"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:12d9886ceb8b5e3f9c23cadae57a9d8c@news.meganetnews.com...

Kavik Kang wrote:

Tons and tons of absolute bullshit. Damn, you are one long-winded
mofo, Krank. Let's try to weed through this massive pile of
excrement, discard all the the BS and see if there is anything
actually worth responding to in it.

Translate "long-winded" as "damn, I don't want to have to attempt to respond
to all this."

There was plenty worth responding too, as any rational person would admit.
You have snipped the ENTIRE POST because you HAVE NO RESPONSE to any of it.
You have figured out that you can only lose in the Great Great Wall debate,
and have snipped all mention of it. All this represents is you running away
even faster than before. This was pathetic, you just gave up. So I will
reconstruct what you have claimed is so worthless and unworthy of a
response, and we'll see if you are man enough to attempt to respond this
time, or if you again merely snip it all with obviously rediculous comments
about how much of a "kook" I am (without having yet to discuss any
contraversial subject) and a bunch of crap intended to make you feel
superior (even while running from me in fear, as you obviously we with this
nonsense).

[Snipped his endless stream of "I snipped this because I am so superior that
hje is not worthy of a response from me". I'm sure it made him feel real
good, it was just the fix he needed, too bad it made him look like such a
moron. Oh, he also attempted to claim once again that I was attempting to
speak for "everyone", even though that had been throughly shown incorrect in
that post. Obviously yet another dishonest tactic on his part.]

Hmmmmmmmm, not much left. Basically it all just boils down to a
bunch of incoherent raging against debunkers.

No, there isn't much left after you snipped the entire content of the post,
why would there be? It was most certianly very coherant, so coherant you had
to snip it and claim it was nonsense because you could not offer any
rational response that would stand up to critisism.

Look here, Kang. I've told you before that raging against
debunkers is a sure sign of kookery.

So, because you say it, that makes it true? Being a debunker is kookery, you
kook, railing against them is an activity undetaken by normal, well-adjusted
people.

People with something real to
back up their stories don't have problems with debunkers.

No, they don't have problems with sceptics, most people have problems with
the type of dishonest trickery used by raving lunatic debunkers.

Debunkers don't seem to impede the relentless march of science and
technology.

That's because this form of "debunkery" is applied only to the subject of
UFOs. When applied to any other subject, it becomes impossible to provide
any evidence for those subjects as well. This is exactly what you are
running away from in this post, so I'm surprised you would mention it. Your
tactics have nothing too do with science.

New discoveries and unusual phenomena backed up with
hard evidence are taken in stride by debunkers. Only people out on
the lunatic fringe, with no evidence and only faith or fantasies
or fraud to back up their claims fear and rage against debunkers.

No, any sane and rational person dislikes that type of dishonest trickery.
What planet are you living on? You describe sceptics and use the word
debunker, nice try nutcase.

So guess what that makes you?

It makes me the guy that you can't deal with, apparently. You've had to snip
my entire post, rather than respond, because you had no response to many,
many valid points, as the vasy majority of readers would agree.

Are we having fun yet?

You betcha!

Really? But you didn't respond too a single thing I said... Let's try again,
here's some pasting of these alledgedly "kooky" comments that are unworthy
of a response from one as great as you, the all mighty master of logic and
all that is good and true. I've taken the liberty of slightly re-directing
the conversation with my selective editing... you should be familiar with
that. Some of it isn't even from your post, but your kind have been good
enough to set that precedent for me as well. Let's see if you just blow more
hot air like this last pathetic attempt to satisfy your sick, twisted need
to feel superior too me, or if you actually attempt to conduct a
conversation like a normal, rational person. I don't think you are capable
of it, I think you will just continue to play the debunker game that you
deny even exists (sad, since it is so obvious to almost anyone paying
attention here).

Let's go, Bucko, try it from the other side of the fence for a while? I
doubt it, because you know where this will go. Keep running (and
snipping)...

All righty then. I've got ten bucks to put in the pot. Who else
wants to contribute? Come on, everyone, chip in. How much could it
cost to get this clown one-way steerage passage on an old freighter?

Oh, no, I'd have to fly to China, that's a long way. And I'd need a hotel
room of course, and expenses, all the things that any other funded
researcher would have. If you'll fund it, I'll go to China. Otherwise, it is
not the responsibility of serious researchers to go chasing down the wild
fantasies of the lunatic fringe. We must have some way of determining which
subjects are worthy of investigation, and which are not. What other means do
we, as researchers with a sincere interest in the subject, have to make this
determination other than by the available evidence? Absolutely no evidence
has been provided for this wacky wall of yours, therefore it does not merit
the attention of serious researchers and, in fact, belongs lumped into the
same category as Witch's and UFOs.

It looks like a wonderful country! But I'm
sure I wouldn't find any sign of your silly wall anywhere if I went

there.

Just follow the rest of the tourists. My cousin and aunt didn't
seem to have any problem finding it.

I can tell you where the UFOs are, just go to Nevada and follow the people
with the tin foil hats. From what I am told, they'll lead you straight too
them. Not being one to take such things on faith, I doubt you'll find
either, but you are welcome to waste your time looking if you wish. I have
better things to do with my time than chasing down the wild fantasies of the
lunatic fringe. What do you expect me to go looking for next, on your word
alone, unicorns???

Here's just a sample of pics and info on The Great Wall

Pictures??? You are kidding, right? With computers and Photoshop, do you
have any idea how easy it is to fake a photograph these days??? I mean,
there are thousands, no, tens-of-thousands of pictures of UFOs, but that
doesn't exactly make me want to run out and buy a tin foil hat. No, as has
been more than well established, a photograph does not qualify as evidence.

http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa090100a.htm

If pictures, radar imaging and images of people walking about
on sections of it aren't good enough for you,  then my theory
of you being a fanny pirate are certainly true.

I have seen this unusual rock formation before. You are right, it does
resemble a wall, but it just as much resembles a massive vein of granit
protruding from the ground, or any other number of natural rock formations.
Then, of course, there would be all the intricacies of RADAR... we'd need to
talk with the experts, but I'm confident that after we did there would be
numerous plausible explinations for that image, none of which involve "Great
Walls and Evil Spirits".  Simply apply Occom's Razor, which is more likely,
that it is some type of natural rock formation or RADAR glitch, or that it
is a 2,000 mile long wall, built thousands of years ago, over a mountain
range, to keep out evil spirits. Nice try, my friend, but you'll need too do
better than that too pull the wool over this researchers eyes.