"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:75f61d49f92eb82593ee750bc418e46d@news.meganetnews.com...

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

[I will be snipping great portions of this mess to clean it back into a
usable state. He has intentionally attempted to make this post almost
impossible to follow, a very advanced tactic that would have me spend
literally hours to deal with this one post. As 90% of it is simply him
repeating "No I didn't, you did, na na na na na" most of it is gone as
irrelivant nonsense from a proven kook that he has repeated 4 or 5 times
now. I will redirect this in the same way he attempts too, the difference is
that I tell you that I will be doing this rather than using it as a
dishonest tactic.]

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).

Nice attempt at association, you are truly gifted. What he's doing here is a
concept well-known in many disciplines, sometimes reffered too as "guilt by
association". He is lumping me in with some well-known people from AAV who
have already been successfully labeled "kook" by these twisted nutcases
(Actually, if I remember right, Roberta really is a kook) in an attempt to
associate me with those people in the minds of the audience that he tries to
call me a kook for speaking too (this is him speaking to that very same
audience). You are good, but it's still transparent as long as I point it
out.

If the above
group of loons was here and posting at full strength, nobody would
be paying much attention to your Great Wall idiocy.

Actually, my "great wall idiocy", as you call it, has always taken a lead
role in this newsgroup. I have run the Great Great Wall Debate 5 times now
and it has been amond the most popular threads in the NG every single
time... so there goes that theory.

You aren't in
their class, yet.

An attempt to reinforce the "guilt by association" attempt he made above.

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.

No, I haven't, as you are well aware. It has been run 5 times in 20 years.
Perfectly sane, rational, and reasonable.

[Snipped the repetiative rantings of Mike the Kook]

 > making this a
 > pretty long post.

Think again, kook.

By your own standards, you are the only kook here.

 > 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.

They aren't imaginary, they are even posting responses proving their
existance. It's the same audience you are speaking too, you kook. You
obviously are not talking too me, we are not having a discussion, we are
playing a game. There is no subject matter here, other than me. You have
become quite obssessed with me, but then, obssession is normal with kooks
like you.

 >
 >
 >
 >>>"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.

Then why can't you show any?

 > 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.

No, you are clearly not carrying on a conversation with me.

 >
 >
 >
 >>Random caps ranting
 >
 >
 > Where? Show us.

An earlier post in this thread. I pointed it out then. Go back and
look.

Can't find it, show us. It either doesn't exist, or is more likely a great
distortion on you part, since you have proven beyond any doubt your capacity
for distortion of the facts. You are, in fact, a grand master.

 >>Secret snippage
 >
 >
 > Only in your mind,

Denial ain't a river in Egypt, you know.

No, it's you thinking that I am "secretly" snipping things. Tell me, kook,
am I also involved in some kind of conspiricy to snip? Show us, you can't
and didn't here because it didn't happen.

 >>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.

Where is this example? You say there is an example, but there is nothing
here. The above is it, no example. That's a new one too me, if it was an
intentional tactic it was a stupid one, but it seems more like an honest
mistake on your part in foregetting to paste something. On the other hand, I
never came close to speaking for anyone else which has been shown, indeed
PROVEN, time and time again. Anyone can go look back. This was the very
point where you were caught red-handed in your silly little game and you are
still trying to use it against me. This is the best thing for readers to go
look back at. He clearly misrepresented what I said in an attempt to claim
that I was speaking for other people, and he is still using debunker tactics
to simply keep insisting that I have spoken for others in the hopes that
eventually someone will believe him. Just look back at this one yourselves
because it is so blatant. I mean, this is just pure gaul, continuing to
attempt to use his most embarrassing moment so far against me. He really is
a kook.

 > 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."

No, right here in this very thread. Anyone can look back, I'm getting sick
of this childish "No I didn't, you did" and luckily for me I have the
advantage of the truth and evidence on my side, so all I have to say is
"Anyone can look back". That's going to be a response you are going to start
seeing more and more of, Mike, as you are rapidly becoming too kooky to
continue a discussion with. It's got to the point now where you are just
repeating the same lies over and over, and there is no reason for me to
continue to disprove the same lies and distortions when I already have.
Anyone interested, look back, his hypocrisy is clearly and plainly
illustrated in this thread.

 >>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.

Yes, us, me and these other interested people some of whom are posting, thus
proving their existance.

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.

That's right, because it is not a comparison. I am not comparing the Great
Wall to UFOs. I never said that I "never discussed anything at all", I said
that I have yet to discuss UFOs, there is a big difference. My Great Great
Wall debate is most definately on topic in a UFO newsgroup, and is a subject
related too UFOs, but is not a comparison in any way and discussing the
Great Wall Debate is not discussing UFOs, it is discussing UFO Debunkers.
Idiot.

[This was actually intersting because here we clashed into each other doing
exactly the same little debunker game trick too each other. I was acting
like I didn't know that he was talking about the relationship between the
Great Wall Debate and UFOs (when I had already realized that but was willing
to let him stay stuck there as long as he wanted too be), while he was
acting like I should understand what he meant by me being off topic when in
fact no clue as to what he could be talking about had ever been given. The
difference in our "endgames" is telling... he used it to call me an idiot, I
used it to create this, another illustration of his stupid little game.]

 >>Raging against debunkers
 >
 >
 > I am not "raging".

Irrational denial of reality noted.

Please show one example of me raging, kook.

 > I am quite calm,

He ranted.

How is that a "rant", haha. Wow, you are running out of material, aren't
you?

 > and providing a thought provoking and
 > rational example.

I seriously doubt you are capable of being rational.

If you can find me one person who is not a Raving Lunatic Debunker like you
to agree with that I might pay attention too it. But coming from a proven
kook like you, it doesn't mean much.

 >>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.

Actually, as everyone following the thread is aware, the only thing that I
re-posted 4 times was that time when your dishonest trickery, intentional
distortion, and just plain lies were revealed and you were caught
red-handed. You know, when you attempted to use the ancient tactic of
claiming that I had cited a sci-fi source, then just clung too it "like grim
death", in your words, and are still trying to salvage it now with the above
nonsense. It's been seen so many times now I need only mention it for any
interested reader to recall too memory that this is STILL just you trying to
deflect that embarrasing disaster you had. It's all back in the thread for
anyone to read.

 >
 >
 >
 >>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.

Oh, yes, I did claim that you and other debunkers fear the Great Great Wall
debate, that is obvious for all too see. You said "you and/or your
arguments" attempting to make it appeared as though I had claimed I am
feared. I used your own tactic on you again here, intentionally
misunderstanding you, I knew what you were referring too, I just wanted you
too complete my example for me, sucker.

[What he did here was use "and/or your arguments" in order write something
that could be interpreted as my claiming that I am feared, which even I
would agree is an honestly "kooky" statement. See how clever what he has
done is? A less experienced "gamer" would be likely to take that statement
personally and go off on a long-winded rant about how he never said it,
never said anything like, etc., which is what he was hoping I would do. That
way, he could then point out the "and/or your arguments" qualifier and
ridicule the subject both for misunderstanding what he meant. Mike and I
could go on like this endlessly, I can't stress how good he is at this
twisted little game. If you want to learn their tactics, just watch this
guy, he is an absolute master.]

 >>Claiming debunkers aren't true skeptics
 >
 >
 > They aren't.

Bingo! Thanks for the admission that I am correct on this point of
your kookery.

If only it were one. Debunkers are not true skeptics. Stating facts does not
make one a kook. Making claims that you refuse to support with evidence
does, however, by your standards, you are most definately a proven,
certified, card carrying kook.

 > 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.

A debunker is playing the twisted game of debunkery, which has nothing to do
with skeptism or science. It is a subject for psychologists, they may find a
cure for your condition some day. I'd think that you'd be all for studying
it. But then, never try to imagine what is going on in the mind of a kook,
like you.

 >>Lack of original thinking ability
 >
 >
 > Let's take a vote on this one, hahahaha.

The voices in your head don't get to vote.

Wouldn't matter, since there aren't any. But there most definatelty is an
audience of people following this newsgroup, you denial of this is in fact
quite kooky, since these people are even making posts thus proving their
existance.

 >>Playing up to an imaginary audience
 >
 >
 > They are not imaginary,

Bingo, another admission that I am correct on this point.

It is? So it is you opinion that you and I are the only people in this
newsgroup? You are getting more kooky all the time.

 > 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?

No, I am reffering too the 3 or 4 people who are not regular posters and
have come out of lurking to make comments. Of course, no sane person would
claim that the two of us are the only people here, so I can only assume that
you are either grasping at more straws, or you are insane. That's a tough
call, especially considering your confirmed and proven status as a kook.

 > 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.

No, you don't care what I think. They are the only people you are talking
too. If you were talking too me, we would be having a conversation, but we
are not having a conversation, we are playing your twisted little game. You
are writing to everyone but me, which is pretty obvious from your post. Your
need to label me a kook, for example, has nothing to do with me and
everything to do with your mental illness and the audeince you are playing
to in order to satisfy the need created by that mental illness. I am not
obssessed with anything, but you are quite obviously obssessed with me. I am
the only subject you have discussed in days, you really seem to be
everything you try to label me as. There's got to be something too that,
what I don't know, but I'm assuming that it is a part of the mental illness
that causes you to do what you do here.

 >
 >
 >
 >>Being obsessed with people who haven't posted in years
 >
 >
 > Obssessed? I have mentioned Dean Adams

Bingo! Another admission of guilt.

Bingo! Another attempt to grasp at straws! You are obssessed with me, but
then, you are already a known kook so behavior like that is to be expected.

 > 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!

Yep, I mentioned the name Gary Stollman, lock me up. Bingo what?!?!?!? You
really are beginning to lose it.

 > 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.

Really, bring them on over then. Let's see all of these people who would say
that responding to one post twice, once, makes someone a kook. You say you
can think of a dozen easily, so bring just one person who is NOT a
well-known debunker in these NGs to agree with you on that point. The only
reason I say not a well-known debunker in these NGs is that I have no doubt
that you know plenty of people playing this sick game who would have no
problem with saying that even though it is rediculous. Find me one sane,
rational, and reasonable person who will say that. You obviously can't
because it is such a rediculous claim on your part.

 >>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.

Bingo!!! Thanks for falling for one of your own semantic tricks, god you are
 dumb. Read my message to the audience you think isn't here for your
response, kook.

[Remember above when I exposed his "and/or arguments" tactic. Well here was
me using that same concept on him, and he fell for it like a rank amature
sucker. That's how complex this little game is, no matter how good you are
at it, it's still nearly impossible to not get stung by a good player. I was
so hoping that he would interpret it the way he did, and was fairly certain
he would based on his past behavior of intentionally misunderstand what is
said. "Profoundly Stupid" is in quotes because it is a phrase the Pete
Charest has been overusing in his posts with me due to his limited
vocabulary. I even said ("just for Pete") after it, indicating that it was a
humorous jab at Pete (and as at least evidence that I really was thinking
about this ahead of time). But much more importantly Mike knows that I am
calling Sagan's quote stupid and not Sagan, it's clear as day. He
understood. This is just him again intentionally misunderstanding what is
said because it helps his goal of labeling me a kook. Nothing else is on his
mind.]

The "imaginary" audience learned quite a bit from you there, Mike, thanks:-)

Then again, maybe you are right, maybe there is no audience, maybe you and I
are the only people here, haha.

 > 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.

Debunker Theory in Action: "Just say it and they'll believe it."

 > 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.

I was talking to the people that I am here to talk too, the same people you
are talking too. I am just honest about it.

 > 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.

But it takes all that searching, pasting, and clipping too counter your
selective editing, intentional misunderstanding, and outright lies, all of
which you has so kindly allowed me to demonstrate in action in this very
thread for all too see. Thanks again, Mike.

As far as the long-winded smoke screen and no response, as I have done
nothing but attmept to carry on a discussion while being constantly
distracted by your dishonest trickery, the fact that I have always had a
response is quite obvious. As is your tactic of creating a huge workload for
your "victim" through the use of those tactics, that should be pretty clear
by now as well for anyone following the thread. Your response here is just
more debunker games, trying to twist your dishonest trickery into some type
of flaw on my part.

 >>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?

Here he is probably trying to get me to use the word "anyone" or "everyone"
so that he can clip the phrase out of context and again insist that I am
speaking for everyone. This "speaking for everyone" thing seems too be a big
deal with him.

 > 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.

I never claimed that I drove them off, only that it keeps them on the run...
as you are so clearly illustrating yourself in this thread. In fact, this
entire thread is simply you running away from the Great Wall. All of this is
you deflecting attention away from the Great Wall Debate and your
unwillingness to attempt to provide any evidence for said wacky wall. This
whole game you are running, this whole thread, proves that statement to be
true, so you are really in a bad spot on this point.

[Snipped some irrelivant junk about other people]

 >
 > Thanks for those, Mike,

You're welcome.

Oh no, you are most definately welcome. I could never have shown so many
dishonest tricks and debunker tactics by simply making posts and claiming
that these things happen. Your kind simply insists that debunkers don't even
exist and starts heaping on the ridicule. But you continue to give me
everything I need, you are the person making all of this possible, thank you
so much.

 > 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.

I sure did!

 >>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.
 >
 >
 > It would be, if any of them applied, but none seem too.

You have raised denial to an art form, Kang.

You have raised misrepresentation to an artform.

 > At least the few
 > that weren't just out and out lies and distortions on your part.

In your "mind."

No, well documented throughout this thread for anyone who cares to see to go
back and read.

 >>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.

See above where? You mean all those intentional misundertsanding and
misrepresentations on your part, many of which have been proven beyond all
doubt throughout this thread?

Again, I have made no such claims.

 > 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.

You really have trouble with that word comparison. As long as kooks like you
refuse to even attempt to provide evidence, or even better start to try and
then stop when they realize that it will not be possible, then my "Great
Wall Lunacy" as you put it, is succeeding with flying colors.

All you have to do is provide any evidence at all. If it's "lunacy", just do
it. If it's invalid, invalidate it. You just don't seem to get it. Your game
doesn't work here. I know games. I know games really well. And this is
immune to your game, which is what gave birth too it. You can scream and
yell and try to label me a kook all day long, but until you start providing
evidence you are just a hypocrite and a kook, and until you actually prove
the existance of the Great Wall, these standards of evidence (that many
people refer too as "debunkery") must be considered potentially flawed and
invalid. You can keep whining all you like, but you just look more and more
like a real "kook". Not someone that you have merely successfully labeled a
kook, but a real and true kook.

So keep using phrases like "fails miserably". It has no effect in this case,
because the only valid method of discrediting the Great Wall debate is
obvious, provide any evidence at all. Anything else is noise generated by
kooks, by your own defenition, anyway.

 >>>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.

I have never attempted to speak for anyone else, this is a misrepresentation
that you are fast becoming famous for. Soon I won't even need to reply to
this one, there won't be anyone who doesn't just read "lie" whenever they
see that.

 > 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.

No, you attempted to redefine what acceptable evidence is into a very narrow
circumstance that worked for you current purposes, there is a huge
difference. You go back and read it again, oh wait, you do understand, you
just act like you don't.

 >>>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."

No, I am discussing the tactics of debunkers, I am not discussing you. You,
however, are only discussing me. It's nearing the level of obssession. I am
not trying to have it both ways, confirmed and proven kook, you were simply
attempting to author a new standard of evidence out of the blue taylored
specifically to the situation. What is considered acceptable evidence is
more than well established. Nobody cares about "you" and "your standards",
because you are a demented lunatic and a proven kook. People tend not too
pay much attention too those types, let alone allow them to set the
standards for everyone else. You are the most full of himself person I have
ever encountered.

--- 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.

No, you've made mine.

You're a kook. Deal with it.

Actually there is still no evidence for that at all, just a huge mess of
skillfully edited Raving Lunatic Debunker insults, ridicule, and dishonest
trickery... and my trying to get you to show evidence for your extraordinary
claims, which you have "failed miserably" in presenting. By your own
definition, you are a kook. You have yet to come up with a single thing that
is true that might even remomtely resemble "kookery", although you sure have
done an impressive job of creating as much confusion as possible in the
thread while at the same time repeating the same lies and distortions over
and over as if they were well-known accepted facts, while having them all
shown too be lies and distortions as you did it.

[This is a great thread, people. If you want to be able to use it to shoot
down a common debunker ploy in the future, just clip all the spots out where
he is definatively shown to be using debunker tactics. Good examples would
be his repeated insistance that I think I am speaking for everyone, his
constant claims that I said I am smarter than Carl Sagan long after he
clearly understood what had really been said, and his numerous referances
too his superiority over others. Next time you say the word "debunker" and
they all insist that such people and tactics don't exist, you need only
start throwing these clips at them in order to prove that they do exist.
They'll stick you on that point indefinately if you don't know how to get
past it, now anyone can get past that point with those raving lunatics...
All thanks too Michael Davis.]

So, kook, you have become not worth my time. I'm really not interested in
discussing me with you for the next few weeks, and apparently I am the only
subject you are capable of discussing. Your obssession with me, of course,
yet another sign of your already proven kookery. So I am mostly done with
you until you are ready to stop spewing noise and start presenting evidence.
This doesn't mean that I will no longer respond too you, it simply means
that the tone of my responses will change. From now on, my responses too you
will be very much like your own posts, because in the game of debunkery such
insults and ridicule are the normal and accepted response to proven kooks
like you. The difference between us, of course, will be that I am doing this
for the purpose of example while you are just a demented lunatic.

So, in your next reply, assuming it is not a pesentation of evidence for
that wacky wall of yours, you can expect to meet... basically yourself when
I reply back. Now that my main points have been made, and I have made clear
what I am doing here, it is now safe to behave like you. Had I done this
right from the beginning I would have been labeled a kook (which says a lot
about you in and of itself), but now I can simply imitate the insults and
ridicule aspect of debunkery and everyone will understand what I am really
doing and not think I am a nutcase kook like you. Until you start presenting
evidence for that wacky wall of yours, you are just a meaningless net-kook
who may very well be establishing new hieghts of hypocrisy in this very
thread.