In news:1145248873.146867.294090@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Rick Thorne <audeteffice@yahoo.com> typed:

Amanda Angelika wrote:

Rick Thorne <audeteffice@yahoo.com> typed:

This is all well an good except for one problem charlatans and liars
usually *act* like genuine sincere people.

Which in a way was my point - obviously missed.  Must be my fault.

That level of negativity or cynicism isn't normal or rational.

On your statement about rationality: since you didn't understand the
scope or point of my original post, allow me to explain that:

1) Scope: it was in response to the Art Wholeflaffer posts that have
corrputed these discussions since his name was Dick Frager in 1995.
These posts always open with some nonsense about what crackpots and
government disinformationists debunkers and skeptics are; this post
was a counter to those truly cynical ones.

2) Point: since it was directed at him and his kind, it was intended
to be sarcastic and little else.

On your statement about normalicy - given that you present only your
opinion and zero evidence or presentation of credentials that would
make me believe you're qualified to judge what is normal, I couldn't
care less than I do what you think about this.

Well there is a general consensus in society as to what is "normal" One
doesn't have to be "normal" oneself to recognise this :) OTOH though the
ability to recognise such consensus does perhaps define sanity. Of course
not everyone can do this which is why you get sociopaths who in extreme
cases have a view of what is "normal" which is totally egocentric.

Your argument isn't rational or logical.

And since it wasn't an argument but a joke with a very specific
target, your response isn't valid or necessary.

Possibly not.

There is no evidence that *all* witness testimony is Perjurous,
neither can you demonstrate that to be the case.

I agree.  That's why it was a poke in a very specifc eye who gives
blind credence to all these claims without demanding any rigor behind
them, then accuses those of us who do as conspirators.

My honest opinion: this discussion is too important to leave in the
hands of extremists who will corrupt it either way.  All or nothing
doesn't work.  I want discussion and intellect to rule, not blaming
and conjuring, but that seems to be tragically absent from the
American dialog these days.

Well in a society where you have freedom of speech, expression and religion,
people are allowed to believe in the voices in their own heads. Of course it
doesn't necessarily mean these things are totally unreal. OTOH though we
don't really know the power of our own minds. People say you can't record
things that are a result of imagination on video, but we don't really know
this for certain. If everyone in the world got their heads together maybe we
could recreate the entire universe we don't know.

Well you may think you can get people to believe anything, but
ironically
you appear to have failed because you argument isn't based on
accepted fact.

I suppose if this were a high school debate, I'd give you a point for
this clever *little* rhetorical observation.  Since what I really
hoped for was a good laugh at the expense of a repellent intellectual
parasite, all I can do is sigh and roll my eyes, hoping to be
understood next time.

:)

LOL

There ya go. That's all I wanted all along.

Now maybe we can start talking intelligently about this topic.
 Amanda? Anybody?

Many people do. That said I have come across the odd person who will come up
with an idea and stick to it with religious fervour regardless of all
evidence to the contrary. Obviously you can't debate with people like that
it's a waste of time.
-- 
Amanda