Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 070
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: -=<ParaNet Alpha(sm)>=- 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 <<inherently unbelievable.>>
+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
********************************************************************************
