From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul> Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 10:02:48 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Fwd Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 08:53:17 -0400 Subject: Re: 'Fleet' Is Biased Term - Smith >From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 14:10:06 -0400 >Subject: Re: 'Fleet' Is Biased Term >>From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul> >>To: ufoupdates.nul >>Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 09:30:33 -0400 (GMT-04:00) >>Subject: 'Fleet' Is Biased Term >>Who on the List believes that the very term "Fleets" used to >>describe the Mexican UFO videos is biased and leads the reader >>to believe the video is of a collection of intelligently >>controllable vehicles which may at least (though highly >>unlikely) have origination from contemporary Earth and at most >>derive from alien (off-world, time travelers, whatever)? >Extra, extra! Read all about it!!! Pot calls kettle black!!!!! > <LMAO> I didn't think I was addressing you, Sir. But if you want to it's your right in a free society to offer an opinion. I thought you were just going to let me twist in the wind, Sir John. Please just ignore me and maybe I will just give up and go away. >"Biased?" I'll bet your tongue burned even for just thinking >the word. Sorry, this does not translate well. >Funny how you're the one who keeps using terms >such as 'biased" and 'need for attention.' Basically, its just logic I am using and a dictionary. If UFO research is to be respectable (yes, that is a dream isn't it?), lets not used biased terms. >No, someone who was declaring an open case closed and >who just happened to have that very solution to the case >published in a 'skeptic's' magazine couldn't possibly be >"biased" now, could he? If one does analysis to back up ones conclusion then that is not biased. Also, I did not receive _any_ detailed refutation of the copious data I provided to reach my conclusions from _you_, Mr. Velez. Believe me, I am open to the possibility of error in so complex an analysis. But you offered only insults and arm wavings. In fact, anyone who sent me comments on the Campeche analysis were taken seriously by me to try to resolve and improve my work. Really, I can understand why you did not bother with a detailed refutation of my analysis, because it _is_ very mathematical, complex. But I provide formula, derivations, data sources, etc. >Gimme a break man. Just who is it that you think >you're fooling with this stuff? Ever hear the >expression, 'as transparent as a pane of glass?' Uh, what? I am asking a simple question. Perhaps, in Spanish there is another meaning of the word "Fleet" that does not translate to English. Seriously, is this the case? It is hard to deny logically that "fleet" is a leading term that guides the public to think these are vehicles under intelligent control as opposed to a more open minded approach, since you have not identified them (you call them UFOs), they could be NON-vehicles under _non_-intelligent _non_- control. We don't know. >Give it a rest debunker. We _all_ know where >you stand. No need to be redundant. We 'get it' > (and where you are coming from,) already. Humm, debunker? That seems like you are trying to insult me. Anyway, its just words. Anyway, by giving it a rest, you mean, leave you alone? I wasn't addressing this new thread to you or against you or your friends, but to the general List audience because it would be interesting to see how they perceive this terminology question. And it seems a fair question for true UFO researchers.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp