Kavik Kang wrote:

"Richard Caldwell" <rhc1536@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Kg3Qa.19127$o86.2677@news1.central.cox.net...

Kavik Kang wrote in message ...

Hi Richard,

Greetings, yourself, Kavik.

As anyone who's read my posts before would surely know, I agree with
everything Richard has said here. I was, in fact, one of the early people

in

this newsgroup to advocate the concept of, well, too put it simply,

nutcases

on both sides. There are honest sceptics (which I would certainly be

myself

if personal experience hadn't got in the way), and those with an honest
interest and rational reasoning behind leaning toward an ETH... and then
there are "Foaming True Believer's" and "Raving Lunatic Debunkers". The
first group... life would be great if they could just be allowed to

discuss

the subject they are interested in. The second group, well, they prevent
that.

I disagree, somewhat.  I don't think that it is any more constructive to
listen
to the fanatics at one end of the argument than the other.  Both sides are
based on the irrational, emotional needs of the arguer, not on the merit

of

their arguments.  Other than that, I agree with what you say.

Yes, I didn't really mean that the way it sounded. This would be a great
place if the nutcases on both sides would go away. Another problem, though,
would be that it would be a lot harder to get the debunker nutcases to admit
that they were, in fact, nutcases, than it would to get the "true believers"
too admit that they were.

Very few people who are nutcases actually believe they are nutrcases. Hence the difficulty in admitting it.