Richard Caldwell wrote:

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

	Let me add just one thought here that Ron Hill wrote a few years ago:

begin insert

From: rontah@enigma71.freeserve.co.uk (Ron Hill)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal.crop-circles

snip

I find it unfortunate that simply asking for proof to back up any
statements that are offered as factual, in order that those facts can
be examined, leads very rapidly to almost paranoid hysteria, as though
the person's personal integrity is being brought into question.
Scientific objectivity become dirty words in the process.

end insert


		Just Thought I Should Mention It