In alt.alien.visitors Michael Davis <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always Wrong" 
: Bryan wrote:

:> In alt.alien.visitors Michael Davis <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:> : Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always Wrong" 
:> : Bryan wrote:
:> 
:> :> In alt.alien.visitors Michael Biggs <mbiggs@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
:> :> : "Kavik Kang the total moron wrote:"
:> :> 
:> :> 
:> :> : (Yet more steaming shite snipped)
:> :> :> 
:> :> :> 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. 
:> :> 
:> :> : But if we all know the Great Wall exists then we obviously wouldn't
:> :> : apply the same criteria as we would for UFOs cos we don't know if UFOs
:> :> : (or should I say alien spacecraft with little green aliens aboard that
:> :> : like to turn up and give kooks anal probings, cut the lips and rectums
:> :> : from cattle and crash all the time but strangely leave no evidence
:> :> : whatsoever) exist no matter what all your kooky supporters....
:> :> : Garrrry, Roberta et al claim. Would we you stupid kook.
:> :> 
:> :> But whatever evidence of a UFO close encounter is presented; radiation, ground
:> :> traces, collected liquids, etc. it is dismissed as not "extraordinary". . .
:> 
:> : That's because there never is any real radiation, the so-called 
:> : ground "traces" could have been made any number of mundane ways, 
:> : and the alleged liquids turn out to be either myth, or nothing 
:> : special. So yes, nothing extraordinary here.
:> 
:> :> we have all grown up hearing and reading about the Great Wall, but I was never
:> :> given any evidence. . .knid of like Mikey with Sunday school, they talked up 
:> :> a good story but he didn't buy it. . .
:> 
:> : The difference is, the Great Wall is not a matter of faith, unlike 
:> : religion and UFOism.
:> 
:> Then it should be no problem to provide proof of it, correct?

: Sure. But why bother? Only a kook would make such a demand.

:> Why do you 
:> refrain from doing what you ask of others?

: Because there is no point. I don't give a damn if retards like you 
: want to deny the existence of the Great Wall. It would be just one 
: more idiotic claim among sooooooooo many. Haven't you noticed that 
: I've already totally gutted Kang's argument and I'm not the least 
: bit interested in debating Kooky Kang on this nonsense? Instead 
: try to get him onto something that is at least remotely on topic. 
: If you low-IQers want to deny it exists, as if that somehow 
: invalidates skepticism toward your claims that's just fine with 
: me. It just makes proving you are a bunch of moronic kooks all 
: that much easier.

: The issue here is *your* inability to back up *your* claims about 
: aliens. All the futile and lame attempts to change subject and 
: push the burden of proof onto skeptics doesn't change that fact. 
: It just shows how terribly desperate you clowns are. You aren't 
: fooling anyone.

:> Could it be your real agenda doesn't
:> allow you to play by the same rules. . .

: My rules have always been the same. Show me the evidence to back 
: up your claims or be branded a kook. And it is definitely *you* 
: who has been making the wild claims here, kook.

Nice meltdown, Mikey. . .why not show us the best way to provide proof or 
have yourself labeled a kook? If proving something is as simple as you say,
then provide proof of the Great Wall and I will review it using your standards
of acceptability. . .remember, people lie, people hoax, people are mistaken,
people are unreliable, people have agendas, etc. . .

Garry