> RT> It seems to me that this definition is not the commonly accepted one 
i
   > RT> UFOlogy.  Rather, it seems that the skeptic, to UFO believers, is 
ne
   > RT> who believes that aliens do not exist and that "believers" and
   > RT> "skeptics" are diametrically opposed.  True believers, it seems, 
eel
   > RT> that skeptics are calling them liars, frauds, or idiots.
   > RT>
THC>From my experience, unfortunately, the majority of those who claim to be
   >"skeptics" haven't read your dictionary.  Or mine, as I've posted similar
   >definitions in the past.  Mine included a definition to the effect that a
   >skeptic was one who questioned commonly held beliefs.
It seems that you and I are saying the same thing but from different
perspectives.  To me, the true believers are the ones with the distorted
perception of skeptics.
THC>These "skeptics" I have encountered seem to view their own beliefs as 
some 
   >of worldwide consensus.
That is my perception of true believers.
  > Anyone who seeks to prove (or even mention) a claim
   >contrary to the consensus must present overwhelming proof that is 
immediate
   >available and obvious to the "skeptic".  Failure to do so means the claim 
a
   >claimant are without validity.
Immediately available and obvious to the _skeptic_?  No, but it must be
available to and testable by the existing scientific community.
Otherwise, yes... the claims are without validity.
   >  The "skeptics" do not have to provide any
   >special evidence to back up their own claims (e.g. "I won't do your 
researc
   >for you.")
I think that is fair...  the believer is the one making the claim.  He
should be the one backing it up.  Convenient for the skeptic, no doubt,
but nevertheless, thats the way the world works.
   >Don't take it personally.  I get it myself from time to time.
Not me... I'm just a fun-loving ole boy.... :)
---
 þ QMPro 1.02 42-7029 þ Give me liberty, not equality
---------------