In a msg to David Bloomberg on , Jack Sargeant of 
1:379/12@fidonet writes:
 >  JS> Galileo was persecuted by the skepics in the church.
 > Call them skeptics, but they are nothing like the skeptics you will
 > find challenging UFO beliefs.  The word has different meanings to
 > different people, and you are trying to misuse it here to prove a
 > point.  Sorry, but that doesn't hold water.
 JS> You brand yourself as a skeptic, yet refuse to take the responsibility
 JS> of fellow skeptics that were wrong?
Man, my point just went flying over your head, didn't it?
YOU are labeling those people as skeptics.  You are wrong in using that label 
for those people -- at least according to current usage of the term.  
Skeptics encourage critical thinking and the use of the scientific method.  
Obviously, neither of these applied to the folks persecuting Galileo.
 JS> Which are you, a part-time skeptic?
No, Jack, it's a full-time job (unfortunately, I haven't found anybody to PAY 
me for it yet ).  
 JS> ...Or just someone who enjoys imposing your own beliefs on others?
Skeptics don't "impose" their beliefs on others, Jack.  You keep insinuating 
that we do, so I challenge you to show examples of that actually occurring.
 >  JS> 400 years after he was tormented, kept under house arrest, and
 >  JS> otherwise ruined, he was eventually vindicated, and his beliefs 
 >  JS> upheld.
 > Yes, people with closed-minded religious beliefs were the ones who
 > did this all to him.  That has nothing to do with the skeptics that
 > challenge claims about UFOs=aliens.
 JS> A skeptic by any other name still smells the same... ...Or was that
 JS> a rose?  Some skeptics are pretty nice people. Some are not.
Which, again, has nothing to do with determining who is a skeptic.  Those 
people were not.  Why not deal with the present, Jack?  Why do you insist 
upon attacking skeptics whenever you get the chance, even going so far here 
as to compare modern day skeptics to historical NON-skeptics?
 >  JS> The moral of the story is, apply your skeptism with care and 
sincerity.
 > Actually, the moral is that one should be careful about how they
 > apply labels such as "skeptics."
 JS> Oh? What label would you prefer to be tagged with, if not skeptic?
Again, you missed the point.  Are you doing so on purpose?  I am a skeptic.  
I proclaim it loud and clear.  However, you misused the term by applying it 
to the non-skeptics who persecuted Galileo.
 JS> Is there suddenly something derogatory with the term? 
Only in this echo, and other believer-oriented echos.  But that really 
doesn't bother me.
 JS> There are skeptics beside you who get along just fine in this echo, and 
 JS> don't carry a chip on their shoulder such as you obviously do. 
ROFL!  Jack, what's obvious here is the chip YOU have against skeptics.  You 
showed it with this message, and indeed often show it in your messages.  You 
show it in other ways as well, but I'd probably get in trouble if I went into 
those here.
 > A true-life example:
 > When the recent Air Force report on Roswell came out, CNN online
 > headlined its report something to the effect, "Skeptics Doubt Air
 > Force Report."  Problem was that in this case, they were calling the
 > people who BELIEVED there was an alien spacecraft crash at Roswell
 > "skeptics."  Were they skeptical of the Air Force report?  Sure.
 > Does that make them "skeptics" in the sense that we all use the term
 > around here?  Not at all.
 JS> I think you may have "read" the story with a persecution complex.
 JS> It is your concept of "believer" that is wrong. In the above, it
 JS> was indeed the believers who were skeptical of the report.
Yes, I know they were skeptical of the report.  However, that doesn't make 
them overall skeptics, as people in this echo and other paranormal-related 
ones know and use the term.
 JS> You seem to hold both words (believer and skeptic) to a higher, yet
 JS> mysterious meaning.
Nothing mysterious about using proper terminology.  It keeps things clear.
 JS> Since you have been asking me for definitions, why don't you tell me 
what 
 JS> your definitions of the words skeptic and believer are, in the context 
 JS> they are generally used in UFO?
I've already explained what a skeptic is.  I'm sure you know what a believer 
is, as well.  However, if I had to define the term, I'd say it's somebody who 
believes that UFOs are alien craft (or some other craft -- some believe they 
aren't aliens, but humans from the future, for example), despite the lack of 
good evidence to back such a claim.  That definition is probably lacking a 
bit, but since you're just trying to steer the conversation away from your 
misuse of the term "skeptic," I'm not terribly concerned.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
---------------