From: Greg Boone <Evolbaby.nul>> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:03:13 -0400 (EDT) Archived: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:19:15 -0400 Subject: Re: Again The ETH Is A Scam >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:02:34 -0500 >Subject: Re: Again The ETH Is A Scam >>From: Greg Boone <Evolbaby.nul>> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:39:03 -0400 (EDT) >>Subject: Re: Again The ETH Is A Scam >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:52:34 -0500 >>>Subject: Re: Again The ETH Is A Scam >>>>From: Greg Boone <Evolbaby.nul> >>>>To: post.nul >>>>Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 00:19:39 EDT >>>>Subject: Re: Again The ETH Is A Scam ><snip> >>>>Nowadays if you don't support the ETH and it's offspring you get >>>>lambasted but I remember when supporting the ETH and any related >>>>matters would get you tossed into a psychiatric hospital, fired, >>>>beaten up and ostracized. >>>Opposition to the ETH has been pretty much arguably, the >>>mainstream position in ufology since the heyday of Jacques >>>Vallee and John Keel. So has the rhetorical trope that one has >>>made oneself a martyr by opposing the ETH. >>>But in your case, Greg, you don't even seem to grasp what the >>>ETH is or what it's based upon. Perhaps it's a subject you ought >>>just to let be. >>Please, your attempts at control through invalidation are about >>as effective as putting a fake mustache on a cowpie to fool the >>flies. >Apparently, to you an effort to clarify issues amounts to an >"attempt to control through invalidation." I guess this is the >same impulse that leads you to charge the ETH with being not >just a mistaken idea - which it may be; we just don't know yet >one way or another, which is why we talk about UFOs and not ET >spacecraft - but an actual, in your lurid imagination, "scam." I >would demand proof of that charge, but I know you can't supply >it; it's just a rhetorical device that sounds cool to you. >Sadly, your understanding of confidence crime is as lacking as >your grasp of what a scientific hypothesis is. <snip> See there you go again with your low-brow evaluations of other people. As though you sit on some high throne of superiority or something. If I were lacking in what a scientific hypothesis is I wouldn't have passed the full body of science courses I did in school and had gotten exempt from final exams. I wouldn't have been able to illustrate hundreds of news stories written by top science journalists when I worked at the Gannett News Service. I wouldn't have been able to jaw it up with some of the leading scientists who lived and worked with me growing up. Matter of fact, if I had a lacking, as you so impolitely implied in scientific theory, how did I beat out over a thousand writers last week to write exclusive articles for one of the world's top mathematicians? He chose me for his exclusive and advanced courses in everything from algebra to physics to advanced statistics? How could I have just created and illustrated a groundbreaking childrens book for the world's foremost stem cell advocacy group and passed muster with biologists around the world? Oh and don't forget all those science fairs I won growing up starting at age six. But Jerome Clark says I have a lack in grasping scientific theory. That's about as much credibility if it were coming from a homeless Muppet from the lower east side of Sesame Street. I don't have to go into insults, you do more damage to yourself than any of us. Greg ufomafia.com/blog Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp