Re: Chemtrail Press Release – Update – including the “PRWeb Mystery”

From: David Griffin

Date: 2007-07-15 22:06:49

WowWhat an exchange with PR Web.The term illegal is fine – they are not contrails and are therefore something else. That something else has not been through and forms of statute to my knowledge. I am pasting my CAA response in next post. davIDExopolitics UK On 7/15/07, Andrew Johnson wrote: Earlier today, I sent round a message which included my response to Professor Mike Lockwood of Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. As part of this, I included responses I had had to my 2nd Press Release regarding Chemtrails.   There was a little bit of story to this 2nd release in itself. I initially submitted it to PRWeb, though suspected they might “bounce” it because it was quite long. I also submitted it to PRLeap and had to shorten it quite a bit to fit into their recommended word limit.   I wasn’t surprised when PRWeb put it on hold saying it was too long. Curiously, they also included this comment: “Your press release appears to be intended to exact personal revenge or harm a person or group.”. I ignored this comment, but shortened the release – by this time, I had received word that PRLeap had approved and posted the shroter version I’d done and I posted identical copy to PRWeb.   They still refused to approve it and seemed to then “disect” it. Initially, they asked me: “Please do not list specific names of organizations/companies.” then later they said “Clear evidence, according to whom? If this is your opinion, say so.”   You can read the full exchange (bottom up) below. But I shan’t be using PRWeb for press releases again – because they weren’t willing to approve a discussion of basic evidence (linked to the release) and said I was “merely stating my opinion”. This sort of argument is very weak when one considers they probably handle releases for new products or services, which for the sake of commercial advantage probably include much which is “opinion” etc.   In any case, they aren’t (or shouldn’t be) liable for comments made by 3rd parties (i.e. me), so why were they so “worried”?         Hello,Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, you are still operating under double standards – particularly the points raised by —- e.g. “Clear evidence, according to whom? If this is your opinion, say so.”The evidence is included in the listed responses, which are linked to the press release – as is the original report, original press release and organisations are named.The science is discussed in the report. Large scale spraying is real (linked photo and video evidence in the report). Large scale spraying is illegal.CAA and Dept of Transport (UK) have still not said whether they can supply flight data for 4th Feb 2007, let alone supply that actual data.So, I will be using other release agencies or methods if you think that I am just “making this up” and don’t have time to check the evidence presented which is affecting the very air you breath (simply watch the skies if you live in a populated area).You may be interested to learn that since a version of my press release was posted on Jeff Rense, about 10 or 12 people have contacted me sending me yet more support, information and photos and expressing their deep concern over this issue.RegardsAndrew Johnson Delete Post Date: 07-14-2007 7:31am PDT Subject: No subject Posted by —-(Staff) Dear Andrew,Upon review of these two releases, they are actually quite different. The previous release is about your report, what the report states, first-person account of others who have seen this phenomena and a list of the organizations who received the report. Nothing in that release is written with the potential intent to harm any person or group.However, this latest release states that these organizations are denying evidence of illegal action. As previously stated by the other editors who have reviewed this release, there is far too much opinion in your press releases that is unattributed. In addition, stating that these organizations have denied pure science is your opinion. These types of statements need to be attributed in order for PRWeb to distribute this release in accordance with our standards.Because we do not fact-check releases, we must require that all claims of fact or opinion are attributed to an individual, organization or group. We do not wish to limit your reach in any way–PRWeb has certain editorial standards that must be met.I’m sorry for this inconvenience to you, but we cannot distribute the release as is. We will certainly issue you a prompt refund if you are not happy with this decision or do not wish to make changes. Please let us know what you would like to do and we’d be happy to take whatever action is needed. Thank you. Very best,Nicole AlbrightAssistant Managing EditorPRWeb24-hour Editorial Assistance at 866-640-6397http://www.prweb.com Date: 07-10-2007 10:28am PDT Subject: No subject> Posted by Andrew Johnson Hello,I am on a slow dial up link:Your points are not acceptable. The release (longer or identical) has been posted by PRLeap and Pressbox.You didn’t reject my 1st release, to which many of the same things could be said.Can you think of a legal project for spraying the atmosphere with undisclosed material?You can easily find out how many hundreds or thousands of people are concerned about this issue – I’ve had 2 or 3 e-mails just today from the other press releasesAll the data I refer to is linked from the press release.I therefore urge you to let the reader make up their own minds. My original report and the responses are all linked.So, either apply consistent editorial commentary, or I won’t be using PRWeb again and will request a refund.Sorry, but a simple read through the 1st press release will show you the problems you present me with.Thanks Delete Post Date: 07-9-2007 1:53pm PDT Subject: Editorial Hold Posted by —- (Staff) Hello, Andrew-Thank you for your words. They have been noted. Please keep in mind that we do not want to be the gatekeepers for this release, and that we do understand you want to get your message out. We are not here to be fact-checkers. Rather, we want to make sure your release is packaged in a way that conforms to our editorial standards, which may be different from the other agency you mentioned. However, to meet our standards, certain things need to happen. Your release has a good deal of opinion involved. 1) “Four responses were received and all of them have denied the basic science presented in the report, which was backed up by the clear evidence.” Clear evidence, according to whom? If this is your opinion, say so.2) “An independent lay researcher, with a background in Software Engineering, from Derbyshire, UK, has continued to try and draw attention to the report he compiled which documents ongoing illegal aerosol spraying activities which could be affecting our climate, our health or both.”Who says there is illegal activity occurring? If there is something illegal going on, there needs to be sufficient legal documentation showing as much (such as a court case No.) This is where naming names becomes tricky.3) “Johnson also received a response from The Department of Transport, which referenced one specific section of my report, so it seemed they had actually read it.”How do you know this was there motivation? Statements like this are opinion.4) “It is therefore clear that a wide range of people are aware that the spraying is going on, and basic science proves it is really happening. The question has to be asked, then, how do we proceed and obtain answers to has authorised this spraying and what is its purpose?”Again, how is it clear that a wide range of people are aware that spraying is going on? You have anecdotal evidence cited (personal accounts), but have listed nothing further.You’ll need to re-package these statements slightly, and then we can go from there.Thanks. If you have further questions or concerns, please contact us at 866-640-6397 (Or UK local: 44 0871 720 6397).Dan HiestandEditor, PRWebWe offer instant support through your news management console and frequent online Webinars for member support. Enroll in a Webinar at prweb.webex.com/prwe… Date: 07-8-2007 12:47pm PDT Subject: UK Agencies Deny Evidence of Widespread Illegal Aerosol Operations [537826]> Posted by Andrew Johnson Hi,I am sorry, but I cannot agree with your editorial comments:=====================* Hello: Please do not list specific names of organizations/companies. For example, the following will need to be edited: “Copies of the report were sent to UK Greenpeace, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), The Royal Air Force, DEFRA and, sometime after, to the UK World-Wide Fund for Nature, challenging them to investigate the data themselves. Four responses were received and all of them have denied the basic science presented in the report, which was backed up by the clear evidence.”================I did a previous press release naming these agencies and see no reason not to list them as this is a truthful and honest account, not vengeful. Evidence is provided to backup statements made.Additionally, another PR company has approved the release, even before the last set of edits.I therefore request the release is approved and posted ASAP.Thank you.Andrew Johnson   Dear ANDREW,Thank you for trusting your press release distribution to PRWeb. This e-mail is to inform you that your press release has been put on editorial hold and requires your attention. IMPORTANT: Please review the following information regarding the status of your press release. Our editorial team has reviewed the press release that you submitted entitled: UK Agencies Deny Evidence of Widespread Illegal Aerosol Operations [537826] Our editors have determined that a few changes need to be made to your press release in order to effectively distribute it on PRWeb. Your press release has been placed on editorial hold status in order to allow you the opportunity to make the required reviews and edits to your press release. Please review the following editorial explanation describing why your press release was put on editorial hold: Your press release appears to be intended to exact personal revenge or harm a person or group. Please revise your release to remove potentially harmful material. Visit PRWeb’s Public Relations Blog at blog.prweb.com/2006/… for some writing tips regarding controversial or sensitive matters.The reviewing editor has also made these additional comments: Hello: Please do not list specific names of organizations/companies. For example, the following will need to be edited: “Copies of the report were sent to UK Greenpeace, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), The Royal Air Force, DEFRA and, sometime after, to the UK World-Wide Fund for Nature, challenging them to investigate the data themselves. Four responses were received and all of them have denied the basic science presented in the report, which was backed up by the clear evidence.”