In article <JQMLa.5191$MO2.3869@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>,
	"Cliff Smith" <cliff(nospam)smith23@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Th� Wh�l�fl�ff�r ���ti���m" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote

Hughe/Sucke is your standard troll,
ignore this Cult of Useful Idiot members.
Hugh, Patty, Anal-Sham, Sludge, UBob, Wilson,
George, Chumpust are here to disrupt these newsgroups.
Not one of them has done any real research on the alien presence
and their knowledge on the subject is zero.  Although their knowledge
on deviant perverted behavior is absolute, but that's another story.

You know what's strange?  That you who claim to promote genuine
research into UFO phenomena are the main culprit, on all of the
newsgroups to which you post, of promoting divisive arguments that
serve only to polarise the field of UFOlogy into two opposing camps,
'debunkers' and 'believers', thus ensuring that little or no real
debate ever takes place.

 There is a saying, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"...  What we
 see in these groups are just the extremes (the squeaky wheels).  There
 exists a full spectrum from the so-called 'true believers' to the
 'cynical debunkers'.  The funny thing is, these extremes are more alike
 than different, it is just which end of the spectrum they inhabit that 
 differs.  Both have the following traits,

 - Don't confuse me, my mind is made up
 - I'll ignore all evidence that doesn't suit my beliefs
 - I'll shout down or denigrate all that don't agree with my position 

 The sad truth is, it really doesn't matter one bit, the truth points
 to itself, and is available to anyone willing 'to look'.  The world
 isn't going 'to change' based upon anyones beliefs, or lack thereof.

 To some, both play a very important role, and the situation would be
 drastically altered if either disappeared.

As for your own credentials, you have never posted any of this 'real
research' you claim to have done, or pointed to any publications where
we might find examples of it; instead you just continually cross-post and
re-post the same tired old articles that you've stolen from other people,
most of which have recently been completely off topic. In place of logical
discussion you rely on childish insults, ad hominem attacks and your fatuous
lists of 'spOOks'. Furthermore, your self-assumed appellation of the
honourific 'Sir' is both inappropriate and offensive.
If anyone round here is displaying classic 'spOOk' behaviour it's you. You'd
better call your 'handler', Agent Kolnick; your cover's been blown.

 Paul Stowe