Re: More naked skepticism

The up and coming net kook known as Kavik Kang 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":

Lack of original thinking ability noted. I do though appreciate the fact that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. However I can't help but note the hypocrisy inherent in imitating the very same "evil debunkery tactics" you rage against.

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

Only one? Why stop with just one?

Random caps ranting
Secret snippage
Claiming to speak for everyone
Hypocrisy
Being proud about being off topic
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
Lack of original thinking ability
Playing up to an imaginary audience
Being obsessed with people who haven't posted in years
Responding multiple times to one post
Claiming to be smarter than Sagan
Hanging on like grim death to a logical fallacy for over a decade

That's a very impressive list of kook traits. Face it, Kang, not only are you a kook, you are in fact an �ber Kook. Way to go. Your mother must be so proud.

--- Flush clueless BS Kang has posted three times now ---

See what I mean about kooks repeating the same silly behavior as if the outcome would be any different than last time?

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,

Yes, you are a fine example, with all your claims to be more intelligent and rational than debunkers, and even smarter than Sagan. Have you considered getting help for your little ego problem?

--- Drivel snip ---

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.

Then why are you posting in a UFO group? I'm afraid that by doing so you are indeed by default comparing the Great Wall to UFOs.

All
I have done is applied the exact same evidential criteria to the great wall
as is demanded for UFOs. Nothing more.

Well that's all I've done too. By my standards, the Great Wall exists, but aliens in UFOs don't. Since I am using the exact same criteria in both cases, you have no legitimate reason to bitch. HTH.

When this is done, no evidence has
yet been presented for the great wall,

Incorrect. I very clearly spelled out my criteria for evidence. Even by my "evil debunker criteria," there is ample evidence for the existence of the great wall.

and it's been over a decade since I
first thought of this.

So you've been hanging on to this massive logical fallacy for more than ten years now? Not too bright, are you?

--- Flush Kang once again trying to speak for everyone ---

News Flash! Kooks like you are only a very tiny minority. You most certainly do not speak for everyone. HTH.

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.

Then why are you posting to a UFO group? Get with the program and try posting something on topic already.

--- Flush whining and yet more Great Wall nonsense ---

--
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)