X-No-Archive:Yes
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:02:40 -0000, "altheim" <altheim@freeuk.com>
licked the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and wrote:

"Widdershins" <sinistre@liripipe.com> wrote:

"altheim" altheim@freeuk.coml, and wrote:

"Widdershins" <sinistre@liripipe.com> wrote:

"altheim" <altheim@freeuk.com> wrote:

"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

researcher wrote:

A Definition of "UFO Skeptic"

Someone that is fundamentally in denial and has a mind closed like a

steel

trap.

Alternate definition:
Someone that is being used by the Government or other special

interest

group

to deliberately lie about UFOs or make up fake UFO stories to help

cover

up

the truth.

Any Comments on this?

Yes, my comment is that you are delusional.

Whatever you may think of researcher on a personal level,
his definition of a Skeptic is sound.

No. It is the biased whine of a saucerhead whose favorite
theory du jour isn'r wildly aqpplauded by one and all.

The true definition of a UFO skeptic is merly someone who listens to

all

the baseless ravings flowing out of the UFO cult and then asks "what
evidence do you have to back up any of that?" Then when no real

evidence

is presented, the skeptic quite correctly writes off the ravings as

the

utter BS they are. HTH.

No. That is the definition of a disbeliever.

Pull your head out of your ass! The skeptic asks for evidence,
evaluates it, and then makes up his mind. A disbeleiver looks
at whatever has been vetted, and flatly refuses to give it any
currency.

Look around you Widdershins. This is precisely what is
happening in these groups; that is what I've been trying to
tell you. No questions, no debate - just flat, often insulting,
denials.

Reading comprehension problems noted. Look 4 paragraphs
above. There is a working defintion of a skeptic. You
disagreed with it without offering any alternative. "No questions,
no debate-just flat...denials."

It's a bit off-topic but OK, let's discuss your (the above) definition:
it describes, up to a point, what a sceptic might say when presented
with (to him) dubious arguments and rightly asks for evidence.
However when evidence is not forthcoming, a true sceptic should
remain on the fence (as it were), *not* draw a conclusion.

Not necessarily; when no evidence is forthcoming it is a
reasonable conclusion to draw that the claimant cannot back
up the onager claim. Trust me, I've seen it happen more than once.
Check Google for Arthur Wholeflaffers, Richard X. Frager (one in
the same), Flagship1 of the Paranormal, Bruce Daniel Kettler,
Alexa Camweron, and my all time favorite Eddieeeeeee
Wollmann.

What conclusions do you draw from their posts, especially when they
were challenged to provide evidence to back up their statements.



Widdershins

Especially not a disdainful one.

The only valuable opinion about a paranormalist, is that of 
others who are of the same view. 

....A classic from Bruce Daniel Kettler