***** "A thunderous roar shakes the air like the whole world exploding."
*****

Whoa.... It's been a while since any of you old timers have seen that
introduction, hasn't it? It's been years since I've been here, but I am very
bored today so I thought I would take a look at my old stomping grounds.

Congratulations, Wholeflaffers, this is the best post I've ever seen you
make. My interest and expertise in the dishonest trickery of debunkery is
well-known too anyone who has been around here for a long time, and I just
had to de-lurk for a moment to congradulate on one of the few coherent posts
I've seen you make. You should do more like this one, and concentrate less
on your more... "wild" posts. I don't mean to insult you, but you really
come off as a nutcase sometimes. You do, however, have a good understanding
of debunkery and you are offering great advice in this post. I just wanted
to back you up on this post because you deserve it on this one.

And too add a few of my personal specific debunker ploy's that have always
annoyed me (you old timers have heard these before):

1) Debunkers, sometimes even honest sceptics, will often switch back and
forth between two opposing philosophies as too why it is "highly unlikely"
that aliens would have found us. First they will say that the Earth is an
insignificant speck in the universe, with nothing interesting about it to
set it about too be singled out for visitation. When that argument doesn't
suit the debate, they say the exact opposite, that life is so rare that it
is unlikely we would ever be found in the first place. On the surface these
both seem reasonable and not mutually exclusive, but they in fact are. If
life is rare, the Earth is EXTREMELY INTERESTING and exactly the kind of
planet that the species in question orginally went into space looking for.
On the other hand, if the Earth is "an uninteresting speck" that could only
be the case if the universe is literally teaming with life! So these issues,
long used by both debunkers and honest skeptics allike ACTUALLY SUPPORT THE
PROPONANTS position and not their position, although they have mananged to
use these arguments to support their reasons for why we would not be found
in the first place for decades. Either we are unitersting because the
universe is teaming with life (i.e. end of debate), or we are extreamly
interesting because life is rare (i.e. they, assuming they exist, are
specifically looking for us).

And, of course,

2) The use of the word "believer". This word carries a powerful
psychological impact with it, and in UFO circles stems from (or at least
alludes too) the once over-used debunker insult "Foaming True Believer". You
are not believers, you are proponants. Don't let anyone call you a believer.


Marc Michalik (A.K.A. "The Rational Proponant", "The Teflon Believer", The
one and only Great Wall Debunker)


P.S. Any debunkers out there up for another rerun of "The Great Great Wall
Debate"???  ...I didn't think so:-)


"Sir Arthur C. B. E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in
message news:YvnOa.8361$cJ5.682@www.newsranger.com...

Naked skepticism
From: DOwens6683 <dowens6683@xxxxxx.com>

Ever get into an argument with a skeptic only to end up
exasperated and feeling you've been bamboozled?  Skeptics are
often highly skilled at tying up opponents in clever verbal
knots.  Most skeptics are, of course, ordinary, more-or-less
honest people who, like the rest of us, are just trying to make
the best sense they can of a complicated and often confusing
world.  Others, however, are merely glib sophists who use
specious reasoning to defend their prejudices or attack the ideas
and beliefs of others, and even an honest skeptic can innocently
fall into the mistake of employing bad reasoning.

[Snipped most of message body to preserve bandwidth.]

---

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." -- Neil Peart