UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Apr > Apr 21

Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:08:20 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:35:48 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Hall

 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:09:43 -0500
 >From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

 >>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
 >>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:04:16 -0000
 >>Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Hall

 >>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:08:50 -0500
 >>>From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
 >>>To: updates@sympatico.ca
 >>>Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates

 >Previously, I had written:

 >>>As far as I'm concerned, your reply has only proved my point the
 >>>one must agree with the UFO elite or be pegged as one of the
 >>>"uniformed" that hasn't done enough research to know the error
 >>>of their ways.

 >Dick replied:

 >>I could give a fig whether you agree with me (or Jan), but I am
 >>extremely curious to have your definition of your constantly
 >>cited, but undefined, term "elitist" which you keep throwing out
 >>as if it explains something or has some profound meaning.

 >Certainly, Dick.

 >I define the 'UFO Elite' as:

 >1) the small group of ufologists that, by virtue of the research
 >they've done or the books they've published, feel that their
 >views have more weight than others, despite the fact that said
 >research or books have proved nothing in regard to the ETH.

 >2) a member of the UFO elite is characterized by their selective
 >refusal to answer questions, their tendency to dodge issues by
 >answering questions with yet another question, or, by their
 >tendency to reference past works when a simple yes or no answer
 >would do.

 >3) the over use of said referencing as a form of diversion
 >calculated to halt the discussion with the obvious ploy that
 >readers won't bother to look up said reference and the debate
 >will die on the vine or veer off in a new, more comfortable
 >direction for the elitist in question.

 >4) a member of the UFO elite will, when pressed into corner,
 >declare that the opposition is "uninformed" or that "they
 >obviously haven't done enough research" or that "their question
 >isn't worth addressing".

 >5) Use partial quotes from well known debunkers as a supposed
 >example of how the opposition thinks when, in reality, few if
 >any rational skeptics approach research that way.

 >6) when pressed for time, simply label the opposition a
 >"skeptic" or "debunker" and then bow out of the debate.

 >and finally, (my favorite)

 >7) simply declare themselves the winner of the debate before it
 >ever starts.

 >That should just about do it.

 >Now that I've answered your question, are you going to address
 >the issues I previously raised or will the definition I've given
 >continue to be demonstrated?


Well, that certainly is a convoluted "definition," but it is
illuminating in ways you may not suspect. You have called me an
"elitist", yet many points of your "definition" do not apply to
me in any way I can see. Some of the "simple questions" I have
seen invoked are _not_ simple to answer. They are very complex
and would require lengthy posts to answer. (Like Dennis Stacy's
latest.) Hence, we say "Do your homework."

I don't know what "issues" you are refrerring to that you think
I haven't answered. Ask me a couple of allegedly 'simple'
questions for example, and I will see how readily answerable
they are.


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com