|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 11/01/2006 : 16:50:26
|
I find it interesting that we've recently been engaged with three persons who have tried to promote their extraordinary, unevidenced claims in these fora. The three claims themselves are quite different, one from the other.
1. A fundamentalist Christian claims to prove that the Biblical Jesus was historical and was resurrected. (The "historical" part isn't an especially extraordinary claim, but the "resurrection" part is.) Using lies, he also defends a notorious contemporary liar.
2. A 9/11 "controlled demolition" conspiracy buff who believes, without evidence, that not Osama, but sinister forces in the US destroyed the WTC.
3. An apologist for a New Age "healing psychic," who wants us to believe that a woman in the Netherlands can magically "infuse" healing properties into water, using just her voice over the radio, and who says that a cabal of murdering evidence-based physicians are spreading lies about the psychic.
It's interesting to look at the similarities between these people, as McQ pointed out in another thread.
First, all are True Believers, immune from logic.
These are people who probably would not be comfortable in one another's presence. Yet interestingly, these folks, despite the wildly varying axes they have to grind, all feel that skeptics are close-minded religionists who are bent upon refuting only their own cherished beliefs.
All seem to think the burden is upon skeptics to disprove their strange beliefs. None seem capable of understanding the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Instead, they demand skeptics disprove their bizarre beliefs.
All of them are use almost every form of logical fallacy in the book. They seem especially fond of ad hominems and strawmen.
None can seem to grasp that by plunging into a den of skeptics, they will of course have their extraordinary claims vigorously challenged. None has armed himself with the tools of good logical debate. Every one of them has used lies and personal insults to make his point.
Those are my observations, anyway. I feel I've missed a lot. But the psychological similarities underlying these three types of woo-woo purveyors appear to me to be more profound than the differences between the extraordinary claims themselves.
Anyone have their own thoughts to add?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 17:16:59 [Permalink]
|
Yeh. they're starting to bore the shit out of me. I haven't gone around in this many circles since the last time I caught a hoop snake. 
I'm thinking of hanging up on the lot of them. Argument with them is futile because they don't know how.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 18:00:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner...
1. A fundamentalist Christian claims to prove that the Biblical Jesus was historical and was resurrected. (The "historical" part isn't an especially extraordinary claim, but the "resurrection" part is.) Using lies, he also defends a notorious contemporary liar.
2. A 9/11 "controlled demolition" conspiracy buff who believes, without evidence, that not Osama, but sinister forces in the US destroyed the WTC.
3. An apologist for a New Age "healing psychic," who wants us to believe that a woman in the Netherlands can magically "infuse" healing properties into water, using just her voice over the radio, and who says that a cabal of murdering evidence-based physicians are spreading lies about the psychic.
Although it's been a few weeks since his last posting, you can bet he'll come back and continue his futile attempt to disprove the contemporary theory of the construction of the Sun in his misguided effort to prove his own wholly unsupported (and likely unsupportable) hair brained fantasy. We're actually in the middle (oh, lordy, lordy!) of another discussion with a classic example of a woo woo. Let's not forget the fellow who may truly be the grand champion of liars and builders of straw men, Michael Mozina...
4. A self declared discoverer of a completely revolutionary principal of astrophysics which has somehow been mysteriously overlooked by every single legitimate physicist, astrophysicist, solar scientist, and astronomer who ever lived since the beginning of time. And yes, the similarity among these people in their lack of logic and unwillingness (perhaps outright inability) to actually apply any legitimate scientific process, rationality, or even a basic sense of reality to their outrageous claims is astounding.
|
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 18:26:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner...
1. A fundamentalist Christian claims to prove that the Biblical Jesus was historical and was resurrected. (The "historical" part isn't an especially extraordinary claim, but the "resurrection" part is.) Using lies, he also defends a notorious contemporary liar.
2. A 9/11 "controlled demolition" conspiracy buff who believes, without evidence, that not Osama, but sinister forces in the US destroyed the WTC.
3. An apologist for a New Age "healing psychic," who wants us to believe that a woman in the Netherlands can magically "infuse" healing properties into water, using just her voice over the radio, and who says that a cabal of murdering evidence-based physicians are spreading lies about the psychic.
Although it's been a few weeks since his last posting, you can bet he'll come back and continue his futile attempt to disprove the contemporary theory of the construction of the Sun in his misguided effort to prove his own wholly unsupported (and likely unsupportable) hair brained fantasy. We're actually in the middle (oh, lordy, lordy!) of another discussion with a classic example of a woo woo. Let's not forget the fellow who may truly be the grand champion of liars and builders of straw men, Michael Mozina...
4. A self declared discoverer of a completely revolutionary principal of astrophysics which has somehow been mysteriously overlooked by every single legitimate physicist, astrophysicist, solar scientist, and astronomer who ever lived since the beginning of time. And yes, the similarity among these people in their lack of logic and unwillingness (perhaps outright inability) to actually apply any legitimate scientific process, rationality, or even a basic sense of reality to their outrageous claims is astounding.
I know you'll think I'm way out there on this, but somehow I see Michael as sincere in his beliefs, and not as a charlatan, liar, or fraud. He's wrong, and I disagree with him and his theory, but I just can't put him with the other folks mentioned here. They're just plain cracked in some fundamental way, and for the most part, they know it but are frightened to admit the truth to themselves. I'll admit that I had to play catch up with all of the "Surface of the Sun" threads and read them pretty much all at once. Therefore, I may be missing some information that makes my opinion shaky there.
But Halfmooner has said it very well and comprehensively and I'm in agreement with him in ruminations. It's a very funny thought he had that these guys wouldn't even be comfortable in one another's presence. They wouldn't, yet they have so much of their core "selves" in common.
(edited to clarify opinion of woo-wooers and to put names in bold print...I'm learning!) |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
| Edited by - McQ on 11/01/2006 18:35:37 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 19:16:19 [Permalink]
|
So we have now covered all four corners of the World of Woo-woo?
Somewhere in the middle is the believer in things ghost-related. However, she does lean heavy toward category 4 as she insists that there should be energythat does not dissipate after death. This puts her in the pseudo-science corner. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 19:31:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner...
1. A fundamentalist Christian claims to prove that the Biblical Jesus was historical and was resurrected. (The "historical" part isn't an especially extraordinary claim, but the "resurrection" part is.) Using lies, he also defends a notorious contemporary liar.
2. A 9/11 "controlled demolition" conspiracy buff who believes, without evidence, that not Osama, but sinister forces in the US destroyed the WTC.
3. An apologist for a New Age "healing psychic," who wants us to believe that a woman in the Netherlands can magically "infuse" healing properties into water, using just her voice over the radio, and who says that a cabal of murdering evidence-based physicians are spreading lies about the psychic.
Although it's been a few weeks since his last posting, you can bet he'll come back and continue his futile attempt to disprove the contemporary theory of the construction of the Sun in his misguided effort to prove his own wholly unsupported (and likely unsupportable) hair brained fantasy. We're actually in the middle (oh, lordy, lordy!) of another discussion with a classic example of a woo woo. Let's not forget the fellow who may truly be the grand champion of liars and builders of straw men, Michael Mozina...
4. A self declared discoverer of a completely revolutionary principal of astrophysics which has somehow been mysteriously overlooked by every single legitimate physicist, astrophysicist, solar scientist, and astronomer who ever lived since the beginning of time. And yes, the similarity among these people in their lack of logic and unwillingness (perhaps outright inability) to actually apply any legitimate scientific process, rationality, or even a basic sense of reality to their outrageous claims is astounding.
I know you'll think I'm way out there on this, but somehow I see Michael as sincere in his beliefs, and not as a charlatan, liar, or fraud. He's wrong, and I disagree with him and his theory, but I just can't put him with the other folks mentioned here. They're just plain cracked in some fundamental way, and for the most part, they know it but are frightened to admit the truth to themselves. I'll admit that I had to play catch up with all of the "Surface of the Sun" threads and read them pretty much all at once. Therefore, I may be missing some information that makes my opinion shaky there.
But Halfmooner has said it very well and comprehensively and I'm in agreement with him in ruminations. It's a very funny thought he had that these guys wouldn't even be comfortable in one another's presence. They wouldn't, yet they have so much of their core "selves" in common.
(edited to clarify opinion of woo-wooers and to put names in bold print...I'm learning!)
I've been inclined to leave Michael Mozina out of that extreme grouping of woo-woos myself. It's not that he's right, and certainly he may be using false logic aplenty.
But my reasoning is this:
First, I can't follow "The Surface of the Sun" debate enough to make heads or tails of it, but my default position is to accept the general consensus of science, until that consensus has been overturned by contrary evidence. So I don't know enough about the subject to truly grasp just how wrong Michael Mozina may be.
Second, Michael has expressed appreciation for the tough treatment his hypothesis has been given here. He hasn't, to my knowledge, accused us of being part of some evidence-based conspiracy designed to keep the sheeple in line. He even occasionally makes kindly or interesting comments to postings on entirely different matters, and demonstrates no particular crackpottiness, aside from his solar obsession passion. In short, Mozina doesn't exhibit as many of the classic psychological symptoms, such as the mean streak, of the three True Believers I mentioned.
Or maybe it's my own crackpot hypothesis about a "secret dictatorship" that make me shy about calling any but the most extreme woo-woos by that name? 
Then, again, I'm not a battered veteran of wars on "The Surface of the Sun." I might indeed think differently, if I were.
Edited to append:
Of course, adding Mozina to my list would have been nice in one way. It would have helped to fill out the standard woo-woo list: Fundy, paranoid, psychic, AND crackpot fringe-science. That would be a nice balance. But Michael Mozina is in a class by himself, a guy with one obsession which somehow doesn't seem to influence everything else in his life.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 11/01/2006 19:43:14 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 14:34:07 [Permalink]
|
| Hey, don't forget the “Sgt. Schultz” members here who just believe what they are told about the collapse of the 3 WTC towers, apparently without considering or questioning the fact that none of the writers of the Official Gospels of 9-11 (FEMA, NIST or 9/11 Commission) had access to an uncontaminated crime scene, or much, if any, actual physical evidence from the scene of the crimes. No wonder the 3 Gospels don't align—rather than each writer following the evidence (which should lead them to identical conclusions), each had to follow little more than their imagination and limitations imposed by the current administration and/or its agents. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 20:49:05 [Permalink]
|
You're a great one to be lobbing the psychological stones, ergo. You came here to a gathering of up-front skeptics, and combatively presented hints of a dark, and nearly impossible, conspiracy "theory," while producing no real evidence for your obsession.
Meanwhile, you seem incapable of believing that those who disagree with you could possibly be sane, honest, and informed. You have consistently failed to grasp that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that the burden of proof is entirely upon the person with the claim.
You have lost your argument several times over. So you are reduced to the scoundrel's tactic of attacking your opponents, instead of attacking their arguments.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 20:58:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
You're a great one to be lobbing the psychological stones, ergo. You came here to a gathering of up-front skeptics, and combatively presented hints of a dark, and nearly impossible, conspiracy "theory," while producing no real evidence for your obsession.
Meanwhile, you seem incapable of believing that those who disagree with you could possibly be sane, honest, and informed. You have consistently failed to grasp that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that the burden of proof is entirely upon the person with the claim.
You have lost your argument several times over. So you are reduced to the scoundrel's tactic of attacking your opponents, instead of attacking their arguments.
How about ego ignoring that ANY CLAIM requires ANY evidence? He hasn't done a single intelligent thing yet, except ignore some of the posts by myself and a couple of others. I give him credit for that, but anything else is just woo-woo city!
I repeat my sentiment from before of not understanding why anyone gives him the time of day anymore. It is ridiculously obvious that ego wants to do nothing more than act like the playground tot that he is, and shout, "Did not...Did so!" to anyone near him. You will never get an intelligent debate from him. Wait...that's brings up a thought....oh yeah.
No one has gotten an intelligent debate from him yet, so why think that you'll get one now?
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 21:04:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
You're a great one to be lobbing the psychological stones, ergo. You came here to a gathering of up-front skeptics, and combatively presented hints of a dark, and nearly impossible, conspiracy "theory," while producing no real evidence for your obsession.
Combatively? My first post here filled with questions:
quote:
I'm new to this site. I have just recently seen Loose Change and other sites that don't believe the government's conspiricy theory of what happened on 9/11/01.
Loose Change, as I'm sure you all know, plays fast and loose with information. But some of the other sites (like scholars for truth.org) show evidence that it is physically impossible for the buildings to have fallen as fast as they did due to gravity alone.
Has this been discussed on the forum? If so, please direct me to that discussion. If not, does anyone have the expertise to comment on how the buildings could fall at near-free-fall speed?
I've seen one analysis by Ross that show the falling upper block of floors would not have enough energy to collapse the first impacted floor. And then there is the problem of Building 7 which had no "upper block" of floors to impact anything.
I'm looking for evidence (not just opinion) that the administration was NOT behind the events of 9/11.
Thanks!
Instead of providing any evidence, however, I was pelted with opinion.
quote:
Meanwhile, you seem incapable of believing that those who disagree with you could possibly be sane, honest, and informed.
If any of you could provide evidence of the truth of the official story, I would happily consider it. But no one ever does.
quote:
You have consistently failed to grasp that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that the burden of proof is entirely upon the person with the claim.
No, I grasp that. It's just that the official story is the extraordinary claim--and the government, nor anyone here, has provided one iota of evidence that the official story is true. Meanwhile, I have made no claims about how the towers came down outside of claiming the official story is wrong (and I have provided evidence of its lack of truth).
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2006 : 22:39:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Hey, don't forget the “Sgt. Schultz” members here who just believe what they are told about the collapse of the 3 WTC towers, apparently without considering or questioning the fact that none of the writers of the Official Gospels of 9-11 (FEMA, NIST or 9/11 Commission) had access to an uncontaminated crime scene, or much, if any, actual physical evidence from the scene of the crimes.
The classic strawman rebuttal - rather than portray your critics as they actually are, instead fabricate for them a position diametrically opposed to your own to make them appear as dogmatic followers of an unreasonable conclusion.
In exactly the same way that six-day creationists feel compelled to broad-brush all of their critics as "atheists" (or even better, believers in some mythical "materialistic" religion), you, ergo are compelled to broad-brush all of your critics as dogmatic adherents to an "official story." All because your subconscious is protecting you from the "disturbing truth" that a rational, reasonable person could disagree with you using rational, reasonable arguments. Six-day creationists are forced by their internal protection systems to dehumanize their opponents as subhuman monsters without morality, just as you are forced to dehumanize some folks here as "sheeple," as people unable or unwilling to think for themselves. This sort of "thinking" has a long history in warfare, of course, with combat personel encouraged to avoid considering the enemy to be people, and instead to call them "krauts," or "Charlie," or "towelheads" in order to make killing them easier and less guilt-inducing. You, ergo, simply use the dehumanizing of your critics as a way to avoid remorse over purposefully insulting their intelligence (as you've done on a regular basis, even in this thread), ridiculing them, and ultimately you use dehumanizing as a tool with which counter-arguments can be ignored, no matter how valid. After all, how could a close-minded believer in some sort of governmental dogma (the "Gospels" you call them) come up with any sort of valid rebuttal to your open-minded vision of "the truth?" To you, that possibility would be as ridiculous as a monkey presenting a paper finding fault in a 200-year-old mathematical proof.quote:
No wonder the 3 Gospels don't align—rather than each writer following the evidence (which should lead them to identical conclusions), each had to follow little more than their imagination and limitations imposed by the current administration and/or its agents.
And in the above quote, we all see your protective mechanism in all its glory. You stated first that the people here "just believe what they are told about the collapse of the 3 WTC towers," and then you stated - correctly - that the three official reports are different. You don't grant anyone here the intelligence to recognize the differences, though, you just assume any differences are swept under the metaphorical rug in a fit of subconscious defensiveness. Such assumptions make it "safe" for you to consider us here so stupid as to not see through your rhetorical tricks, and thus you insult us at will (as you have in this thread), feeling no guilt because you assume we're too moronic to see the insults. If cornered, you patronize with meaningless platitudes as if trying to soothe an angry child.
None of what I've written above will do any good, of course, since your subconscious self-defense mechanisms have very strong Kung Fu. I predict that you'll dismiss all of the above by as |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2006 : 11:47:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Hey, don't forget the “Sgt. Schultz” members here who just believe what they are told about the collapse of the 3 WTC towers, apparently without considering or questioning the fact that none of the writers of the Official Gospels of 9-11 (FEMA, NIST or 9/11 Commission) had access to an uncontaminated crime scene, or much, if any, actual physical evidence from the scene of the crimes.
The classic strawman rebuttal - rather than portray your critics as they actually are, instead fabricate for them a position diametrically opposed to your own to make them appear as dogmatic followers of an unreasonable conclusion.
Rebuttal? What rebuttal? I'm just adding a category to moonie's list. What fabrication are you talking about? I'm not referring to critics--I'm referring to people who "believe what they are told about the collapse of the 3 WTC towers, apparently without considering or questioning the fact that none of the writers of the Official Gospels of 9-11 (FEMA, NIST or 9/11 Commission) had access to an uncontaminated crime scene, or much, if any, actual physical evidence from the scene of the crimes."
quote:
In exactly the same way that six-day creationists feel compelled to broad-brush all of their critics as "atheists" (or even better, believers in some mythical "materialistic" religion), you, ergo are compelled to broad-brush all of your critics as dogmatic adherents to an "official story."
Oh realy? That's news to me. Because I don't see people who don't agree with me as "my critics" or as "dogmatic adherents to an 'official story.'"
quote:
quote:
No wonder the 3 Gospels don't align—rather than each writer following the evidence (which should lead them to identical conclusions), each had to follow little more than their imagination and limitations imposed by the current administration and/or its agents.
And in the above quote, we all see your protective mechanism in all its glory. You stated first that the people here "just believe what they are told about the collapse of the 3 WTC towers," and then you stated - correctly - that the three official reports are different. You don't grant anyone here the intelligence to recognize the differences, though, you just assume any differences are swept under the metaphorical rug in a fit of subconscious defensiveness. Such assumptions make it "safe" for you to consider us here so stupid as to not see through your rhetorical tricks, and thus you insult us at will (as you have in this thread), feeling no guilt because you assume we're too moronic to see the insults. If cornered, you patronize with meaningless platitudes as if trying to soothe an angry child.
No, davey, I said the above about the "Sgt. Schultzes" here--not everyone here. So your rant is moot.
quote:
None of what |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2006 : 20:17:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Rebuttal? What rebuttal? I'm just adding a category to moonie's list. What fabrication are you talking about? I'm not referring to critics--I'm referring to people who "believe what they are told about the collapse of the 3 WTC towers, apparently without considering or questioning the fact that none of the writers of the Official Gospels of 9-11 (FEMA, NIST or 9/11 Commission) had access to an uncontaminated crime scene, or much, if any, actual physical evidence from the scene of the crimes."
HalfMooner's list was of people seen in these forums, not of hypothetical people.quote:
Because I don't see people who don't agree with me as "my critics"...
Why wouldn't you see them that way?quote:
...or as "dogmatic adherents to an 'official story.'"
Then why do you keep insisting that I (and others here) believe the NIST report?quote:
No, davey, I said the above about the "Sgt. Schultzes" here--not everyone here. So your rant is moot.
Name one "Sgt Schultz" here, and provide the evidence that he/she believes as you described, and I'll agree with you.quote:
Okay, you clearly don't get how defense mechanisms work...
That's just your defense mechanism talking, there - thanks for proving one of my points. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2006 : 20:47:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Rebuttal? What rebuttal? I'm just adding a category to moonie's list. What fabrication are you talking about? I'm not referring to critics--I'm referring to people who "believe what they are told about the collapse of the 3 WTC towers, apparently without considering or questioning the fact that none of the writers of the Official Gospels of 9-11 (FEMA, NIST or 9/11 Commission) had access to an uncontaminated crime scene, or much, if any, actual physical evidence from the scene of the crimes."
HalfMooner's list was of people seen in these forums, not of hypothetical people.
Hmmm... Moonie doesn't provide any evidence in his post that the people he refers to actually exist.
quote:
Because I don't see people who don't agree with me as "my critics"...
quote:
Why wouldn't you see them that way?
Why would I? Why wouldn't I? Neither matters--because the reality of it is that I don't.
quote:
...or as "dogmatic adherents to an 'official story.'"
quote:
Then why do you keep insisting that I (and others here) believe the NIST report?
I've never insisted you do anything, davey.
quote:
No, davey, I said the above about the "Sgt. Schultzes" here--not everyone here. So your rant is moot.
quote:
Name one "Sgt Schultz" here, and provide the evidence that he/she believes as you described, and I'll agree with you.
First of all, whether you agree with me or not doesn't interest me. Second, why hold me to a standard you don't hold Moonie to?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2006 : 21:09:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Hmmm... Moonie doesn't provide any evidence in his post that the people he refers to actually exist.
Do you think that someone is spoofing these fora with computer-generated "members," then? Or perhaps they were just random bit-flips on the SFN servers that appeared to be people logging in, posting messages, etc? You know, the radical cynicism you're expressing here (it sure isn't skepticism) would have been better served by stating that HalfMooner didn't provide any evidence that he exists.quote:
Why would I? Why wouldn't I? Neither matters--because the reality of it is that I don't.
Obviously it matters, because otherwise you wouldn't be responding as you are.quote:
I've never insisted you do anything, davey.
Ah, you're hiding behind language like a two-year-old again.quote:
First of all, whether you agree with me or not doesn't interest me.
Then why would you ever endeavor to "prove" that the NIST report is wrong? Whose agreement does interest you?quote:
Second, why hold me to a standard you don't hold Moonie to?
HalfMooner refered to people that I've interacted with myself. I (and the rest of his intended audience - his "we") know who he's talking about. We've already got his evidence in the form of our own experiences, but your assertion that there are at least two "Sgt Schultzes" here disagrees with my experience, so there is no double-standard. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2006 : 21:18:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
So we have now covered all four corners of the World of Woo-woo?
All except the sub-category of Woo-woo-woo-woo-woo! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
