Evidence of Ancient Archaeoastronomy On Mars? Sleuths?

anon wrote:

This is an example of you inulting someone who responds to one of your
posts. You called him a "dummy". This I believe was intended as an insult,
and no doubt will be taken as such. I have just looked at the entire
newsgroup (psst Its called research) TVNI has posted only twice. The one
you responded to in this thread and another which you responded too in
"Evidence of Artificial Structures on the Moon? Sleuths"

You call what you do research? I guess you didn't notice when TVNI said
this:

"To claim that almost the entire board are looneys should make yourself
aware of your own mental state."


--
This he said to me without me ONCE insulting him. I only insult those
who insult me. You have called me a troll how many times? For no
apparent reason other than you figure its your right to do so I guess.
So when I call you a sociopath for it, what do you do? Insult me some
more and in a very real sense prove my point. There is no
'communication' or dialog with sociopaths, ever.



In neither of these posts did he insult you. So, now you cannot claim to
insult people only after they have insulted you.

--

---------------------------------------
Please don't feed the Troll
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killf..._troll_faq.htm



"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...


TVNI wrote:



Is this all you do all day is look for people to harass sociopath?


Is that all you do all day? Call people who disagree with you

sociopaths?

LOL Hardly, that's a tactic done all too frequently by the usenet
sociopaths. Merely calling a spade a spade there dummy.

Mad Scientist wrote in
ble.rogers.com:

I only insult those who insult me.

That is a false statement. You have insulted Jay Windley several times
when he NEVER ONCE insulted you. You have made this false statement
several times. Do you know what they call people who continue to say false
things?

This is an example of you inulting someone who responds to one of your
posts. You called him a "dummy". This I believe was intended as an insult,
and no doubt will be taken as such. I have just looked at the entire
newsgroup (psst Its called research) TVNI has posted only twice. The one
you responded to in this thread and another which you responded too in
"Evidence of Artificial Structures on the Moon? Sleuths"

In neither of these posts did he insult you. So, now you cannot claim to
insult people only after they have insulted you.

--

---------------------------------------
Please don't feed the Troll
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killf..._troll_faq.htm



"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...


TVNI wrote:


Is this all you do all day is look for people to harass sociopath?


Is that all you do all day? Call people who disagree with you
sociopaths?

LOL Hardly, that's a tactic done all too frequently by the usenet
sociopaths. Merely calling a spade a spade there dummy.

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 00:32:01 +0000, Mad Scientist wrote:

Awww poor sociopath, still expects to dialog with humanity while
expressing the faculties of a barking dog.

Paul Lawler wrote:

Tom Randy wrote in
news

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:29:18 +0000, Mad Scientist wrote:


"The Pleiades constellation has a venerable tradition among "New Age"
media. Now an independent discovery suggests that the seven stars might
be represented on the Martian surface. Lynsay Watson has noticed a
number of correspondences between the Pleiades and the "City" area in
Cydonia."

Mo

http://www.mactonnies.com/imperative44.html


Look, dimwit (I mean MS, not you, Tom),

The Pleiades is way more than 7 stars. There are not 7 visible stars,
there are 6, unless you have exceptional eyesight, in which case there are
at least 8, since the 7th and 8th have the same magnitude. In even a small
scope you can easily come up with close to 50 stars. So, since he can
pretty much pick any number (except 7) between 6 and 50 and be right, it's
pretty pathetic that he picks the one number that is almost certainly
wrong.

Time to crawl back under your rock.


Paul is correct, you are not.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:19:56 +0000, Mad Scientist wrote:



Tom Randy wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:29:18 +0000, Mad Scientist wrote:


"The Pleiades constellation has a venerable tradition among "New Age"
media. Now an independent discovery suggests that the seven stars might
be represented on the Martian surface. Lynsay Watson has noticed a
number of correspondences between the Pleiades and the "City" area in
Cydonia."

Mo

http://www.mactonnies.com/imperative44.html



Is this all you do all day? Look for goofy stuff to post?


Is this all you do all day is look for people to harass sociopath?


I knew that was coming. Look genius, I pass through this group in about 5
minutes every day. I don't go trolling around the net looking for moronic
nonsense to post. People like you are entertainment to me. Sad but
entertainment just the same.

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...


anon wrote:

This is an example of you inulting someone who responds to one of your
posts. You called him a "dummy". This I believe was intended as an
insult,
and no doubt will be taken as such. I have just looked at the entire
newsgroup (psst Its called research) TVNI has posted only twice. The
one
you responded to in this thread and another which you responded too in
"Evidence of Artificial Structures on the Moon? Sleuths"

You call what you do research? I guess you didn't notice when TVNI said
this:

"To claim that almost the entire board are looneys should make yourself
aware of your own mental state."

thats not an insult, this is an insult: "You are mad"

"Tom Randy" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 00:32:01 +0000, Mad Scientist wrote:

Awww poor sociopath, still expects to dialog with humanity while
expressing the faculties of a barking dog.

Paul Lawler wrote:

Tom Randy wrote in
news

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:29:18 +0000, Mad Scientist wrote:


"The Pleiades constellation has a venerable tradition among "New Age"
media. Now an independent discovery suggests that the seven stars
might
be represented on the Martian surface. Lynsay Watson has noticed a
number of correspondences between the Pleiades and the "City" area in
Cydonia."

Mo

http://www.mactonnies.com/imperative44.html


Look, dimwit (I mean MS, not you, Tom),

The Pleiades is way more than 7 stars. There are not 7 visible stars,
there are 6, unless you have exceptional eyesight, in which case there
are
at least 8, since the 7th and 8th have the same magnitude. In even a
small
scope you can easily come up with close to 50 stars. So, since he can
pretty much pick any number (except 7) between 6 and 50 and be right,
it's
pretty pathetic that he picks the one number that is almost certainly
wrong.

Time to crawl back under your rock.


Paul is correct, you are not.

I fell for this.

I went to the website and saw an image of some stars with names on. Below
it is a plan image claiming to be a city. I got a piece of clear plastic,
placed it on my monitor over the city image and placed a corresponding dot
over each lettered circle. Next, I moved the plastic over the stars image.
Guess what? Nothing!! Even after moving the plastic around in circles,
nothing matched.

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
Awww poor sociopath, still expects to dialog with humanity while
expressing the faculties of a barking dog.


Does anyone else notice MS is not capable of an original thought? None at
all. I used the "Awww, poor Kook" thing some time ago. I taught MS the word
Blowhard, Kook, and moron.

He also never, ever posts anything original, has evidently no idea about
astronomy, probably doesn't even own a pair of binoculars (if he did, he'd
go out once in a while and actually LOOK at the stars, and he'd probably
understand a little bit more about Venus and it's relative brightness.

Another arrogant sociopath of alt.astronomy replies:

Wally Anglesea wrote:
"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...

Awww poor sociopath, still expects to dialog with humanity while
expressing the faculties of a barking dog.



Does anyone else notice MS is not capable of an original thought? None at
all. I used the "Awww, poor Kook" thing some time ago. I taught MS the word
Blowhard, Kook, and moron.

He also never, ever posts anything original, has evidently no idea about
astronomy, probably doesn't even own a pair of binoculars (if he did, he'd
go out once in a while and actually LOOK at the stars, and he'd probably
understand a little bit more about Venus and it's relative brightness.

Another usenet psychopath proves why alt.astronomy is nearly a worthless
newgroup. But then again usenet is coming pretty close to being totally
worthless because its filled with people similiar to this anon, who
prove that understanding higher human faculties remains beyond their
grasp, and they only appear human, but instead act more like barking dogs.

anon wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...


anon wrote:


This is an example of you inulting someone who responds to one of your
posts. You called him a "dummy". This I believe was intended as an

insult,

and no doubt will be taken as such. I have just looked at the entire
newsgroup (psst Its called research) TVNI has posted only twice. The

one

you responded to in this thread and another which you responded too in
"Evidence of Artificial Structures on the Moon? Sleuths"

You call what you do research? I guess you didn't notice when TVNI said
this:

"To claim that almost the entire board are looneys should make yourself
aware of your own mental state."


thats not an insult, this is an insult: "You are mad"