[snip]
 > The point of this rambling discourse is that some skeptics seem to
 > have a grab bag of cookie-cutter mundane explainations (swamp gas,
 > weather balloon, lightning, Venus, etc.) which they apply to every
 > sighting.  If something doesn't fit inside the explaination, like
 > green lightning, it gets cut off. More importantly, once they
 > decide that the event has been explained, they show no further
 > interest in discussing the matter.  E.g. "Why are you still
 > talking about X?  That was thoroughly debunked years ago!"
 > It is my feverent hope that these so-called skeptics are the
 > exception to the rule, and that my experience with them as being
 > the norm is atypical.
...But that's what makes these discussions so much fun. If everyone
agreed with you, this echo would simply die out from lack of interest.
It's also possible that some of us like to play devil's advocate for
the sake of enlivening the discussion.
 >  RT> It seems that he WANTS to believe in ET so he isn't willing to accept
 > the
 >  RT> sensible (IMO ) alternatives.  I don't understand that.
 > It seems to me that some skeptics want so much to NOT believe in
 > ET that they are willing to accept convoluted "sensible"
 > explainations that do not even describe the event in question.   I
 > don't understand that.
(sigh) Troy, that is the role of the skeptic. It's also possible you
are being a little overly critical of the skeptics that post here.
Wait till the more "aggressive" ones get a hold of you. 
In a way, I sympathize with what you're saying, but I can't say I've
seen any evidence of anyone taking the stance you've just described.
Regards,
Jack
--- FMail 1.22
---------------