Peace to the Sky
Sky to the Earth
Earth beneath the Sky
Strength in Everyone.
~ from Morrigu’s Prophecy

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

A Discussion on Active Exopolitical Mediation & Extreme Participant Negotiation Styles

A Discussion on Active Exopolitical Mediation & Extreme Participant Negotiation Styles
By Cyrellys Geibhendach
Copy & Distribute Freely
My Website: Compass Morainn

In this article I will discuss an aspect of the active exopolitical mediation in which the mediator’s emersion in toxic mediation environments characterizes some of the difficulty in this branch of mediation. The active exopolitical mediator will experience toxic mediation environments in this field. That is a fact. These environments are the result of extreme participant negotiation styles. When I use the term negotiation, I use it in such a broad sense to include the various displayed communication styles and the needs which propel their use. In both traditional and exopolitical mediation, these styles are known as forms of negotiating which are used by the participants to communicate their particular needs and goals.
Just as there are individualistic personality types so too are there differences in participant negotiation (communication) styles. There is a variety of materials available on mediation approaches for working with extreme ‘negotiating styles’ in the traditional field of mediation. It is helpful for the exopolitical mediator to familiarize himself with them. Understanding styles in negotiation which participants use, gives the mediator an understanding of the levels of extent to which participants may resort in managing their needs and objectives at the mediation table.
Stephen Marsh of ADR Resources has provided an outline of Negotiation Styles in Mediation [1]. This outline describes the five methods of negotiation that participants bring to the table as:

1. Attack or fight. This type of negotiator is often called an aggressive

2. Appease or attempt to convert. This type of negotiator is often
called a cooperative negotiator.

3. Flee or attempt to evade the problem.
This kind of negotiator is often called a distractor.

4. Displace or analyze the problem. When a man is told not to come in
to the office today because it has burned down and responds by analyzing the
changes in traffic patterns the fire trucks will have made, he is engaging in
displacement. This kind of negotiator is often called an analyst.

5. Truth seeking. This kind of negotiator is often called an idealist.

He goes into a brief description of the basic understanding of each style which is helpful for use as a reference or introduction tool. Each style is designed to achieve different goals. Mr. Marsh says, “Often, the various styles need a mediator to buffer the interactions and turn a toxic negotiating atmosphere into a successful mediation. “ [1]. An effective mediator is a flexible and aware individual who assesses every situation and keeps at his disposal a variety of methods to achieve their intended results. Exopolitical Mediation is notorious for containing toxic communications and atmospheres. The effective exopolitical mediator has to be prepared to be a more stable and facilitative individual than the other participants often are capable of being.
In the example of an active Mediator working below, you may note that the Exopolitical Mediator, Ed Komarek uses a basic publicly understood fact to describe an element of toxicity inherent in one group involved in the Contact Paradigm to another group involved. He says the group referred to “is usually anything but civil. I need to explain to the Pickering brothers that while uncivil with all the petty bickering, joking, insults and squabbling this bickering and squabbling is more a form of entertainment than anything else.” [2]
This is an example of what Mr Marsh described about the Mediator acting as a buffer between the interactions. In this example there is no direct contact between the participants, only a limited indirect contact, between five parties in the mediation. The four parties are:
1. The Dan & Ron Pandolfi
2. The Pickering brothers, Clay and
Shawn Pickering & UFO Working Group
3. And the Sarfatti Group
4. The Exopolitics Community
5. The General Public
There are two specific toxic styles at work in this mediation example. One, I described above, and the other is the approach taken by Dan Smith & Ron Pandolfi in which the mediator has determined there is some unethical communications going on to achieve personal goals held by them. The method Ed Komarek as the active mediator is using, is to bring to public light and the participants’ attention, the behavior and calling for an explanation of the backdoor accusations involved and requesting any pertinent proof if there is any.

Live Example [2]:

Subject: Suggested Source A Hoaxing
To: "Ronald Pandolfi"
Cc: "Dan Smith" , sarfatti@.......
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2009, 7:12 AM

Hi Ron:

For quite awhile Dan has been suggesting that you have been telling him that Source A has been hoaxing the UFO community. Now I have heard that you are unambiguously and directly telling others in the Sarfatti Group that Source A is nuts and that he is committing a hoax. Is this true? If so are you also saying the Pickering brothers are involved in this hoax you are alleging or have they simply been deceived by Source A?

I am sure you are aware that Source A met with Dr. Bruce Maccabee in Bruce’s Navy office in full uniform and that Bruce verified Source A’s credentials. This was before Bruce retired. Other researchers have verified Source A’s credentials as well. I am sure you are also aware that others have verified that the UN meetings that Source A, broke to the public, did in fact occur.

If it is true that you are in fact telling others that Source A is nuts and that he is committing a hoax on us in the UFO community don’t you think that you should give some evidence backing up this claim. Such a claim not only impinges on the credibility of Source A but the Pickering Brothers as well? Is your claim based on confidential information? If the claim of hoaxing is based on confidential information then is it even remotely possible that you yourself have been deceived?

Under the present circumstances if Source A is legit then you seem to be attempting do drive a wedge between any attempts to connect the UFO Working Group network with the Sarfatti Network. It seems that your claims of hoaxing have recently become more pronounced as I have attempted to assist in networking between the two groups. This gets me to wondering why you would be doing this.

As I am sure you realize creating nodes of communication is not easy between the two groups because the Pickering brothers believe in civil communication and conversation while on the other hand the Sarfatti Group is usually anything but civil. I need to explain to the Pickering brothers that while uncivil with all the petty bickering, joking, insults and squabbling this bickering and squabbling is more a form of entertainment than anything else.

Rarely does this entertainment become mean spirited and when it does it does not usually last long. I mean what would one expect from a band of egotistical rogues anyhow? At the very least the uncivil conversation is honest and upfront. That’s what I like about it I guess. Very often so called civil conversations can be contrived and dishonest and it is refreshing to just let it all hang out sometimes.

Dan, while I did not mean the other conversation to be publicized it was my fault because I did not say confidential on the email. Still the information was not specific and I must keep that confidential. I think Jack needs to try harder and do a much better job of kissing ass if he wants more of that money steered his way. The ass kissing is getting pretty competitive lately with more real money coming to the table all the time as disclosure progresses.

This email I don’t mind being publicized of course as it is meant to stimulate public conversation, just xxx out Ron’s email address as before. I think Ron has some explaining to do.


This communication reprinted with express permission from Ed Komarek for public education purposes.
In exopolitical mediation, some of the current forms of mediation take place in the public arena. This example presented above is one of those. It is a common difficulty of such mediations that additional backdoor sniping or cold treatment between participants occurs while the mediation is in progress. A mediator in this field needs to be aware that this is typical and be prepared to work under these conditions.
Ed Komarek uses his years of experience in the exopolitical/ufology field and his development of private and pubic source networks to be aware of such backdoor shenanigans. Not all exopolitical mediators will have the same length of experience within the field of the Contact Paradigm, so awareness will need to be utilized and new mediation support tools developed to work under these and other conditions unique to this paradigm and the mediation tables available to it.
Zena Zumeta, who is a professional traditional mediator, has written an excellent description of traditional mediation style methods used by mediators. In her description she lists the following styles available [3]:
1. Facilitative Mediation
2. Evaluative Mediation
3. Transformative Mediation
The last one in the list, Transformative Mediation, is the one most often used in exopolitical mediation. She describes it as, “Transformative mediation is based on the values of "empowerment" of each of the parties as much as possible, and "recognition" by each of the parties of the other parties' needs, interests, values and points of view. The potential for transformative mediation is that any or all parties or their relationships may be transformed during the mediation. Transformative mediators meet with parties together, since only they can give each other "recognition".”[3]
There are differences however in this definition of the traditional form and that used in exopolitical mediation. Primarily that difference is that the mediators meet with parties together. In exopolitical mediation, direct communication between all parties in the holistic mediation scenario has not yet fully manifest itself. The sixty plus years of secrecy has placed many road-blocks to direct face to face communication of the Contact Paradigm. As these road blocks break down, more instances of communication are occurring and in the current state of the paradigm, these communications are occurring on the Internet in forums and specialty communities like Facebook. In this sense they are almost ‘in the same room’ together. But this still entails the mediator ferrying back and forth among the parties who are scattered throughout the broad realm of internet addresses. In this sense the Internet is showing its ability to be the representation of the human global village.
Additional information on Exopolitical Mediation can be found at: Compass Morainn Journal. Additional resources for traditional mediation to be adapted to exopolitical mediation may be found at and ADR Resources.


[1] Negotiation Styles in Mediation, article by Stephen R Marsh, ADR Resources, Stephen R Marsh copyright 2000.

[2] “Suggested Source A Hoaxing”, by Ed Komarek, email communications material source May 26, 2009, reprinted with express permission of author.

[3] Styles of Mediation: Facilitative, Evaluative, and Transformative Mediation, article by Zena Zumeta, – Everything Mediation copyright 2000.