eed898d6   
   XPost: alt.alien.visitors, alt.alien.research, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: garymatalucci@gmail.com   
      
   On Mar 14, 3:37 pm, kashmir.star...@gmail.com wrote:   
   > On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:55:23 PM UTC-4, Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers   
   A.S.A. wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > Really?   
      
   Yes really.  We know where the remaining debunkers are located, we   
   know where their headquarters is, we know what caves they dwell in and   
   we know who their supporters, sympathizers and enablers are.   
      
   I have asked the Octagon® to ready 1 quadrillion anti-matter bombs to   
   flush them out, so far my request has been denied.  I think some   
   debunkers on these newsgroups have infiltrated the Octagon®, we will   
   let you know what our task-force finds out.  Stay in touch,   
      
   SirA   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)