quote:

---

Originally posted by latinijral:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R.Wreck

A little defensive there, aren't we? Do you have any evidence that the planet earth has been visited by aliens? If so, let's see it. I'm beginning to think that the "new skepticism" is just another name for the UFO / Roswell / Area 51 / alien abductee industry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What that has to do with your incorrect and old debunked style of using the word “nobody” and your wishes to ridicule?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by latinijral

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cuneiformist

I'd say "nice try, latinijral," but it wasn't. In fact, it wasn't even close-- it sucked. If that's the best you can do then you'd best give up now and admit that your friend Drasin's critique of "old" skepticism doesn't hold any water.

---

Repeating the same mistake? Keeping your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible?
Common, change that old debunked style !!

---

quote:

---

Keeping your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cuneiformist


I'd give you one more chance to address my arguments (or at best clarify how I'm being "abstract" or "theoretical") or I'd lock the thread. But I don't, so feel free to keep dodging! .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by R.Wreck

quote:

---

Originally posted by latinijral



What that has to do with your incorrect and old debunked style of using the word “nobody” and your wishes to ridicule?

---

C'mon lat, you can tell us. You were abducted by aliens, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by latinijral
What that has to do with your incorrect and old debunked style of using the word “nobody” and your wishes to ridicule in order to hide your absence of arguments about the topic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by latinijral

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cuneiformist


I'd give you one more chance to address my arguments (or at best clarify how I'm being "abstract" or "theoretical") or I'd lock the thread. But I don't, so feel free to keep dodging! .

---

If DAVE did it , then KIL did it, why not you?
You need your 15 minutes of fame with me.
Close this thread if you feel piss off with the Old skepticism' debunkery tactics ……..already debunked.

Your “obscure” warning doesn't “hold any water”.
Wait! Where did I read that?
Did I sound abstract or theorical?
Hmmmmm.
That Drasin is driving you all crazy.
You need more improved tactics

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starman

Do we have to feed the trolls every hour, or just once a day?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starman

Do we have to feed the trolls every hour, or just once a day?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starman

Do we have to feed the trolls every hour, or just once a day?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cuneiformist

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starman

Do we have to feed the trolls every hour, or just once a day?

---

Exactly, Starman. That's why I'm done...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by latinijral:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R.Wreck


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by latinijral



What that has to do with your incorrect and old debunked style of using the word “nobody” and your wishes to ridicule?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


C'mon lat, you can tell us. You were abducted by aliens, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What that has to do with your incorrect and old debunked style of using the word “nobody” and your wishes to ridicule in order to hide your absence of arguments about the topic?

---

quote:

---

<> Point out that an "unidentified" flying object is just that, and cannot be automatically assumed to be extraterrestrial. Do this whether or not anyone involved *has* assumed it to be extraterrestrial.

<> Equate nature's laws with our current understanding of nature's laws. Then label all concepts such as antigravity or interdimensional mobility as mere flights of fancy "because what present-day science cannot explain cannot possibly exist." Then if an anomalous craft is reported to have hovered silently, made right-angle turns at supersonic speeds or appeared and disappeared instantly, you may summarily dismiss the report.

<> Declare that there is no proof that life can exist in outer space. Since most people still behave as if the Earth were the center of the universe, you may safely ignore the fact that Earth, which is already in outer space, has abundant life.

<> Point out that the official SETI program assumes in advance that extraterrestrial intelligence can only exist light-years away from Earth. Equate this a-priori assumption with conclusive proof; then insist that this invalidates all terrestrial reports of ET contact.

<> If compelling evidence is presented for a UFO crash or some similar event, provide thousands of pages of detailed information about a formerly secret military project that might conceivably account for it. The more voluminous the information, the less the need to demonstrate any actual connection between the reported event and the military project.

<> When someone produces purported physical evidence of alien technology, point out that no analysis can prove that its origin was extraterrestrial; after all, it might be the product of some perfectly ordinary, ultra-secret underground government lab. The only exception would be evidence obtained from a landing on the White House lawn--the sole circumstance universally agreed upon by generations of skeptics as conclusively certifying extraterrestrial origin!

<> If photographs or other visual media depicting anomalous aerial phenomena have been presented, argue that since images can now be digitally manipulated they prove nothing. Assert this regardless of the vintage of the material or the circumstances of its acquisition. Insist that the better the quality of a UFO photo, the greater the likelihood of fraud. Photos that have passed every known test may therefore be held to be the most perfectly fraudulent of all!

<> Argue that all reports of humanoid extraterrestrials must be bogus because the evolution of the humanoid form on Earth is the result of an infinite number of accidents in a genetically isolated environment. Avoid addressing the logical proposition that if interstellar visitations have occurred, Earth cannot be considered genetically isolated in the first place.

<> Argue that extraterrestrials would or wouldn't, should or shouldn't, can or can't behave in certain ways because such behavior would or wouldn't be logical. Base your notions of logic on how terrestrials would or wouldn't behave. Since terrestrials behave in all kinds of ways you can theorize whatever kind of behavior suits your arguments.

<> Stereotype contact claims according to simplistic scenarios already well established in the collective imagination. If a reported ET contact appears to have had no negative consequences, sarcastically accuse the claimant of believing devoutly that "benevolent ETs have come to magically save us from destroying ourselves!" If someone claims to have been traumatized by an alien contact, brush it aside as "a classic case of hysteria." If contactees stress the essential humanness and limitations of certain ETs they claim to have met, ask "why haven't these omnipotent beings offered to solve all our problems for us?"

<> When reluctant encounter witnesses step forward, accuse them indiscriminately of "seeking the limelight" with their outlandish stories.

<> Ask why alleged contactees and abductees haven't received alien infections. Reject as "preposterous" all medical evidence suggesting that such may in fact have occurred. Categorize as "pure science- fiction" the notion that alien understandings of immunology might be in advance of our own, or that sufficiently alien microorganisms might be limited in their ability to interact with our biological systems. Above all, dismiss anything that might result in an actual investigation of the matter.

<> Travel to China. Upon your return, report that "nobody there told me they had seen any UFOs." Insist that this proves that no UFOs are reported outside countries whose populations are overexposed to science fiction.

<> Where hypnotic regression has yielded consistent contactee testimony in widespread and completely independent cases, argue that hypnosis is probably unreliable, and is always worthless in the hands of non-credentialed practitioners. Be sure to add that the subjects must have been steeped in the ET-contact literature, and that, whatever their credentials, the hypnotists involved must have been asking leading questions.

<> If someone claims to have been emotionally impacted by a contact experience, point out that strong emotions can alter perceptions. Therefore, the claimant's recollections must be entirely untrustworthy.

<> Maintain that there cannot possibly be a government coverup of the ET question . . . but that it exists for legitimate reasons of national security!

<> Accuse conspiracy theorists of being conspiracy theorists and of believing in conspiracies! Insist that only *accidentalist* theories can possibly account for repeated, organized patterns of suppression, denial and disinformational activity.

<> In the event of a worst-case scenario--for example, one in which extraterrestrial intelligence is suddenly acknowledged as a global mystery of millennial proportions--just remember that the public has a short memory. Simply hail this as a "victory for the scientific method" and say dismissively, "Well, everyone knows this is a monumentally sig

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy.

Latinijarl, the question, asked many times now, yet remains. As you seem unable to remember it, I'll pose it again:

"You have debunked the 'old' skepticism, or so you claim. What pray, do you have to replace it?" .

---