"Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote

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.

That is so demonstrably  false it is hard to know where to start.
First off, it is the debunkers camp, the "Science by
Proclamation" crowd that you adhere to, which pushes

There you go again! You're assigning me to one of your arbitrarily defined
'sides'. I'm just a person with an interest in UFOs and related phenomena,
and a scientific education. I rationally analyse the data to the best of my
ability, then make up my own mind. I don't rely on any dogma to inform my
decision, and I'm not a member of anyone's 'camp'.

For what it's worth, if there is ever indisputable proof of
extraterrestrials visiting Earth, I'll personally be delighted. However the
fact is that in almost thirty years of reading everything I can find on the
subject, talking to 'experiencers' and 'experts', visiting some well-known
sites and even going on the odd sky watch, I've never seen anything that
amounted to more than misidentification, conjecture, hearsay, delusion, hoax
or insufficient data. So please explain, how does that make me a 'debunker'?

the debunkers and believers dichotomy.  It is always
the debunkers who have snap answers to everything,

Er, no, You're usually the one with the snap explanation. Whatever the
story, it's always extraterrestrials and government conspiracy.

thus that alone limits the debate: hedge hogs, swamp
gas and super-duper top-secret time-compressed
weather balloons.  I mean really!?!?!

I've never used any of those ridiculous examples to explain anything. Any
opinions I offer are based on observation and my own experience, knowledge
and research. If I don't know the answer, I'll say so. It seems to me that
your condition for assigning the label 'debunker' can be defined as 'anyone
who disagrees with Holeflapper and his conspiracy theories'.

Same tired old articles, who (how. sp) long have you been here?

Over three years. Not as long as some maybe, but long enough to have seen
pretty much every article you post come around at least twice, and also long
enough to know that you've never once published any of your alledged
research.

The material never gets out of date, in fact it becomes
more important.  Is your assignment, like Borsch-Belt,
to read every post??

Sure, some of those articles are very interesting. That's why they're
archived at several places on the Web. We really don't need you to keep
repeating them.
And yes, I make it a point to read as many posts as I can, including your
stuff. That's not an assignment, it's just the reason why I subscribe to
these NGs.

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'.

The only thing is those ARE real spOOks:
O-BORG, Borsch, Echelon and Adams;
most likely Weller also!!

Uh huh. Proof?

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Bob!!

Who's Bob?

They all have done it, to my honor, I guess!!

Don't bet on it.

-- 
Cliff Smith

"And we'll be saying a big hello to all intelligent life forms everywhere.
And to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together,
guys."