In article <cvm0iv0knia9ook826m5s752dr49sqb7m5@4ax.com>, David Patrick says...

So where did you get your qualifications...

Patty, rest assured that I OUT-qualify you on this topic.
And Patty, your "slip" is showing!!!

Being a Debunker means never having to say you're sorry, or even making a lick
of sense! 
Sage advice by John F. Schuessler 

Debunkers: I have heard it said that the most frustrating and least useful
aspect of ufology is the machinations of the debunkers. Debunkers are experts at
the use of disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda. They provide prosaic
explanations for everything. If the first story gets challenged, they simply
generate another story and do not even apologize for changing their position. No
information or data supplied by the ufologist is ever good enough for them.
Truth, honesty, ethics and things like that are foreign to their way of
operating because it might erode their position. They seldom do real
investigations.

Most of their explanations are canned and used over and over so that they do not
feel it necessary to do investigations. All this is very frustrating to the
ufologists that conduct extensive investigations, record every little detail of
a UFO incident, assemble statistics, maintain vast databases, and probably most
of all, respect the good and honest witnesses who report their UFO incidents.

Perhaps it would help ufologists to deal with the debunkers if they understood
why the debunkers act in such a manner. This is best described in The Argument
Culture, a book by Georgetown University professor Deborah Tannen. These
machinations are an example of what the cultural linguist Walter Ong calls
"agonism" or "programmed contentiousness." Agonism does not refer to
disagreement, conflict, or vigorous dispute. It refers to ritualized opposition.

Professor Tannen says: "The way we train our students, conduct our classes and
our research, and exchange ideas at meetings and in print are all driven by our
ideological assumption that intellectual inquiry is a metaphorical battle.
Following from that is a second assumption, that the best way to demonstrate
intellectual prowess is to criticize, find fault, and attack." Further, she
says: "Many aspects of our academic lives can be described as agonistic. For
example, in our scholarly papers, most of us follow a conventional framework
that requires us to position our work in opposition to someone else's, which we
prove wrong.

The framework tempts, almost requires us to oversimplify or even misrepresent
others' positions; cite the weakest example to make a generally reasonable work
appear less so; and ignore facts that support other's views, citing only
evidence that supports our own positions."

This approach "fosters a stance of arrogance and narrow-mindedness." There is
much more of value in The Argument Culture, but in these few words, I believe
Professor Tannen has clearly exposed the operating technique used by most
debunkers. With this information in mind, it is fairly obvious that we are stuck
with a continuing tirade by the debunkers and it will continue until they all
die off. They are unable to change, they are
programmed to act as they do.

Fortunately, most ufologists have no desire to play the debunkers game.
Programmed contentiousness is viewed as dishonest, unfair and unethical. It puts
an end to exploring ideas, uncovering nuances, comparing and contrasting
different interpretations of a particular work, and gaining a deeper and more
accurate understanding of the material. It kills the quest for open-minded
inquiry.

Even knowing all of this, ufologists still allow themselves to be stressed by
the actions of debunkers. A good investigator is likely to be provoked by a
debunker's announcement that a certain UFO was actually Venus when everyone
knows that Venus was not visible at the time. A debunker's demand for "all of
your investigative files so I can identify the UFO," is another provoking ploy.
They play on your ego by saying "I have never seen any credible evidence of a
UFO," hoping you will try to provide some evidence that will convince them. Will
it convince them? No! Their debunker's pre-subscribed dogma will not allow it.
If all else fails, they will claim it is your responsibility as an investigator
to respond to their demands. Don't fall for that ploy. Only you and the
organization you represent can define your responsibilities.

A formula for avoiding stress caused by the actions of the debunkers is to
follow industry's lead in looking for "value added" in any interchange or
effort. If there is nothing to be gained from responding to them, then don't do
it. Apply your energies where they will make a difference. Don't play their
game. It takes two to make a game and if you do not respond to their
provocation, then they do not have a game. They lose and you are not stressed.