"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8c403b22c4e440d588bd6b0f369d54bc@news.meganetnews.com...

Kavik Kang wrote:
 > 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.

Oh, you mean Raving Lunatic Debunker excuse #4 for when their dishonest
trickery is exposed? If you will all remember, these are the things that he
finds so "unworthy of his valuable time":

"Please point to one thing I have said that could be considered, "kooky",
I'm
waiting..."

Ah, the "I was only joking and you are too stupid to get it"
excuse. That's kook lame excuse #4 for use when caught saying
something really stupid.

Ok, here is the original paragraph from my post...

And this...

"The galaxy is big. It's really big. I mean, you think it big, but it's even
bigger than that."  Oops, that's Hitchiker's Guide, haha. Obviously, as
anyone who wasn't playing games would know by now, I am saying that two
stars seperated by 90 light years in this galaxy are close too each other on
that galactic scale. Everyone reading this except you understands this
already, but let's make sure you finally have it. In this vast area, 90
light years is a tiny little dash, a speck really. Now, ever since you
Raving Lunatic Debunkers were forced to admit that there were planets
outside of this solar system, this silly "the must be a planet like Jupiter
at exactly the same distance for their too be life". Now, I understand the
THEORY behind that, but by no means is it the certainty you lunatics insist
that it is. So, now we have two such planets in a very small area of space
(by comparison, the galaxy is huge) and we really have very primitive
equipment too be even looking. We are basically looking through a straw for
this stuff.

The first statement is obviously a joke, leading into the serious answer.
Remember, he first tried to make it look as though I had "cited" some sci-fi
material in support of some claim. When I exposed that tactic, he has now
tried the tactic in this post too which this was the response. Now go back
and read his response above too when I exposed the first tactic... Does it
have any relevance at all to either the original paragraph, or my response
when I exposed his initial tactic of trying to say I had "cited" a sci-fi
source? No, it doesn't. Both were attempts to label me a "kook", which both
this demented lunatic, and that Pete guy are desperate too do. If they can
successfully label me a "kook", then they "win" their sick little game and
get their fix. In case anyone hasn't noticed, I have yet to discuss UFOs,
UFO cases, or any contraversial subject. I have drawn this attention by
mearly having the tone of a proponent, that is an important point."

It looks a lot more like you just don't have a response. That you clipped it
and replaced it with ranting, raving lunatic insults in the hopes that
people would forget the original subject, which in this case was your
dishonest trickery being definatively and unquestionably exposed on this
point. Your tired old excuse of "it's not worthy of my valuable time" isn't
washing with anyone, except maybe those who suffer from mental illnesses on
par with yours.

Also, let's talk about your reply above a little more, here is it again...

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.

Does everyone remember what I said, right in the very beginning, that the
poor, sick people were here primarily too satisfy their need to feel
superior too others? Well, here is a great example, he's basically telling
you this himself right here... "not worthy of a response from me", "I'm a
busy man", "your drivel doesn't meet my minimum standards" That's what he's
here for, he got a good fix on that one...

 >
 > 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).

What post? Here's what I snipped...

"Snip Kang missing the point.

Snip Kang claiming to speak for everyone.

Snip Kang whining about people who haven't posted in years.

Snip Kang claiming to speak for everyone.

Snip Kang in denial about his kook status.

Snip Kang claiming to speak for everyone.

Snip Kang playing to an imaginary audience.

Snip Kang claiming to speak for everyone.

Snip Kang whining about people in other threads.

Snip Kang claiming to speak for everyone.

Snip Kang proudly proclaiming to be off topic

Snip Kang claiming to speak for everyone.

Snip Kang repeating his earlier stupidity.

Snip Kang claiming to speak for everyone.

Snip Kang's Great Wall lunacy."

And I even mentioned it...

"[Snipped his endless stream of "I snipped this because I am so superior
that
hje is not worthy of a response from me". "

Although, it wasn't really worthy of mentioning that I snipped it, since it
was just a pathetic attempt to deflect attention from the real issues that
had been brought up, including catching you red handed in your dishonest
trickery. But I still mentioned that I snipped this. It's really very
childish, I'm surprised you'd want me to re-post this, I would be
embarrassed.

 > 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).

Your basic premis is wrong. I am not comparing the great wall and UFOs. All
I have done is applied the exact same evidential criteria to the great wall
as is demanded for UFOs. Nothing more. When this is done, no evidence has
yet been presented for the great wall, and it's been over a decade since I
first thought of this. The relevance is obvious, and I believe most rational
serious-minded students of science would agree that this is valid... Until
the great wall (a known quantity) can be proven by these standards (or even
any evidence shown, not one shred of evidence so far) then that those
standards must be considered potentially flawed and invalid. I don't see how
any reasonable person can disagree with this. If no evidence can be
presented for the great wall (which we all know exists) by these standards,
then these standards must be considered flawed. I would think that this was
already obvious to most everone.

I will stop and thank you for actually saying something, this is pretty much
the first thing we've had resembling a conversation and it took a lot of
writing to get there.

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.

I am not, nor have I been, discussing UFOs. At no time have I even
approached discussing UFOs. My last response above is the closest I have
come to discussing UFOs.

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.

I do have more than a legitimate argument, I have demonstrated your tactics
several times too. It's all right back in this thread for you too see. You
are way overboard, it's impossible for you to deny that you use these
tactics because you do it so blatantly. I don't need to argue with you about
it, all I need too do is keep pointing them out as we go along. You don't
seem to understand that people get it, you think your being really clever,
but you aren't fooling anyone.

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.

You, apparently, weren't smart enough to even accurately determine the
premis and purpose of the Great Wall debate, which I would have thought
obvious to everyone. And it is not an analogy, either.

So... no that you understand, assuming you don't now go back to
intentionally misunderstanding me, would you care to try to provide some
evidence for that wacky wall of yours and thus validate your methods? If
it's such a joke it should take no time at all, right? If these methods
aren't dishonest, you should have no trouble proving evidence for something
that so obviously exists, right? I'm not taunting you, I am being serious
because you calmed down for a brief moment and actually held a rational
discussion.

This gauntlet has been laid down for years, although my pressence has been
very sporadic for the last decade. Some have attempted to provide evidence
in the past, none have ever come close, and I have never had to use anything
more than cliche'd statements that nobody can deny have been heard time and
time again with regards to UFOs. The real hard-core debunkers, never touch
it, you would be the first. If you really have a serious interest in the
subject of UFOs, and honest interest no matter how biased you were toward
either side, you would be interested in an argument that may invalidate so
much that is relevant to this subject that you insist you have a sincere and
honest interest in.

There is no reason to avoid the great wall debate, although that has been
the general response from the very beginning, other than that, in the backs
of their minds at the very least, they know that this is proof that their
evidencial standards are flawed in some way. Notice that I do not attempt to
identify the flaw, it is my hope that a real scientist type (they read this
stuff now and then) will someday see this and explain, in detail, exactly
where all the flaws in this type of "science" are. The flaws are obviously
there, since no evidence can be presented for the great wall by those
standards. You people constantly drone on and on about it, but when the
tables are turned you become the very thing you claim to despise so much.
So, as you have no doubt said almost a million times in the past, show me
the evidence.

Now, what is your response? My guess is that it will not involve the simple
matter of presenting some evidence, my guess is you will do anything but
that, which of course is exactly what you claim to despise. Oh, above you
had called me a hypocryte based on an incorrect interprtation of something I
had said. What would you be, after years of harrasing, insulting, and
humiliating people because they refuse to provide evidence for their claims?
You claim their is a great wall, I say show me any evidence at all... Pretty
simple.