Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Jul -> Here

From: John Velez <jvif@spacelab.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 14:28:52 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 02:03:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 20:33:05 +0000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>>From: Sue Strickland <strick@H2Net.net>
>>Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 12:42:59 -0600
>>Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 05:22:20 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Satanic Abuse

>Previously, Sue had written:

>>I've been quiet for some time now.  Before the "debate" between
>>John Rimmer, John Velez and Roger Evans turns into another name
>>calling session on this list, I'd like to try another
>>track...one that I just found...one that I need to pass on to
>>you all.  It has energized my mind to try to find more answers.

>Hi, Sue.

>I take exception to your interpretation of my response to Mr.
>Valez. I have enough confidence in my own logic and conclusions
>that I have never resorted to name calling out of frustration. A
>quick run through the archives will bear this out.

Hi All,

I'd just like to clear a few things up. I have never taken _any_
of John's posts/comments as "namecalling." Nor do I believe that
they were intended to be. There _is_ a lot of 'nit picking'
surrounding the use of certain terms and I engage in it as much
as the next guy. But that's just semantics and not something
that anyone should take or interpret as being 'personal.'

Although it gets "heated" around here at times I don't think
that any of us intentionally set out to call anyone names.

Semantics (especially on an e-mail list) take on added
importance because we don't have the luxury of all the
additional sensory data that live dialog affords. It's tough to
read where someone is coming from or exactly 'what' they mean
sometimes because of it.

So, we will argue sometimes over the meaning and use of certain
terms. I don't take any of it personally and I don't think anyone
else should either. Heated debate is heated debate. Take from
it what you can.

>Regarding said book; an alternate theory isn't the same as
>"proof". In fact, it's not even evidence of the most basic sort.
>The irony is that an alternate theory is only possible if
>someone asks reasonable (and unreasonable) questions like the
>one Leanne put forth.

Just want to reiterate that Leanne is entitled to ask _any_
questions or put forth _any_ theories that she wishes. I was
simply taking exception to her use of terms such as "condition"
in this case re: abduction reports. Considering the fact that so
little is known about the 'nature' of abduction experience the
use of terms such as "condition" is not only premature but based
on the conclusion that it must all be psychological in nature. I
lodged my objection, expressed some thoughts and used my own
case as an example. Period.

1. I am not trying to edit or censor Leanne or anyone else. Nor
do I think that John or anyone else is trying to limit or censor
me. I sincerely hope that they feel the same about me and my two
cents.

2. I am not calling Leanne 'names' nor do I feel like anyone
else has called anyone names.

3. We're all grown-ups here and we are capable of conducting any
kind of dialog -heated or otherwise- without resorting to
personal rancor.

I think that way too much is made of "in house fighting" in
ufology or even on the UpDates list. Sure, there are 'some'
headhunters out there, but for the most part what is happening
here is simply what happens when many different people from many
different places and backgrounds get together to discuss
sensitive topics. The debate would be no less polarized or hot
if the subject was politics or the current state of the world
economy. We all happen to be passionate about this subject and
it shows in our communiques to one another.

What some percieve as "useless bickering" is a manifestation of
a self-correcting/editing mechanism that is always at work here.
It is in fact one of the most hopeful signs that the dialog is a
"healthy" one that we are conducting. Like diamonds in the
rough, we 'knock' the sharp points and corners off of each
other. The list/internet allows us to get close enough to rub up
against one another (our ideas and beliefs) and to polish each
other as we move toward consensus. It's all give and take and a
learning process that we are creating/discovering/shaping as we
go along.

I see it all as positive myself. :)

Peace,

John Velez, Listmember


________________________________________________
                                 jvif@spacelab.net
                    ABDUCTION INFORMATION CENTER
                            http://www.if-aic.com/
 "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind."
________________________________________________