Bear with me Lindy...

In ARRELL's "Friedman is just another true believer...":

There simply is NO physical proof of ET UFOs, period. Otherwise the "experts" on this topic would have presented it and we would not have this debate.

Straightforward and to-the-point. I don't think it can be stated any more clearly.

TB's "Credit where credit is due":

This is a much more reasonable viewpoint than Friedman's.

TB beat me to it. It's not a patronizing comment. Friedman is off the deep end. At least you apply some reasonable skepticism. I hope you don't take my use of the "s" word as an insult. Skepticism isn't the same as nay-saying.

Like TB, I too did quite a bit of reading about UFOs when I was younger (mostly just after high-school). What I eventually came to beleive is that while it's a rich field for the study of psychology, there were no aliens to be found.

And of course, ER's rather mavelous offering, "Theological analysis is an oxymoron." I don't see his post as an attack in any way, but rather a well-reasoned and insightful analysis. If it proves to be challenging...well, that's a good thing. Instead of dismissing it or trying to refute it, why not see if it can be integrated into your own analysis?

Again, skepticism isn't the same as nay-saying. A person can be simultaneously skeptical and fascinated by any particular phenomenon...in fact, I'd suggest that it's from that position that a person could possibly do their best work. I'd think it'd tend to put discovery before conclusion.