ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags semantics , ufos

Reply
Old 11th November 2011, 05:12 AM   #1
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 20,610
Time to junk the term "UFO"?

I propose we use the NYIO instead of UFO. "Not Yet Identified Objects" is more accurate, I believe. We could also use IBIASFO?
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 06:09 AM   #2
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,327
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
I propose we use the NYIO instead of UFO. "Not Yet Identified Objects" is more accurate, I believe.
I disagree.

Even if we come up with plausible explanations for a sighting, such as a blimp.
And even if practically everyone agrees that the most likely thing seen was a blimp.

All we can say is that the most likely explanation is that it was a blimp.

Without evidence, though, it is still unidentified, and indeed, unidentifiable, since you will never be able to recreate a sighting.

UFO covers this nicely, whereas "Not Yet", would need to also cover, "Not Likely To", and "Not Ever" as well.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 06:16 AM   #3
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 20,610
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
I disagree.

Even if we come up with plausible explanations for a sighting, such as a blimp.
And even if practically everyone agrees that the most likely thing seen was a blimp.

All we can say is that the most likely explanation is that it was a blimp.

Without evidence, though, it is still unidentified, and indeed, unidentifiable, since you will never be able to recreate a sighting.

UFO covers this nicely, whereas "Not Yet", would need to also cover, "Not Likely To", and "Not Ever" as well.
I think it makes it clear that the possibility of being identified is there. As the Believers routinely use UFO for "alien spacecraft" I think this is a means of countering that euphemism.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 06:19 AM   #4
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,327
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
I think it makes it clear that the possibility of being identified is there. As the Believers routinely use UFO for "alien spacecraft" I think this is a means of countering that euphemism.
My argument is that "Unidentified" covers all tense of the acronym; past, present and future.

So a much more useful, universal, concise and precise acronym is still UFO.

ETA: IFO, being the its "antonym".
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage

Last edited by EHocking; 11th November 2011 at 06:21 AM.
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 06:30 AM   #5
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,719
Whether the phenomenon was correctly identified or not is a judgement call. Just call it a "thing".

Declaring that an unidentified thing is flying (when it might very well be a planet) is an unjustified assumption. All you can say for sure is that it's up in the sky.

So I say we should replace Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) with Thing In The Sky (TITS). The new acronym might encourage a whole new generation of dedicated spotters.

Last edited by Jack by the hedge; 11th November 2011 at 08:06 AM.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 06:50 AM   #6
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 20,610
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
My argument is that "Unidentified" covers all tense of the acronym; past, present and future.

So a much more useful, universal, concise and precise acronym is still UFO.

ETA: IFO, being the its "antonym".
I just looking to make it more explicit.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 06:55 AM   #7
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,327
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
I just looking to make it more explicit.
The problem I have is that "Not Yet", besides implying that it can/will be identified, is more implicit than explicit, since it would exclude all sightings that can not, or may never be, be identified.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 06:56 AM   #8
Marcus
Master Poster
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,021
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
I propose we use the NYIO instead of UFO. "Not Yet Identified Objects" is more accurate, I believe. We could also use IBIASFO?
UFO works fine for objects that are unidentified, we really just need to add another term for the creduloids that are really talking about aliens, UFAO has worked well in some of the threads.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 07:02 AM   #9
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 20,610
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
The problem I have is that "Not Yet", besides implying that it can/will be identified, is more implicit than explicit, since it would exclude all sightings that can not, or may never be, be identified.
Okay, then. I'll use it, you do what makes you comfortable.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 07:23 AM   #10
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,242
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Whether the phenomenon was correctly identified or not is a judgement call. Just call it a "thing".
.
[shatner]"there's some thing, on the wing"[/shatner]
Marduk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 08:04 AM   #11
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,327
Originally Posted by Marduk View Post
[shatner]"there's some thing, on the wing"[/shatner]"
We come in peace, shoot to kill"...
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage

Last edited by EHocking; 11th November 2011 at 08:06 AM.
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 08:09 AM   #12
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,327
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
Okay, then. I'll use it, you do what makes you comfortable.
You'll be in some good company with others that wish to redefine the acronym.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 08:13 AM   #13
Explorer
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,028
What is wrong with UAO, i.e. "Unspecific Aerial Object" Or should be Non-specific", in which case, NAO

By taking out unidentified, it still allows for later confirmed identification, without saying that it is actually likely to be identified, and Aerial takes out "Flying" indicating intelligent control.

Last edited by Explorer; 11th November 2011 at 08:23 AM.
Explorer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 08:27 AM   #14
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,327
Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
What is wrong with UAO, i.e. "Unspecific Aerial Object" Or should be Non-specific", in which case, NAO

By taking out unidentified, it still allows for later confirmed identification, without saying that it is actually likely to be identified, and Aerial takes out "Flying" indicating intelligent control.
And once identified, what would and UAO or NAO become?

What is the difference between using UFO and IFO in this context?
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 08:42 AM   #15
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,719
How about What On Earth Was That Thing (WTFWTT)?
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 09:01 AM   #16
caniswalensis
Master Poster
 
caniswalensis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,567
While I agree mostly with EHocking on his points, I think this is a useful discussion to have.

I do deplore the use of the acronym 'UFO' as a synonym for 'alien craft', but I do not think the problem is serious enough to really worry about.

For the sake of discussion, here is my take:

'Unidentified' works well enough. It is accurate, and does not ommit the possibility of later identification.

'Flying' is an assumption. Things may be located in the sky, without actually having the power of flight.

'Object' is another assumption. People may percieve things visually that are not actuual objects.

If we were going to change the acronym, I think something like 'Unidentified Visual sighting' would be more accurate. It does not assume that the veiwer is witnessing a particular type of thing with any specific properties. Lacking any assumption, it distances itself from 'alien craft' by a wider margin.

U.V.S. anyone?
__________________
"...The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status." - Carl Sagan
caniswalensis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 09:07 AM   #17
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,272
UVS would also work for bigfoot sightings!
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 09:15 AM   #18
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,327
Originally Posted by caniswalensis View Post
While I agree mostly with EHocking on his points, I think this is a useful discussion to have.

I do deplore the use of the acronym 'UFO' as a synonym for 'alien craft', but I do not think the problem is serious enough to really worry about.
I'm in agreement with both the above - that's why I'm participating in the chat.
Quote:
For the sake of discussion, here is my take:

'Unidentified' works well enough. It is accurate, and does not ommit the possibility of later identification.

'Flying' is an assumption. Things may be located in the sky, without actually having the power of flight.

'Object' is another assumption. People may percieve things visually that are not actuual objects.

If we were going to change the acronym, I think something like 'Unidentified Visual sighting' would be more accurate.
But rather redundant, don't you think? A "visual" "sighting"?

In order to not seem to be a nay-saying meanyhead

Unidentified Aerial Sighting?
UAS pronounced "You Arse" (or "You Ass" for our USAan friends).
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 09:30 AM   #19
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,092
I like TITS...
.
.
..
wrong thread?
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 09:34 AM   #20
caniswalensis
Master Poster
 
caniswalensis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,567
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
I'm in agreement with both the above - that's why I'm participating in the chat.But rather redundant, don't you think? A "visual" "sighting"?

In order to not seem to be a nay-saying meanyhead

Unidentified Aerial Sighting?
UAS pronounced "You Arse" (or "You Ass" for our USAan friends).
You are right, that's is a bit redundant. What about 'Unidentified Visual Experience', a UVE? Or perhaps better, 'Unexplained Visual Experience'? The use of the word experience creates even more distance between the reported sighting and an assumption of reality.

Your suggestion of UAS is very good too. It is perfectly descriptive without making assumptions. I personally dislike the ‘you ass’ pronunciation, though. It will be used to mock people that see & report something they do not understand. I see no need for that.

At the end of the day, 'UVE' may not be descriptive enough.
__________________
"...The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by caniswalensis; 11th November 2011 at 09:35 AM.
caniswalensis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 10:09 AM   #21
John Albert
Illuminator
 
John Albert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,143
With he acronym "UFO," the word "unidentified" is not the problem.

Calling them "not yet identified" implies that they will be identified at some point in the future, which is not necessarily true. If there isn't enough information about a given object at the time of the sighting and enough cannot be uncovered within a few days or weeks immediately afterward, then there will probably never be enough to make a reliable identification.

If anything, the words "flying object" should be replaced because a large number of UFOs have turned out not to be flying, nor even objects in a material sense. "Aerial sighting" works rather better in my opinion.
__________________
“In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
—Mark Twain
John Albert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 10:30 AM   #22
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,675
AWH

Airborne What in Hell
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 11:00 AM   #23
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,719
STINK: Something Tangible, Identity Not Known.

(But I too still like TITS: Thing In The Sky)


Last edited by Jack by the hedge; 11th November 2011 at 11:02 AM.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 11:19 AM   #24
John Albert
Illuminator
 
John Albert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,143
But then you run into the problem of people saying things like:

"OMG I saw a TITS!"

Nobody talks like that. It just sounds stupid.

The only way TITS would really work is in the plural:

"OMG! I saw some TITS!"
__________________
“In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
—Mark Twain
John Albert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 12:25 PM   #25
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,508
Quote:
Declaring that an unidentified thing is flying (when it might very well be a planet) is an unjustified assumption. All you can say for sure is that it's up in the sky.
I agree the term "flying" is inaccurate and has probably led to all kinds of crazy misconceptions.
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 12:55 PM   #26
Explorer
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,028
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
And once identified, what would and UAO or NAO become?

What is the difference between using UFO and IFO in this context?
Once identified, it would become an SAO, i.e. a Specific or Specified Aerial Object.

See my original post, for the advantages of this terminology..
Explorer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 01:11 PM   #27
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,719
Originally Posted by John Albert View Post
But then you run into the problem of people saying things like:

"OMG I saw a TITS!"

Nobody talks like that. It just sounds stupid.

The only way TITS would really work is in the plural:

"OMG! I saw some TITS!"
<Cop> Can you explain what you're doing here at this time with those binoculars, sir?
<UFO nut> Yes, officer, I was hoping to spot some... Uh, I was just looking for... Umm. No. Actually, no, I can't.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 02:17 PM   #28
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,433
The only problem I see with UFO is that the U is mostly redundant. You could just as easily leave it out. In most cases, simply describing something as a "flying object" instead of a UFO would work just as well, while at the same time removing any hint of the mysterious that the word "unidentified" evokes.

But as Jack by the hedge points out, just because it's in the sky doesn't mean it's flying. It could be in space, like a planet or satellite. It could be floating, like a blimp. It could be falling like a skydiver. All we know is that it's not on the ground.

I suggest we replace UFO with NTO; "Non-Terrestrial Object".

The only problem is, some people might confuse Non-Terrestrial with Extra-Terrestrial.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim

Last edited by Brian-M; 11th November 2011 at 02:21 PM.
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 02:37 PM   #29
Jungle Jim
Muse
 
Jungle Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 717
Well this all well and good, but even if a consensus could be reached in this thread as to a new acronym, how would it be introduced to the public at large? While UFO may not be accurate in all circumstances, it has 100% public awareness.
Jungle Jim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2011, 02:44 PM   #30
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,719
Originally Posted by Jungle Jim View Post
Well this all well and good, but even if a consensus could be reached in this thread as to a new acronym, how would it be introduced to the public at large? While UFO may not be accurate in all circumstances, it has 100% public awareness.
That's the real beauty of having an acronym which is a puerile joke. You only need to get it used in an episode of South Park and the internet will do the job for you.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2011, 03:34 AM   #31
yeti101
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 151
the british ministry of defense always used the term UAP. Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon.

This is much better than UFO because the words "flying" indicate some form of propulsion and "object" implies something solid. Which is not always the case e.g light reflections & ball lighting.

Ufologists won't like UAP they much prefer UFO because it leads their target audience down a certain path of thinking. UFO is now a substitute for "alien spaceship" in the minds of believers.
yeti101 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2011, 04:23 AM   #32
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 18,740
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
I propose we use the NYIO instead of UFO. "Not Yet Identified Objects" is more accurate, I believe. We could also use IBIASFO?
I disagree. How about just ignoring the idiots that try to ascribe some other connotation to "UFO" other than "unidentified".
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2011, 05:09 AM   #33
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 20,610
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
I disagree. How about just ignoring the idiots that try to ascribe some other connotation to "UFO" other than "unidentified".
And thus letting them go unchallenged? If that works for you, fine.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2011, 05:22 AM   #34
Malfie Henpox
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,812
How about Currently Unclassified, Non Terrestrial.

That covers all bases, right?
Malfie Henpox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2011, 05:29 AM   #35
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 20,610
Originally Posted by Malfie Henpox View Post
How about Currently Unclassified, Non Terrestrial.

That covers all bases, right?
Currently Unknown. The "non-terrestrial" is not proven.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2011, 05:35 AM   #36
Malfie Henpox
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,812
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
Currently Unknown. The "non-terrestrial" is not proven.
Surely if it's in the sky, it's non terrestrial? (no hyphen) And it might be known, but not classified. I suppose Not terrestrial works better.

Currently Unclassified, Not Terrestrial.

That's what I'm using from now on.

As in: "Look at those couple of ***** up there!"

Last edited by Malfie Henpox; 12th November 2011 at 05:36 AM.
Malfie Henpox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2011, 05:43 AM   #37
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 20,610
Originally Posted by Malfie Henpox View Post
Surely if it's in the sky, it's non terrestrial? (no hyphen) And it might be known, but not classified. I suppose Not terrestrial works better.

Currently Unclassified, Not Terrestrial.

That's what I'm using from now on.

As in: "Look at those couple of ***** up there!"
I'd go with Currently Unclassified, Aerial. But the "not terrestrial" is just going to feed the lunatics. And that is something I'm trying to get away from.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2011, 06:50 AM   #38
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,719
Originally Posted by Malfie Henpox View Post
How about Currently Unclassified, Non Terrestrial.

That covers all bases, right?
Winner.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2011, 07:15 AM   #39
23_Tauri
Illuminator
 
23_Tauri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,947
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
So I say we should replace Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) with Thing In The Sky (TITS). The new acronym might encourage a whole new generation of dedicated spotters.
Then we'd have

Things In The Sky
and
Alien Space Ships*

*see UFOs The Research, The Evidence thread for the origin of ASSes.
23_Tauri is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2011, 07:41 AM   #40
Greedo
Graduate Poster
 
Greedo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,952
In my opinion, there's no need for a change. Let the nuts have their "U-F-O"
I, as a skeptic simply say the whole term - Unidentified Flying Object. That clearly states the "object" is unidentified. It's not perfect (we don't know if it was actually an object and so on) but it works. I like UAP too.
__________________
"Persuade thyself that imperfection and inconvenience are the natural lot of mortals and there will be no room for discontent, neither for despair."
-T.I.

Last edited by Greedo; 12th November 2011 at 07:43 AM.
Greedo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:40 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.