posted on Feb, 1 2003 @ 05:01 AM
Originally posted by rif
How do you know they will even make their money back.
rif, I never made any inference as to how much money was made. In fact, you are arguing with the wrong person, I agree with much of what you have
said, I just feel you have taken a single comment by me and twisted it way out of context.
Personally, what my feelings are on the subject, is that it is ok for a researcher(s) to make money from his/her research. We live in a capitalistic
society, and as I said "people have to eat." I dont think that knowledge that has the possibility of being this profound should be the exclusive
domain of those who are able to pay for it (where do we draw the line?) on the other hand I dont see why a researcher who spends alot of time studying
the phenomena should not be paid for their work. Or for their expenses. Books and cd's are a fair way to accomplish that, in my honest opinion.
Guess what, I am by no means a skeptic, and again, I agree with what you said about "blanket debunking" or finding a single example of what may be
pixel bleeding etc.. and painting the entire range as a joke. If you are looking for a web site for your debate, you have found it. I love to discuss
these things, this subject in particular is very interesting to me and I would love to hear what you know about it. By my own admission this is
something I have only really watched on the periphery.
I think here you will find healthy debate. I keep an mind not so open that my brains fall out, nor so closed that it has no room to grow.
If you are willing, I would like to hear what you have to say about Byrds questions. I think that if you want to discuss whether researchers should be
paid for their work, and hopefully findings, then it should be made on a different thread.
And Byrd, I never said that was anything other than a comet. (X5 by the way) I just thought it would be something you would be interested in.
[Edited on 2-1-2003 by William One Sac]