>    So they claim to be true skeptics.  But a true  skeptic would  not 
ven
  >bother with this subject, they would  walk on.
You are still misusing the word, "skeptic".  True or otherwise, a
skeptic is just that... one who doesn't believe that a conclusion has
been reached.  If you wish to append the word "true" to imply that he
tends to disbelieve, then you have described me.  Someone who would
absolutely discount the ET hypothesis is NOT a skeptic!  He is as much a
believer as the ET proponent.  He believes the negative instead of the
positive.  From my perspective, he is just as foolish as the true
believer who discounts the alternatives.
  > Perhaps
  >that is why our skeptical friends keep tabs on our emerging tales.  
ecause
  >deep down they know in theory  anything is  possible.  And  that this  is 

  >serious issue that needs to be settled one way or another..........
We agree, but for different reasons.  1) If the ET hypothesis is true,
we will be better off knowing the truth so we can exploit it to the
fullest for the benefit of mankind, and/or understanding it so we can be
prepared to guard against it.  And, 2) If the ET hypothesis is false,
there are millions of people being scammed by it. There are also those
that are so overwhelmed by it that they are partially or wholly
dysfunctional much the same as with any other psychological disorder.
You seem to lean toward the former case while I fall lean to the
latter. In either case, it needs to be put to rest.
Ron
---
 þ QMPro 1.02 42-7029 þ Give me liberty, not equality
---------------