From: James Alexander <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 20:03:03 -0400 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 22:41:01 -0400 Subject: Re: CSICOP - Alexander >From: Richard Hall <email@example.com> >To: firstname.lastname@example.org >Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 21:04:03 +0000 >Subject: Re: Graham Hancock 'Quits'? >>From: Paul Thompson <MrApol@aol.com> >>To: email@example.com >>Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 15:10:24 EDT >>Subject: Re: Graham Hancock 'Quits'? >>>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>>To: - UFO UpDates Subscribers - >>>Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 14:52:00 -0400 >>>Subject: Graham Hancock 'Quits'? >>>Hancock claims there is a more sinister aspect to the criticism >>>against him, and that he has been subjected to a concerted >>>campaign by a shadowy US organisation called the Committee for >>>the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal >>>(CSICOP) >>Whatever else you can say about CSICOP, they're not "shadowy". >No. But they are doctrinaire, determined to denigrate any >opinions that dissent from theirs, and extraordinarily ill- >informed about UFOs. Their self-appointed role of defending >"science" against "dangerous" and "anti-scientific" views is >almost laughably unscientific and anti-scientific. From the interviews of CSICOP members, most notably Phil Klass, it seems to me a more appropriate term for them would be "Kooks". I know many don't like the term but one, that for CSICOP, is a moniker well-earned.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp