In alt.alien.visitors Kavik Kang <Kavik_Kang@hotmail.com> wrote:
. . . and accomplished everything I was pointing out about Mr Davis for
the last couple of years. . .you have ripped the veil of credibility from
his face and showed him to be the insane gameplayer and liar that he is.
Thanks for job well done and now it seems I can rest. . .
Garry
: "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 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.
: 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.