UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Martin Phillips <mphillips@btinternet.com> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:15:57 +0100 Fwd Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 17:54:30 -0400 Subject: Re: What's Wrong With British Ufology? >From: Rory Lushman <Oubliette@currantbun.com> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >Subject: Re: What's Wrong With British Ufology? >Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 15:39:10 +0100 >>From: Martin Phillips <mphillips@btinternet.com> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>Subject: Re: What's Wrong With British Ufology? >>Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 22:18:02 +0100 >>>From: Rory Lushman <Oubliette@currantbun.com> >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> >>>Subject: Re: What's Wrong With British Ufology? >>>Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 19:00:57 +0100 >>>Investigations should be of a high standard and I think we >>>should not allow anyone to talk "rubbish" if they cannot back up >>>their claims. >>means you think you know best what's good for the public. Thank >>you, but I'd rather decide for myself, after hearing all sides >>of the debate. The above comment calls for censorship, the very >>thing that most people interested in UFOs complain that our >>political leaders do. >Interpret it how you will and twist my comments to suit your >argument. I will clarify my point for you. I said everyone is >entitled to an opinion. I'm not after censoring anyone but >everyone should expect to have to answer questions to back up >their research, whether pro or anti ET. >Can you honestly say it fair to let someone talk for two hours >about how we all descended from gold miners thousands of years >ago and not have the right to ask on what they base their >theory. I say let them talk, they are highly amusing. >Why censor these people, they make idiots of themselves anyway. >Before anyone challenges me on that comment, I am talking about >a very small minority that even the pro ET crowd find extreme. I think you're trying to move the goalposts here - you said 'I think we should not allow anyone to talk "rubbish" if they cannot back up their claims'. My point was that there is little evidence that is absolutely conclusive and inarguable in the field, so for most cases, one man's interpretation is often as good as another's. Look at Roswell, Majestic-12, Area 51, Aurora and Flying Triangles - the same evidence is being interpreted in diametrically opposed ways, because there's so little that's concrete. So your call to stop people talking rubbish can only mean 'stop people saying things that I disagree with', because what's rubbish to you is probably the gospel truth to someone else. I'd say that most of the arguments in the UFO field are verys similar to arguments about the interpretation of the New Testament that happen between the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox churches. I just think the UFO debates have more basis in fact that the religious debates! Anyway, you seem to have changed your mind slightly, in that you now seem happy to let anyone talk, because they'll make fools of themselves. I'd say that's everyones' inalienable right, including me (and I think my appeal for reasoned debate, and the reaction, showed I can do it with the best of them). I'll go back to reading the fur fly over this month's hot feud - we've had the Sheffield Incident (ha ha), I think it's time for another one). Martin Phillips
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com