| Subject: Re: A Definition of UFO Skeptic |
| From: "Dr. Flonkenstein" <admin@localhost.localdomain> |
| Date: 06/01/2005, 21:05 |
| Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors,alt.usenet.kooks |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 19:48:17 +0000, altheim wrote:
"Dr. Flonkenstein" <admin@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
altheim wrote:
"John Griffin" <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> wrote:
"altheim" <altheim@freeuk.com> wrote:
"Widdershins" <sinistre@liripipe.com> wrote:
You *can*, and should expect someone making a claim for something
as ass-stupid as "psychotronic energy" to supply *some* evidence
to back up his assertions. so far, researcher has steered away from
providing hard, physical, unambiguous evidence for his onager
assertions.
So far, he's come up empty. And you're defending him. Your defense
does make you look a proper prat.
I'm not sure I give a shit how I look to you. You're an idiot.
Damn, I'm glad I got the new unbreakable irony meter.
I'm only trying to help you, so give this a thought: "Psychotronic
energy" is nothing but a phrase and some vapor at this point, and the guy
who calls himself "researcher" has not even started to do any research.
Echoing some naked assertions (especially from the Soviets' fruitless
attempt to find paranormal phenomena) is not research. There's more, but
that's probably more than you can handle in one sitting.
Thank you, I do like these single-topic posts:
You are peaching to the converted. I'm sorry if I confuse you guys
but I agree.
But, as I said only a few minutes ago in a post to Michael Davis,
researcher posted his original speculations in alt.paranet.ufo,
which is generally devoted to things paranormal, so his ideas
were on-topic and extremely relevant in order to explain supposedly
extraterrestrial travel.
Do you really think his pseudoscientific brabble is an *explanation*
Yes I do, though I think "speculation" might be a better word. As for
pseudoscience, I wonder in what other terms he might have
"speculated" - he could hardly have offered real science.
Obviously it doesn't go far enough, but it
doesn't matter as this is not a science forum. Equally obviously,
researcher is not a scientist. He is also, obviously, not good at
debate; that doesn't make him wrong.
He's just stupid, not wrong.
Not wrong eh? Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha
Having a hebephrenic fit?