The up and coming net kook known as Kavik Kang wrote:
> "Michael Davis"
<mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
news:8507ec953f768cc291ff077f44953e4a@news.meganetnews.com...
>
>>The up and coming net kook known as Kavik Kang wrote:
>
>
> I've been around here a lot longer than you have.
Yawn. Who cares? You are still just an up and coming kook.
Fraudship has run away again, pRick Boston has abandoned his
latest sock and has gone MIA again (no doubt another involuntary
stay at the loony bin), Roberta hardly ever posts his/her lunacy
here anymore, and even Chuckwheat and Twonky seem to be in a funk.
So here you come rushing in in to fill the partial kook vacuum in
the UFO groups (with a little help from Spaz Stuart). If the above
group of loons was here and posting at full strength, nobody would
be paying much attention to your Great Wall idiocy. You aren't in
their class, yet. But keep plugging away. You've got potential to
be one of the all-time great net kooks. If nothing else, you've
got persistence, if you've really been posting the same Great Wall
BS for over a decade.
>
> Hang on too your hat's, folks,
Talking to the voices in your head?
> his debunker games and dishonest trickery are
> forcing me to re-paste a lot of what has already been said,
No, it's your OCD that forces you to do that. HTH.
> making this a
> pretty long post.
Think again, kook.
> If he keeps it up we're going to eventually wind up with
> the entire thread re-pasted into a single post:-)
We? Those voices in your head again?
>
>
>
>>>"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.
>
>
> Actually, I was showing how your own words could be equally
applied to you.
No, you were showing your lack of original thinking, like I said.
> I subtly included your original in my pasting below it in that
post. And my
> imitating those tactics is obviously in order too illustrate them.
Illustrate to whome? You really need to get over this playing up
to an imaginary audience thing. You are taking it to a whole new
level in this post. It's just sooooooooooo kooky.
>
>
>
>>>"Please point to one thing I have said that could be considered,
>>
> "kooky",
>
>>>I'm
>>>waiting..."
>>
>>Only one? Why stop with just one?
>
>
> One would be a start, which you can't do, because there isn't a
single one.
Right, there are many. And like potato chips, one is never enough.
> If there were, you would have posted it long ago instead of
continuing with
> weak attempts to convince the reader with no evidence.
I respond to you, Krank, not some imaginary audience made up of
the voices in your head like you do.
>
>
>
>>Random caps ranting
>
>
> Where? Show us.
An earlier post in this thread. I pointed it out then. Go back and
look.
>
>
>
>>Secret snippage
>
>
> Only in your mind,
Denial ain't a river in Egypt, you know.
> I showed exactly what you said I clipped in this very
> post. And that I had mentioned it even though it was really
even worth
> mentioning. Repeating the same incorrect information doesn't
make it
> correct. It's all back in the thread for anyone to see.
>
>
>
>>Claiming to speak for everyone
>
>
> Again, shown too be incorrect several times now. Anyone can
look back.
Anyone can? Well here is an example of you doing it right here in
your attempted rebuttal. You do it several times per paragraph.
> This
> is just another dishonest debunker ploy from you. Exactly the
type that
> other debunkers keep demanding examples of, here's one.
>
>
>
>>Hypocrisy
>
>
> And here's another. Again, shown too be incorrect many times,
Only in your "mind."
> including this
> post to which he is responding. Again, more debunker games,
repeating a
> thing that I have shown again and again to be a lie. Just look
back in this
> thread, it's all here.
>
>
>
>>Being proud about being off topic
>
>
> Where? Show us.
Us? You need to tell those voices in your head to tone it down a bit.
On several occasions now you have objected to your Great Wall
nonsense being compared with UFOs, and denied that you have posted
anything at all about UFOs. You do it again twice further down in
this very post, idiot.
>
>
>
>>Raging against debunkers
>
>
> I am not "raging".
Irrational denial of reality noted.
> I am quite calm,
He ranted.
> and providing a thought provoking and
> rational example.
I seriously doubt you are capable of being rational.
>
>
>
>>Repeating the exact same stupidity over and over again
>
>
> Actually that would be you. See above. See right here. See
below. See the
> whole thread.
See me snip BS you have posted at least 4 times before. Kooks like
you just don't learn. You keep repeating the same futile gestures
as if they will be any more successful this time than they were
before.
>
>
>
>>Claiming that you and/or your arguments are feared
>
>
> Where? Show us.
Again with the us?
Earlier in this thread you claimed that the reason I snipped your
crap is because I feared it. Go back and look.
>
>
>
>>Claiming debunkers aren't true skeptics
>
>
> They aren't.
Bingo! Thanks for the admission that I am correct on this point of
your kookery.
> The definitition that has evolved in UFOlogoy, that many many
> people other than me will tell you, demarks a very clear
distinction between
> sceptic and debunker.
A debunker has to be a skeptic first. A debunker is just a skeptic
who isn't afraid to call a fraud a fraud, a nut a nut, or a true
believer a true believer. HTH.
>
>
>
>>Lack of original thinking ability
>
>
> Let's take a vote on this one, hahahaha.
The voices in your head don't get to vote.
>
>
>
>>Playing up to an imaginary audience
>
>
> They are not imaginary,
Bingo, another admission that I am correct on this point.
> in fact, they are even responding to some posts here
> and there, proving their existance.
All I see is one notorious net kook trying to suck up to you in
hopes of finding an ally (or maybe just a date), and a lot of
other people calling you a kook. Is that the audience you are
referring to?
> It's the same audience you play too:-)
I don't play to anyone. I don't care what the other readers think.
That's the difference betwen you and me. Kooks like you are
obsessed with what other readers think.
>
>
>
>>Being obsessed with people who haven't posted in years
>
>
> Obssessed? I have mentioned Dean Adams
Bingo! Another admission of guilt.
> as an example of a Raving Lunatic
> Debunker 2 or 3 times because he was one of the worst offenders
ever and
> therefore his posts are an excelent referance for those
attempting to claim
> that debunkers don't exist. I know you are talking about him
now because he
> is the only old poster that I have mentioned (Oh, I think I
mentioned Gary
> Stollman once, too).
Bingo again!
> I'd hardly call that "obssessed", I mentioned the name
> twice for the purpose of example, explain how that equates to
"obssessed".
> You won't you'll snip this and continue with short phrase
answers that
> satisfy your sick, warped, twisted need to feel superior to
somebody.
>
>
>
>>Responding multiple times to one post
>
>
> Did that once to add a comment I forgot too mention. Good luck
finding
> anyone to say that means I'm a kook.
I can think of a dozen people without even trying. Funny how only
kooks seem to do it.
>
>
>
>>Claiming to be smarter than Sagan
>
>
> Again, a lie. Pure misrepresentation of the truth because he is
so desperate
> to label me a kook. This is over in the other thread, where it
is painfully
> clear that I merely disagreed with Sagan. This is an EXCELENT
example of the
> dishonest trickery of debunkery that they claim doesn't even
exist. I
> mention that I disargree with Sagan's "profoundly stupid" (just
for Pete)
> quote,
Bingo!!!!! Calling sagen "stupid" implies in the strongest
possible sense that you are smarter than he is. Thanks for
debunking yourself.
> and almost a week later and like 6 posts and they are still
ignoring
> the fact that I have thoroughly shown this too be wrong. The
theory here is
> that the reader either didn't see any of that, or has forgotten
about it,
> and will assume that the incorrect statement is true. Look how
much work it
> takes me to counter his 6 words above,
And just look how badly you screwed it up.
> this is a big part of how their game
> works. When played correctly, as Mike does so well,
Um, who are you talking to, kook? I'm over here.
> this game leaves one
> side able to speak in quick, short phrases that will require
the other many
> times the effort and time to keep up with.
Hey, it's not my fault you suffer from diarrhea of the mouth. If
it only takes a couple of words to make a point, why pad it out
with paragraph after paragraph of useless fluff? Unless maybe you
are just creating a long-winded smokescreen to cover the fact that
you really have no good response.
>
>
>
>>Hanging on like grim death to a logical fallacy for over a decade
>
>
> I wouldn't call it "hanging on"...
Well
*you* wouldn't, would you?
> I'd call it "shielding myself from your
> game" for over a decade, you might also call it "keeping
debunkers on the
> run"
But...The debunkers are still here. You are the one who ran away
for several years.
> since none are ever willing to attempt to provide any evidence.
There's
> also the little matter of my posting for only a few weeks every
few years...
> you are here all the time, right? Kook.
Persistence is a sign of kookery to you? Oh shit! You just branded
Garrrrry, Edmo, Fraudship, Twonky, bDAN, fArt, Spaz, Mr. Ed, Peat,
bRAY, and a lot of other people around here as kooks (that's ok,
we already knew they were kooks for other reasons).
>
> Thanks for those, Mike,
You're welcome.
> you really are a limitless well of examples of
> debunkery in action,
Awe, shucks.
> keep it coming!!!
You betcha! Just remember, you asked for it.
>
>
>
>>That's a very impressive list of kook traits. Face it, Kang, not
>>only are you a kook, you are in fact an Über Kook. Way to go. Your
>>mother must be so proud.
>
>
> It would be, if any of them applied, but none seem too.
You have raised denial to an art form, Kang.
> At least the few
> that weren't just out and out lies and distortions on your part.
In your "mind."
>
>
>
>>--- 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?
>
>
> No, they don'tsee what you mean.
They? Well tell the voices in your head to pay attention this time.
--- Snipperoo of the same old BS yet again ---
>>>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?
>
>
> I have made no such claims,
See above.
--- Drivel snip ---
>>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.
>
>
> No, I am not, what I am doing was made clear in the last post.
And you
> obviously have trouble with the meaning of the word "compare",
there is no
> comparison taking place.
Of course not, because no matter how hard you try, there is still
no comparison. Your Great Wall lunacy fails miserably.
>
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> No, by your standards the great wall does not exist,
Um, yes it does. Now, Kang, you may be in the habit of trying to
speak for everyone, but don't try to tell me what meets
*my*
standards and what doesn't.
> which is why you will
> not attempt to provide me with any evidence.
Next you'll be wanting evidence that the sky is blue or the grass
is green. I spelled out very clearly what sort of evidence I
accept. Go back and read it again if you still don't understand.
>
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> Nobody really cares about "your" criteria.
Nobody? I can think of somebody who cares. Me. I can think of
somebody else too. You. Since it is my "evil debunkery tactics"
that you are whining about here, my criteria are most certainly
important to this discussion. You can't have it both ways, kook.
You can't rage against my criteria then turn around and say
"nobody cares" when my criteria gut your pathetic "arguments."
--- Flush remainder of long-winded kookery ---
Whew! You may have all day to write that crap, but I don't have
all day to respond to it. I think I have more than made my point.
You're a kook. Deal with it.
--
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)