"CIAspook" <ciaspook@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vhb90h9ihnsfa3@corp.supernews.com...

"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.

You saying that they aren't good examples doesn't make it true. They are
both excelent examples. Pete came screaming out of the blue for no reason,
he is a perfect example. Mike is also relentlesly attacking me, and I have
you to discuss any contraversial subject. How can you even ask this while I
simultaniously run an example in this very thread? Go read my discussion
with Mike... There's a third example. None are really needed, since any
reasonable person knows exactly what i am talking about. I keep giving you
exactly what you ask for, and you keep denying it's existance and demanding
it again. I've given you what you asked for 3 times now, and even added a
new 3rd example this time, if you still deny this, then that isn't worth a
further response.

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.

No, you asked for proof of the existance of these people. It's kind of like
asking for the proof of the existance of bus drivers, but ok, I played
along. He is an excelent example because he is one of the worst offenders
ever. The fact that he hasn't posted in a few years is meaningless.
Especially since I have also provided current examples. You are being
unreasonable.

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.

When did I call anyone any names? You obviously refuse to accept the
evidence you asked for. Please prove too me that "agitators" exist. Pete is
a textbook Raving Lunatic Debunker, you want to re-label him so you can
insist I still haven't given you what you asked for. He is exactly what you
asked for. Case closed (as if there was any case to begin with).

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.

Fortunately, the world does not hinge on your statements, which is a good
thing since they are so incorrect.

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.

You'd have show me specifically what you are talking about, but I doubt you
can since I'm very careful with what I say around here. Feel free to paste
it too me.

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?

I have named several in this very post, and in prior posts. Many reading
could reply and list others. They are many, and everyone here knows exactly
what I am talking about. I'm not going to play this game of intentionally
acting like you don't know what I am talking about on obvious points. There
is no need too, since the entire audience gets it. I need only be patient
too the point that no reasonable, honest person could no longer understand.
We are near that point on this issue. You are playing with semantics here,
which is obvious, it was my mistake to leave such an opening by making a
generalized comment (a flaw in my play of this twisted little game).

 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".

I don't call anyone a Raving Lunatic Debunker who is not rude, insulting
(often profane), and playing the twisted little logic game many know as
'debunkery'. These are people who constantly call people things like
"Foaming True Believer" and "Saucer Head" for no good reason, and enjoy,
even need, to put others down in order too feel superior. Many of them, Dean
Adams would again be a good example, are just plain mean. You know this, you
have too.

And I can stand being called a kook, who cares, but in this case it is the
whole goal of their stupid game. If they can label me a "kook" they "win",
that's their whole silly game. So, obviously, it is a very relevant point.
It is also even more relevant, and you can go see this for yourself, that I
have probably used the word "kook" 5 or 6 times at most (not counting this
post), while both Mike and Pete include it in every other paragraph (because
they are so desparate for that label to stick). Few people have the
experience required to walk into this damn hornet's nest and stand up to
these raving lunatics. I have that expereince, and so occasionally I do it,
and make sure that I make the most of it by teaching as much of what I know
as I can to anyone who cares to pay attention. I am being very obvious about
what I am doing, even flat out telling everyone at times (like right now),
for the very purpose of not having my activities used to label me a "kook",
because that's their whole goal. I have yet to do or say anything even
remotely "kooky", which really in itself proves what I am saying.

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.

Haha, there are lots of them around here, that's for sure. Have you been
around long enough to remember Gary Stollman??? He was the king as far as I
am concerned. However, as compared to the number of people who are labeled
kooks in these newsgroups, actually kooks are few and far between.

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.

Go read the thread between Mike and I... O wait, that's this thread... I
don't see how you could have missed it. Heck, last night he edited out
almost any remnant of me or conversation and left behind only his twisted
distortions of what had been said, all of which he wrote himself. These
examples you seem to want all seem too be right in front of you.

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.

Of course, it is not. Please show me one example of a "kook" doing this,
since you want examples of everything I say.

Hypocrisy doesn't become anyone especially folks
that want to be superior to others in posting to
this NG.

No it doesn't, good thing I'm not guilty of it.

Again I say you have no superior
knowledge about anything that might be discussed
here about UFOs or aliens.

I have never claimed too. In fact, I have hardly mentioned the term UFO
since arriving, and yet Mike calls me "Saucer Head" for some reason... I
have yet to discuss UFOs or any UFO case.

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?

No, I have never claimed to have this 'superior knowledge' that you are for
some reason trying to attribute too me.

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.

I never called you a Raving Lunatic Debunker, in fact, I started my response
to your initial post with "You certainly do, honest ones too. I'm always
willing to drop my act to answer some truely honest questions." And
throughout this entire conversation, I never once refered too you as even a
sceptic. I have only used that term for two people currently posting so far,
Pete and Mike, because both have proven beyond any doubt that they are
Raving Lunatic Debunkers.

If you must know my opinion on you... Thus far, you seem too be strongly
sceptical with at least a slight bias, possibly a large bias, against any
ETH invloving ETs having already been tooEarth. During this thread, you did
not intentionally pull any of the dishonest trickery that many associate
with the term 'debunkery'. Above, where say I am done with providing
examples because I have satisfied your resquest, is the first real sign of
any true and inteded "debunkery" coming from you, but it could also just be
misunderstanding, miscommunication, or many other things. I don't use the
term "Raving Lunatic Debunker" until the subject has made it painfully clear
that they are a nutcase.