Garry Bryan wrote:

In alt.alien.visitors Kavik Kang <Kavik_Kang@hotmail.com> wrote:

: "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

...and "snipping", apparantly.

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,

A conundrum presents itself...

If Mikey fell out of a boat, would he *still* be 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.

According to these loons, there is no "everyone", except themselves.  Good luck
getting them to realize that their pathetic games played day in and day out make
them look like blatant idiots.

And it is not an analogy, either.

: So... no that you understand, assuming you don't now go back to
: intentionally misunderstanding me,

good call.

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.

Most of it comes down to Heuristics and the understanding of what that *is* and
what it is *not*.  Again, good luck trying to get these doofuses to stop using
Occam's Razor to "prove" anything.

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.

Good call.

Oh, above you
: had called me a hypocryte based on an incorrect interprtation of something I
: had said.

You mean they "interpreted" something incorrectly?  Big surprise there.  They'll
interpret whatever they want to mean whatever they want, in spite of the facts or
reality, like always.

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.

If the debunker gang decides to not respond further, I will try to respond for
them, if only for the sake of argument, since I am aware of almost all of their
canned responses to specific types of evidence.

Well stated position. . .it would be difficult for a debunker to prove that
he had a 7th birthday party if you applied the same standards and moving
goal post methods the debunkers employ. . .it doesn't even have to be an
extraordinary claim for them to require higher and higher standards of proof.

Leave it to mental midgets like the debunker collective to find yet another niche
where they can spew mostly unsupported claims that cannot be verified *or*
refuted and pretend to have some sort of "upper hand".  Don't be surprised that a
few of them spent years in religious NG's bickering with people who don't
subscribe to their particular beliefs.  How constructive.

As far as the "Great Wall" debate is concerned... you could *probably* eventually
come to an agreement with them about what consitutes a verified or verifiable
observation. (lest "science" not be trusted)

...then the contrary bastards would start quoting Hume and Descartes.

Photos are faked, testimony from parents and friends are invalid because we
know people lie and are mistaken, etc. . .

Garry

I saw the Great Wall of China on TV once, therefore I am.

--
Hace you fa0m!!!!!!!ll!!!!1!!!!!!!1!!?