I want to believe!
MARY MO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hey everyboady, just wanted to tell you all about my cool poster i got
yesterday... the "i want to believe poster"..the same one mulder has in
his office!!! well, i'm very excited!!! :) by the way, i'm a "newbie",
so hi to all, and i hope that we may be able to share in the days to
come! bye!
mary
Nicholas Francis Grigoropoulos
the "i want to believe poster"..the same one mulder has in
>his office!!! well, i'm very excited!!! :) by the way, i'm a "newbie",
>so hi to all, and i hope that we may be able to share in the days to
>come! bye!
>mary
Although I'm hardly a veteran in this newsgroup myself, welcome. I'm happy
for you for finding that poster. Enjoy your stay.
qbird
ALeigh992
>the "i want to believe poster"..the same one mulder has in
>>his office!!! well, i'm very excited!!! :) by the way, i'm a "newbie",
>>so hi to all, and i hope that we may be able to share in the days to
>>come! bye!
>>mary
Where did you find this?? I thought CC wasn't making a poster like that?
cool.
Aleigh
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/3651/index.html
RadioFlyr
Way, way back, someone professing to the name of Mary wrote:
> >the "i want to believe poster"..the same one mulder has in
> >>his office!!! well, i'm very excited!!! :) by the way, i'm a "newbie",
> >>so hi to all, and i hope that we may be able to share in the days to
> >>come! bye!
> >>mary
This has always confused me, that phrase. Why would someone WANT to
believe something that they don't believe? If one doesn't like lemons,
would one seek to like them? Would that be the same for liver? Haggis?
Beliefs?
- RF
--
Visit the "Little Web Server," a Mac SE functioning as a web server at: http://149.96.1.33
Or my other pages at: http://www.lpl.org/people/gianni and http://149.96.1.135
...it said "use Windows95 or better to operate, so I bought a Macintosh...
lecia
Where did you get that poster! I thought it wasn't available anywhere! DO
tell!!!
lecia
MARY MO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <m...@shiva.Hunter.CUNY.EDU> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.98011...@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu>...
| hey everyboady, just wanted to tell you all about my cool poster i got
| yesterday... the "i want to believe poster"..the same one mulder has in
MARY MO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I got the poster at "Postermat" in Greenwich Village in NYC! :)
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, ALeigh992 wrote:
> >hey everyboady, just wanted to tell you all about my cool poster i got
> >yesterday... the "i want to believe poster"..the same one mulder has in
> >his office!!! well, i'm very excited!!! :) by the way, i'm a "newbie",
> >so hi to all, and i hope that we may be able to share in the days to
> >come! bye!
> >mary
>
> Where did you find that?? I thought CC wasn't making those! cool. :-)
> Aleigh
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/3651/index.html
>
Briony Sheather
The I want to Believe posters are available in Australia for anyone
interested... they come in a kind of "fold out" magazine that retails for
$2.95.... it talks about the new movie and all that...so any Aussies that
are after it... theres your chance
Cya
Bri
lecia wrote in message <01bd2430$86e7a4c0$23507ccf@default>...
>Where did you get that poster! I thought it wasn't available anywhere! DO
>tell!!!
>
>lecia
>
>MARY MO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <m...@shiva.Hunter.CUNY.EDU> wrote in article
><Pine.SOL.3.91.98011...@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu>...
Bartonmaru
ALeigh992 wrote:
>
> >the "i want to believe poster"..the same one mulder has in
> >>his office!!! well, i'm very excited!!! :) by the way, i'm a "newbie",
> >>so hi to all, and i hope that we may be able to share in the days to
> >>come! bye!
> >>mary
>
> cool.
> Aleigh
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/3651/index.html
Entertainment. It was also included as part of membership kit #2. The
Club as of now has been closed through mutual agreement between Fox and
Creation. During it short lifespan it was very entertaining, and had a
quality that was above average. Fox is studying the Club project again.
But a final decision, may never be made.
Nicki
On 18 Jan 1998 16:34:27 GMT, "lecia" <le...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Where did you get that poster! I thought it wasn't available anywhere! DO
>tell!!!
It doesn't really do the real thing justice, but I picked up jpg file
version in alt.binaries.x-files. I also have yet to find the real
thing (arrggghhh! We Canadians are so isolated!)
Nicki
SA DScully
> Why would someone WANT to
>believe something that they don't believe?
It makes life easier sometimes, if you believe something. Obviously in
Mulder's case, Mulder does believe. The poster just says "I want to believe",
which is more representative of Scully. Scully does want to believe. She
trusts Mulder. She never ridicules him for his beliefs. I think this quote on
the poster is in reference to Samantha. Mulder specifically recalls his sister
being abdcuted by aliens (during a hypnoregression therapy session - which I
have a problem with this, but I digress). Scully wants to believe him. That
his sister really was abducted by aliens. Because that would make her life
easier, and she wouldn't have to sort out why Mulder believes this. And she
can just so "Mulder, I believe you" as opposed to "Mulder, maybe there is
another explanation". Scully wants to believe what Mulder believes, but she
can't believe because she can't back up Mulder's beliefs by science. It's just
a poster. Until they make it a tagline, this is the end of my analysis.
So it really isn't as black and white as your haggis example. And it
happens commonly in everday life. People are constantly wanting to believe
that the one they love wont lie to them or cheat on them anymore. Lots of
people want to believe a lot of different things for lots of different reasons.
-Jenniferelise
The WookieCat
> It makes life easier sometimes, if you believe something. Obviously in
> Mulder's case, Mulder does believe. The poster just says "I want to
believe",
> which is more representative of Scully. Scully does want to believe.
I disagree. A true scientiest/skeptic, like Scully, would not want to
believe. What she wants, and will always want, is scientific proof.
--
Wookie
-The Genetic Lifeguard-
"Hey, you, I said OUT of the pool!"
Unruhe77
Wookie wrote:
>> It makes life easier sometimes, if you believe something. Obviously in
>> Mulder's case, Mulder does believe. The poster just says "I want to
>believe",
>> which is more representative of Scully. Scully does want to believe.
>
>I disagree. A true scientiest/skeptic, like Scully, would not want to
>believe. What she wants, and will always want, is scientific proof.
>
>
I want to believe that both Mulder and Scully wants to believe, but Scully
also wants definite prove before she believes. Kind of like the kid who waits
for all her candy to be checked to make sure no one tampered with it before she
eats it. Instead of Mulder who just gobbles up the candy without checking it
out first.
Mike the Mad
(Spotlighting from Spotnitz Sanitarium)
"The secret to sucess is lying to others about what the secret to sucess is."
Me
lynx mulderite
SA DScully wrote:
> The reason why Scully wants to believe, is because she doesn't have the
> scientific proof. I didn't say Scully does believe only that she wants to.
> And Scully does want to. That is why she is on the X-Files. Although she told
> Mulder "prooving the existence of alien life is not my dying wish" (something
> to that effect) in "Gethsemane", if she finds it along the way, she will
> believe. Like I said she wants to believe that Mulder is right. Becuase than
> she wouldn't have to come up with her own view of what happened to Samantha.
> She wants to believe Mulder because she trusts him. But on the other hand, her
> rational side tells her that without scientific evidence she can't believe.
> Believeing and wanting to believe are entirely different things.
>
> -Jenniferelise
Hmmm. I'd say she's *willing* to believe - if she gets proof. I think
she respects Mulder enough to entertain the possibility that he might be
right - and is willing to explore extreme possibilities. But I don't
think she does believe in them - or that she *wants* to. She wants the
truth - as does Mulder.
---
lynx
mulderite
"I don't wanna wrestle"
Scamper22
>> Why would someone WANT to
>>believe something that they don't believe?
So many great answers to a great question. IMO, it IS a matter of making life
easier. Not as a cop-out "easier", but as a buffer in times of great tragedy.
Many people want to believe in a higher power because that might explain
something that is completely irrational.
Mulder believes, and is, therefore, incredibly focused. Because Scully doesn't
believe, she has some problems with his intensity, not because she is passing
judgment, but because she almost envies his sense of purpose. (I'll just
immerse myself in those two believable characters, here, and not seguay to
writers' motives, etc.)
Scully, on the other hand, keeps at least ONE of Mulder's feet on the ground.
She will often play devil's advocate, not because she's trying to shoot him
down, but because she really wants to believe, too. Fortunately (or,
unfortunately, given your point of view) he never quite gives her enough proof.
Indeed, she has seen things on her own that she cannot explain. But she
refuses to just put aside all her scientific knowledge in favor of an isolated
event. And for that, I love her so much!
As for Mulder, he refuses to put aside his beliefs just because they are not
scientifically subject to proof. And for that, I love him SO much!
JoAnne
Pamela T. Pon
Scamper22 <scam...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Why would someone WANT to believe something that they don't believe?
>
>So many great answers to a great question. IMO, it IS a matter of making
>life easier. Not as a cop-out "easier", but as a buffer in times of great
>tragedy. Many people want to believe in a higher power because that might
>explain something that is completely irrational.
This is especially borne out by Mulder's *original* use of the phrase
"I want to believe." Not as it appears on his poster, but as uttered
by him for the first time ever during the hypno-regression in which he
finally "remembered" Samantha's abduction. When Scully listens to the
regression tapes in "Conduit," we hear Mulder say "I want to believe"
*not* in response to whether he believes in aliens, but in response
to whether he believes the voice that spoke to him while he was
paralyzed and unable to respond to his sister's cries for help,
==> assuring him that she was OK and would someday be returned to him. <==
So the *original* motivation for Mulder's wanting to believe was
his need as a child trauma victim to explain his inability to help his
sister, to temporarily alleviate the intense guilt he felt, and to deny
the permanence of the tragedy that befallen him: all normal psychological
defense mechanisms for a grieving child (Denial being the first stage of
grief). Ironically, his conscious mind's *wanting* to believe that his
sister would be safe and would someday return was probably the immediate
result of his subconscious mind's *refusing* to believe that she would not.
It was only later that his needing to believe that Samantha
was alive grew to encompass his wanting to believe in aliens and UFOs
(whose existence would vindicate what he wants to believe most of all:
ie. what the reassuring Voice told him about Samantha), and to a lesser
degree, in paranormal phenomena (which are just plain cool, I guess. ;-)
>As for Mulder, he refuses to put aside his beliefs just because they
>are not scientifically subject to proof.
Imho, if his current willingness to believe stems from his childhood need
to believe in Samantha's well-being, for him to put aside his intellectual
beliefs in UFOs, etc. would be to put aside the 12-year-old Mulder's love
for Samantha. That would mean finally progressing through the post-Denial
stages of grief for her loss until reaching Acceptance -- a process which
would be too emotionally wrenching.
Of course, all this psychoanalysis is rendered moot if Mulder now
believes that "Redux II"'s Samantha-in-the-diner was real. If he does,
and he thinks that she really has been unharmed, alive, and happy all
these years, then what the Voice told him was true all along, and his
wanting to believe has been vindicated. He was right not to grieve for
her, because she didn't die. So, emotionally, he's off the hook -- no
need to progress to the post-Denial stages of grief for suffering that
Samantha never actually endured. Intellectually, however, he now either
has to find some other faith to sustain his beliefs in UFOs, or he has to
maintain those beliefs with intellect unsupported by emotional conviction.
(Unfortunately, being relieved of the need to grieve for Samantha's
sake doesn't mean he still doesn't need to go through the process of
grieving for *himself* -- for the 12-year-old who lost his sister when she
was taken from him against her will, and for the adult who lost her again
when she *left* him of her own free will. A process we're likely to see
only in fanfic, alas ...)
>And for that, I love him SO much!
Me too. ;-)
SA DScully
Joanne writes:
>Mulder believes, and is, therefore, incredibly focused. Because Scully
doesn't believe, she has some problems with his intensity, not because sh e is
passing judgment, but because she almost envies his sense of purpose. (SNIP)
>Scully, on the other hand, keeps at least ONE of Mulder's feet on the ground.
She will often play devil's advocate, not because she's trying to shoot him
down, but because she really wants to believe, too. Fortunately (or,
unfortunately, given your point of view) he never quite gives her enough
>proof.
>
>Indeed, she has seen things on her own that she cannot explain. But she
refuses to just put aside all her scientific knowledge in favor of an isolated
>event. And for that, I love her so much!
>
>As for Mulder, he refuses to put aside his beliefs just because they are not
scientifically subject to proof. And for that, I love him SO much!
>
Thank you JoAnne I couldn't have put this much better myself.
Scully does want to believe, not so she can make life easier because she can't
handle it. Just so she can better understand Mulder, better deal with him.
I would also like to point out, that Scully does believe in things that
aren't purely based in science. Such as her religion. Although she is not as
religious as she would like to be, she does believe in God. And as far as I
know there is no scientific evidence of God's existence. So she can accept
things on faith, but she chooses not to. I think it is very intresting that
the CC made Scully and not Mulder the religious one. Mulder would have more
motive to be religious. As JoAnne explained many people accept religion as an
explanation for bad things that happened. Losing Samantha must have been very
tough (thank God I don't know from experience). However Mulder didn't go to
God.
Mulder accepts UFOs and other stuff on faith, but not God. He didn't
believe Scully was supposed to protect that boy in "Revelations" (I think that
was the episode?), but he believes Samantha was taken by aliens. Of the two
things I would say the aliens are harder to believe, but that may be because I
like Scully am skeptic.
So there is a little bit of Mulder in Scully and a little bit of Scully in
Mulder. So they are not as black and white as they initially appeared to be
(such as in "Pilot"). It gives the characters a lot of depth.
CC had a reason for making Scully religious, and I don't believe it was
just so she would wear that little golden cross, so that Mulder knew Duane
Barry kidnaped her because he found it in the trunk "Duane Barry"/"Acension".
My only choice is to believe that this was done intentionally to add depth,
variety, and make it possible for Scully not to have to explain away every
X-File.
-Jenniferelise
SA DScully
>Hmmm. I'd say she's *willing* to believe - if she gets proof. I think she
respects Mulder enough to entertain the possibility that he might be right -
and is willing to explore extreme possibilities. But I don't think she does
believe in them - or that she *wants* to. She wants the truth - as does Mulder.
I'm sorry, but in Scully's case, wouldn't be willing to believe, and wanting to
believe, be the same thing?
-Jenniferelise
Tara Charnow
No.
Tara
lynx mulderite
The WookieCat wrote:
>
> SA DScully <sads...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <19980123194...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> being (or any other supernatural stuff), IF AND ONLY IF somebody can show
> me adequate proof. But do I "want" to believe? Absolutely not, thank you.
>
>
> --
> Wookie
Yup -that's what I meant, Wookie. Interestingly (speaking to your
example)- I was addressing the question of Scully's willingness to
believe in the paranormal/ETs, etc - if and only if such things were
proven. When it comes to Scully's belief in a supreme being, however, I
think she does make the leap of faith and
*does* believe -without proof.
--
Grispy
In article <6a9k0v$1m9$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, p...@best.com (Pamela T. Pon)
wrote:
>his need as a child trauma victim to explain his inability to help his
>sister, to temporarily alleviate the intense guilt he felt, and to deny
>the permanence of the tragedy that befallen him: all normal psychological
>defense mechanisms for a grieving child (Denial being the first stage of
>grief). Ironically, his conscious mind's *wanting* to believe that his
>sister would be safe and would someday return was probably the immediate
>result of his subconscious mind's *refusing* to believe that she would not.
*snip* for brevity
Nice analysis w/ regards to the grief process, and it does make sense of
the "I want to believe" quote in a more mytharc-related way. I'd forgotten
about that quote and its significance and was glad to be reminded that its
context wasn't just alien-based.
Gil
--
Terminology Champion * Semantic Guardian * Grammar Watchdog * Well-versed
in Alphabet-related Subjects * Member:CotHP
*********************************
Hard work pays off in the future.
Laziness pays off NOW.
*********************************
To EMAIL me, *remove* the "x" from my address.
The WookieCat
SA DScully <sads...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980123194...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> >Hmmm. I'd say she's *willing* to believe - if she gets proof. I think
she
> respects Mulder enough to entertain the possibility that he might be
right -
> and is willing to explore extreme possibilities. But I don't think she
does
> believe in them - or that she *wants* to. She wants the truth - as does
Mulder.
>
>
> I'm sorry, but in Scully's case, wouldn't be willing to believe, and
wanting to
> believe, be the same thing?
> -Jenniferelise
No. I am "willing" to believe in, for example, the existence of a supreme
being (or any other supernatural stuff), IF AND ONLY IF somebody can show
me adequate proof. But do I "want" to believe? Absolutely not, thank you.
--
Wookie
Scamper22
>I'm sorry, but in Scully's case, wouldn't be willing to believe, and wanting
>to
>believe, be the same thing?
>-Jenniferelise
>
>
>
Don't be sorry, Jennifer... you have hit on a duo of words that has been a
source of philosphical discussion down through the centuries. To be willing to
believe is, indeed, quite different from wanting to believe. The first implies
submissive permission, ergo, willing. The second implies desire. The first
says "sock it to me!" and the second says "prove it to me!"
JoAnne
Scamper22
Jennifer writes:
>Just so she can better understand Mulder, better deal with him.
Hmmm... I don't agree with that. I don't think either Mulder or Scully are
trying to "deal" with each other. Anymore. Maybe at the beginning they were
"jockeying for position" so to speak, but now there is a relationship where I
think they are both dealing with an outside scenario.
JoAnne
Scamper22
Jennifer writes:
>As JoAnne explained many people accept religion as an
>explanation for bad things that happened.
Excuse me, Jennifer, but what I said was: "Many people want to believe in a
higher power because that might explain something that is completely
irrational." I never said, implied nor intimated that "many people accept
religion as an explanation for bad things that happened."
I am not a Christian, born again or otherwise. My views are not to be
interpreted otherwise. I respect your beliefs. They are not mine. Do not put
words in my beliefs.
Jennifer also says:
>And as far as I know there is no scientific evidence of God's >existence. So
she (Scully) can accept things on faith, but she >chooses not to.
As far as I know, there is no >scientific< evidence of god's existence, either.
And thanks be! What with the track record of scientists to date, I would be
very disappointed if they were to find external evidence of some god's
existence! Gods (plural) are within. All of us are one.
And Jennifer continues; and I find this MOST interesting:
>I think it is very intresting that
>the CC made Scully and not Mulder the religious one. Mulder would have more
>motive to be religious.
Why?
JoAnne
SA DScully
>Jennifer continues; and I find this MOST interesting:
>
>>I think it is very intresting that
>>the CC made Scully and not Mulder the religious one. Mulder would have more
>>motive to be religious.
>
JoAnne's response:
>Why?
I think so that he could explain to himself that Samantha was taken for reason.
Many people find religion at a time of crisis.
Further more, Mulder doesn't need proof of something to believe. Scully is a
scientist, many scientists don't believe in God because they can't proove his
existence, but Scully does believe. However she doesn't believe that it is
remotely possible for there to be extra-terrestrial life. Scully said that ".
. .the very idea of intelligent alien life is not only astronomically
improbable, but downright Anti-Darwinian" - "War of the Corprophages."
Mulder can accept alien spaceships, but he is the one who didn't believe that
Scully felt she was supposed to protect the boy in "Revelations". It is a bit
ironic.
-Jenniferelise
Scamper22
It is not only a bit ironic, but a lot confusing! The idea is that the CC made
Scully and not Mulder the religious one and that is interesting because if
Mulder had been the religious one then he could explain to himself that
Samantha was taken for a reason?
What reason? Or are you saying that if Mulder believed in the Christian God,
then Mulder would just accept that there WAS a reason aliens abucted his sister
and go no further than that? That it was god's will?
>Further more, Mulder doesn't need proof of something to believe.
Are we talking about the same Fox Mulder?
>However she doesn't believe that it is
>remotely possible for there to be extra-terrestrial life.
That has not been established. She has not decided that it's not possible.
What she's voiced over and over, is that she needs more proof.
JoAnne
Bob & Cathy Kupke
sads...@aol.com (SA DScully) wrote:
>>Jennifer continues; and I find this MOST interesting:
>>
>>>I think it is very intresting that
>>>the CC made Scully and not Mulder the religious one. Mulder would have more
>>>motive to be religious.
>>
>JoAnne's response:
>>Why?
>I think so that he could explain to himself that Samantha was taken for reason.
> Many people find religion at a time of crisis.
>Further more, Mulder doesn't need proof of something to believe. Scully is a
>scientist, many scientists don't believe in God because they can't proove his
>existence, but Scully does believe. However she doesn't believe that it is
>remotely possible for there to be extra-terrestrial life. Scully said that ".
>. .the very idea of intelligent alien life is not only astronomically
>improbable, but downright Anti-Darwinian" - "War of the Corprophages."
>Mulder can accept alien spaceships, but he is the one who didn't believe that
>Scully felt she was supposed to protect the boy in "Revelations". It is a bit
>ironic.
>-Jenniferelise
I think Mulder's belief in the "Truth" is, in a sense, a belief in a
higher power(God). Maybe this is a stretch, but I like to think of
Mulder as a man of faith.
Cat
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Preach the Gospel as powerfully as you can, and if you have to, use
words"
---Saint Francis of Assisi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy & Jim Cotton
sads...@aol.com (SA DScully) wrote:
>>Jennifer continues; and I find this MOST interesting:
>>
>>>I think it is very intresting that
>>>the CC made Scully and not Mulder the religious one. Mulder would have more
>>>motive to be religious.
>>
>
>JoAnne's response:
>>Why?
>
>I think so that he could explain to himself that Samantha was taken for reason.
> Many people find religion at a time of crisis.
>Further more, Mulder doesn't need proof of something to believe. Scully is a
>scientist, many scientists don't believe in God because they can't proove his
>existence, but Scully does believe. However she doesn't believe that it is
>remotely possible for there to be extra-terrestrial life. Scully said that ".
>. .the very idea of intelligent alien life is not only astronomically
>improbable, but downright Anti-Darwinian" - "War of the Corprophages."
>Mulder can accept alien spaceships, but he is the one who didn't believe that
>Scully felt she was supposed to protect the boy in "Revelations". It is a bit
>ironic.
>
>-Jenniferelise
>
Yes, it is (ironic) and one of the smartest things they did for the
character of St. Scully.
By simply wearing the cross around her neck--knowing everything else
we know about her--it adds a whole layer of complexity to the
character.
There is certainly more than one reason she remains the "enigmatic"
Dr. Scully. ;)
Nancy (no clever sig)
Order of the Blessed Saint Scully the Enigmatic
Visit the NEW and IMPROVED (maybe) OBSSE Sanctuary at:
http://www.security-one.com/obsse
GeoRed
In article <19980127003...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, scam...@aol.com
(Scamper22) writes:
>What reason? Or are you saying that if Mulder believed in the Christian
>God, then Mulder would just accept that there WAS a reason aliens abucted his
>sister and go no further than that? That it was god's will?
I do not recall Mulder *ever* saying he did not believe in god or religion. He
may have a serious problem with organized religion, though. Mulder's problem
in the episode that you are talking about stems from his belief that people are
applying a literal interpretation to something that he thinks is a metaphor. I
believe this is what he says in the episode. I don't think it was ever stated
that he was atheistic. Not to mention that there are all types of religion,
perhaps Mulder's belief in Aliens is his. I think that to assume Mulder is not
at all religious based simply on his disbelief in Revelations is a mistake.
Heidi
::::::::with head in hands, rocking slowly::::::::::
"It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter."
SA DScully
>What reason? Or are you saying that if Mulder believed in the Christian
>God, then Mulder would just accept that there WAS a reason aliens abucted his
>sister and go no further than that? That it was god's will?
I never said Christian God, I just said religious. I never said so that
he wouldn't continue on in his work, and give up on his sister. I meant in the
sense that he could find comfort in God.
As per God's will, it isn't that simple. You can be extremely religious,
and have trouble accepting personal tragedy as God's will. Okay, I didn't get
this job, maybe it was God's Will. Something tragic, the fact that it is God's
Will, is extremely hard to accept. But you still have your belief in God to
carry you, and help you to heal.
>Further more, Mulder doesn't need proof of something to believe. Are we
talking >about the same Fox Mulder?
You see how Mulder jumps to conclussions all the time, only in the end do
we remotely see evidence. Yes we are talking about the same Fox Mulder. He
doesn't have proof that Samantha was taken by a spaceship, but he still
believes it. Before Mulder underwent hypnoregression therapy, he remembered
the abduction different.
Before: He was in bed sleeping, he woke up, Samantha was wrong
After: He was awake, he knows what he was watching on t.v., that he was
playing Stratego and that his sister was beamed out.
Hypnoregression therapy isn't a highly acclaimed way of recalling that
which you don't remember. And to the best of my knowledge they are
inadmissable in court
>However she doesn't believe that it is remotely possible for there to be
>extra-terrestrial life. That has not been established. She has not decided
that it's >not possible. What she's voiced over and over, is that she needs
more proof.
>
I don't know, I think the quote where I quoted her from "War of the
Coprophages" in my last post, exquisitly shows the opposite.
-Jenniferelise
Jenniferelise
Scamper22
>Not to mention that there are all types of religion,
>perhaps Mulder's belief in Aliens is his. I think that to assume Mulder is
>not
>at all religious based simply on his disbelief in Revelations is a mistake.
>
>
>Heidi
I don't know about his disbelief in Revelations, but I do acknowledge a very
intelligent post when I see one, Heidi. What stopped me in my tracks was the
word "religious." Not religion, but religious. We all do things,
"religiously," (brush our teeth, etc.) but what does "religious" really mean in
the context we are discussing?
I was not saying that Fox was athiest; only that he was not espousing the
Christian religion as Scully does. That's was my questions were based on. I
was not referring to any particular episode.
(And I like your end-post... "It just doesn't matter..." You're right, and
when it stops being fun, I quit. But as to trading thoughts and
observations... so far, it matters. :-)
JoAnne
Scamper22
Jennifer writes:
> I never said Christian God, I just said religious. I never said so that
>he wouldn't continue on in his work, and give up on his sister. I meant in
>the
>sense that he could find comfort in God.
Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought you said you were a born-again
Christian and so just assumed, I guess, that you meant a Christian god.
>As per God's will, it isn't that simple. You can be extremely >religious, and
have trouble accepting personal tragedy as God's >will. Okay, I didn't get
this job, maybe it was God's Will. >Something tragic, the fact that it is
God's Will, is extremely hard to >accept. But you still have your belief in
God to carry you, and >help you to heal.
And this is where I respectfully part company with you. (And thank you for the
clarification.) As such, we probably won't get much further than this... As I
asked Heidi, what is your definition of religious? It seems to have a
different connotation than "religion."
If Fox has a belief in any god, maybe it is a comfort, else he would have gone
insane long ago with his frustration.
I said, with reference to Scully's not believing it's remotely possible for
there to be extra-terrestrial life...
>What she's voiced over and over, is that she needs
>more proof.
You said:
>I don't know, I think the quote where I quoted her from "War of the
>Coprophages" in my last post, exquisitly shows the opposite.
>
>
And that quote was: "..the very idea of intelligent alien life is not only
astronomically improbable but downright Anti-Darwinian."
To me, the marvelous thing about that astonishing remark from Scully, was the
wit an intelligence of the writers. They do that stuff all the time. The first
clue is the word "improbable." Not impossible, but improbable. The second is
"anti-darwinian." That refers to the evolution of the species as theorized by
Darwin.
Therefore, to (and the Theory of Evolution has not been proved, by the way...
it's still a theory)... where was I... oh yeah... therefore, to say that
something is "astronomically improbable" means it still can be - it IS
possible, and the rest of her remark was a slam against those who adhere like
bulldogs to an unproven theory. :-)
JoAnne
Scamper22
>I think Mulder's belief in the "Truth" is, in a sense, a belief in a
>higher power(God). Maybe this is a stretch, but I like to think of
>Mulder as a man of faith.
>
>Cat
I like that. I don't agree with it, but I like it. :-) I like to think of
Fox as a man who will not accept anyone's word about anything, is determined to
find out for himself, to his own satisfaction, and will not give up until he
does. I love the search, the investigation, the will to know. And the
producers sure picked a perfect forum!
JoAnne
Konrad Douglas Frye
> I don't know, I think the quote where I quoted her from "War of the
>Coprophages" in my last post, exquisitly shows the opposite.
Keep in mind that WOTC is one of Darin's episodes and that quite a bit
has happened since then. I think Scully's stance at the Senate inquiry in
'Terma' is closer to her current position on the subject. As a previous
poster pointed out, it's not that she doesn't believe, it's that she needs
proof. Regardless, we haven't heard her voice her opinions on what the
Bounty Hunter and Jeremiah Smith represent.
-----
Konrad Frye (umfr...@ccu.umanitoba.ca)
Computer Engineering IV
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life...is like a box of chocolates. A cheap, thoughtless,
perfunctory gift that nobody ever asks for". - Cancer Man -
"Keep going FBI woman" - Fox Mulder -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
lynx mulderite
GeoRed wrote:
>
> In article <19980129001...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, scam...@aol.com
> (Scamper22) writes:
>
> >Therefore, to (and the Theory of Evolution has not been proved, by the
> >that something is "astronomically improbable" means it still can be - it
> >IS possible, and the rest of her remark was a slam against those who adhere
> >like bulldogs to an unproven theory. :-)
>
> It has more evidence supporting it than Christianity does. I also think that
> it is possible to reconcile chrisitanity with evolution.....it is just that
> many people don't *want* to. The most important thing to remember is that the
> term "theory" will most likely apply until they have *absolute* proof. But the
> evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming and beyond the scope of this
> ng. It is accepted as fact by nearly the entire scientific community. We
> (geologists especially, in my experience) have a tendency to qualify
> *everything*. There is no black and white (which is why we clash with
> engineers ;-)) and we are open to "possibilities". I find that large portions
> of the highly religious groups are not open to such ideas (again, only in my
> experience). Many, or most, of the geologic theories accepted as fact are only
> accepted as such due to decades of study, of physical specimens and
> technological data. To get *back* on topic, Scully, as a scientist, would use
> the term "improbable". Why is she a lapsed catholic? Because, as a scientist,
> she has studied "unproven but accepted based on overwhelming evidence"
> *theories* which called her faith into question. She was hardly making a slam
> against people who believe in evolution, she was being a scientist. She has had
> access to the evidence.
>
> Heidi
> ::::::::with head in hands, rocking slowly::::::::::
> "It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter."
Thanks, fellow scientist, for speaking up here. Since science is a
process of positing hypotheses (theories) and then testing them - often
by deduction (i.e., eliminating all the possible alternative
explanations)- scientists will hedge - because they know (they just do)
that there may be yet another explanation of the evidence. Or - you do
an experiment and say "Well, if my theory is true, then that strongly
predicts that X will happen". The way any theory becomes "fact" is by
accretion of evidence, building up the numbers of experiments or
observations where X *does* happen, where the predictions come about. If
the predictions or observations ALWAYS agree with the hypothesis (at
least up to the last experiment/observation) then you continue to
"believe" the theory. If any prediction (arrived at by correct logic)
proves false, then the whole hypothesis is wrong and must be changed to
include the new facts. So - that a Theory (like evolution) has survived
this long, through many years of observation (and experiment - it's easy
to do evolution experiments on bacteria, for example [I just do]) serves
to strengthen it. This is where statistics come in - at some point the
weight of the evidence makes it very unlikely (99.99% or whatever) that
the hypothesis is untrue. But a scientist will leave herself/himself an
out. We'll gamble - but should be gracious (and honest) if something
disproves the theory. I admit that I'm not a student of the various new
views of evolution (like Punctualism, that Mulder mentions) - but each
of these are cases where new evidence makes us rethink the original
statement of the theory. Such that the specifics may be different from
what Darwin first thought - but the process of evolutionary change - be
it gradual or in big jumps - from one species into another,
happens...how it happens is still a subject of debate.
Dare I say that all "facts" about the universe are theories until
disproven? How about you physicists out there - are universal
constants, like the speed of light, any more than a constantly supported
theory? Or is it just us biologists and geologists that are insecure
about our "facts"? ;-)
GeoRed
In article <19980128234...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, scam...@aol.com
(Scamper22) writes:
>I don't know about his disbelief in Revelations, but I do acknowledge a
>very intelligent post when I see one, Heidi. What stopped me in my tracks
>was the word "religious." Not religion, but religious. We all do
>things, "religiously," (brush our teeth, etc.) but what does "religious"
>really mean in the context we are discussing?
Hmmm.....religious, as in having faith, I guess. I would not be at all
surprised to hear Mulder say that he believes in god, a god, some god......not
necessarily the Christian one. He is open to extreme possiblities but is
intelligent and well read. I can see him having serious problems with various
religious group's interpretation of the bible. He could be similar to me in
that he took many courses in greek and roman mythology and saw interesting
parallels between that and Christianity. I believe in a "god"......but I don't
care for organized religion, per se.
>I was not saying that Fox was
>athiest; only that he was not espousing the
>Christian religion as Scully
>does. That's was my questions were based on. I
>was not referring to any
>particular episode.
You are right. I can't recall him *ever* mentioning a religious affiliation.
Like I said, I think we can speculate but we need to keep in mind why he may
disagree with Scully on this topic from time to time.
<Glad you dig my sig. You recognize what it is based on? ;-)>
GeoRed
Heidi
Kimberly Wadsworth
geo...@aol.com (GeoRed) wrote:
>I also think that
>it is possible to reconcile chrisitanity with evolution.....it is just that
>many people don't *want* to.
Oh, I had no trouble doing it: God, however you concieve Him/Her,
created the world; evolution was the means S/He used to do it. :-)
(Seriously: I'm sorry if that sounds flip, but that's what I've
believed for a long time now; if you're a precocious child going
through a Catholic upbringing you either come up with reconciliations
like that or you go totally barking mad.)
Kim W.
Please remove "go'way" if replying via e-mail. And blame the spammers. Thanks.
GeoRed
>Or is it just us biologists and geologists that are insecure
about our
>"facts"? ;-)
Insecure? Hmmmm.....how about cautious and humble. ;-) How about scientific?
Realistic?
lynx mulderite
GeoRed wrote:
>
> In article <34D110...@erols.com>, lynx mulderite <lyn...@erols.com> writes:
>
> >Or is it just us biologists and geologists that are insecure
> about our
> >"facts"? ;-)
>
> Insecure? Hmmmm.....how about cautious and humble. ;-) How about scientific?
> Realistic?
>
> Heidi
The Faulconers
I'm sorry, I know you guys are serious about this subject but...
wasn't the idea that evolution was still a "theory" something Pheobe
said to Ross, on Friends? This sounds so familiar. I just remember
something about that (and a suitcase with bones in it...) and it being
very funny! Maybe it was a dream?
Kathleen
Hank Alme
scam...@aol.com (Scamper22) writes:
[ SNIP ]
> Therefore, to (and the Theory of Evolution has not been proved, by the way...
> it's still a theory)... where was I... oh yeah... therefore, to say that
> something is "astronomically improbable" means it still can be - it IS
> possible, and the rest of her remark was a slam against those who adhere like
> bulldogs to an unproven theory. :-)
>
This is a meaningless statement. All of science is "still a theory";
that includes physics, chemistry, &c. The nature of science is that
no theory is ever "proved", it is only possible to be not disproved.
The Theory of Evolution will always be "an unproven theory" -- until
the end of time. It explains the currently available data, that is
all any theory can do.
Science makes no presumtion of presenting facts, it only advances
theories that try to explain what we see.
Cheers,
Hank
--
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Henry J. Alme | We're sorry, the number you have dialed is imaginary. |
| hja...@ucdavis.edu | Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
Lars Boksjoe
The Faulconers(rock...@ix.netcom.com) wrote in article
<34D2B1...@ix.netcom.com>:
¤ I'm sorry, I know you guys are serious about this subject but...
¤ wasn't the idea that evolution was still a "theory" something Pheobe
¤ said to Ross, on Friends?
Lars
who tries not to float away into the clouds...
GeoRed
In article <34D2B1...@ix.netcom.com>, The Faulconers
<rock...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>I'm sorry, I know you guys are serious about this subject but...wasn't the
>idea that evolution was still a "theory" something Pheobe said to Ross, on
>Friends? This sounds so familiar. I just remember something about that (and a
>suitcase with bones in it...) and it being very funny! Maybe it was a dream?
>
Kathleen
And don't you remember Ross's (the PALEONTOLOGIST) reaction? Stunned disbelief
that she would make the comments that she was making?
GeoRed
In article <MPG.f3ce3c05...@nntpserver.swip.net>,
lars....@swipnet.se (Lars Boksjoe) writes:
>Gravity is a theory too... ;-)
I personally don't believe in that particular theory. Where's the proof? ;-)
The Faulconers
GeoRed wrote:
> <rock...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>I'm sorry, I know you guys are serious about this subject
>but...wasn't the idea that evolution was still a "theory" something >Pheobe said to Ross, on Friends? This sounds so familiar. I just >remember something about that (and a suitcase with bones in it...) and >it being very funny! Maybe it was a dream?
> And don't you remember Ross's (the PALEONTOLOGIST) reaction? Stunned >disbelief that she would make the comments that she was making?
Yes, I do remember! Oh, good, I am not crazy...er, not too crazy! ;-)
BUT I was a bit stunned when I read it HERE so I was not quite sure if
the poster was serious! I didn't want to be mean, just in case! Didn't
God make people really small to begin with, just in case he didn't like
them? That seems like a fine way to reconcile evolution with belief in
God! It works for me! :-)
Now I want to see that episode again! Hilarious! Thanks Heidi, for
remembering it too!
Kathleen
GeoRed
In article <34D427...@ix.netcom.com>, The Faulconers
<rock...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Yes, I do remember! Oh, good, I am not crazy...er, not too crazy! ;-)
>BUT I
>was a bit stunned when I read it HERE so I was not quite sure if
>the poster
>was serious!
Yes we were serious. Friends never even crossed my mind until you mentioned
it. XF is the only show that occurs to me in any conversation ;-)
Scamper22
>From: Hank Alme
> All of science is "still a theory";
>that includes physics, chemistry, &c. The nature of science is that
>no theory is ever "proved", it is only possible to be not disproved.
Uh, actually, that is not so. The theory proposed by Galileo that the earth
revolved around the sun, was proved. :-) Or, gosh, maybe the sun DOES revolve
around the earth and we've just been mislead all this time.
And who was the guy who said, "Hey, I theorize the world is round and not
flat!" :-)
>Science makes no presumtion of presenting facts, it only advances
>theories that try to explain what we see.
Then you and I are dealing with two types of scientists. I like yours better.
The ones I have referred to have made "factual statements" based on their
"models" and their "experiments" and will brook no negative, skeptical or
questioning input.
Cheers!
JoAnne
JoAnne
Chris 'Coz' Costello
In article <19980131191...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
GeoRed <geo...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <MPG.f3ce3c05...@nntpserver.swip.net>,
>lars....@swipnet.se (Lars Boksjoe) writes:
>
>>Gravity is a theory too... ;-)
>
>I personally don't believe in that particular theory. Where's the proof? ;-)
Or, in the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny..."I know dis defites de
law of gravity, but I never studied law."
Later,
COZ
NP: _Vinnie Colaiuta_
--
+--
| Chris 'Coz' Costello / "Hipness is transient. You have to
| http://www.tezcat.com/~coz / change in order to be continually |
c...@tezcat.com / hip." - Vinnie Colaiuta |
---+
lars....@swipnet.se
In article <19980131191...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
geo...@aol.com (GeoRed) wrote:
>
> In article <MPG.f3ce3c05...@nntpserver.swip.net>,
> lars....@swipnet.se (Lars Boksjoe) writes:
>
> >Gravity is a theory too... ;-)
>
> I personally don't believe in that particular theory. Where's the proof? ;-)
Take a solid object, like a substantial Memphis rock, and hold it above
your head. Then let go of it... (Don't try this at home kids!) Wisdom may
be painful sometimes. :-)
>
> Heidi
> ::::::::with head in hands, rocking slowly::::::::::
> "It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter."
Lars
who have missed lots of posts lately…
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
GeoRed
>Take a solid object, like a substantial Memphis rock
Would that be, like, Elvis? Oh, you said rock, not rocker. They don't have
rocks in Memphis......not really.
>and hold it above
>your head. Then let go of it... (Don't try this at home kids!) Wisdom may
>be painful sometimes. :-)
Since Elvis ain't in Memphis, and there ain't no rocks, I can't complete this
assignment, therefore the theory cannot be proved.......or is that proven?
Lars Boksjoe
GeoRed(geo...@aol.com) wrote in article
<19980206034...@ladder02.news.aol.com>:
¤ In article <886694719...@dejanews.com>, lars....@swipnet.se writes:
¤
¤ >Take a solid object, like a substantial Memphis rock
¤
¤ Would that be, like, Elvis? Oh, you said rock, not rocker. They don't have
¤ rocks in Memphis......not really.
¤
¤ >and hold it above
¤ >your head. Then let go of it... (Don't try this at home kids!) Wisdom may
¤ >be painful sometimes. :-)
¤
¤ Since Elvis ain't in Memphis, and there ain't no rocks, I can't complete this
¤ assignment, therefore the theory cannot be proved.......or is that proven?
Well, since I normally think that you are a trustworthy femi-nazi-lesbian-
Mulder!Maiden-Scully!Loving-whipwielding-jackbootwearin'doglovin'-
vainglorious-fuzzy bunny, I would normally take your empirical studies as a
proper falsification of the theory of rocks being in Memphis, but since you
boldly claim that Elvis is not in Memphis, a statement which I think is very
much in dispute, I'm not so sure. I could suggest that you substituted the
non-existing Memphis rock with an existing Nashville one, but I'm starting to
worry about the state of your head. And I wouldn't want you to risk your
health... However, I think that you can come up with alternative experiment
designed pending the materials at your disposal. The thing is to suspend
stuff, putting it above other stuff and then to let go. (Ok, remember that
what might come to your mind is a creation of it!;-)) I'm sure that you can
come up with something!
¤
¤ Heidi
¤ ::::::::with head in hands, rocking slowly::::::::::
¤ "It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter, it just doesn't matter."
¤
Lars
who thinks that Elvis is visiting Graceland on a regular basis...
GeoRed
In article <MPG.f44d2dbc...@nntpserver.swip.net>,
lars....@swipnet.se (Lars Boksjoe) writes:
>>GeoRed(geo...@aol.com) wrote in article
>
¤>>Lars Wrote:
¤>>Take
¤>>a solid object, like a substantial Memphis rock
>> Would that be, like, Elvis? Oh, you said rock, not rocker. They don't have
>> rocks in Memphis......not really.
¤
¤ >>and hold it above
¤ >>your head. Then let go of it... (Don't try this at home kids!) Wisdom may
¤ >>be painful sometimes.
>:-)
¤
>> Since Elvis ain't in Memphis, and there ain't no rocks, I can't
>>complete this assignment, therefore the theory cannot be proved.......or is
>>that proven?
>Well, since I normally think that you are a trustworthy
>femi-nazi-lesbian-
>Mulder!Maiden-Scully!Loving-whipwielding-jackbootwearin'doglovin'-
>vainglorious-fuzzy bunny, I would normally take your empirical studies as a
>proper falsification of the theory of rocks being in Memphis,
Trust me! No rocks.....sand and clay.
> but since you
>boldly claim that Elvis is not in Memphis, a statement which I think is very
>much in dispute, I'm not so sure.
Do you really think that hordes of polyester clad tourists would miss him?
Seriously, he is in Boise.
>I could suggest that you substituted the
>non-existing Memphis rock with an existing Nashville one, but I'm starting
>to worry about the state of your head. And I wouldn't want you to risk your
>health... However, I think that you can come up with alternative experiment
>designed pending the materials at your disposal. The thing is to suspend
>stuff, putting it above other stuff and then to let go. (Ok, remember that
>what might come to your mind is a creation of it!;-)) I'm sure that you can
>come up with something!
<whining>
Awwww....do I have to? I'm not in school anymore and I only work when being
paid by my lovely consulting firm. <oh, wait>
I just dropped my cat! He hit the ground and then flew into the air. What the
hell does *that* mean?
Lars Boksjoe
GeoRed(geo...@aol.com) wrote in article
<19980207022...@ladder02.news.aol.com>:
¤ In article <MPG.f44d2dbc...@nntpserver.swip.net>,
¤ lars....@swipnet.se (Lars Boksjoe) writes:
¤
¤ >>GeoRed(geo...@aol.com) wrote in article
¤ >
¤ ¤>>Lars Wrote:
¤
¤ ¤>>Take
¤ ¤>>a solid object, like a substantial Memphis rock
¤
¤ >> Would that be, like, Elvis? Oh, you said rock, not rocker. They don't have
¤ >> rocks in Memphis......not really.
¤ >> Since Elvis ain't in Memphis, and there ain't no rocks, I can't
¤ >>complete this assignment, therefore the theory cannot be proved.......or is
¤ >>that proven?
¤ > but since you
¤ >boldly claim that Elvis is not in Memphis, a statement which I think is very
¤ >much in dispute, I'm not so sure.
¤
¤ Do you really think that hordes of polyester clad tourists would miss him?
¤ Seriously, he is in Boise.
¤
---
¤ >I'm sure that you can
¤ >come up with something!
¤
¤ <whining>
¤ Awwww....do I have to? I'm not in school anymore and I only work when being
¤ paid by my lovely consulting firm. <oh, wait>
¤
¤ I just dropped my cat! He hit the ground and then flew into the air. What the
¤ hell does *that* mean?
That means that you have a flying cat. They defy gravity!
Lars
who thinks that flying cats is an evolutionary adaptation allowing the
felines to harvest flying fish...
GeoRed
Hank Alme
ObXFiles: I wonder where evil dolls would fit in the theory of evolution.
Scam...@aol.com wrote:
>>From: Hank Alme
>
>> All of science is "still a theory";
>>that includes physics, chemistry, &c. The nature of science is that
>>no theory is ever "proved", it is only possible to be not disproved.
>
>Uh, actually, that is not so. The theory proposed by Galileo that
>the earth revolved around the sun, was proved. :-) Or, gosh, maybe
>the sun DOES revolve around the earth and we've just been mislead all
>this time.
That depends on what you consider proof. The heliocentric model
explains the observations we have made, and if you try to hit a planet
with a probe using that model, it will get there. That still does not
prove the theory, it only shows we have seen no counter example. It
is still "just a theory" as much as evolution or anything else.
>And who was the guy who said, "Hey, I theorize the world is round and not
>flat!" :-)
>
Yes, who was he? Not Christopher Columbus, I hope. Educated people
in Columbus' time believed the world to be round. The controversies
were "how big?" and "what will we hit if we go west from Europe?"
Columbus used the smallest circumference he could find, I guess to
bolster his (wrong) argument that he could get to India quicker by
going west.
Some scientist in ancient Greece (I cannot remember the name, I think
it's Aristophenes), calculated the circumference of the Earth way
before Christ. If I recall correctly, he got pretty close.
>>Science makes no presumtion of presenting facts, it only advances
>>theories that try to explain what we see.
>
>Then you and I are dealing with two types of scientists. I like
>yours better. The ones I have referred to have made "factual
>statements" based on their "models" and their "experiments" and will
>brook no negative, skeptical or questioning input.
>
The scientists you refer to are probably reacting from arrogance or
impatience, both of which show them to be humans, subject to human
frailties. It does not reflect on science -- all fields have arrogant
jerks.
SpookysToy
Lars speculated:
>The Faulconers(rock...@ix.netcom.com) wrote in article
><34D2B1...@ix.netcom.com>:
>¤ I'm sorry, I know you guys are serious about this subject but...
>¤ wasn't the idea that evolution was still a "theory" something Pheobe
>¤ said to Ross, on Friends?
>Gravity is a theory too... ;-)
>
>Lars
>who tries not to float away into the clouds...
"Gravity isn't just a good idea, it's the law!"
Spooky's Toy
who regrets she cannot credit the author of the quote.
"Remember, it's not a real sport if an American can't win it."
>>>CoC, cog6, SWILS, BSS, Sick!Otter<<<
// Mulder Maiden <psy<cho<path CusackCommandoGirl! \\
"Sing something, Scully."
drq...@gmail.com
imago...@yahoo.com
> Amazing this still exists!!!!
Isn't it? :)
--Phil
where's the old gang?
Alan McHurshman
Loved seeing the names of all the posters I used
to argue with every week.
--
AlanH
mzme...@yahoo.com
--Phil
Alan McHurshman
The group is Xf Stuff.
It is a closed group so you need approval but I
don't think you need an invite.
Not super busy and not just XF stuff.
But a fun way to keep track of old friends.
--
AlanH
mzme...@yahoo.com
> hey everyboady, just wanted to tell you all about my cool poster i got
> yesterday... the "i want to believe poster"..the same one mulder has in
> his office!!! well, i'm very excited!!! :) by the way, i'm a "newbie",
> so hi to all, and i hope that we may be able to share in the days to
> come! bye!
> mary
I'll take a peek. Thanks, Alan!
--Phil