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 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. . .
Nice projection, Garrrrry.
> why not show us the best way to provide proof or
> have yourself labeled a kook?
Proof of what?
> If proving something is as simple as you say,
> then provide proof of the Great Wall
I'm not making any claims about the Great Wall. What part of "I'm
not the least bit interested in debating Kooky Kang on this
subject" don't you understand? It's all just a silly smokescreen
and a seriously lame attempt by a few logically challenged kooks
to shift the burden of proof away from themselves as claimants
(that would be you). Don't even try it with me. I'm a little too
smart not to see right through this silly little game you kooks
are trying to play. You aren't fooling me.
> and I will review it using your standards
> of acceptability. . .
You already know my standards. You claim to work at a TV station
part time. See if you can find some file footage of Nixon at the
Great Wall from multiple, independent, reputable news outlets. Get
back to me on whether or not the Great Wall exists by my standards
or not. Then see if you can find even a single UFO case that meets
my standards. I won't hold my breath.
> remember, people lie, people hoax, people are mistaken,
> people are unreliable, people have agendas, etc. . .
*You* try remembering that, Garrrrrry.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club
"I don't have to do anything except post my name and it get
ridiculed whether it has anything to do with UFO's or not." -
Notorious net kook Garrrry Bryan brags about the reputation he has
built for himself.