Kavik Kang wrote:
> "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."

More like it is not worthy of a response from me. I'm a busy man, Kang. You aren't the only kook on the planet in need of some debunking. If your drivel doesn't meet my minimum standards, then I flush it, rather than waste time on it. Learn to deal with it. HTH.

>
> 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.

Look here, Mr. Hypocrisy, you just snipped almost my entire post without responding. At least I acknowledge what I snip. But you just snip away and pretend the material was never there (no doubt because it made you look so bad).

> You have figured out that you can only lose in the Great Great Wall debate,
 > and have snipped all mention of it.

The Great Wall is not a subject of debate, therefore I cannot lose. HTH.

> All this represents is you running away
 > even faster than before. This was pathetic, you just gave up.

Gave up what? I never entered into any debate with you about the Great Wall because it is not a subject of debate. You keep trying to compare UFOs and the Great Wall as if there is no difference between them, but it's a classic case of apples and oranges. Look, I have a very simple (and I think fair) standard for hard evidence for extraordinary phenomena like UFOs, the paranormal, etc. I have used it for years (check Google if you don't believe me).

Basically, it goes like this: High quality video, (no shaky, fuzzy, hand-held, amateur stuff need apply), from at least two independent and reputable media outlets (I shall be the sole judge of reputability), of the same object, shot simultaneously, and they must both show enough detail (in my sole opinion) for there to be no ambiguity about the content, then the video will be considered hard evidence by me if both show the same extraordinary thing going on.

So simple. And yet no UFO case can provide this level of evidence. The Great Wall though lives up to my standards quite nicely. Hell, Nixon's trip there alone met my standards in spades. So quit harping at me about this Great Wall nonsense. You have no legitimate argument about my "evil debunkery tactics" since I am applying the exact same standard to both issues. You lose.

You just aren't smart enough to realize that trying to compare something real like the Great Wall to a quasi-religious myth like UFOism makes for a really, really bad analogy (and much amusing kookery too). A more legitimate comparison would be to equate UFO beliefs with new-agey religious mysticism. Now there is a good analogy.

> So I will
 > reconstruct what you have claimed is so worthless and unworthy of a
 > response,

And I will just flush it again. It is typical of kooks like you to repeat the same idiotic behavior over and over again as if the outcome will be any different this time than it was last time.

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

The case for you being a kook is just getting more open and shut with each new post from you. Let's look at the truly impressive list of kook traits you are showing here:

Random caps ranting
Secret snippage
Claiming to speak for everyone
Hypocrisy
Raging against debunkers
Repeating the exact same stupidity over and over again
Claiming that you and/or your arguments are feared
Claiming debunkers aren't true skeptics

And that's just from this post alone! (There's probably more but I'm not going to waste my time rereading the older BS you reposted.)

--- Flush loads of drivel *still* not worthy of a response ---

>> 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.

Wrong again, Krank. I have debunked religious beliefs, cults, pseudo-science, and paranormal claims with the exact same form of debunkery. Bunk is bunk, after all. It doesn't really matter what source it is emanating from.

Why exactly do you like to promote bunk, Kang? What do you see as the advantage in aligning yourself with the kooks, frauds, fools, rubes and loons of the world? Or is it just that you just fit in so well with that crowd?

--- Flush Kang whining about stuff I never wrote ---

Hey, Kang. You can't even keep straight who you are responding to.  Somehow you managed to mix up your responses to someone else with your responses to me. Get it together, kook.

--- Flush remainder (now watch Kang melt down) ---

--
The Evil Michael Davis(tm)
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club

"There's a sucker born every minute" - David Hannum (often erroneously attributed to P. T. Barnum)