"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

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.

Then why did you post your comment "Can't speak for yourself..."
directly beneath your own "This isn't a debating forum..." - which
in turn you posted under my name? This is just sloppy editing.

And I am well aware of who wrote  what.

Too bad you don't know how to make it comprehensible
for your readers.

...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.

yeah right!

"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.

His Psychotronic Energy.

"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?

The same people for whom you think it is non sequitor.

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.

You are digging yourself further and further into the crap and
you don't even know why. One quote is about "conjecture" and
the other is about contempt prior to investigation - you display
a priori contempt by describing researcher's conjecture as
fairytales. In one sentence you manage to offend two basic
tenets of the very doctrine you most want to uphold - scepticism.

The real issue here is why don't *you* have any contempt
for that sort of behavior?

I have more contempt for your sort of behaviour.  I'm an
average guy brought up to respect other people, no matter
how odd their beliefs may seem. It would be a conceit to
think I am necessarily right. Like it or not the same applies
to you.

--
altheim