at other abduction researchers who don't have licenses or qualifications in the mental health area. So it seems that no matter what qualifications a person has (and it's hard to top Mack's) no can be considered qualified for alien abduction research because it is just too new a concept for us and our scientific, left-brain dominant culture. Everyone is just groping in the dark, some more critically and intelligently than others.

There seem to be rumours that she had connections to the notorious Philip Klass (through her husband) and it was a set-up. This would not surprise me. Whether it was or not, you have to question someone's motives in a very public defamation of an individual. If you throw enough mud some has got to stick, that's just the way it is. There are of course legitimate issues people may have but if justice and truth are the main goal then that should guide their actions. The court, peer review, presenting your evidence to a legitimate body etc these were all options available to Bassett and others. At least that way if what they have to say had real merit it will be more powerful and have more consequence than nasty exposés, one-sided and unsubstantiated evidence or hidden agendas masked as genuine whistleblower testimony. No one looking for truth about this phenomena is served by such actions. The real beneficiaries are those that want to keep the subject ridiculed, discredited and existing only as a barely acceptable topic for (almost always bad) sci-fi flicks.

Also it's worth remembering that we all change over time. Someone who spent time working with Mack quite legitimately may a few years later feel very uncomfortable with that part of their lives. Maybe they have changed careers, found a new spouse or even found God. It happens apparently! But they can't or don't want to fit the whole 'alien thing' into their current worldview. So they look back at that time: some might decide that they were perhaps a bit mentally unstable or emotionally vulnerable at the time. Others may feel the need to find an excuse for that part of their lives and decide they were caught up in a cult, misled or abused by these researchers and therefore they are exonerated from any responsibility for their own decisions.

 

[brownie]

Brownie,

I have some swamp land down in Florida for sale. Are you in the market?

Tom


P.S.: As for my education, I have a bachelor of science and law degrees, and as for my net worth, I am a multi-millionaire. My comment on Ms. Woods' apparent status was based upon her own posts and her website, and was an effort to assess the credibility of someone who relentlessly attacked others without being willing to reveal her identity (even to Gene). My position remains the same: given the seriousness of the charges Ms. Woods should bring her case in an open court where rule of evidence and other procedures protect all parties involved. Note that at no time did I ever 'apologize' for Dr. Jacobs' apparent actions, which should be substantiated in a court of law.

No thankyou on that "swamp land" offer. Frankly, if you were the only Avon Lady in my neighborhood, I wouldn't buy from you, Tom.

You still haven't revealed about yourself, what you ask from Emma. But, I'm not surprised. However, I'm happy to read you're a "multi-millionaire". With all that dough you could be the next Robert Bigelow (NIDS, Skinwalker Ranch) and at the very least provide body guards for David Jacobs. Maybe the body guards could apprehend those pesky hybrids that Jacobs claims are after him!

---------- Post added at 02:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 AM ----------

I doubt whether there are many, if not any, "Jacobs apologists" here. I think at the most the majority of forum posters on this matters agree that Jacobs was ill advised to take on the case let alone his subsequent misguided methodology or treatment.

Tom is right.
A court of law is where this matter should now reside. "Emma" and all of her supporters should be concentrating all of your considerable efforts in arranging for this to happen not flogging it on these forums where it has now outrun its course.

Brownie.
If you believe that Dr Jacobs needs to be brought to task for his actions then maybe you should contact "Emma" and help organise some kind of legal defense for her instead of attacking those who are not interested in "Emmagate" and who are wanting to move on from the matter.

Phil, Do show examples where I am "attacking those who are not interested in "Emmagate" and who are wanting to move on from the matter." I commented to the latest batch of Emma attacks that were made after she was banned (oh such classy behavior from 'gentlemen' :).

And don't you worry yourself Phil, about what I should or should not do. Jacobs is going down. He's been exposed as an Experiencer in crisis. He's so afraid that he's thrown a client under the proverbial bus, in the vain attempt to protect himself from his imaginary hybrids. There are plenty of us who're getting the word out - on the internet- and elsewhere, about the fall of David Jacobs and his viscious apologists. 8)

 

[Gene Steinberg]

No thankyou on that "swamp land" offer. Frankly, if you were the only Avon Lady in my neighborhood, I wouldn't buy from you, Tom.

You still haven't revealed about yourself, what you ask from Emma. But, I'm not surprised. However, I'm happy to read you're a "multi-millionaire". With all that dough you could be the next Robert Bigelow (NIDS, Skinwalker Ranch) and at the very least provide body guards for David Jacobs. Maybe the body guards could apprehend those pesky hybrids that Jacobs claims are after him!

---------- Post added at 02:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 AM ----------

I doubt whether there are many, if not any, "Jacobs apologists" here. I think at the most the majority of forum posters on this matters agree that Jac

Phil, Do show examples where I am "attacking those who are not interested in "Emmagate" and who are wanting to move on from the matter." I commented to the latest batch of Emma attacks that were made after she was banned (oh such classy behavior from 'gentlemen' :).

And don't you worry yourself Phil, about what I should or should not do. Jacobs is going down. He's been exposed as an Experiencer in crisis. He's so afraid that he's thrown a client under the proverbial bus, in the vain attempt to protect himself from his imaginary hybrids. There are plenty of us who're getting the word out - on the internet- and elsewhere, about the fall of David Jacobs and his viscious apologists. 8)

Factual errors. Emma is not banned. Her posting privileges are being withheld until she clarifies who she is, even if she does it privately.

And she has not complained, nor do I see many apologizing for Dr. Jabob's behavior. Can we get off this fantasy kick?

 

[brownie]

There seem to be rumours that she had connections to the notorious Philip Klass (through her husband) and it was a set-up. This would not surprise me.

If Bassett was affiliated with Klass, it would support most peoples suspicions that she was a debunker and not a misguided experiencer who was "wacko" as Dr. Mack unfortunately characterized her as. Mack could have expressed his anger but he didn't have to 'go there'. She wasn't "wacko", she just busted him with a very silly lie (sitting on Castro's lap et al). If Mack were more experienced (at the time) he should have culled her out of his group of subjects early on, with that tale.

Klass was so against anything to do with ufos that even the FBI grew tired of him and didn't use him anymore. He wanted ufo-ethusiasts investigated for anti-American activities. It makes one wonder what was wrong with Klass to begin with, to have such a pathological hatred of a group of people. I suspect there was something about ufos that on a very deep level, troubled Klass to the core of his being.

---------- Post added at 02:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 AM ----------

Factual errors. Emma is not banned. Her posting privileges are being withheld until she clarifies who she is, even if she does it privately.

And she has not complained, nor do I see many apologizing for Dr. Jabob's behavior. Can we get off this fantasy kick?

Posts No. 9 and No. 15 state she was banned. The "Factual errors" are not mine.

And why does Emma have to clarify who she is to you, considering what you, Schuler, O'Brien and some posters have written (and stated orally on your podcast) about her? What would you do with that information? And, why don't you require all of us to list our full names, addresses and other personal information?