In a msg to David Bloomberg on , Jack Sargeant of 
1:379/12@fidonet writes:
 >  JS> I believe there are other races in the universe that are of various
 >  JS> degrees of advancement, and just as intelligent as we are. I believe
 >  JS> there are thousands of other intelligent races, because there are
 >  JS> that many stars in the heavens to allow for those kinds of numbers.
 > No disagreement here.
 >  JS> Of these thousands, I also believe that those with a high degree of
 >  JS> technology probably are humanoid in appearence.
 > Why?
 JS> It's hard to explain, but it's best chalked up to vanity and my own
 JS> religious beliefs. 
Not really a good basis for rational scientific discussion.
 JS> They could be reptilian, and still be humanoid.
Sure they could.  They could also look nothing like a human.  We have no 
basis to say one way or another.
 JS> If dinosaurs can evolve into birds as some believe, then my speculations
 JS> concerning other races is just as viable.
One has _nothing_ to do with the other.  In one case, you're talking about 
the evolution of one group of animals into another (and, I might add, birds 
can look VERY different from one another, depending on the type).  In the 
other you're talking about evolution occurring on a different PLANET, 
possibly starting from a different point than our evolution started, and 
certainly facing different obstacles to overcome.
 >  JS> I do not believe we have been visited by aliens from outside our
 >  JS> solar system because of the distances involved. I don't think this
 >  JS> will ever happen.
 > Then what do you consider "the UFO phenomenon"?
 JS> Nowhere in the UFO phenomenon is it assumed that UFOs are alien craft.
Not to me, but certainly to some people.
Anyway, the point was that, in the rules for this echo, it says you must 
accept the existence of "the UFO phenomenon."  So that's why I'm trying to 
find out what you consider to be "the UFO phenomenon."  What is it that 
people on this echo are supposed to be accepting?
 JS> However, some do speculate, etc.
Understatement of the year award candidate.
 >  JS> ...Now back to my normal speculation  about Martians and other 
liens.
 >  JS> Have fun and enjoy your fantasies about aliens, but come up for a
 >  JS> breath of fresh air occasionally.
 > So why do you spend time speculating about things you don't believe to be 
 > true?  Why do you encourage others to do such things rather than 
explaining 
 > to them why the things they are saying are not correct?  Why do you act so 
 > non-skeptical while you claim here that you are, essentially, a skeptic 
(not 
 > that I actually believe it, mind you)?
 JS> I'm simply not prepared to accept the presence of aliens without
 JS> stronger evidence than has yet been provided--same as you. As to
 JS> why I "spend my time" speculating, I do it because it's fun.
Did it ever occur to you that your "fun" could hurt somebody else?  Think 
Heaven's Gate, for one example.
 JS> And at the risk of second-guessing you telling me you think it's all a
 JS> waste of time, I would then ask why you bother with us in this echo
 JS> at all?
Depends on what you define the "it" as when you say "it's all a waste of 
time."
 JS> ...To bring the "truth" to us like some fundamentalist knocking on my 
 JS> door? That is the impression I get from some skeptics.
Then, as you often do, you have gotten the wrong impression.  Skeptics don't 
bring "The Truth."  Indeed, we QUESTION claims to The Truth.  We bring 
rationality, critical thinking, and science -- some things that are sorely 
lacking in the UFO arena.  
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
---------------