| Subject: Re: A Definition of UFO Skeptic |
| From: Michael Davis |
| Date: 05/01/2005, 11:27 |
| Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors |
altheim wrote:
"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
researcher wrote:
Michael Davis wrote:
altheim wrote:
This isn't a debating forum. This is Usenet. It is an entertainment
forum. I find debunking UFO kooks to be entertaining. HTH.
Can't speak for yourself, eh, kook?
Hang on - who are you adressing here? I didn't write that - you did.
Sigh. My appraisal of you just went down by another 20 IQ points.
I was naturally talking to that "researcher" clown. The post was
in response to him, after all. And I am well aware of who wrote
what. I was referring to "researcher's" silly posting of a pile of
irrelevant quotes from dead men rather than trying to explain
himself in his own words.
You really do suck at this.
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance!"
--Albert Einstein
Non sequitur. You have suggested nothing that can be investigated.
But he has.
List what you think he has proposed that can be scientifically
investigated.
"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such trifling investments of fact."
--Mark Twain
Non sequitur. You aren't posting science. You are posting fairytales.
To you perhaps. To me it is conjecture.
Conjecture based on fairytales is called fantasizing. It is not
science.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is
proof
against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting
ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
--Herbert Spencer
Non sequitur. You have not actually investigated anything.
But it *is* relevant:
To whom?
you are showing contempt.
Yes, I have contempt for frauds and fools and ignoramuses who try
to pass themselves off as some sort of serious "researcher" and
push bunk on people. The real issue here is why don't
*you* have
any contempt for that sort of behavior?