Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: UFOs EXIST article, with a few skeptoid rebuttals, and then more rebuttals...

Expand Messages
  • thevirtualgreek
    ... The simple fact of the matter is, UFOs (and whatever may be INSIDE them) are a real, verified and massively documented phenomena ... So we have
    Message 1 of 16 , Aug 17, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
      <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
      > Fun reading,
      >
      > http://www.rense.com/general/believe.htm

      "The simple fact of the matter is, UFOs (and whatever may be INSIDE
      them) are a real, verified and massively documented phenomena ..."

      So we have documented unidentified flying objects. Can you
      say "oxymoron"?

      ~~ Paul
    • Ruby Honey
      ... No we can t. UFOs exist. What s oxymoronic about that? ~ r
      Message 2 of 16 , Aug 17, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, thevirtualgreek <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
        > <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
        > > Fun reading,
        > >
        > > http://www.rense.com/general/believe.htm
        >
        > "The simple fact of the matter is, UFOs (and whatever may be INSIDE
        > them) are a real, verified and massively documented phenomena ..."
        >
        > So we have documented unidentified flying objects. Can you
        > say "oxymoron"?
        >
        > ~~ Paul

        >Can you say "oxymoron"?

        No we can't.

        UFOs exist. What's oxymoronic about that?

        ~ r
      • thevirtualgreek
        ... INSIDE ... They exist, but I wouldn t say they are well documented. If they were well documented, we d know what they are. But we don t. Which is why we
        Message 3 of 16 , Aug 17, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
          <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
          > --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, thevirtualgreek
          <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > > --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
          > > <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
          > > > Fun reading,
          > > >
          > > > http://www.rense.com/general/believe.htm
          > >
          > > "The simple fact of the matter is, UFOs (and whatever may be
          INSIDE
          > > them) are a real, verified and massively documented phenomena ..."
          > >
          > > So we have documented unidentified flying objects. Can you
          > > say "oxymoron"?
          > >
          > > ~~ Paul
          >
          > >Can you say "oxymoron"?
          >
          > No we can't.
          >
          > UFOs exist. What's oxymoronic about that?

          They exist, but I wouldn't say they are well documented. If they were
          well documented, we'd know what they are. But we don't. Which is why
          we call them unidentified. So I'd say poorly documented.

          ~~ Paul
        • Ruby Honey
          ... the way your mind works; it s highly intriguing. UFOS means unidentified not that they don t exist. And really, surely you joke, you cannot honestly
          Message 4 of 16 , Aug 18, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, thevirtualgreek <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            > --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
            > <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
            > > --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, thevirtualgreek
            > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            > > > --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
            > > > <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
            > > > > Fun reading,
            > > > >
            > > > > http://www.rense.com/general/believe.htm
            > > >
            > > > "The simple fact of the matter is, UFOs (and whatever may be
            > INSIDE
            > > > them) are a real, verified and massively documented phenomena ..."
            > > >
            > > > So we have documented unidentified flying objects. Can you
            > > > say "oxymoron"?
            > > >
            > > > ~~ Paul
            > >
            > > >Can you say "oxymoron"?
            > >
            > > No we can't.
            > >
            > > UFOs exist. What's oxymoronic about that?
            >
            > They exist, but I wouldn't say they are well documented. If they were
            > well documented, we'd know what they are. But we don't. Which is why
            > we call them unidentified. So I'd say poorly documented.
            >
            > ~~ Paul

            the way your mind works; it's highly intriguing.

            UFOS means "unidentified" not that they don't exist.

            And really, surely you joke, you cannot honestly believe UFOs are poorly documented. If you do believe that, you're wrong.

            Once again, the debunker merrily debunks, whilst knowing not wtf he's talking about.

            ~ r
          • thevirtualgreek
            ... were ... why ... Who said they don t exist? Read what I said. ... poorly documented. If you do believe that, you re wrong. I would think that one of the
            Message 5 of 16 , Aug 18, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
              <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
              >> > They exist, but I wouldn't say they are well documented. If they
              were
              > > well documented, we'd know what they are. But we don't. Which is
              why
              > > we call them unidentified. So I'd say poorly documented.
              > >
              > > ~~ Paul
              >
              > the way your mind works; it's highly intriguing.
              >
              > UFOS means "unidentified" not that they don't exist.

              Who said they don't exist? Read what I said.

              > And really, surely you joke, you cannot honestly believe UFOs are
              poorly documented. If you do believe that, you're wrong.

              I would think that one of the first things that "well documented"
              implies is that we know what something is. I wouldn't use "well
              documented" to refer to something that is unknown. I'd
              use "frequently noticed" or some such.

              > Once again, the debunker merrily debunks, whilst knowing not wtf
              he's talking about.

              We're talking about the meaning of "well documented." Why I even
              bothered to mention it I cannot imagine.

              ~~ Paul
            • Ruby Honey
              ... Me either, lol. ~ r
              Message 6 of 16 , Aug 18, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, thevirtualgreek <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                > --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
                > <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
                > >> > They exist, but I wouldn't say they are well documented. If they
                > were
                > > > well documented, we'd know what they are. But we don't. Which is
                > why
                > > > we call them unidentified. So I'd say poorly documented.
                > > >
                > > > ~~ Paul
                > >
                > > the way your mind works; it's highly intriguing.
                > >
                > > UFOS means "unidentified" not that they don't exist.
                >
                > Who said they don't exist? Read what I said.
                >
                > > And really, surely you joke, you cannot honestly believe UFOs are
                > poorly documented. If you do believe that, you're wrong.
                >
                > I would think that one of the first things that "well documented"
                > implies is that we know what something is. I wouldn't use "well
                > documented" to refer to something that is unknown. I'd
                > use "frequently noticed" or some such.
                >
                > > Once again, the debunker merrily debunks, whilst knowing not wtf
                > he's talking about.
                >
                > We're talking about the meaning of "well documented." Why I even
                > bothered to mention it I cannot imagine.
                >
                > ~~ Paul

                >Why I even
                > bothered to mention it I cannot imagine.

                Me either, lol.

                ~ r
              • Ruby Honey
                ... okay, seriously though. You re right, I assumed you meant they didn t exist not that you said that, but that s what you implied. What I meant to say was,
                Message 7 of 16 , Aug 18, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, thevirtualgreek <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                  > --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
                  > <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
                  > >> > They exist, but I wouldn't say they are well documented. If they
                  > were
                  > > > well documented, we'd know what they are. But we don't. Which is
                  > why
                  > > > we call them unidentified. So I'd say poorly documented.
                  > > >
                  > > > ~~ Paul
                  > >
                  > > the way your mind works; it's highly intriguing.
                  > >
                  > > UFOS means "unidentified" not that they don't exist.
                  >
                  > Who said they don't exist? Read what I said.

                  okay, seriously though. You're right, I assumed you meant they didn't exist not that you said that, but that's what you implied. What I
                  meant to say was, they ARE identified in the sense they're UFOs; they're still UFOs. The fact that they're not OTHERWISE identified
                  doesn't negate their existence. We don't know what they are -- other than UFOs -- still, it's an "unknown something." I like that.
                  Paradox, sure. But not impossible or contradictory.
                  >
                  > > And really, surely you joke, you cannot honestly believe UFOs are
                  > poorly documented. If you do believe that, you're wrong.
                  >
                  > I would think that one of the first things that "well documented"
                  > implies is that we know what something is.

                  Ah, this gets back to my point above, and what I was getting at with the comment about not existing. UFOs are most absolutely and
                  certainly well documentated -- that's the whole point of this thread and the article I posted -- and I don't understand how documenting
                  something means we know what it is. It does not imply that we'd know that, as you think.

                  I wouldn't use "well
                  > documented" to refer to something that is unknown. I'd
                  > use "frequently noticed" or some such.

                  Why not? You're splitting hares (or is it hairs?) and not for any reason that I can see.
                  >
                  > > Once again, the debunker merrily debunks, whilst knowing not wtf
                  > he's talking about.
                  >
                  > We're talking about the meaning of "well documented." Why I even
                  > bothered to mention it I cannot imagine.

                  Like I said, either can I.

                  ~r
                • thevirtualgreek
                  ... didn t exist not that you said that, but that s what you implied. What I ... they re still UFOs. The fact that they re not OTHERWISE identified ... other
                  Message 8 of 16 , Aug 18, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
                    <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
                    >> okay, seriously though. You're right, I assumed you meant they
                    didn't exist not that you said that, but that's what you implied.
                    What I
                    > meant to say was, they ARE identified in the sense they're UFOs;
                    they're still UFOs. The fact that they're not OTHERWISE identified
                    > doesn't negate their existence. We don't know what they are --
                    other than UFOs -- still, it's an "unknown something." I like that.
                    > Paradox, sure. But not impossible or contradictory.

                    I agree with what you say. I just wouldn't say "well documented."

                    > > > And really, surely you joke, you cannot honestly believe UFOs
                    are
                    > > poorly documented. If you do believe that, you're wrong.

                    The existence of the phenomenon is well documented. The individual
                    cases are not.

                    > I wouldn't use "well
                    > > documented" to refer to something that is unknown. I'd
                    > > use "frequently noticed" or some such.
                    >
                    > Why not? You're splitting hares (or is it hairs?) and not for any
                    reason that I can see.

                    Yeah, just splitting hairs I suppose. It's just that I can hear all
                    the UFO afficionados running around yelling "But it's well
                    documented," as if that means we know what they are.

                    ~~ Paul
                  • Ruby Honey
                    ... ROF, and that, ladies and germs, (ba da dum!) is an excellent example of repeat circular theater. Thank yew, thank yew veeerrryyy much. ~ r
                    Message 9 of 16 , Aug 18, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > Yeah, just splitting hairs I suppose. It's just that I can hear all
                      > the UFO afficionados running around yelling "But it's well
                      > documented," as if that means we know what they are.


                      ROF, and that, ladies and germs, (ba da dum!) is an excellent example of repeat circular theater.
                      Thank yew, thank yew veeerrryyy much.

                      ~ r

                      --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, thevirtualgreek <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                      > --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
                      > <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
                      > >> okay, seriously though. You're right, I assumed you meant they
                      > didn't exist not that you said that, but that's what you implied.
                      > What I
                      > > meant to say was, they ARE identified in the sense they're UFOs;
                      > they're still UFOs. The fact that they're not OTHERWISE identified
                      > > doesn't negate their existence. We don't know what they are --
                      > other than UFOs -- still, it's an "unknown something." I like that.
                      > > Paradox, sure. But not impossible or contradictory.
                      >
                      > I agree with what you say. I just wouldn't say "well documented."
                      >
                      > > > > And really, surely you joke, you cannot honestly believe UFOs
                      > are
                      > > > poorly documented. If you do believe that, you're wrong.
                      >
                      > The existence of the phenomenon is well documented. The individual
                      > cases are not.
                      >
                      > > I wouldn't use "well
                      > > > documented" to refer to something that is unknown. I'd
                      > > > use "frequently noticed" or some such.
                      > >
                      > > Why not? You're splitting hares (or is it hairs?) and not for any
                      > reason that I can see.
                      >
                      > Yeah, just splitting hairs I suppose. It's just that I can hear all
                      > the UFO afficionados running around yelling "But it's well
                      > documented," as if that means we know what they are.
                      >
                      > ~~ Paul
                    • kate brinks
                      the way your mind works; it s highly intriguing. ... are poorly documented. If you do believe that, you re wrong. ... wtf he s talking about. ... I think that
                      Message 10 of 16 , Aug 18, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        "the way your mind works; it's highly intriguing.
                        >
                        > UFOS means "unidentified" not that they don't exist.
                        >
                        > And really, surely you joke, you cannot honestly believe UFOs
                        are poorly documented. If you do believe that, you're wrong.
                        >
                        > Once again, the debunker merrily debunks, whilst knowing not
                        wtf he's talking about.
                        >
                        > ~ r"

                        I think that maybe Paul's point is that if they are so documented,
                        then why are they still unidentified?

                        Kate
                      • thevirtualgreek
                        ... Hey Kate! Glad to see you here. Indeed, the good documentation consists of stories and grainy photos. As they say, the plural of datum is not evidence.
                        Message 11 of 16 , Aug 19, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "kate brinks"
                          <sweetkb713@y...> wrote:
                          > "the way your mind works; it's highly intriguing.
                          > >
                          > > UFOS means "unidentified" not that they don't exist.
                          > >
                          > > And really, surely you joke, you cannot honestly believe UFOs
                          > are poorly documented. If you do believe that, you're wrong.
                          > >
                          > > Once again, the debunker merrily debunks, whilst knowing not
                          > wtf he's talking about.
                          > >
                          > > ~ r"
                          >
                          > I think that maybe Paul's point is that if they are so documented,
                          > then why are they still unidentified?

                          Hey Kate! Glad to see you here.

                          Indeed, the "good documentation" consists of stories and grainy
                          photos. As they say, the plural of datum is not evidence.
                          Nonetheless, it is "well documented" that there is a huge pile of
                          these stories and photos.

                          It's as if you look at a farmer's field from far off and say "Well, I
                          don't know what he's growing, but it is well documented that there
                          are many stalks of something over there."

                          ~~ Paul
                        • Ruby Honey
                          This will quickly turn into a thread concerning semantics and definitions,as they so often do, but I ll give it one more try and put it another way. The UFO
                          Message 12 of 16 , Aug 19, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            This will quickly turn into a thread concerning semantics and definitions,as they so often do, but I'll give it one more try and put it
                            another way.

                            The UFO phenemena is well documented. No, we don't know what they are. That doesn't mean the phenomea isn't well documented.

                            If you want to insist in the fallacy that "the "good documentation" consists of stories and grainy
                            photos" I suppose that's your right but it is untrue and based on ignornace of the subject.

                            "As they say, the plural of datum is not evidence."

                            As I said, this is degenerating into definitions and semantics. Evidence of what? The UFO phenomena? Or what they are? Two
                            different things, in a way. And again, if you want to continue to believe in the nonsense no good evidence exists for UFOs, go on
                            ahead, but you're wrong. You're still living in the outdated Klass School of There Ain't No Such Thing. Hell, even a lot of hard nosed
                            skeptoids acknowledge the plethora of evidence and documentation that UFOs exist. It's the interpreation of that data that's
                            debatable.

                            > Nonetheless, it is "well documented" that there is a huge pile of
                            > these stories and photos.

                            Yes, as you put it a bit simplistically, there certainly is.


                            > It's as if you look at a farmer's field from far off and say "Well, I
                            > don't know what he's growing, but it is well documented that there
                            > are many stalks of something over there."

                            Your point is...????

                            Field, sees something growing, that's fact. Don't know what he's growing. Does that mean it isn't valid or worth looking into? Or
                            somehow negates the whole observation of said field? (I'm not saying you are but I'm trying to figure out what your point is in all this.
                            Aside from the wrong headed notion you have that it's all "grainy" and poor documentation.)

                            What if you got closer and stood in the middle of the field? You're surrounded by the wierdest looking stalks you've seen. They're
                            there, all right. You have no idea what they are, but you can't deny that they're there. So do you go away and ignore it because you
                            don't know what they are? Or what?



                            ~r


                            --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, thevirtualgreek <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                            > --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "kate brinks"
                            > <sweetkb713@y...> wrote:
                            > > "the way your mind works; it's highly intriguing.
                            > > >
                            > > > UFOS means "unidentified" not that they don't exist.
                            > > >
                            > > > And really, surely you joke, you cannot honestly believe UFOs
                            > > are poorly documented. If you do believe that, you're wrong.
                            > > >
                            > > > Once again, the debunker merrily debunks, whilst knowing not
                            > > wtf he's talking about.
                            > > >
                            > > > ~ r"
                            > >
                            > > I think that maybe Paul's point is that if they are so documented,
                            > > then why are they still unidentified?
                            >
                            > Hey Kate! Glad to see you here.
                            >
                            > Indeed, the "good documentation" consists of stories and grainy
                            > photos. As they say, the plural of datum is not evidence.
                            > Nonetheless, it is "well documented" that there is a huge pile of
                            > these stories and photos.
                            >
                            > It's as if you look at a farmer's field from far off and say "Well, I
                            > don't know what he's growing, but it is well documented that there
                            > are many stalks of something over there."
                            >
                            > ~~ Paul
                          • thevirtualgreek
                            ... are. That doesn t mean the phenomea isn t well documented. For some definition of well documented. ... documentation consists of stories and grainy ...
                            Message 13 of 16 , Aug 19, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
                              <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
                              > The UFO phenemena is well documented. No, we don't know what they
                              are. That doesn't mean the phenomea isn't well documented.

                              For some definition of "well documented."

                              > If you want to insist in the fallacy that "the "good
                              documentation" consists of stories and grainy
                              > photos" I suppose that's your right but it is untrue and based on
                              ignornace of the subject.

                              What else is there? Good, clear photos? Bodies? Chunks of craft?
                              Extracted implants?

                              > "As they say, the plural of datum is not evidence."
                              >
                              > As I said, this is degenerating into definitions and semantics.
                              Evidence of what? The UFO phenomena? Or what they are? Two
                              > different things, in a way. And again, if you want to continue to
                              believe in the nonsense no good evidence exists for UFOs, go on
                              > ahead, but you're wrong. You're still living in the outdated Klass
                              School of There Ain't No Such Thing. Hell, even a lot of hard nosed
                              > skeptoids acknowledge the plethora of evidence and documentation
                              that UFOs exist. It's the interpreation of that data that's
                              > debatable.

                              They do? What evidence? What documents?

                              > > Nonetheless, it is "well documented" that there is a huge pile of
                              > > these stories and photos.
                              >
                              > Yes, as you put it a bit simplistically, there certainly is.

                              It is also well documented that there is a huge pile of fiction books
                              in my local Barnes & Noble.

                              > > It's as if you look at a farmer's field from far off and
                              say "Well, I
                              > > don't know what he's growing, but it is well documented that
                              there
                              > > are many stalks of something over there."
                              >
                              > Your point is...????

                              The farmer's field is not "well documented."

                              > What if you got closer and stood in the middle of the field? You're
                              surrounded by the wierdest looking stalks you've seen. They're
                              > there, all right. You have no idea what they are, but you can't
                              deny that they're there. So do you go away and ignore it because you
                              > don't know what they are? Or what?

                              No, I take a whole bunch of IN-FOCUS photos of them. I pick a few and
                              store them in plastic bags. I bring some friends to look at the
                              field. Now it's becoming well documented.

                              ~~ Paul
                            • Ruby Honey
                              Talk about weird plants in someone s field! http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_811686.html?menu=news.quirkies Is it possible it s Kuzo, or Kudzo, does anyone
                              Message 14 of 16 , Aug 21, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Talk about weird plants in someone's field!
                                http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_811686.html?menu=news.quirkies

                                Is it possible it's Kuzo, or Kudzo, does anyone know what I mean? The plant that grows crazy like in the south in the U.S.?

                                ~ ruby


                                --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, thevirtualgreek <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                > --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
                                > <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
                                > > The UFO phenemena is well documented. No, we don't know what they
                                > are. That doesn't mean the phenomea isn't well documented.
                                >
                                > For some definition of "well documented."
                                >
                                > > If you want to insist in the fallacy that "the "good
                                > documentation" consists of stories and grainy
                                > > photos" I suppose that's your right but it is untrue and based on
                                > ignornace of the subject.
                                >
                                > What else is there? Good, clear photos? Bodies? Chunks of craft?
                                > Extracted implants?
                                >
                                > > "As they say, the plural of datum is not evidence."
                                > >
                                > > As I said, this is degenerating into definitions and semantics.
                                > Evidence of what? The UFO phenomena? Or what they are? Two
                                > > different things, in a way. And again, if you want to continue to
                                > believe in the nonsense no good evidence exists for UFOs, go on
                                > > ahead, but you're wrong. You're still living in the outdated Klass
                                > School of There Ain't No Such Thing. Hell, even a lot of hard nosed
                                > > skeptoids acknowledge the plethora of evidence and documentation
                                > that UFOs exist. It's the interpreation of that data that's
                                > > debatable.
                                >
                                > They do? What evidence? What documents?
                                >
                                > > > Nonetheless, it is "well documented" that there is a huge pile of
                                > > > these stories and photos.
                                > >
                                > > Yes, as you put it a bit simplistically, there certainly is.
                                >
                                > It is also well documented that there is a huge pile of fiction books
                                > in my local Barnes & Noble.
                                >
                                > > > It's as if you look at a farmer's field from far off and
                                > say "Well, I
                                > > > don't know what he's growing, but it is well documented that
                                > there
                                > > > are many stalks of something over there."
                                > >
                                > > Your point is...????
                                >
                                > The farmer's field is not "well documented."
                                >
                                > > What if you got closer and stood in the middle of the field? You're
                                > surrounded by the wierdest looking stalks you've seen. They're
                                > > there, all right. You have no idea what they are, but you can't
                                > deny that they're there. So do you go away and ignore it because you
                                > > don't know what they are? Or what?
                                >
                                > No, I take a whole bunch of IN-FOCUS photos of them. I pick a few and
                                > store them in plastic bags. I bring some friends to look at the
                                > field. Now it's becoming well documented.
                                >
                                > ~~ Paul
                              • thevirtualgreek
                                ... The plant that grows crazy like in the south in the U.S.? It looks a bit like Kudzu to me. My brother-in-law lives next to a Kudzu pit in Smyrna, Georgia.
                                Message 15 of 16 , Aug 22, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "Ruby Honey"
                                  <rubyhoney97402@y...> wrote:
                                  > Talk about weird plants in someone's field!
                                  > http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_811686.html?menu=news.quirkies
                                  >
                                  > Is it possible it's Kuzo, or Kudzo, does anyone know what I mean?
                                  The plant that grows crazy like in the south in the U.S.?

                                  It looks a bit like Kudzu to me. My brother-in-law lives next to a
                                  Kudzu pit in Smyrna, Georgia. The stuff grows incredibly fast.

                                  But, as usual, the article fails to tell us where the woman lives.

                                  ~~ Paul
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.