Howdy Kwang Kook.

"Kavik Kang" <Kavik_Kang@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:2KbQa.51389$ye4.36661@sccrnsc01...

"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote

in message

news:3341a0bea96adc448d0be02c45ab2a50@news.meganetnews.com...

Kavik Kang wrote:

It is in galactic terms, it's a close

neighbor.

Irrelevant. Picking and choosing the

distance yardstick you use

for comparison doesn't make the star any

closer.

It's not picking and choosing, the galaxy is

a lot bigger than 90 light

years, a lot bigger, and so 90 light years

represents a small area

within

that space.

90 light years is not a "small" space by any

human measure.

Especially not in light of the fact that no

human has ever been

more than 250,000 miles away from home, and

that even making the

4.3 light year trip to the nearest star is not

only beyond our

abilities, but may remain so forever.

You are really going to make me explain the

obvious at length, aren't you.

Ok... this tactic doesn't work long, once you

realize I am always willing to

take the time to give a 2 paragraph answer to a

3 word answer question. Here

goes, Bucko...

"The galaxy is big. It's really big. I mean, you

think it big, but it's even

bigger than that."  Oops, that's Hitchiker's

Guide, haha. Obviously, as

anyone who wasn't playing games would know by

now, I am saying that two

stars seperated by 90 light years in this galaxy

are close too each other on

that galactic scale. Everyone reading this

except you understands this

already, but let's make sure you finally have

it. In this vast area, 90

light years is a tiny little dash, a speck

really. Now, ever since you

Raving Lunatic Debunkers were forced to admit

that there were planets

outside of this solar system, this silly "the

must be a planet like Jupiter

at exactly the same distance for their too be

life". Now, I understand the

THEORY behind that, but by no means is it the

certainty you lunatics insist

that it is. So, now we have two such planets in

a very small area of space

(by comparison, the galaxy is huge) and we

really have very primitive

equipment too be even looking. We are basically

looking through a straw for

this stuff.

So what is your response to exactly what you had

been demanding being

found... This. Exactly this. We are in the midst

of it right now, is

everyone paying attention?

So do you get it now? Let's make sure. First,

'human measure" is irrelivant

and has nothing to do with the question, nor

does the distance any human has

been from Earth, nor the distance of the nearest

star, nor the fact that

there is a remote chance that we may never reach

the nearest star. You do,

however, obviously have a gift for confusing the

issue with irrelivant

nonsense, that's the second time you've done

that and we're just getting

started. All that does matter is that the galaxy

is hundreds-of-thousands of

light years across, and 90 light years isn't

much within that space. That

was the only point, and it was a simple one. The

only reason that it took

this much explination too get here is because

you are quite obviously a

Raving Lunatic Debunker and were trying too use

this point as part of your

demented little game. Can we move on now?

Sometimes debunkers have problems with the

most simple concepts.

Actually we just have problems with simple

people like you.

You have no idea how accurate that statement is.

Actually, this is what I read in his post,

clipped right from it:

"What's more, the new planet has a circular

orbit like Jupiter,

sits a Jupiter-like distance from its star,

HD70642, and has no

bigger planets between it and the star, just

like Jupiter."

That seems to say it sit's a Jupiter-like

distance from it's star, not

mars,

you know, exactly what you had been asking

for...

Ok, If you want to just keep repeating the

same erroneous claim

over and over again as if that will somehow

make it true, then you

are clearly too stupid for me to bother

wasting any more of my

time on you. Hint: Have you looked at any of

the other press

releases on this discovery? No? Thought not.

You may want to

before you further destroy whatever little

credibility you may

think you have.

Repeating what? That was the first time I

clipped that and showed it too

you. It's what we have been discussing all

along. And no, I haven't, I am

here in this newsgroup, I'm not following every

news outlet and keeping up

with every scientific jounral as your kind likes

to constantly demand.

Apparently you believe you have told me

something that you have never told

me, all you've done is rant and rave like a

lunatic so far, and pick minor

issues too turn into major ones. Nothing new,

really. And my credibility is

a little bit more well-established around here

than you imagine... I

certainly don't have to worry about an

aggressive, abusive, name calling

Raving Lunatic like you damaging it.

--- Flush remainder of clueless idiocy and

empty bluster ---

You mean clip almost everything I wrote because

you had no response.

Here's another hint son, you won't get far in

the world by denying

that the largest man-made object on Earth

exists. Buy, rent,

borrow or steal a clue.

I deny nothing, in fact, there is nobody with a

more sincere desire to find

evidence for that wall. But there hasn't been

any so far. You, apparently,

take it's existance on faith. There can be no

other explination, since you

insist it exsists and yet are unwilling to

provide any evidence for that

extraordinary claim.

Keep running, Bucko.

I have three questions:

1.  What qualities of superior knowledge do you
posses that makes you think you are an expert on
the subjects of Debunkery or for that matter the
universe?

2.  You seem to have a penchant for putting down
"debunkers".  My question is:  Why do you like
bunk?

3.  Is bunk more exciting for you than real
science and real facts?

The Real Spook