David, ENOUGH ALREADY!

[valiens]

"it occurs to me that I may be the fool here for preaching the virtues of embracing reality to members of a UFO/Paranormal forum. Yeah . . . I guess I should probably consider the source of the bizzarre, illogical, counter-intuitive statements before getting worked up over them."

--DBTrek: Member of a UFO/Paranormal forum since 2/07.

 

[tommyball]

All this arguing... this is why The Greys weep for the future of our species...

-todd.

 

[valiens]

All this arguing... this is why The Greys weep for the future of our species...

-todd.

It's why they use wheat fields like an etch-a-sketch instead of calling on the iphone.

 

[TBlossum]

"it occurs to me that I may be the fool here for preaching the virtues of embracing reality to members of a UFO/Paranormal forum. Yeah . . . I guess I should probably consider the source of the bizzarre, illogical, counter-intuitive statements before getting worked up over them."

--DBTrek: Member of a UFO/Paranormal forum since 2/07.

David produced a very nice rant. It's interesting that for the first time in 30 years, right-wingers _don't_ want to talk about politics. Odd. I wonder why that is? Unfortunately, I don't know of anything that isn't connected to politics, particularly UFO secrecy. It's also interesting that merely recognizing stupidity, corruption, incompetence and greed in our government has become an 'extremist' position. What's the middle ground, I wonder? As for Stan, I'm sure he can take care of himself.

 

[Poi]

I hear you, Scott. I'm there too.

 

[DBTrek]

I'm not sure who the right-winger is, since I know I voted against Bush three times (twice for prez, once in Michigan primaries), spoke out against the Iraq war before it was launched, and did what I could to ensure we wouldn't be in the position we are today.

What I find interesting is that by trying to introduce some amount of reason into partisan insanity I'm instantly labelled a member of the opposing ideology.

This leaves me in an interesting dilemma. When I was saying "What do you mean we should invade Iraq? What's there? I don't get it. There are bad men everywhere, and Saddam is going to use whatever WMD's he has to protect his own borders" I got to listen to a bunch of pineads call me an unpatriotic, treasonous, America hater.

Yet when I suggest that destabilizing a country, disbanding its military, and then fleeing it so that the very people we are supposed to be fighting can take the place over may be a dumb idea, I'm suddenly a neocon, Bush-worshipping, fascist.

I think the truth is closer to this: The country is full of polarized idiots so fueled by hatred that if you don't agree with every half-baked idea they propose you're automatically assigned to their 'enemy' list.

When I see people on either end of the political spectrum ranting about how everything bad in the world is 'the other guys fault' I try to step in and say 'get real'. But . . . as I said previously, this may be the wrong place to encourage people to 'get real' . . . so whatever.

People have their opinions, and I have my opinions on why their opinions are dumb. The only difference is I'm right, and they're wrong.

Hah!

-DBTrek

 

[Aaron LeClair]

"it occurs to me that I may be the fool here for preaching the virtues of embracing reality to members of a UFO/Paranormal forum. Yeah . . . I guess I should probably consider the source of the bizzarre, illogical, counter-intuitive statements before getting worked up over them."

--DBTrek: Member of a UFO/Paranormal forum since 2/07.

All this arguing... this is why The Greys weep for the future of our species...

-todd.

That's why they applaud are doom. Joking.... kinda.

 

[valiens]

T Blossom:

That's an interesting point about politics being in ufology. I wrote some what I would consider politically obvious stuff (as opposed to left-slanted) in an article for UFO Magazine when the Eckers still ran it and they edited it out for being "too political." Then, I believe it was Vicki who wrote a series of diatribes in the mag about 9/11 conspiracy nuts. (And for the record both she and Don are of the FOX News lovin' persuasion.)

Now, whatever your take on the 9/11 attacks is aside, I just wonder how it is that right wingers--or anybody in ufology; maybe lefties are guilty too?--are firmly grounded in the belief that they cannot trust their government and the government/military complex has been hiding the truth of UFOs for decades, yet when it comes to some pretty basic questions that never even got asked about 9/11 or the Iraq war, that's insane. We need to trust that our government is doing the right thing or else we're not patriotic.

It just doesn't make sense to me. Which is it? Do we trust the government to tell the truth or not?

 

[DBTrek]

It just doesn't make sense to me. Which is it? Do we trust the government to tell the truth or not?

I think we can safely assume that the government tells us whatever is in its best interest at the time. This doesn't seem to bring us closer to solving the UFO question though.

I've seen the following logic used to justify one particular point of view:

The government lies to protect its interest -> Admitting visits from ET's have happened would undermine the governments authority -> Therefore the government lies to us about ETs existence -> Therefore UFO's are real.

I'm along for about half the ride . . . but I'm also aware that it's quite possible the government doesn't have any solid evidence of ET's visiting us. The government can both lie and be empty handed. The only real way to settle the issue is to produce verifiable evidence that ET's are/have been here. So far no one has been able to pull it off.

-DBTrek

 

[valiens]

Yeah I tend to think that "the government" (whoever that is) knows more than it's saying and obviously fights tooth and nail to keep what it does know a secret. But I don't see any evidence that they are in any sort of contact with aliens or what have you. If they have a crashed disk and have back-engineered ipods from them that tells me they don't know too much more about flying saucers than the rest of us.

 

[Rick Deckard]

I know we keep talking about what "the Government" does or does not know, but I really don't think that the Government knows anything 'important' - in my opinion it's the groups and agencies that are outside the control of the Government, the one's that don't even have to answer to the President, that have all the real answers.

IMO, the Government can continue to deny a UFO cover-up because *it's not in the loop* and therefore doesn't have access to the real data. Of course there are a few individuals in the Government who probably have some idea what is really going on and it is those individuals who will put their loyalty to their 'handlers' above the loyalty to their country and will help steer the rest of the individuals in the Government away from 'the bigger picture'.

 

[TBlossum]

T Blossom:

That's an interesting point about politics being in ufology. I wrote some what I would consider politically obvious stuff (as opposed to left-slanted) in an article for UFO Magazine when the Eckers still ran it and they edited it out for being "too political." Then, I believe it was Vicki who wrote a series of diatribes in the mag about 9/11 conspiracy nuts. (And for the record both she and Don are of the FOX News lovin' persuasion.)

Mr. Valiens
We’ve been governed by a group of people who told us government can’t work, and this, apparently, is the result. I find it impossible to think about UFO secrecy/disclosure/reality and not associate it with our political environment in some regard – and neither party is guilt free, by the way. I don’t know what to make of 9/11 theories, but I find it hard to trust the government right now, and for some valid reasons. (My home, homeland security terrorist alert color contraption is suddenly flashing orange.)

UFO Mag _should_ have let you write the article. And maybe the government does know the truth of UFOs -- and is terrified about it. I’d also bet a nickel that there’s been some seriously bad Ufology practiced over the past 50 or 60 years that emerged directly from politically conservative paranoia. But I don’t see any reason to discourage an evidence based discussion of UFOs when politics rears it’s ugly head. In fact, I find it really weird when radio hosts could and _should_ mention it, and don’t. So, some don’t like Dave’s politics and I do…WTF? My kid gets an actual school holiday named “Confederate Memorial Day.” Yeah, I could eat some glass and pop an artery in my head, but instead I’ll take the day off with her and stay home and eat cookies.

 

[David Biedny]

Yeah I tend to think that "the government" (whoever that is) knows more than it's saying and obviously fights tooth and nail to keep what it does know a secret. But I don't see any evidence that they are in any sort of contact with aliens or what have you. If they have a crashed disk and have back-engineered ipods from them that tells me they don't know too much more about flying saucers than the rest of us.

I wish that reverse-engineered iPod have a frikkin graphic equalizer... I gotta believe that you need to pump up the bass in space.

 

[BrandonD]

Geez, there's more right/left mudslinging going on in this forum than I would expect. I'd like to propose the idea of just dropping the terms "left", "right", "liberal", and "conservative" altogether, regarding politics. Like the words Freedom and Communism they've all been degraded into absolutely meaningless terms with no widespread socially-recognized definition, and now they're used only as literary weapons to club others over the head in intellectual cock-fights.

I think that people could reach a greater common understanding in things like political topics if we could try to communicate without resorting to convenient (and lazy) platitudes, and generalized terms that have long become obsolete.

Ok so here's my attempt:

In my opinion, under that common facade of left and right, there are only those people who are powerful and rule the world by force, those people who are subservient to the powerful, and those people who oppose the powerful. Above all of these, I would include an unseen force at the top of the heirarchy, which rules all men, and whom the powerful men have aligned themselves with.

I am personally opposed to all those in power, because I see them as aligned with this unseen force that is imprisoning us. My opposition is not reserved only to those in power in the US, I oppose all men and institutions who are in a position of great power. To reach such a position a man or institution must be aligned with the unseen heirarchy, and so by default all men of power are supporters and servants of the force controlling human beings.

I'm guessing that this stuff sounds pretty wacky and out-there, so I'll leave it at that. I mainly just wanted to throw out the idea that we try and communicate without all these generalized terms.

 

[DBTrek]

I am personally opposed to all those in power, because I see them as aligned with this unseen force that is imprisoning us. My opposition is not reserved only to those in power in the US, I oppose all men and institutions who are in a position of great power.

So . . . present day Iraq must be looking pretty good to you, since no one has a firm grip on the power, or is in control.

Man . . . if only the whole globe looked more like Iraq!

-DBTrek

 

[TBlossum]

I'm not sure who the right-winger is, since I know I voted against Bush three times (twice for prez, once in Michigan primaries), spoke out against the Iraq war before it was launched, and did what I could to ensure we wouldn't be in the position we are today.

What I find interesting is that by trying to introduce some amount of reason into partisan insanity I'm instantly labelled a member of the opposing ideology.

This leaves me in an interesting dilemma. When I was saying "What do you mean we should invade Iraq? What's there? I don't get it. There are bad men everywhere, and Saddam is going to use whatever WMD's he has to protect his own borders" I got to listen to a bunch of pineads call me an unpatriotic, treasonous, America hater.

Yet when I suggest that destabilizing a country, disbanding its military, and then fleeing it so that the very people we are supposed to be fighting can take the place over may be a dumb idea, I'm suddenly a neocon, Bush-worshipping, fascist.

I think the truth is closer to this: The country is full of polarized idiots so fueled by hatred that if you don't agree with every half-baked idea they propose you're automatically assigned to their 'enemy' list.

When I see people on either end of the political spectrum ranting about how everything bad in the world is 'the other guys fault' I try to step in and say 'get real'. But . . . as I said previously, this may be the wrong place to encourage people to 'get real' . . . so whatever.

People have their opinions, and I have my opinions on why their opinions are dumb. The only difference is I'm right, and they're wrong.

Hah!

-DBTrek

 

[BrandonD]

So . . . present day Iraq must be looking pretty good to you, since no one has a firm grip on the power, or is in control.

Man . . . if only the whole globe looked more like Iraq!

-DBTrek

Your perception of a situation may not necessarily match with the reality of a situation. Particularly when your perception of a situation is created entirely by sources OTHER than your own first-hand empirical observation.

For example, when's the last time you paid a visit to Iraq? I'll venture a guess that all the information you have about Iraq is second-hand. Your knowledge of the current state of Iraq, the causes of its current state, and the proposed solutions to its current state, are all based upon one or another news agency or web-site.

Perhaps you think that news agencies are simply objective, impartial vessels of information that only wish to enlighten you with the truth, without projecting any sort of self-serving agenda.

If so then that is your prerogative.

However, if you have a more realistic view of the sources from which you receive your information (about events going on thousands of miles away from you), then you must have enough sense to recognize that your perception may not match with reality.

A beehive, with bees buzzing frantically around it in a frenzy may look like a random and chaotic situation under no one's control. That is, until you turn your head and see the kid with the stick poking the bee-hive.

I think it may be useful for you to stop arguing for a moment and think about whom you are trying to defend. I'm not attacking any individual in particular.

 

[DBTrek]

Your perception of a situation may not necessarily match with the reality of a situation. Particularly when your perception of a situation is created entirely by sources OTHER than your own first-hand empirical observation.

Are you suggesting that you never form opinions or have thoughts on anything other than what you personally experience first hand? I fail to see the wisdom in ignorng anything that one personally has not experienced. I've never eaten a fatal dose of arsenic or shot heroin. Am I not allowed to form opinions on these actions because I haven't personally done them? That makes no sense.

Perhaps you think that news agencies are simply objective, impartial vessels of information that only wish to enlighten you with the truth, without projecting any sort of self-serving agenda.

. . . and perhaps I don't. Perhaps you have pre-conceived notions of my views because I don't fit tightly in the box you define as 'on your side' and therefore I must be in the 'other' box. Perhaps ten million different things.

I think it may be useful for you to stop arguing for a moment and think about whom you are trying to defend. I'm not attacking any individual in particular.

Who do you percieve me as defending . . . and who do you perceive as being in control of Iraq, since the world news agencies are apparently just fooling the citizens of Earth?

-DBTrek

 

[DBTrek]

. . . and T Blossum, I'm sure people see enough of my posting. What was the point of quoting one of my longer messages in it's entirety and not adding anything to it?

You want a signed T-shirt or something? Not until you pay your DBTrek fan club dues.

-DBTrek

 

[TBlossum]

I'm not sure who the right-winger is, since I know I voted against Bush three times (twice for prez, once in Michigan primaries), spoke out against the Iraq war before it was launched, and did what I could to ensure we wouldn't be in the position we are today.

--Good decision.

What I find interesting is that by trying to introduce some amount of reason into partisan insanity I'm instantly labelled a member of the opposing ideology.

--Who said partisanship is 'insane'. It used to be called Democracy. It must be that "one party rule" thing we've been hearing about.

This leaves me in an interesting dilemma. When I was saying "What do you mean we should invade Iraq? What's there? I don't get it. There are bad men everywhere, and Saddam is going to use whatever WMD's he has to protect his own borders" I got to listen to a bunch of pineads call me an unpatriotic, treasonous, America hater.

Yet when I suggest that destabilizing a country, disbanding its military, and then fleeing it so that the very people we are supposed to be fighting can take the place over may be a dumb idea, I'm suddenly a neocon, Bush-worshipping, fascist.

--Are these equal and opposing ideas? Many reasonable people think we attacked a country that posed no threat (not to mention killing at least 655k innocents), and that we should bring the troops home immediately. And who called you a "neocon Bush-worshipping facist"?

I think the truth is closer to this: The country is full of polarized idiots so fueled by hatred that if you don't agree with every half-baked idea they propose you're automatically assigned to their 'enemy' list.

--We're certainly divided as a country, I'll grant you, but which half-baked idea were you speaking about? And who put you on their enemy list?

When I see people on either end of the political spectrum ranting about how everything bad in the world is 'the other guys fault' I try to step in and say 'get real'. But . . . as I said previously, this may be the wrong place to encourage people to 'get real' . . . so whatever.

--Who said everything bad in the world is the other guy's fault? And does "get real" mean I have to agree with you?

People have their opinions, and I have my opinions on why their opinions are dumb.

--I have no problem with that.