Hi Richard,

As anyone who's read my posts before would surely know, I agree with
everything Richard has said here. I was, in fact, one of the early people in
this newsgroup to advocate the concept of, well, too put it simply, nutcases
on both sides. There are honest sceptics (which I would certainly be myself
if personal experience hadn't got in the way), and those with an honest
interest and rational reasoning behind leaning toward an ETH... and then
there are "Foaming True Believer's" and "Raving Lunatic Debunkers". The
first group... life would be great if they could just be allowed to discuss
the subject they are interested in. The second group, well, they prevent
that.

The inbalance comes in the nature of the two negative groups. The "Foaming
True Believers" are, very unfortunately for us proponants, usually either
someone with some type of emotional or, yes, even psychological problems,or
even just plain nuts. As you might expect, they don't hold up too well in a
debate, nor should they, and I think the rest is history. The "Raving
Lunatic Debunkers", just as unfortunately, are usually at least intelligent
enough to write coherently, and their love (for some it really seems too be
a need) for the their debating style, founded in dishonest trickery, is
their primary reason for participating. That's a bad combination for the
proponant's side. The FTBs make themselves easy targets, and throw
themselves right at the RLDs, who have a demented need to rip them apart.
This has long been one of the main problems with the whole subject.


"Richard Caldwell" <rhc1536@cox.net> wrote in message
news:RcKPa.11002$o86.3019@news1.central.cox.net...

Robert ASF. wrote in message ...

SNIP <<<<

Just Thought I Should Mention It

I agree with everything that Robert says, so no need to copy it here.

I would like to add some additional comments.  I see a lot of name
calling on this NG.  Terms like "wacko, believer, debunker, skeptibunker,
skeptic, et al".

Let's get one thing straight.  Skeptics, like Robert and myself are not
trying to prove
that alien visitors do not exist.  We are not trying to prove ANYTHING,
since we have
made no claim that requires proof.  We are willing to read, listen to, and
discuss any
evidence that others wish to put forward.

Debunkers, on the other hand, are convinced (for some reason that I don't
understand)
that alien visitors are absolutely not possible.  Therefore, they are
interested in destroying
any evidence offered in favor of the ETH, as well as attempting, in many
cases, to
destroy the credibility of those who offer it.

Believers are those who accept the ETH as fact.  This is because they have
seen, heard,
or read evidence that convinces them, for the rational ones.  There are

also

the irrational
believers who believe in the ETH as an act of faith, which by definition
requires no proof.
They have their own reasons, which I will not attempt to fathom.

The point is that it is NOT required that believers be apostles of the

ETH.

The do not
need to seek converts nor convince anyone.  Neither is it necessary for

the

debunkers
to convince anyone of the opposite.  All that is required is a rational
discussion of the
issues and evidence and the willingness to allow each other to interpret

and

evaluate
those issues and evidence and to come to our own conclusions.

If, as we all seem to agree (or protest), the ETH is not a religion, then

is

is not necessary
to recruit converts.  It is simply an interesting subject/possibility that
is worthy of
conjecture, IMHO.

After all, true or not, the ETH forces us to look at our own culture more
objectively.

Richard Caldwell,  aka  Buckaroo Banzai