From: Jerome Clark <email@example.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 99 14:14:33 PST Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 07:58:13 -0500 Subject: Re: The State of Ufology Today >Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:56:32 -0500 >From: Gary Alevy <firstname.lastname@example.org> >To: UFO UpDate <email@example.com> >Subject: Re: The State of Ufology Today >>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 01:37:06 -0800 >>From: Josh Goldstein <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: The State of Ufology Today >>>Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 20:15:06 -0500 >>>From: Gary Alevy <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>>To: UFO UpDate <email@example.com> >>>Subject: The State of Ufology Today Gary and patient and gentle listfolk: >You object to the style of message that I used; however, isn't >it true that if I tried to make these points in the "academic" >style so fashionable today no one would have paid it any >attention. I have been observing this list for more than two >years and I see "researchers" you favor insult, degrade and >debase posters to this list, you are silent. Jerry Clark posts >no original research or work to this list. He posts to attack >and debunk other's postings using the method of character >assasination that so upsets you. Does the archives document your >criticism of him for being out of bounds? Of course I don't employ "character assassination," nor do you list any "original research or work to this list." (Creative imagination, Gary, is neither research nor work.) I oppose character assassination in principle. (I have been on the receiving end of it on occasion.) In any case it isn't necessary when one is responding to arguments as thinly based in reason, evidence, and documentation as Mr. Alevy's. On the subject of character assassination, however, I find it -- to put it mildly -- odd that Gary is objecting to it only when it allegedly is employed by others. On the other hand, his character assassination of honorable men such as Allen Hynek and Sherman Larsen is okay by Gary. Here's a psychic test for the rest of you: I am thinking of a word to characterize Gary's approach here. A hint: it starts with "h." >Generally speaking on this list those clamoring the loudest for >proof use this as a smokescreen for ignoring discussion of >evidence and hypotheses. An example of this is your response to >my post clamoring for "proof" while you fail to engage in any >discussion, civil or otherwise, of any and all points I raised. Let me offer this one bit of advice, Gary: If you are going to assassinate the characters of your betters -- by leveling the most serious charges one ufologist can make against other ufologists -- you had better produce evidence, damned good evidence, and you had better have a more relevant, compelling response to your critics than the self-righteous posturing and subject-changing we've seen so far. Otherwise, an approach like yours represents ufology at its worst. Never having met you personally and knowing nothing about you beyond what I see on this list, I have no personal quarrel with you. For all I know, when you're not bloviating on subjects you know little or nothing about (a hardly unique human failing), you're a nice guy. But the sorts of baseless slanders* you have directed against some of ufology's true pioneers do no one -- least of all you -- any good. Jerry Clark *Last time I used this word, you objected to it. Look it up in the dictionary.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp