> 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?
So much for your allotment of insults. Now get on with it.
 >>  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.
This echo does allow viewpoints that don't necessarily comply with your
wishes. ...Learn to live with it.
 >>  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?
So what? What's your point? This is a hobby, and most of us are having
fun.
 >>  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 
bout
 >> 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.
Because you are using alleged life on other worlds for your example.
...Something you couldn't possibly have knowledge of. ...Unless you
are into remote viewing... Are you?
 >>>  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> 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.
Do you have any complaints? Take it to netmail.
 >  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.
Now you are going to assist me in re-writing the rules? 
...Tell ya what... How would you have that statement worded. After all,
it is a requirement that you accept that UFOs do exist, and can be
many different things. ...To many different people... ...All who have
a right to be here, and proclaim their own beliefs with as much
speculation and wildness as they chose. This is not an echo entirely
devoted to the strictness you would have it be. Serious discussion
prevails. Now, this discussion is over, as it is against the rules
for you to discuss the echo rules in the open forum.
 >>  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.
Oh, OK... You caught me by surprise.
 >>  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.
That is them. This is us. People don't stop riding in cars just because
they see an accident that killed someone.
 >  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.
It wasn't meant as entrapment, and I thank you for your restraint.
 >>  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> 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.
No one should expect all posts to be of interest to all readers.
Take what you like and discard the rest. ...As in Gin Rummy.
 >>  JS> ...To bring the "truth" to us like some fundamentalist knocking on 
y
 >>  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!
Well, this isn't going anywhere.
 >  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.
But you have already argued the rules with me in this post. ...And you
are still here. ...Amazing.  My impression of SOME skeptics is accurate.
 >> 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 
.
 > 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.
 >
What's your point? There is nothing wrong with being skeptical.
Cordial skeptism is the only thing that keeps this echo from being
filled with nothing but dreamers who live in a world of fantasy.
...That this echo also serves as a haven for this mindset is
acceptable to most of us. Why does this disturb you so? Why does it
bother you that some here believe that some UFOs may be from other
worlds, and be piloted by little greys (or whatever). Are these
people delusional? No, I think they are just having fun. ...Something
you don't always grasp, or accept at face value.
js
--- FMail 1.22
---------------