Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 70 Wednesday, November 1st 1989 Today's Topics: Grammar And Paranet's Credibility Re: Miami Meeting 9FT CREATURES Re: Correlations Re: Roswell Update! Re: Grammar and Paranet's credibility Re: Grammar And Paranet's Credibility Literacy Literacy Re: Roswell Update! Re: Literate Ufologists proper words etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Michael.Corbin Subject: Grammar And Paranet's Credibility Date: 30 Oct 89 04:22:00 GMT Let me state that this criticism is well taken, however harsh it appeared to those reading it. Ms. Stein may find our credibility in jeopardy because, as she puts it, some ParaNet users are 'functional illiterates,' incapable of reporting and discussing their findings and ideas in a grammatically correct format. Although ParaNet must present to its users material in a clear, concise fashion, Ms. Stein's attitude may be open to question. Let us examine the world of ParaNet and BBSing. A Bulletin Board System is a unique forum where ordinary people can interact and exchange a wide array of ideas, feelings, beliefs, and theories. It is not a one-way forum where people read messages as they would Omni magazine. The UFO phenomenon is a mystery to all who have interest in it. ParaNet is not a group of people holding one idea or another, but a collection of a vast number of people from all walks of life and disciplines who have either a pro or con belief about UFOs. The most important part of this process of discovery and discussion is not grammar, but substance. Regardless of a person's spelling accuracy or rhetoric, we have something to talk about as long as intelligible substance is communicated; ParaNet provides a medium whereby communication happens effectively. Credibility is not accomplished wholly through grammatically correct material; Credibility is accomplished also by accuracy of the substance of the material being reported. One should be aware that within ParaNet there exists the opportunity to examine all aspects of an idea. One need not be educated to participate or contribute worthwhile ideas. Ms. Stein's critique lacks the positive attitude necessary to promote a productive interaction between members who are not highly educated with the members who are. If ParaNet's readers feel they are being judged by their grammatical abilities, unconstricted input may cease and ParaNet will then fail in its primary directive: to make information exchange an easy and informal concept among its many classes of members. ParaNet has many facets to its structure. Aside from the message areas, a library is available which contains hundreds of text files which have been contributed by our readers, both professional and amateur. We also publish a bi-monthly newsletter which provides a more comprehensive view of the phenomenon, and is editorially and grammatically correct. We have something of use for all. To respond and critique the critique from Ms. Stein, I find the following problems: > Tom, I find these reports from ParaNet fascinating. I'd > like to make > one point about them, though: the quality of the writing > and > organization is so poor as to detract seriously from their > credibility. Granted, these days even many intelligent and > well-educated folks don't have the best English skills, but > a group > devoted to promoting the reality of an inherently > unbelievable > phenomenon needs to take special pains to sound > professional. ParaNet is not a "group devoted to promoting the reality of an inherently unbelievable phenomenon." Quite the contrary. ParaNet is a group of people exploring mysteries from all sides, both pro and con, as mentioned before. Further, under the ParaNet banner, we are not organized under one belief system. Our group is comprised of sub-groups and individuals who reside under other organized banners such as The Bay Area Skeptics and MUFON (Mutual UFO Network). > For instance: > "'And, where the specific orders were coming from. > Originally, > Moore talked about one flight in the book with Jesse > Marcel. We > have found two other flights with other people and have > tracked > down those crewmen.'" > > What flights are these? After rereading, I assume the > writer means the > flights back to the base with the crash debris, but it's > not > immediately clear. And is Marcel the co-author of the book, > or did > Moore report, in the book *he* wrote, a conversation he had > had with > Marcel, who was one of the crewmen on one of the flights? > The syntax > is extremely muddled. Granted, the writer of the article is > quoting > someone else, and most people don't always speak in > perfectly clear > and grammatical sentences. But a good reporter will take > steps to > ensure clarity for the reader, either by rewording the > quote slightly, > without altering the sense, or by quoting indirectly and > phrasing it > so the meaning is clear. Again, this criticism is well taken. The article was prepared under severe time constraints. There is a built-in mechanism inherent in this forum whereby a user can elicit further information by querieing the originator of a message. Every few minutes, 24 hours a day, ParaNet users are freely requesting clarifications and substantive details about echoes and library files, and they achieve unfettered, uninhibited, timely responses by not subordinating these requests to the making of points about the grammatical quality of the material. > There are many other such fuzzinesses and grammatical > errors in this > release. I don't mean to be excessively picky, but I really > wish > they'd find a good editor to clean up their writing. This > stuff is too > potentially important; if it looks like it's written by > functional > illiterates, few will be inclined to take it seriously. Again, the criticism is well taken, however the harshness of this paragraph is really not necessary here and is unproductive to our purpose. In our criticisms, let's play fair: Why deter the spontaneity of those not as fortunate as Ms. Stein to possess quixotic rhetoric and mastery of the English language? In the future, I would like to see criticism leveled at the substance rather than the grammar, although we will focus on the grammatical quality in the future, thanks to Ms. Stein's suggestion. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Bryon.Smith Subject: Re: Miami Meeting Date: 29 Oct 89 15:00:00 GMT > A meeting took place Friday, the 27th of October at the > Civil Defense > headquarters located in Miami Oklahoma. It's purpose was Excellent work Rob. I have not had time to finish my report as yet but you have said it well enough that I could not add much to it. Thank you for all the help on location and for this very fine report. ...Bryon -- Bryon Smith - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Bryon.Smith@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Ray.Griffin Subject: 9FT CREATURES Date: 30 Oct 89 05:45:00 GMT JEFF WHILE YOU ARE INVESTIGATING THE UFOS, HOW ABOUT TELLING US SOMETHING ON THE 9FT TALL "GLOWING RED EYED CREATURES " AS WELL -- Ray Griffin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Ray.Griffin@f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rcw Subject: Re: Correlations Date: 31 Oct 89 05:33:17 GMT In article <18336.2544EA00@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Don.Sudduth@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Don Sudduth) writes: >The Nation Bureau of Standards did an >experiment on plasma produced by high stress on rock formations. When >a rock was crushed or pulled apart by high pressures, it produced a >significant plasma display. This result was postulated as a possible >source of UFO sightings. The sighting of a police officer in northern >Minnesota, whose car was thrown off the road by a bright light has been >considered one of these plasma displays. (This area of MN has high >geologic pressures.) >-- >Don Sudduth - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 >UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name >INTERNET: Don.Sudduth@paranet.FIDONET.ORG Hey, I am a geologist, and the above makes zero sense to me. Plasma? What kind of plasma? High geologic pressures in MN? I don't think you could find a more stable area of the continent. IMHO, the information in this article, at least as it regards geophysics, should be entirely disregarded. If Don could provide me with the source for this information, I can likely tell you specifically why it's crackpot stuff. Robert White rcw@scicom.alphacdc.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f207.n914.z8.FIDONET.ORG!Robert.Sheaffer Subject: Re: Roswell Update! Date: 29 Oct 89 18:38:15 GMT > Yes, I also believe that MJ-12 was a cover for the Roswell case. > --- QuickBBS v2.04 > * Origin: -==- Denver, CO (303)232-6115 If the MJ-12 was a "cover" for Roswell, then both must be equally bogus, it would seem. It has now been established that the alleged Truman signature on the MJ-12 letter is simply a photocopy of a genuine Truman signature from the Truman library, and pasted in. Worse yet, it seems that they typewriter used on these documents, allegedly from the 1950s, was not manufactured until after 1960. w3 MJ-12 critics have recently confronted Moore with these embarassing facts, and he is busily concocting excuses as to why his critics - both UFO skeptics AND believers - can't possibly be right. The MJ-12 papers have now been dealt a mortal blow. They're the walking wounded currently, but before long will roll over and die. The really interesting question is WHO faked them, HOW, and WHY? Robert Sheaffer - San Jose, CA - Bay Area Skeptics (where the earthquake didn't do TOO much damage,except bust up some knicknacks, glasses, and a bottle of beer.) -- Robert Sheaffer - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Robert.Sheaffer@f207.n914.z8.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: taos!uucp Subject: Re: Grammar and Paranet's credibility Date: 30 Oct 89 19:02:01 GMT +While it is not directly about the subject matter, it addresses +the serious question of the credibility of UFO investigators as +perceived by the public at large. I feel it's something we +should be paying attention to. Spelling flames are very similar to viruses. You have introduced a really bad one here. I disagree strongly that we should be paying attention to (or wasting network bandwidth) on Judy Stein's novice network manners. Judy Stein has sought to justify her position with this: +a group devoted to promoting the reality I have read paranet for about three months and have not found one reality promoted over another. +of an inherently unbelievable phenomenon Only in Judy Stein's opinion is this stuff <> +needs to take special pains to sound professional. Who really cares? Don't you understand the idea of sifting through lots of material to find that one gem?? Don't you understand the idea of free and open communications without any restrictions? Judy, if you can, get access to USENET and read the article ``A Primer on How to Work With the USENET Community,'' by Chuq Von Rospach. It is always available in the newsgroup news.announce.newusers. If you cannot get the article, I will be glad to email it to you. -keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!Clark.Matthews Subject: Re: Grammar And Paranet's Credibility Date: 1 Nov 89 00:45:00 GMT Well, you're right Michael. I think our copyeditor friend Ms. Stein fails to take into account that this medium combines the spontaneity of conversation with the constraints of 1.) time limits and 2) typing thoughts out as they come to you. Also, keyboard shorthand dictates some shortcuts that Ms. Stein may be equally unfamiliar with, e.g.: BTW. She should really compare messages prepared offline with those banged out on the keyboard, long-distance if she wants to gauge our literary merits. Best, Clark -- Clark Matthews - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Clark.Matthews@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Joe.Holland Subject: Literacy Date: 31 Oct 89 12:18:00 GMT I agree, Mike. I have read a number of first hand reports of sightings and other things over the years which might not have come in here, had there been any reason to hesitate. One of the most important messages, which gave me a key clue recently, was from someone who makes spelling errors from time to time, but this report was very credible. Also, I don't think writing skills are any guarantee of analytical ability. I find the conclusions of some literate "experts" to be essentially useless. The time for finished grammar, is when one submitting something in some formal way, as in a file, or as an article for publication. The BBS is for collecting information in raw form, however it comes. I find that getting the writing into the optimum language about doubles the time it takes to write, since I can go on improoving the way I have worded something for two days. There is some considerable exasperation in realizing how much work this is, for no pay. Its interesting that one of the most interesting, if enigmatic, files, was the one by Bennewitz, and this contained many grammatical mistakes. If this file lacks credibility, his grammar is a very minor aspect of that question. -- Joe Holland - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Joe.Holland@f1.n304.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!Linda.Murphy Subject: Literacy Date: 31 Oct 89 14:30:15 GMT Very good Joe... as it has been discussed elsewhere, in conversations about this very thing, the average person inquiring over the phenomenon and submitting their own findings at the BBS level, are average, everyday people... Yet, there has been expressed concern as to WHY the more journalistic contributors who submit information, and have been published, tend to take advantage of specific types of errors in order to enhance the "suspense" and mystery of the material they present to the AVERAGE reader, thus leaving wide interpretation and conclusions open for debate and speculation. In a sense, it is a "literary art" all of it's own that sparks the imagination of the reader. In spite of what many out there might think about it, it does work, and the results are apparent by those who look into this from the angle as to how the information influences individuals who are exposed to it. ( 1:304/1) -- Linda Murphy - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Linda.Murphy@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser Subject: Re: Roswell Update! Date: 1 Nov 89 06:24:00 GMT >and die. The >really interesting question is WHO faked them, HOW, and >WHY? > > Robert Sheaffer - San Jose, CA - Bay Area Skeptics > (where the earthquake didn't do TOO much >damage,except > bust up some knicknacks, glasses, and a bottle of >beer.) Bob: Good to see you on here. (What brand of beer, not Olympia, I hope...) Its no secret that Klass believes Moore is "in on" the hoax in some way. What's your feeling on that issue? And how recent is the typewriter information - first I'd heard of it. Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser Subject: Re: Literate Ufologists Date: 1 Nov 89 06:43:00 GMT Wotta youse talkin about? I ain't seen no problums wit' our grammer! Frankly, I tink we's is kinda whatcha call, air-you-dite. Seriously, if syntactical sin is the worst criticism leveled at ParaNet, we're OK, mate. Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f19.n19.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Ray.Griffin Subject: proper words etc. Date: 1 Nov 89 05:10:00 GMT I know it is necessary to be understood, but if you don't know what you don't understand it's o.k. to be misunderstood. You might get lucky and be right by default. Whichever, I plan if every asked to take a ride on a UFO to take my Bible not your dictionary. Even if the ETs can't read my writting they should know a Bible when they see it. If they don't I already have one answer not in Websters. I have, but one brain to give to the cause, and it prefers to do it's own thing. If you measure knowledge by perfection then research is a lost cause. It's the errors than bring man his greatest challenge. The smooth ground of the previously beaten path has a lot of non-thinkers with no place to go so they just complain about the footprints. Bye -- Ray Griffin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Ray.Griffin@f19.n19.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 ********************************************************************************