UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 4

Re: Cough, Korf, Ahem!

From: Sean Jones <tedric@tedric.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 07:21:21 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 12:17:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Cough, Korf, Ahem!

>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 14:02:14 +0000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Cough, Korf, Ahem!

Hi Roger


>The only thing that matters is results.

>When I was a kid, I wanted to play baseball. I sucked at it.
>Therefore, I had to try twice as hard to make the team and put
>out a great deal more effort than other kids better than me.
>Needless to say I did not make the team. But, if "hard work" was
>the measure for success, then I damn well should have been team

I think you are wrong here Roger.

To use your analogy

1) Life's a bitch!

2) How do you know the others didn't try harder, work longer and
etc etc? Besides which something like this "talent" comes into
it as well.

If you are saying results is all that counts then you are
demeaning an awful lot of peoples hard work. For example, Kevin
Randles' investigation of the Roswell incident(s), Stanton
Friedman's uncovering of the FOIA documents, Chris Rutkowski's
annual Canadian UFO Reports to name but a few. No I'm sorry your
"results only" argument doesn't hold water in my opinion.

>Sorry, Michael, but unless all your much bally-hoo'd hard work
>(or anyone else's, for that matter) has uncovered something
>unique or different regarding UFOs that we don't already know,
>then you are only a guy with an opinion, just like Roger, no
>matter how hard you had to work to form that opinion.

And in the land of free speech is not everyone entitled to their
own opinion?

>>From what I've read of your own posts, your much touted neutral
>"wait and see" position COULD be considered little more than a
>dodge of dealing with difficult issues. And your habit of
>limiting yourself to only one response MIGHT seem far too
>convenient an escape route for someone truly interested in
>exchanging ideas or exploring the results of someone else's
>research. Or is your own research the only "real" research you
>recognize? Ironic, don't you think, that someone so committed to
>research, i.e. learning new information, would be so prejudicial
>of another person's ideas simply because of a title after the
>name? How petty.

I think I answered this in the previous post.

>I know of no "facts" or "evidence" uncovered by anyone on this
>list, regardless of their "field work",

Then, my good Sir, you are sadly lacking. And I leave it to
others to point out to you the evidence that they have
uncovered, say regarding trace landing cases for example. Or how
about Betty Cash and her burns?

>that has added to our
>over all knowledge anymore than some of the "armchair" UFO
>enthusiasts that also participate. In fact, some of the
>"armchair" members have actually brought up some interesting
>things for discussion.

I agree, but its the hard work of others that brings these
discussions to results.

>So when Roger asks, "Who the hell are you
>to judge me?" he has a legitimate point and I think you owe him
>an apology.

That's for Mike to decide but I disagree.

>But then what do I know? I don't have the "field" experience
>that you do so I guess my opinion means nothing, also.

So do certain peoples opinion carry more weight than others

If so why?

    In an infinite universe infinitely anything is possible.
                       Sean Jones
            UFO page--http://www.tedric.demon.co.uk/

[ 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