Oh, let me add one more thing. You say that I am trying to prove my
brilliance on the list after most of the conversation was private.
Actually, I did not know it was private. I have mentioned before that
somehow Freelists is acting up for me in that if I don't do a reply to
all I end up replying privately. I have been doing just that during this
discussion. If you had turned it private at some point I suppose I just
didn't notice that my replies were not making it to the list. This last
one, though, I did notice had not appeared on list. I assumed that I had
forgotten to reply to all and went to my sent folder and pasted the
whole thing, including the quoted history of the thread, into a new
email and sent it to the list.
On 9/15/2017 7:16 PM, Bonnie L. Sherrell wrote:
I see you are seeking to "prove" your brilliance on the list, after most of our
conversation has been done in private correspondence.
Let's see--you have accused me of prevaricating, meaning you have accused me of
lying to you. You have accused me of failing to be objective when I have
accurately described phenomena that I observed, usually in the company of
others. You have said that I have failed to apply Occam's razor when I pointed
out that originally my late husband and I chose to believe the simplest and more
likely interpretation of what we experienced was true, only to find that the
testimony of my daughter, reinforced by that of her sons and the physical
evidence, followed by the situation repeating itself AFTER my daughter had left
the state yet the phenomenon was now witnessed by still another person who had
been unaware that this had happened before his arrival indicated our original
assessment of the situation was invalid. When the original theory is proved
invalid, then one must seek a different theory.
Want to explain how I have failed to be objective in this?
I described the situation of the moving source of light that was observed by
five individuals gathered about my stepfather's telescope, a light source too
high to have the details of its shape discerned with either the telescope or
either pair of binoculars present, that moved in a way totally inconsistent with
either a helicopter or an airplane, and that we watched this for a period of
about forty minutes. I also explained that I am at a loss to properly identify
this, with the only two theories I am aware of being that it MIGHT have been
either some experimental aircraft capable of flying at a very high altitude, of
hovering, and of changing direction of flight at a rate that is inconsistent
with any of the airplanes or helicopters I have ever witnessed, and living in
the flight path for McChord Air Force Base and of Fort Lewis's helicopters, and
having a father who worked for Boeing who obsessively watched any and all shows
regarding air flight, that's a fair amount of experience that I have had in
observing air crafts of many sorts; OR, perhaps it was a U.F.O., but that I
cannot say for certain.
So, you responded by calling me gullible.
It appears, Roger, that you subscribe to the Donald J. Trump school of logic.
If you cannot come up with a plausible theory as to what we saw or what Tony,
Jack, and I observed in our office, then you belittle, badger, name-call, and
bully the one who tells you what you do not wish to believe could have happened.
Sorry, Roger, but it is you who is failing to be logical, not me. You
demanded
that I somehow prove that God exists, and that my self-description of myself as
an Episcopalian requires me to "prove" "Episcopalianism" true, even after I
admitted up front that my church has been wrong many times in its history
(usually when it has involved itself in political issues) and that I am not an
Episcopalian because I believe it to be the only one, true religion but because
it offers the kind of structure and support that I have found assists me in my
spiritual growth. I have even told you outright that I do not believe that
Christianity is the only true path to God.
But you are so eager to prove the superiority of your belief that there is
nothing to believe in that you try to bully me into somehow admitting your take
in the situation is right, even though you fail to offer any proof that there IS
no God other than your chosen surety that nothing you don't want to believe in
could be true, and even though you failed to offer a plausible interpretation of
what we observed in two different situations.
Your logic fails to even get off the ground, as it simply is not displayed.
Insisting that I believe in an invisible guy in the sky who can and on occasion
will work magic was insulting. You suggested this: "Go ask a psychic bigfoot
who emerged from a flying saucer and is the reincarnation of Elvis Presley and
let me know what he says about it." By the way, guys, that was cut and pasted
directly from his last post to me. That, too, was insulting.
So, stop trying to bully people into somehow ascribing to your belief system.
Refusing to accept that anything you cannot explain could possibly have happened
at all is as much a belief system as Christianity, paganism, or any other choice
of structuring belief.
In other words, Roger, get over yourself, and stop being a hard-ass.
Bonnie L. Sherrell
Teacher at Large
"Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise
cannot see all ends." LOTR
"Don't go where I can't follow."
We gave the Goblin King control of our nation!
