"Kavik Kang" <Kavik_Kang@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:8cwQa.58049$ye4.42876@sccrnsc01...

I have three questions:

You certainly do, honest ones too. I'm always

willing to drop my act to

answer some truely honest 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?

On the universe... no more than anyone else who

has an interest in the

subject. On "Debunkery"... I've been in these

newsgroups since before

Internet was really used, alt.paranet.ufo

through local BBS systems. I

became interested early in what I, and many

others, define as "debunkery"

which is the dishonest trickery used by some,

who aren't really even

interested in the subject, and really just want

to play their little game to

boost their own ego. I understand their game

well, and have an excercise I

call "The Great Great Wall Debate", in which I

turn the tables on one of

these poor people and show how silly their

tactics are. Hopefully Mike will

not be intimidated by the prospect of presenting

me with evidence, and you

will get too see this for yourself, but I doubt

he will.

2.  You seem to have a penchant for putting

down

"debunkers".  My question is:  Why do you like
bunk?

I don't like bunk, we definately want to

seperate fact from fiction. But the

tactics used by the most rabid "debunkers" do

nothing toward furthering that

goal, so that isn't really relevant. By the

dictionary definition of "to

debunk", yes, that is a good thing, but that

isn't what people involved in

the UFO debate are talking about when they say

"debunker". They are talking

about the raving lunatics who attack anything

anyone says, insult people as

often as possible, and use any dishonest trick

they can think of too come

out on top of the conversation. They don't have

an honest interest in the

subject, only in boosting their ego at the

expense of others.

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

Already got that one above. Real facts, and

especially real science, are

good things. Real science, that is, not UFO

debunker "science", where there

is almost no subject for which any evidence can

be provided.

Then I have one more question:  Where you stated
". . ."debunker". They are talking
about the raving lunatics who attack anything
anyone says, insult people as
often as possible, and use any dishonest trick
they can think of too come
out on top of the conversation. . .".  Can you
point out one specific instance where a "debunker"
used these tactics on this NG?  No fair using
rhetoric or "I said".  Google might be a good
starting point.  I would like to see this where a
non-idiotic statement was admonished with your
above statement.  If a person makes an idiotic
statement that is meant to be a FACT then I think
that he/she should get what ever is coming to
them.

The Real Spook