UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 19

Re: The State of Ufology Today

From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:59:38 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 01:00:08 -0500
Subject: Re: The State of Ufology Today

>From: Gary Alevy <galevy@pipeline.com>
>Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:56:32 -0500
>Fwd Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:01:15 -0500
>Subject: Re: The State of Ufology Today

>>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 01:37:06 -0800
>>From: Josh Goldstein <clearlt@pacbell.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: The State of Ufology Today

Previously, Josh had written:

>>These are selected snips from your post that I think illustrate
>>your caustic and hostile attitude toward Jerry Clark, Richard
>>Hall and MUFON investigators (like myself). I had to look at
>>your displays of hostility even when other researchers were
>>being civil to you and only asking you to prove what you were
>>saying in your posts. [Roger] Evans received the same treatment.


Gary replied:

>Where were you, defender of civility on this list, when I was
>called names and insulted by said "researchers". As for Roger
>Evans and his post where did you point out the impropriety of his
>four-fold invocation?

More importantly, Gary, where were YOU to prevent it?

You've had dozens of chances to respond to specific questions
regarding your positions. Instead, you choose to change the
subject, belittle those who oppose you and leave the tough
questions unanswered. Anyone that approaches debate with such a
cowardly attitude is, in my opinion, full of crap as I stated
before. If anyone else reading this list disagrees, I'd sure
like to know why.

Moving on, Gary opined:

>As to the issue of "proof". This is the holy grail of ufology
>and is the usual hue and cry of those can't or won't understand
>that all you will ever have is evidence supporting hypotheses.

Is that why you tried to convince everyone that "evidence" and
"proof" are the same thing in the following statement?:

>>-- What are the real issues in the dispute which broke out last
>>month over Dr. Hynek? This real issues revolve around the fact
>>that there is AMPLE evidence, evidence tantamount to proof, FOR
>>ME, that Dr. Hynek was working both sides of the street in his
>>later career as Godfather of ufology. What is proof? It is the
>>evidence that convinces YOU. That is, there is no absolute
>>proof available in this area, short of the individual at issue
>>owning up in public

When I read this, it strikes me that you are finally admitting
that you have no real proof regarding Hynek and Larsen. Instead,
you resort to "re-defining" what constitutes "proof".

How convenient.

That's like my mother redefining the term "skinny" to include
anything short of 150 pounds (sorry, mom). Maybe we should all
redefine "rich" to include anything short of $200 in our bank
accounts. Of course, we could cut this nonsense short and simple
redefine any unqualified statement as a "fact" and let Gary win
his argument.

And you wonder why I use the term "crap"?


Roger Evans

[ 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