| Subject: Re: Does anybody remember "debunkers?" - a very LONG time ago!! |
| From: "Sir Arthur CB Wholeflaffers ASA" <science@zzz.com> |
| Date: 10/04/2007, 07:32 |
| Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research,alt.paranet.ufo,sci.skeptic |
You probably forgot but I obtained the handbook for UUFOD - United UFO
Debunkers. YES - our operative infiltrated your sub-groups! Don't
worry, we will not expose anything about it, but yes, certain aero-
space firms have been back-engineering other-wordly craft for many
decades and there has been side-agreements with certain off-world
factions. Although that much is easy to prove even without your silly
handbook!!
But why your side keeps pusing stealth blimps, which looks like cheeze-
burger eating J. O-BORG, and time-compressed crash-test dummies is
curious.
Now go do something useful Bob, like debunking the Big-Bang theory, we
need more people like you in that camp. Thanks in advance,
SIR Artiø
Bob Casanova wrote:
On 7 Apr 2007 21:53:56 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Sir Arthur CB Wholeflaffers ASA"
<science@zzz.com>:
[Idiotic top-posting corrected again; why not learn from the
correction of your mistakes? Oh, yeah; I forgot. Never
mind...]
Bob Casanova wrote:
On 7 Apr 2007 06:29:55 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Sir Arthur CB Wholeflaffers ASA"
<science@zzz.com>:
<snip unsupported assertions>
Strange; there doesn't seem to be anything left...
Still nothing left but smoke and mirrors; i.e., nothing of
substance.
Bob Casanova wrote:
On 6 Apr 2007 02:09:06 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Sir Arthur CB Wholeflaffers ASA"
<science@zzz.com>:
...leave us real researchers alone.
You wouldn't know real research if it bit you in the ass.
Here's a hint: *Real* research involves examining data, not
asserting preconceived notions and twisting or ignoring
inconvenient facts.
<snip>
You seem to be snorting a bit too much swamp gas these days! Not to
worry, you still have your time-compressed crash-test dummy How's
that working for you?
Are you under the mistaken impression that you make any sort
of sense, rather than (as is obvious to anyone reading your
posts) performing the written equivalent of drug-induced
free-association? And are you under the mistaken impression
that you have any sort of actual evidence to support your
assertions, rather than the delusions induced by delirium
tremens in an obviously paranoid conspiracy theorist (that's
you, since you probably wouldn't understand if not led by
the hand)?
If so, you're wrong. As usual.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless