> 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.
Archived!!
 >>  JS> Of these thousands, I also believe that those with a high degree of
 >>  JS> technology probably are humanoid in appearence.
 >> Why?
Your asking a question that I already answered below.
 >  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.
Atheists and agnostics may tend to agree with you. Others may not.
 >  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.
This echo permits speculation.
 >  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.
That's just your opinion.
 >>  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 
aft.
 > 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?
The portion of the UFO echo rules to which you are referring was
written by Don Allen, the previous moderator for which you hold a
similar fondness as you do of me.
However, since you apparently do not follow UFO reports, the UFO
phenomenon is the accumilation of millions of reports over the years
of unknown objects seen in the skies and sometimes at rest on the
ground that have no explanation to the observers. ...Many of who are
well versed on aircraft and astronomical objects.
Much of our TV and movie programming is a result of the UFO phenomenon.
The fact is, it exists. As a participant in this echo, you are required
to accept this fact. That is a prerequisite to being here.
 >  JS> However, some do speculate, etc.
 > Understatement of the year award candidate.
Huh?
 >>  JS> ...Now back to my normal speculation  about Martians and other 
aliens.
 >>  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 
o
 >> non-skeptical while you claim here that you are, essentially, a skeptic
 >> (not that I actually believe it, mind you)?
Because speculating is fun as long as the usual disclaimer such as,
"IMHO" is used. We are here to enjoy a hobby, or have you forgotten?
This is not a science echo.
 >  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.
I think you are full of it if you think that. You never worry about
hurting me or mine with your rantings, do you?
 >  JS> And at the risk of second-guessing you telling me you think it's all 

 >  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."
The alleged speculation and opinions that are shared and related upon
in this echo.
 >  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.
No! No I didn't! ...And that is the reason certain people don't post
here anymore. Their "presentation" was not consistant with the way I
interpret the rules of the echo. ...And that is the law here...
...Not the way you interpret the rules, but how >I< interpret them.
 > 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.
Do so with a degree of cordiality, and you'll get no argument from me.
js
--- FMail 1.22
---------------