UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 12

Re: ETH &c

From: Boroimhe@aol.com [Jeff King]
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:12:13 -0500 (EST)
Fwd Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:19:07 -0500
Subject: Re: ETH &c

A rueful hello to all and sundry

>From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark]
>Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 12:59:22 PST
>Fwd Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 15:24:01 -0500
>Subject: Re: ETH &c

>If people have a hard time distinguishing between the
>potentially most important case and the currently best-
>documented case, perhaps they should examine their
>souls, and possibly their IQs as well.

Nice to see you refraining from using that evil old skeptics'
trick of ad hominem attacks.  Always a pleasure to deal with a
man of firm principles.  Even those with high IQs and pure souls
may find it hard to see the distinction since, at the time, you
described Roswell as the most important AND the best documented.

>Over time I have changed my mind, for which my
>critics love to attack me.  Of course, if I never changed my
>mind, they'd accuse me of rigid dogmatism.

No Jerry, you changing your mind is not a problem.  In fact I
will here state that I respect anybody who changes their mind in
the face of new evidence.  My problem with what you said to the
Duke was how you tried to downplay the strength of your support
for Roswell and your attack on me for having the audacity to make
the point using your own words.

>Again, guy, you are nowhere near the point.

No, the point was you claimed I didn't understand the point, I
merely showed that I did.

>Hopkins and Jacobs (not to mention other abduction investigators)
>continue to report that abductees with whom they work experience ATPs.
>This is an  extraordinary claim for which they ought to produce
>relevant medical evidence.

Again, we agree on this basic point.  The difference is I think
their failure to provide such evidence means they haven't done
the work necessary to even raise the claim.  In other words, a
false hypothesis.

>I have already answered you on this.  See above.  Perhaps
>now you can start doing something useful, such as collecting
>papers written by scientists, political pundits, social critics,
>and others over the years and documenting how they've
>changed their minds, been wrong, or otherwise failed to be
>dogmatically consistent over time.  You've got your work
>cut out for you, buddy.

As do you in finding out exactly what my reading history is.  As
I said above, you changing your mind isn't the problem.  In fact,
you might even trot out Winston Churchill's famous quote on the
subject, especially given your fascination with age. The problem
is you take stands of absolute certitude, and then when new
investigation does cause you to change your mind, you backpedal
and try to deny that you were ever so far out on the limb in the
first place. Humility anyone?

>How old are you, Jeff?

Old enough and secure enough in my own professional life to not
feel the need to denigrate others' intelligence to feel better
about myself.  You also missed the point.  Your unqualified
identification of my prose, which you've probably never seen
before, was just another (very minor) example of your habit of
reaching absolute conclusions too quickly. Your response just
reinforces the point.

And now that Jerry has fallen into childish insults and name
calling, I will bow out of this stimulating exchange.  But Jerry,
please feel free to attack again.  I'm sure you'll want the last
ad hominem word.

Malgre tout,



Search for other documents from or mentioning: boroimhe | clark

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com