From: manson@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob Manson)
Subject: Re: alt.alien.visitors.sewage.garbage.bullshit.crackpots.fantasy
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 05:06:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.040316.26314@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> cschmidt@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Christopher Schmidt) writes:
>Their material is facinating, as are a very few of the articles posted

I find it impossible to tell the difference between people being
utterly deadly serious about their 'UFO' experiences and people making
up stuff.  In fact, if I didn't know any better (and I don't), I would
guess that everyone is either deluding themselves or trying to delude
everyone else. I think "BoB" would approve of this behavior, myself,
but who knows? I'm eager to read for amusement value, but I'm sure as
hell not going to take you seriously.

>unwanted articles from appearing there as well?

"Unwanted"? You're looking for everyone to take the same view of silly
abduction stories as you do? Sorry, won't happen. If you're talking
about people posting articles totally unrelated to non-Earth-based
life, I agree there; mystics, Pleadiean-believers, people that drink
milk and John "I go to sleep by using nitrous" Winston would have to
fall into this class. But then, if you believe the abduction stories,
how can you argue against folks like John that tune into
randomly-wired portions of their brains? Not that there's anything
wrong with that, but there's a limit to how much noise one can
read about.

Maybe there needs to be another group, a la "alt.wierd", for people
that see voices and hear things.

Another alternative is to use kill files judiciously; you can figure
out who's doing the noise generation and who isn't pretty easily.

>My preference would be to persuade contributors to discipline

This is usenet. People apparently need an outlet for this kind of
silliness. Maybe another one needs to be provided. I donno. It's
really clear that since I read this group, it must be wierd. Usenet
isn't here to provide respect to your opinions or beliefs, just like
the rest of life.

>(2) Most articles that contain a statement of opinion and nothing

Almost any abduction story, UFO sighting, or what-have-you is a matter
of opinion, unless you've got absolute proof (an alien would be just
fine, thank you, or an intact ship; even elements unknown to Earth
science would work), especially proof that doesn't disappear 3 seconds
after someone looks at it. Or a missing body part ;) Otherwise, it
becomes a case of "this unreliable human witness thinks they saw
something that might have been anything". I've seen "UFO-like things"
in the sky, but I'm not about to classify them as UFOs; could've been
anything. Shoot, I just saw a light up in the sky. Probably an
airplane, but how can I be sure? Might've been part of "the
Conspiracy". Maybe they've finally gotten smart and started making
their craft look like airplanes rather than saucers.

Actually, the Con doesn't really work that way; they're a little more
discreet. For example, their memory-washing techniques actually work,
rather than the "half-work" these other moronic aliens do. And they
use stealth UFOs rather than the brlliantly-lit ones. And when they
do have to show a light, they do it during the day, so it's not quite
so obvious.

A SubGenius rant would be appropriate right now, but...
							Bob
manson@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (I type this in each time; good exercise.)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.urban