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 - Evans

From: Roger Evans <shooter@afterimagephoto.tv>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:54:15 -0500
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:35:43 -0400
Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Evans

 >From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
 >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:31:39 +0100
 >Subject: Re: High Silliness On UFO UpDates - Jones
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>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:

 >>True to form, your last paragraph seems to be the defacto answer
 >>to any opposition, now. If someone doesn't get in line with the
 >>UFO elite, the standard position is that one is "uninformed" and
 >>hasn't read the literature or they would quite naturally agree.

 >>Is it even remotely possible in your mind that someone has read
 >>the literature, done some research and simply doesn't see eye to
 >>eye? More to the point, you spent the majority of this post
 >>defending someone's right to cite past work if the answer to a
 >>given question was gong to be extensive; something that I took
 >>no issue with. My beef was abuse of this technique to avoid
 >>answering shorter, simpler questions or even flat out refusals
 >>to address the issues presented. Your own avoidance in
 >>addressing this issue, in this very post, only drives home my
 >>point. Thanks for making my job easier.

Sean replied:

 >For us standing back can see quite clearly, who is quoting from
 >knowledge, and who is quoting from ignorance. For example, if
 >_you_ were quoting from knowledge you _could_ cite particulars
 >about the case thus _proving_you_ had more than read a summary
 >of the case in question. It is my opinion that from your posts
 >you have not cited one detail with regard to any of the cases,
 >mentioned in previous posts, to substantiate relevant knowledge
 >of the case to those you are not quite debating with.

 >I wait to be proved wrong.

Try proving your case, first. According to popular figures, I
have made over 560 posts. Certainly, you should be able to have
cited at least _one_ example of my irrational conduct. More to
the point, I know the limits of my expertise are related to
photography, film and video production. When taking a position,
that is the arena I will go head to head with anyone on. If you
check the archives, you will find that is 100% true. To maintain
that I don't have expertise to offer or, even sillier, to
suggest that I have never addressed specifics of a given UFO
case is simply not true and you know it, Sean.

However, there is a difference between "expertise" and
"collecting information". The UFO elite aren't experts on the
ETH simply because they worked hard to collect a lot of data. In
fact, they aren't experts, at all. The data is what it is.
Certainly, I give them credit for amassing such vast
information. But such effort doesn't, despite the proclamations
of Wendy or others, give more weight to their opinions than
anyone else that has accessed the same information. Respect is
earned, Sean, and it can be lost as well. When the UFO elite
take a position that others outside their circle are
"uninformed" simply because of a difference of opinion or,
worse, it is unilaterally decided that certain questions don't
even deserve a response, then any respect is lost.

Continuing, you wrote:

 >So in my not so humble opinion, and not being one of the 'elite'
 >you scornfully refer to, when they say _read_my_book_ before you
 >respond, what they are really saying, find some facts, then we
 >can debate the finer points.

 >If you are so blinkered that you cannot see that, well all hope
 >is lost for you, because these guys _have_ done their collective
 >research so why should they waste their time on someone who will
 >not do theirs?

Just how much research did you do on this thread before writing
the above, Sean? I _clearly_ stated, more than once, that citing
one's own work is fine _if_ that is the only way to answer a
question and a quote from said work would be too extensive. What
I object to is the over use of said referencing as a
diversionary tactic to avoid answering simpler questions. How
clear do I have to make this? Are you saying that you have
_never_ seen this done on this list?

And I am not taking sides, here. The ultra-skeptics are also
guilty of dodging issues, as well. The only difference is that
they have nothing to prove, while the UFO elite demand what is
currently nothing more than folklore be somehow disproved by
those they feel are "uninformed". The problem with this position
is obvious: Certainly no one knows more about the collected UFO
information than the UFO elite, yet their own inability to make
a case for the ETH is ignored while they chastise others for not
being more familiar with the very same information that they
can't seem to get results from!

What's the point?

It is not the job of the skeptics to prove the ETH. A lack of
familiarity with certain publications doesn't make the case for
the ETH stronger by default. A weak case is still a weak case,
even if it sets on the shelf, unread by everyone. Chastising
someone for being "uninformed" is merely a tool to make the UFO
elite feel better about themselves for their own failure to
prove the ETH. After all, no one is more "informed" than the UFO
elite, and they can't come to terms with the ETH, either.

Finally, you wrote:

 >I am neither one of the 'elite', or uniformed, you are clearly
 >one of the two mentioned groups, unless of course you can
 >demonstrate knowledge in a clear and concise manner without any
 >kind of name calling, bitchiness or general bad manners??

Dude, the terms "pelicanism", "pelicanist", "skeptic",
"debunker", "skeptibunker", "dilettante" not to mention
"blinkered", etc didn't just appear out of thin air. Clean your
own house, first.


[ 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