Re: Good riddanceto UFO Debunkers, you Vulgar Perverts

On Jul 23, 8:01 am, "Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote:

"Sir Arthur CB Wholeflaffers ASA" <scie...@zzz.com> wrote in messagenews:80b796a3-cb1c-45a9-a9f0-6b4f8b9f1e56@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 19, 12:13 pm, HVAC <MR.H...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message

news:fdb484t8dfg1ugh9ok9l7k1pda29bjcjqh@4ax.com...

No.

It is obvious that Sir Arthur ASA and I are on the same team.
*WE* are the ones who gat lambasted for engaging in hijinks
and 'innocent fun'.

PS- What's an ilk?

Close relative of a muse.

Anything like a henway?


Can you believe HVD-VAC is still around.  The debunker, also known as
human garbage, are really reaching the bottom of the barrel these
days.

Ultra-Patriot Bill Proposal to End Abuse: Eliminate Debunkers
Sir Adolf C. B. Wholeflaffer A.S.A

For all honest researchers, real patriots, freedom-lovers,
liberty-defenders, anti-fascists and true scientists,
like myself, I am pleased to announce that I am
attempting to add a rider to the curiously-named Patriot Bill.

I call it the �Ultra-Patriot Bill Rider!!�
This bill will target the real enemy of ALL
MANKIND: THE UFO debunker and their
Cult of Useful Idiots.

Needless to say, these Truth-Terror
threats will be apprehended  and tried
in a secret MILITARY TRIBUNAL,
that General/Judge Borman Killemall
will preside at.

The debunker will not be allowed a lawyer,
and cannot speak against the secret evidence
that will be presented against him or her
(Chen-Destabilizers, take note!).  The CIA/NSA
torture-squads may be used to extract a
"forced" confession!! Thank Gawd
this is a democracy!!

This should eliminate the debunker/troll
once a for all.  Good riddance to
bad rubbish.  Have a fun time in Hell!!

Please take note that not just the UFO debunkers will be targeted.

Also included on the list will be friends of debunkers, suspected
debunkers,
friends of suspected debunkers, debunker sympathizers,
suspected debunker sympathizers,
friends of suspected debunker sympathizers,
debunker guerrillas and debunker rebels;
as well as anybody else that "we" determine
is implicated in the cover-up, and then some.

One's actions on this newsgroup WILL be
taken into consideration.

Our almost-elected President is calling
on each and every one of you to turn in a list
of names that you suspect are debunkers.

My short list includes: Casanobrain, Hager,

Your lunacy hath no bounds, does it, LipFlapper ..


Debunkers - game over, you lost!  NOw git!

        - Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as
"ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have
the full force of scientific authority.

        - Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the
single most effective weapon in the war against discovery and
innovation. Ridicule has the unique ability to make people of
virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a
twinkling. It fails to sway only those who are of sufficiently
independent mind not to need the kind of emotional consensus
that ridicule provides. Fortunately there are few enough such
people in this world that they may be safely disregarded.

        - Do your best to convince your audience (although not in
as many words) that ridicule constitutes an essential feature
of scientific method and can raise the level of objectivity,
integrity and dispassionateness with which any investigation is
pursued.

        - Charm your audience and disarm your opponents with pithy
aphorisms and clever remarks. For example, "I've always been
strongly in favor of open-mindedness -- as long as your mind
isn't so open that your brains fall out!" But take care never
to specify just how much openmindedness is too much; this keeps
your views outside the realm of rational debate. As long as you
keep things vague nobody will notice the absurdity of your gems
of wit and wisdom.

        - Use "smoke and mirrors." Never forget that a slippery
mixture of fact, opinion, innuendo and out-of-context
information will fool most of the people most of the time. As
little as one part fact to ten parts B.S. will usually do the
trick. (Some veteran debunkers use homeopathic dilutions of
fact with remarkable success!) Cultivate the art of slipping
back and forth between fact and fiction so undetectably that
the grain of truth appears to underlie and support the entire
edifice of opinion.

        - Keep a repertory of avoidance techniques at hand in case
you get cornered. Examples include changing the subject,
attacking your opponent's personal habits, distraction with
humorous irrelevancies, lengthy storytelling and so forth.
Remember that the main point of such diversionary tactics is to
consume precious air time.

        - Arrange to have your message delivered or echoed by
persons of authority. The degree to which you can stretch the
truth is directly proportional to the perceived level of
authority of your messenger.

        - If you can't attack the case, attack the people. Ad-
hominem arguments, or personality attacks, are one of the most
powerful ways of swaying thoughtless people and avoiding the
issue. Insist that if a witness has ever been accused of
stretching the truth in any way, to any degree, for any reason,
his or her testimony about anything is, always was, and always
will be, worthless. Employ similar tactics if the claimant is
known ever to have had a brush with the law (whatever its
outcome), has ever entered into any kind of psychological
counseling or can be shown to have unusual personal habits or
predilections. If you can determine that your opponents have
profited financially from activities connected with their
research, accuse them of "profiting financially from activities
connected with their research!" If their research, publishing,
speaking tours and so forth, constitute their normal line of
work or sole means of support, hold that fact as "conclusive
proof that income is being realized from such activities"' If
your opponents have labored to achieve public recognition for
their work, you may safely characterize them as "publicity
seekers."

        - Employ "TCP": Technically Correct Pseudo-rebuttal. For
example, if your opponent remarks that all great truths began
as blasphemies, respond immediately that not all blasphemies
have become great truths. Because your response was technically
correct, no one will notice that it did not really refute or
even contradict the original remark.

        - Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in
question. Characterize the study of orthodox phenomena as deep
and time-consuming, while deeming that of unorthodox phenomena
so insubstantial as to demand nothing more than a scan of the
tabloids. If pressed, simply say "but there's nothing there to
study!" Characterize any investigator of the unorthodox as
"self-styled" -- the media's favorite code-word for "