"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:bc281b54576f5f485ea177ebbe8e86b7@news.meganetnews.com...

Then it should be no problem to provide proof of it, correct?

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

No, by your own defintition, a kook is someone who makes claims and refuses
to provide evidence for those claims, you know, like you.

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.

I do not deny the existance of the great wall. I am a serious researcher
with a great and sincere interest in finding evidence for the wall. I deny
nothing, I am merely conducting a 'scientific' search for the Great Wall
using the wonderful methods of debunkery that have evolved in the field of
UFOs. It's about time that this wonderful "tool of science" be brought out
of it's infancy and applied to other scientific disciplines where it can do
all the good that it does in the field of UFO.s Surely, as a valid "tool of
science", this will prove quite valuable to at least some other disciplines
of science. Right? Surely, this wonderful tool of science is not applicable
only to a single and very specific subject and nothing else... That would
hardly be scientific, would it?

It would be just one
more idiotic claim among sooooooooo many.

I have made no claims, you are the only one making any claims, and refusing
to provide any evidence for those claims, which is why you are now a proven
kook.

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?

Well, I'm sure most if not all of us have noticed that you have no interest
in providing evidence for your claims. And I know a lot of people noticed
all the lies, distortions, and dishonest trickery that you have been using,
but I think you'll have trouble finding many people who translate that mass
of your kookery to be "gutting" my argument. You have, in fact, done nothing
but run away screaming insults at me from the very beginning. You haven't
even truely addressed my argument, and you never will. You know this game
well, you know that nobody could provide you with evidence, and you suspect
that my debunker game is strong enough that you'll never present me with any
either. That's the obvious truth here.

Instead
try to get him onto something that is at least remotely on topic.

I am more on topic than you. My discussion is about the Great Wall, which is
very obviously on-topic in this NG. You are only talking about me, which is
still probably on technically topic, but not really.

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.

I have denied nothing. And unless evidence can be shown for the Great Wall,
a known quantity, then these standards must be considered potentially
flawed. It's a simple concept to understand, I bet science even has a name
for it. Any scientists reading that might be willing to explain how simple
this is too him, since he claims to respect scientists so much... I'd love
to see his response too that, and if the past is any indication, there are
in fact serious credentialed science types reading right now who I bet could
write a fascinating explination of why my Great Great Wall debate is a valid
argument and even name the type of argument that it is. Mike would never
come at you with his nonsense, his credibility rests on showing you the
utmost respect. If you are really an expert, you are safe from the lunatics,
they need you too badly to insult you. There whole presence here is based on
their claim that they are "guardians of science". You are free to write this
and post it here without fear of having the Raving Lunatics jump all over
you... Just a thought:-)

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.

No, the issue here is how that would be impossible based on the warped and
twisted standards that you operate under. By those standards, no evidence
can be shown for the existance of the Great Wall. You can call it futile and
lame all you want, this is not some silly "kook" idea, this is very real. As
long as no evidence can be shown for the Great Wall, I am demonstrating real
scientific evidence that those evidencial standards are flawed in some way.
In other words, I am now the skeptic and you are now the kook, kook.

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.

Exactly. Which is why, by your own standards, you are a kook. Thank you very
much for stating it right here for everyone, I had actually been expecting
you to try and attempt to claim that you had never stated that as a
standard. You missed your opportunity here:-)