Michael Davis 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 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)
I don't believe this has anything to do with you proving your claim,
Mike.
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.
Touche:
Only a k0ok would refuse to support their claim so nonchalantly, as you
have just done.
"Why Bother?" ...I'll assume you consider that to be a logical and
acceptable response to your inane requests for "absolute proof" of
"unidentified areal phenomena", then.
>
> :> 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
Where?
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.
This isn't about UFOs, aliens, or chupacabras... HTH
Can't you read?
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.
Nice projection, Mikey.
> why not show us the best way to provide proof or
> have yourself labeled a kook?
Proof of what?
Your claim, maybe? Should be easy.
> 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 Great Wall?
What part of "I'm
not the least bit interested in debating Kooky Kang on this
subject" don't you understand?
I thought you claimed to be the expert on Kang's subject?
It's all just a silly smokescreen
BINGO!
and a seriously lame attempt
BINGO!
by a few logically challenged kooks
to shift the burden of proof away from themselves as claimants
BINGO!
(that would be you).
Wrong. The intention is not to avoid burden of proof...
...it's obviously to show how *you too* can avoid making a claim... *or*
proving it!
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.
Just *exactly* how *you* aren't fooling anybody.
> 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.
...like I claim to be a "biochemist", huh? (k0oks think I am,
apparantly)
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Wolfe%2C+who+claims+to+be+a+%0Abiochemist%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en
If memory serves me right, Garry said he volunteered for that. Figures
that you'd exaggerate the claims of others in a feeble attempt to make
yourself look somehow better, though.
"I have saved 6 HP Deskjet 560C's from work and gave them to a public
access TV station I
volunteer at, a poor neighbor and others." - Garry
Mike, you have once again shown that you are wrong with your projection
of part time jobs on others...
Need we recall your budget spreadsheet that you "once upon a time" put
away "safely" in an open index, like a good little web-monkey? I recall
a title "2nd job", or something... with a big question mark in the
"income" column... hmmmm. Yeah, you're projecting.
See if you can find some file footage of Nixon at the
Great Wall from multiple, independent, reputable news outlets.
Whoops...
Those "reputable news outlets" have been carrying UFO images/stories for
decades. Who in their right mind would use them as evidence for a
scientific "proof"?
Surely, you've got something better than that highly unscientific garbage
as "proof"?
Was it not *you* who claims anytime an article is presented, that the
person who wrote/edited it *surely* wasn't a scientist? Try again, K0ok!
Looks to me like you don't even know what your standards even are.
Get
back to me on whether or not the Great Wall exists by my standards
or not.
It doesn't, by your standards.
You claim (correct me if I'm wrong, now):
All alleged photos, eyewitness accounts, etc. can be assumed to be fakes
or of a mundane phenomena.
If you think that's "proof", then you shouldn't be the least surprised
that someone could hypothetically claim that those Nixon films were
hoaxed, based on the same heuristic model, and expect you to shoulder the
burden of proof to prove that they aren't faked. Hope That Helps, Tubby.
Then see if you can find even a single UFO case that meets
my standards. I won't hold my breath.
Define UFO. You're saying that not one anomalous event was ever
"unidentified". They are all "identified", are they?
Here's a good case description from Astonautics and Aeronautics, July
1971 of a 1957 incident: Don't knock yourself out "debunking" now...
http://ufophysics.com/dual/aiaareport.pdf
> remember, people lie, people hoax, people are mistaken,
> people are unreliable, people have agendas, etc. . .
*You* try remembering that, Garrrrrry.
I think that he does when he's taking a skeptical stance, Mike.
I see he is skeptical that you have your own agenda, you are likely to be
mistaken/unreliable/lying...
On top of that, you're obviously a "shut-in" who fucks around like a damn
child on usenet 24/7. You can't possibly be an authority on anything but
"Nettiquite".
HTH, l00n.
--
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.
--
Hace you fa0m!!!!!!!ll!!!!1!!!!!!!1!!?
http://know_buddy.tripod.com