Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 7, 2006 13:03:25 GMT -4
Ask someone on the street "what's a UFO?" and you'll get responses ranging from "little green men" to "aliens, like that Roswell thing." I very much doubt anyone on the street will point out to you that if it's known to be aliens that it's no longer a UFO.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 7, 2006 16:05:32 GMT -4
Well when you get right down to it, since this thread was about the CIA's use of "UFO" and their meaning clearing would be that of a flying object that is unknown to the observer, ity is a valid point that "UFO" and "ETV" are not synonymous in this case. The CIA had a policy that any civilian or military pilots who saw something they couldn't identify had to be interveiwed and debriefed about it. With a bit of thought behind it, this was most likely because they had to determine if the object seen was a US military experiment or a Soviet one, and having a pilot blabbing in a pub about seeing something that was at the time top secret would have had the possiblity of having blown the entire project. If you instantly assume "UFO"="ETV" however, then the conetatrions of the CIA policy become vastly different, and itis this incorrect context that many UFO-researchers seem to take. As to correcting, why not. Why do we have to accept it when people make incorrect assumptions? Isn't that part of what this board is about? Shouldn't we stand up and be counted when some one says that they "bet" their friend in a race, or that "the suspect was seen by witnesses running down the road," or that "there were fibres found on your buddy's shirt, that was murdered." If we say it's just an evolving culture in 10 years time we'll all be typing TXT and speaking in jumbles and no-one will underfstand each other. If the purpose of language is communicating ideas, surely we should get the language right to avoid confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Nov 7, 2006 19:26:46 GMT -4
Well put, RAF and PhantomWolf (except for PW's typos ;D ). I think it's a bit odd, but I'm not at all bothered by it, that I'm apparently being told off for not being fully aware of what's claimed to be a particular cultural "norm" in the United States. How could I, exactly, considering that I have never left my own country? Would everyone here understand if I say haere mai? I doubt it, but certainly wouldn't berate them for it. On the radio just two days ago I heard a New Zealand Navy guy talking about a UFO he found, sharp and clear, in an old photo. But he never meant the term to mean alien spacecraft, it was just an interesting object he couldn't identify and was keen to do so. Here's a link that won't last long. Note that the title of the article is, "Is it a UFO or a flying saucer?" This is just another indication that I don't think UFO "culturally" means alien spacecraft here. As RAF wisely points out, if it is an alien spacecraft it is identified, therefore it is an IFO and no longer a UFO. Perhaps New Zealanders are more attuned to the common sense in that. At least I certainly hope most of us are.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 7, 2006 20:34:33 GMT -4
flying saucer
I think that using this term for an ETV is slightly wrong too, and not all claimed ETV's are saucer shaped but come in cigars, spheres, doughnuts and if you believe StarTrek, cubes.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Nov 7, 2006 22:20:13 GMT -4
I'm more concerned with the fact that you are using the technical definition of UFO as a cheap shot against freon's post. I'm upset about you feeling compelled to define something that pretty much defines itself in it's title. You are wagging your finger at someone making a comparison that at least in the US has become a cultural norm. Making it clear that the reports in the article use the term UFO to mean any sort of phenomena is understandable, but the way you spelled it out is insulting.
I don't mean to sound harsh and I do not imply any ill will. I just don't like the attitude being taken towards certain opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Nov 8, 2006 0:39:28 GMT -4
concerned cheap shot I'm upset wagging your finger insulting don't mean to sound harsh do not imply any ill will don't like the attitude Then stop emoting and we'll all instantly get, or be, better! Logic: Major Premise: I can control my thoughts Minor Premise: My feelings come from my thoughts. Conclusion: I can control my feelings. "Someone's death does not make you unhappy; you cannot be unhappy until you learn of the death, so it's not the death but what you tell yourself about the event." --- Your Erroneous Zones, Dr Wayne W. Dyer, Avon, New York, 1976, pages 21 & 23. Yes, I know that he might have since turned into a woo-woo, but that doesn't lessen the power of his 30-year-old message that can and does change lives for the better. We cannot upset you because it is impossible for us to get inside your head and control your thoughts. Only you have that power. So get your thoughts right and treat yourself with more self-respect than upsetting and bothering yourself. Change your thoughts from, "You hurt my feelings," to, "I'm being a dope and hurting my own feelings over what you did."
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Nov 8, 2006 21:57:06 GMT -4
"so get your thoughts right"? So you want me to change my thoughts until they aren't upset? To do that, I would have to decide that what you are doing is noble and right. That's pretty rich. I certainly love the idea of being told that my thoughts are wrong when I disagree with the actions of a member on this forum.
Are you telling me that if I discovered your most personal secrets and shared them on this forum along with insults toward your loved ones, it would be your fault for getting upset about it? How far does that go? If I brutally murdered your family, would it be your fault for being upset about it? Because, as you say, it is impossible for me to get inside your head and control your thoughts to make you upset.
If I do not have the right on this forum to disagree with and have some emotional response to the actions or opinions of other members, then what rights do I have at all?
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Nov 9, 2006 2:51:11 GMT -4
Because we're getting away off topic, I have started a new thread, as we should. Aren't I an angel, LunarOrbit? . [Thinks: Nope, Kiwis are flightless.]
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 9, 2006 12:09:35 GMT -4
Gotta love the internet, where one word can totally derail a discussion.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 9, 2006 16:30:20 GMT -4
Why not? So can the lack of one in the "real world."
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Nov 9, 2006 20:26:54 GMT -4
To be fair I don't think this discussion was ever really "on topic." Almost immediately it shifted to the definition of UFO and now it has derailed into whether emotional responses are justified.
|
|
|
Post by herman on Dec 26, 2006 9:29:27 GMT -4
Did anyone stop to think, Like this is the CIA javascript:add("%20;D") Grin(not to make too fine a a point of it), with a whole army at their disposal they finaly gave up on finding WMD.
If they do have some documentation on UFO's, just think how much more information there must be out there that they missed!!
|
|