From: Steve Sawyer <stevesaw.nul> Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:46:48 -0800 Archived: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:43:46 -0500 Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs & ETs With... >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:26:08 -0600 >Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs & ETs With... >>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:45:11 -0400 >>Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs & ETs With... >>>From: Gregory Boone <evolbaby.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:53:58 -0500 (EST) >>>Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs & ETs With... >>>>From: Andy Roberts <meugher.nul> >>>>To: post.nul >>>>Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:37:05 +0000 >>>>Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs & ETs With... >>>>>From: Gregory Boone <evolbaby.nul> >>>>>To: post.nul >>>>>Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:49:05 -0500 (EST) >>>>Subject: Re: White House Ends Silence On UFOs & ETs With... <snip> >>>>So, in other words Greg, you haven't got a scrap of evidence to >>>>back up any of your assertions. Saying you have but not backing >>>>it up is rather pointless. And the continued posting of same >>>>only serves to make you look as though you haven't a clue what >>>>you are talking about. >>>Oh I've got proof. I'm just not stupid enough to post it publicly. >>>This is Errol Bruce-Knapp's List last time I looked regarding >>>ownership and who establishes what does and what doesn't go on >>>here. >>>If Errol asks me I can provide it in an instant but I nor he >>>would be posting it on this List. His word is good enough for me >>>and sorry if it wouldn't be good enough for you. >>Why do you need Errol to tell you? Just do it. >>BTW - it's a frosty day in hell when Andy Roberts and I agree on >>anything. Temps are below zero there now. >Here, too. >Jerry Clark Ditto. It really serves no useful purpose for some List members here, such as Greg, Kathy Kasten, and a few others, to dangle these kinds of hints, implications, or other unsubstantiated stories and information without backing them up with verifiable documentation, sources, or other means to further investigate and vet them. I mean, what does that accomplish? Simply more dissension, dispute, and request for substantiation that those who choose not to provide it, for various previously stated but rather specious reasons, seem to want to suggest is not possible or safe for public distribution. If that's the case, then why make unsubtantiated or questionable claims, assertions, or nebulous contentions without supporting facts or data in the _first_ place?_ To do so seems kind of pointless and automatically gives rise to legitimate doubt of such claims, when those who promote them say they're too secret to discuss or to provide backing data about. Otherwise, such statements on the part of a minority of List members here will continue to be subject to perpetual skepticism, argument, and looked upon as more likely false than true when no foundation of fact or sources is provided. Frankly, that is becoming both boring and silly, IMHO. Extraordinary claims in fact do require extraordinary evidence, or proof of some kind, or why should anyone here believe what is claimed without adequate substantiation one might use to check such contentions? To do so is deceptive and disinformational in nature, at the very least. It could also be termed other things, but which for now I will defer mentioning or expressing further opinion or speculation about. Sincerely, Steve 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