UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 28

Re: Triangular UFOs over Belgium

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 15:17:13 +0600
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 16:07:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Triangular UFOs over Belgium


>Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 22:42:42 -0400
>From: Peter Duke of Mendoza Brookesmith <DarkSecretPB@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Triangular UFOs over Belgium
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Triangular UFOs over Belgium
>>Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 23:54:12 -0400

>The Anglican Communion, which has recently been reminding itself
>that it is broad & tolerant church while debating in Synod its
>attitude to gay people, has plenty of archbishops. Some of its
>bishops have recently caused a spot of bother by questioning the
>Virgin Birth, Resurrection of the Christ, &c.,

<snip>

Duke,

Considering the definite preference of skeptics in general
towards obscurantism, I was referring in my post to the less
appealing ages of Christianity. Obscurantism confirmed by your
tasty:

>Free expression by itself was never a seed of anything but more
>free expression. (Cf. D.H. Lawrence: "Thank God I am not free,
>any more than a tree with roots.")

Which proves again that you have all your references mixed up as
D.H. Lawrence was a victim himself of the intolerance of his
contemporaries towards free expression.

But let's get to the heart of the matter.

One problem with you skeptics is that you bring nothing to the
debate. Just think of the pejorative meaning the term "skeptic"
has acquired under your auspices. Defining answers instead of
looking for some has had you trading dignity for fame, nobility
for shame.

There are SOME people in ufology who are doing some half-decent
research and who want to know. Read the posts and note that,
contrary to skeptics, asses get kicked not kissed, the former
being considered sport, the later bad taste.

In your own words:

>Then get thee to "Alien Abductions" by yrs truly, where I take
>my old friend Phil Klass to task on at least two counts (I am in
>receipt of a letter from Phil complaining about them, too)

You took Klass in two counts ?!  Jesus, Duke, how heroic of you. What
about the 7 dozen other counts you should have taken him on ?   And
Phil old boy just wrote you about those two (up an index, up a middle
finger) counts ?  An objective attitude towards Klass would have been
to stick thy index up thy nose and let the middle finger do the
talkin', but, my God, skeptics don't form a Church, they form a
Sanctum as. . .

. . . in your own words:

>quibble wih others implicitly throughout. I can also cite
>instances of Kottmeyer being unenchanted with Stacy (not a
>debunker) over the latter's Abortion Anxiety Hypothesis, Klass
>disputing Kottmeyer's interpretation of the Father Gill/PNG
>case, and John Harney (Magonia ETH Bulletin) questioning Klass
>on the Walton case. Just off the top of my head. [...]

Let's bet the quibbling has not gone against the established
order: let's piss off the people who are trying to make sense of
all of this.

Because this is what it is all about: something has been
happening here for more than 50 years now. It is a phenomenon
with different faces which is _evidently_ out of this world,
e.g. not within our common frame of experience. For more then 50
years, all efforts to understand the phenomenon have been
consistently and systematically countered with arguments whose
triviality bears no common measure with the graveness of the
matter at hand.

Hey, Duke Dude, some people are trying to understand here. And I
submit to you that, if some of you skeptics are dishonest, the
others are plain irresponsible.

As for:

>I'm not suggesting ufology is _one_ church. It's a mass of
>communions, cults, sects and congregations. And agnostics,
>heretics, apostates, atheists, and bemused unlookers.

You are absolutely right: there are a lot of bull-shitters in
ufology, a lot of people with agendas, people who don't give a
damn about what is right or wrong, people who are in the pursuit
only of obscure personal goals.

And who needs them ?

I can only bow to your lucidity and I must now retract myself:
in the light of the preceding 8 lines, skeptics cannot be
excluded anymore from ufology, they fit in perfectly.

And who needs them ?

Enjoy,

Serge Salvaille