d000c0cb   
   XPost: alt.alien.visitors, alt.alien.research, alt.paranet.abduct   
   XPost: alt.conspiracy   
   From: garymatalucci@gmail.com   
      
   Being a Debunker means never having to say you're sorry, or even   
   making a lick of sense!   
   Sage advice by John F. Schuessler   
      
   Debunkers: I have heard it said that the most frustrating and least   
   useful aspect of ufology is the machinations of the debunkers.   
   Debunkers are experts at the use of disinformation, misinformation,   
   and propaganda. They provide prosaic explanations for everything. If   
   the first story gets challenged, they simply generate another story   
   and do not even apologize for changing their position. No information   
   or data supplied by the ufologist is ever good enough for them. Truth,   
   honesty, ethics and things like that are foreign to their way of   
   operating because it might erode their position. They seldom do real   
   investigations.   
      
   Most of their explanations are canned and used over and over so that   
   they do not feel it necessary to do investigations. All this is very   
   frustrating to the ufologists that conduct extensive investigations,   
   record every little detail of a UFO incident, assemble statistics,   
   maintain vast databases, and probably most of all, respect the good   
   and honest witnesses who report their UFO incidents.   
      
   Perhaps it would help ufologists to deal with the debunkers if they   
   understood why the debunkers act in such a manner. This is best   
   described in The Argument Culture, a book by Georgetown University   
   professor Deborah Tannen. These machinations are an example of what   
   the cultural linguist Walter Ong calls "agonism" or "programmed   
   contentiousness." Agonism does not refer to disagreement, conflict, or   
   vigorous dispute. It refers to ritualized opposition.   
      
   Professor Tannen says: "The way we train our students, conduct our   
   classes and our research, and exchange ideas at meetings and in print   
   are all driven by our ideological assumption that intellectual inquiry   
   is a metaphorical battle. Following from that is a second assumption,   
   that the best way to demonstrate intellectual prowess is to criticize,   
   find fault, and attack." Further, she says: "Many aspects of our   
   academic lives can be described as agonistic. For example, in our   
   scholarly papers, most of us follow a conventional framework that   
   requires us to position our work in opposition to someone else's,   
   which we prove wrong.   
      
   The framework tempts, almost requires us to oversimplify or even   
   misrepresent others' positions; cite the weakest example to make a   
   generally reasonable work appear less so; and ignore facts that   
   support other's views, citing only evidence that supports our own   
   positions."   
      
   This approach "fosters a stance of arrogance and narrow-mindedness."   
   There is much more of value in The Argument Culture, but in these few   
   words, I believe Professor Tannen has clearly exposed the operating   
   technique used by most debunkers. With this information in mind, it is   
   fairly obvious that we are stuck with a continuing tirade by the   
   debunkers and it will continue until they all die off. They are unable   
   to change, they are   
   programmed to act as they do.   
      
   Fortunately, most ufologists have no desire to play the debunkers   
   game. Programmed contentiousness is viewed as dishonest, unfair and   
   unethical. It puts an end to exploring ideas, uncovering nuances,   
   comparing and contrasting different interpretations of a particular   
   work, and gaining a deeper and more accurate understanding of the   
   material. It kills the quest for open-minded inquiry.   
      
   Even knowing all of this, ufologists still allow themselves to be   
   stressed by the actions of debunkers. A good investigator is likely to   
   be provoked by a debunker's announcement that a certain UFO was   
   actually Venus when everyone knows that Venus was not visible at the   
   time. A debunker's demand for "all of your investigative files so I   
   can identify the UFO," is another provoking ploy. They play on your   
   ego by saying "I have never seen any credible evidence of a UFO,"   
   hoping you will try to provide some evidence that will convince them.   
   Will it convince them? No! Their debunker's pre-subscribed dogma will   
   not allow it. If all else fails, they will claim it is your   
   responsibility as an investigator to respond to their demands. Don't   
   fall for that ploy. Only you and the organization you represent can   
   define your responsibilities.   
      
   A formula for avoiding stress caused by the actions of the debunkers   
   is to follow industry's lead in looking for "value added" in any   
   interchange or effort. If there is nothing to be gained from   
   responding to them, then don't do it. Apply your energies where they   
   will make a difference. Don't play their game. It takes two to make a   
   game and if you do not respond to their provocation, then they do not   
   have a game. They lose and you are not stressed.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)