Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 69 Sunday, October 29th 1989 Today's Topics: Re: Grammar And Paranet's Credibility Re: Grammar And Paranet's Credibility Re: Oklahoma Sightings Re: Correlations Miami Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!Clark.Matthews Subject: Re: Grammar And Paranet's Credibility Date: 29 Oct 89 06:44:00 GMT > is read. If everything was precise, it would no longer hold > fascination... And from a conspiracy enthusiast's point of > view, premeditated to deliberatly keep the more "literate" > and scientific minded OUT of the picture, because it would > be easier for them to find the answers. (And thus, such > speculations enhance the total picture of the conspiracy > theories and can strengthen the belief in it).... yep. It > sure is fascinating.... > > illiterate linda > Far from illiterate, Linda. But cogent, as always. I've worked as an editor for 10 years -- hell, I read Roswell when it was on submission to The Literary Guild from the publisher, many long years ago. And while I'm forced to agree that many readers will buy off on outlandish claims backed by wild leaps of logic or surmise, the thought still depresses me and it's no excuse to DO it. Dammit. The most entrancing and persuasive thing in the world is a well-written, well-structured, well-researched, logically flowing arguement. An arguement that includes sources of information, explains the rationale for associations and conclusions, and anticipates and addresses criticisms on the basis of their facts & claims -- and not in an ad hominem attack on the critic. So I think the lady quoted in the message has a point. Granted, there's nothing more tiresome than a monomaniacal copyeditor who insists on smooth flow and pretty transitions between paragraphs and ignores the facts, fallacies & flawed logic (or the mind-bending truth & epiphanies) of whatever that copyeditor is working on at the time. But in my experience, you can't do without someone like that, no matter how good your case. And if you listen to them (not about everything they object to -- just about how well your point is getting across), you're always better off. I wish we had more... Best, Clark -- Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!Clark.Matthews Subject: Re: Grammar And Paranet's Credibility Date: 29 Oct 89 06:47:00 GMT > We have important stuff to say, right? So we really don't > want to come across as amateurs when we say it. > --- QuickBBS v2.04 > * Origin: -==- Denver, CO (303)232-6115 Hear, hear, Greg! Best, Clark -- Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bryon.Smith Subject: Re: Oklahoma Sightings Date: 28 Oct 89 17:14:00 GMT > I think from SOME of the descriptions, it might be a bit > early to rule out the possibility that some people are > seeing stars and planets, and are getting a little more > excited than usual due to the Voronezh story. But I'm very > intrigued. That's exactly what Rod and I saw, Stars and Small aircraft. I had said that I expected about 90% of the reports to be of identifiable objects, I figure it's closer to 95-99% now after going up there and talking to those people and then going out and viewing some of the objects. I had hoped we would do better but I will type up a report shortly. ...Bryon -- Bryon Smith - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f66.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Kurt.Lochner Subject: Re: Correlations Date: 28 Oct 89 16:31:00 GMT We are again seeing local reports of "lights in the skies" here in 0klahoma, this time out in the east of the state. We earlier had reports out of the southeast, along the Arkansas/0klahoma border right after the Russian sighting. Another unrelated news item I saw on a CNN feed ( sat/dish F2-2 ) was a guy with the geophysical survey who claimed to have predicted the California earthquake to within 5 days. He was in danger of losing his job over it and pretty self-righteous about it all. His premise was that if animals are disquieted/upset by impending earthquakes, they might run away. He looked up records pertaining to missing animals and domestic pets to see if there was an increase of runaways, which seems reasonable to me. He was on camera and predicting another earthquake in that region somewhere between Nov. 10-17 so we'll have to wait and see on that report. I'm more in favor of the earthquake light phenomena, maybe that's what we're seeing out here in 0klahoma.... / -- Rod Wilson - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Rod.Wilson@f66.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To have your thoughts in the next issue, please send electronic mail to 'infopara' at the following address: UUCP {ncar,isis,nbires,boulder}!scicom!infopara DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com ADMIN Address infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com {ncar,isis,nbires,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request ******************************************************************************** End of Info-ParaNet Newsletter ********************************************************************************