In a msg to David Bloomberg on , Jack Sargeant of 
1:379/12@fidonet writes:
 >>  JS> Of these thousands, I also believe that those with a high degree of
 >>  JS> technology probably are humanoid in appearence.
 >> Why?
 JS> Your asking a question that I already answered below.
Yes, I know.  Notice how it has TWO ">"s behind it?  That's because it was 
originally asked in my FIRST reply to you, and just requoted now.  Don't tell 
me you still don't understand simple Fido quoting?
 >  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> Atheists and agnostics may tend to agree with you. Others may not.
I don't care if others do or don't.  The fact remains that no matter what 
your RELIGIOUS beliefs may be, they are not a good basis for a 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> This echo permits speculation.
I'm thrilled.  Does it also permit others to point out that we have no basis 
to say one way or another?
 >  JS> If dinosaurs can evolve into birds as some believe, then my 
 >  JS> speculations 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> That's just your opinion.
No, it's fact.  If you disagree, please point out EXACTLY which part you 
believe to be just my 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?
 JS> The portion of the UFO echo rules to which you are referring was
 JS> written by Don Allen, the previous moderator for which you hold a
 JS> similar fondness as you do of me.
I don't care if it was written by Genghis Khan.  It's still in the rules 
after all the rewrites you did, so it must still mean something to you.
 JS> However, since you apparently do not follow UFO reports, the UFO
 JS> phenomenon is the accumilation of millions of reports over the years
 JS> of unknown objects seen in the skies and sometimes at rest on the
 JS> ground that have no explanation to the observers. ...Many of who are
 JS> well versed on aircraft and astronomical objects.
So then how can one not accept the existence of this definition of the UFO 
phenomenon?  It just doesn't make sense.  I've never met anybody who said to 
me, "Unidentified Flying Objects don't exist."  Have you?
 JS> The fact is, it exists. 
Yes, I know.  That's why I don't understand why that statement is part of the 
rules.
 >  JS> However, some do speculate, etc.
 > Understatement of the year award candidate.
 JS> Huh?
Your statement that "some do speculate" is an incredible understatement.  So 
I was nominating it for the "Understatement of the year" award.  It was 
humor, Jack.
 >  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> I think you are full of it if you think that.
Hmmmm.  Well, those people died, Jack.  In part, they died because of their 
UFO beliefs.  You appear to not want to consider the possibility that such 
beliefs can hurt or kill.  
 JS> You never worry about hurting me or mine with your rantings, do you?
If I answered this, I suspect I'd just get in trouble.  So I won't.
 >  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."
 JS> The alleged speculation and opinions that are shared and related upon
 JS> in this echo.
The speculation?  Yes, I think most of that is a waste of time.  The opinions 
may or may not be, depending on whether or not they are based in fact.
 >  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.
 JS> No! No I didn't!
Yes!  Yes you did!
 JS> ...And that is the reason certain people don't post here anymore. Their 
 JS> "presentation" was not consistant with the way I interpret the rules of 
 JS> the echo. ...And that is the law here... ...Not the way you interpret 
the 
 JS> rules, but how >I< interpret them.
I'm not arguing the rules with you here, Jack -- after all, that would be 
against the rules.  I was just saying that your impression of skeptics is 
wrong.  Nothing more, nothing less.
 > 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.
 JS> Do so with a degree of cordiality, and you'll get no argument from me.
Cordiality may have something to do with the way skeptics are received, and 
may have something to do with the rules of this echo, but it has nothing to 
do with whether or not somebody is a skeptic.  
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
---------------