> 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 
esponsibility
 >  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.
You have apparently abandoned the dictionary definitions of the word.
Skepticism implies closed-mindness. My dictionary defines skeptic as
follows...
1. Skeptic: One who habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees.
2. Skeptic: One inclined to skepticism in philosophical or religious
matters.
This directly applies to Galileo's persecutors in the Church. Once
again, you have proven your ability to gloss over, or misinterpret
the rules. ...By making up your own definitions with stupid remarks
like, "current usage of the term."
 >  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.
The Church imposed house arrest upon Galileo. ...But then, they weren't
skeptical of Galileo's findings and philosophies, were they?  WRONG!
 >>  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.
Not at all, David... A skeptic is not necessarily glorified because he
goes after people who claim to have seen UFOs. A rose by any other name...
 >  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?
Skeptics come in different brands. Your brand of skepticism is that
of the inquisitioner.
 >>  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."
What then should you be called?  Nevermind, that would be against the
rules.
 >  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.
I refer you to the dictionary... Any dictionary. The people who
persecuted Galileo were skeptics, pure and simple.
 >  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.
It's good that it doesn't because you are going to see plenty of it.
 >  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.
You've already waded in over your head.  It is only your BRAND of
skepticism that I oppose. There is a distinct difference. Your
implied reference to my character as hinted in the above proves
you are champing at the bit, trying to restrain yourself against
the irge to insult. ...A little shabby, but permissible.
 >> 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 
ontext
 >  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.
You would have me abandon the dictionaries and use your glorious
definitions? ...Not by the hair of your chiny-chin-chin.
js
--- FMail 1.22
---------------