"Kavik Kang" <Kavik_Kang@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:w79Ra.77041$ye4.51585@sccrnsc01...

"CIAspook" <ciaspook@charter.net> wrote in

message

news:vh8k7h1h3aured@corp.supernews.com...

That's actually a silly question. It happens

all

the time, you have to know

what I am talking about.

If it happens all of the time, why can't you

post

an example?

I gave two... And it took less than 10 seconds

too think of them...

As I stated neither are good examples.  Please
name one specific example that "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" that has been used on this NG
recently.

However, just search on the name "Dean Adams"

and

you won't have to read long to find plenty

of

examples.

Dean Adams has not posted here in years.

I don't see the relevance of that. Searching on

his name will provide dozens

of examples of exactly what you requested in

short order.

The relevance is that Dean is past history, you
are beating a dead dog here.  Try someone today
that is posting to this NG that meets the above
characteristics that you posted.

Or how about this Pete Charest guy over in

the

other thread?

I haven't really even mentioned
UFOs, or any subject that might be

considered

"kooky", and he just began

screaming and yelling at me out of the blue

mearly because he detected a

hint of proponent tone in my writing. That's

actually a great example:-)

That is not a good example.  Charest is not a
debunker he is an agitator

No, it is a perfect example. He is a textbook

Raving Lunatic Debunker, a

really bad one, but a true RLD none-the-less.

Name calling is OK for you but not anyone else?
He is most definitely is a agitator and is not a
debunker as you stated the characteristics above.

I wonder why you cannot point out a specific
instance of "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" that has been used on this NG.

I have provided two, one of them ongoing right

now, current posts, the other

one of the most famous offenders of exactly what

you have asked for.

Attempting too deny the existance of Raving

Lunatic Debunkers will get you

nowhere, few people reading this don't have

dozens of examples of their own

running through their minds right now. I can

easily point out specific

examples, and have, as can anyone else with any

appreciable level of

experience with this subject.

As I stated neither of these is a "debunker"
posting on this NG recently.

As I suspected you seem to have a prejudice
against anyone that displays doubt about your
posts.

Then you have suspected very wrong. Show me an

example of this.

Read your own words above, they point out your
prejudices very well.

 > > Calling folks that hate bunk names is no

better than your so called "debunkers" calling

you

kook names.  You seem to have a superiority
complex when it comes to posting here.  What

you

have shown is that you have no more

information

about anything than the next person.  I hate

it

when someone posts (Wholeflaffer) utter crap

as

facts.  I find that most "kooks" expect

everyone

to take their posts as gospel.  Sorry I am a
skeptic and this old skeptic hates bunk.  I

will

continue to debunk the "kooks" until the day I

can

no longer see my keyboard.

They are not "my so called debunkers", they are

a well-known group of people

among people involved with the UFO discussion.

Can you name this "well known group of people", or
is it just more rhetoric?

 And you are welcome to
"debunk" all you want, but in reality there are

very few kooks in this world

compared to the number that Raving Lunatic

Debunkers

You call folks "Raving Lunatic Debunkers" but when
someone calls you a kook you can't stand it.  That
is a bit "two-faced" is it not?  Kind of like"do
as I say, not as I do".

attempt to apply the
label too, so you'll have trouble finding many

real kooks (although they are

there, no doubt about it).

I have found as many "real kooks" on these NG's as
I care to find anywhere.  You don't pay much
attention to who or what posts here, do you?  I
could name names but I am not one to keep lists
like so many "kooks" do.

When someone is posting utter crap, like how
lizard people stole their baby or something,

I'll be right there making

jokes with you... There is a huge difference

between that and twisting

peoples words, using selective editing, and

playing the hundreds of other

games amounting too dishonest trickery that is

the mark of a "UFO debunker".

Once again I ask for an example of ". . . twisting
peoples words, using selective editing, and
playing the hundreds of other
games amounting too dishonest trickery. . ." that
has been used on this NG very recently.

Honest scepticism is a good thing, but it has

nothing to do with a

debunker's twisted need to feel superior through

playing a simple little

logic game.

Of course it is OK for the "kook" to do this.
Hypocrisy doesn't become anyone especially folks
that want to be superior to others in posting to
this NG.  Again I say you have no superior
knowledge about anything that might be discussed
here about UFOs or aliens.  You are just the same
as anyone else when it comes to knowledge of this
subject.  You don't seem to be very honest with
yourself.  Is there a need to be above the common
person?  A need for superiority, maybe?

In retrospect I suppose it is ok for you to call
me a "Raving Lunatic Debunkers", and I suppose it
is ok for me to call you a Slobber Drooling Kook.

The Real Spook