|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Mad Scientist wrote
Ray Vingnutte wrote: All of them refer to government statements. You obviously didn't look very hard. I am not going to waste my time responding to you anymore. That will be fine Mad, I wish you luck in whatever direction you feel you may be heading. This is my last response to you, since you don't bother to really do any research on your own and lazily expect others to do it for you. Again... it is not OUR job to do research to support YOUR position. Doh. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Mad Scientist wrote in
Please rephrase. This would be correctly stated as "thousands of people worldwide have "CLAIMED" to have seen UFOs. There is no physical evidence for UFOs (which you still have not defined, btw). I notice that you Usenet sociopaths never tell off people like Wally for harassment. I wonder why that is? If I am such a crackpot as he suggests, then just ignore me. Afraid I might get some attention from people that are new to astronomy? Is that what provokes you and him to 'gang up' on my posts? No doubt it is. What does that have to do with your failure to provide evidence to back up your claims. You remember you talked about a straw man argument. Well, congratulations, you have just employed one. Obvious to whom? Eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable. So much for scientific observation in the scientific method. No... so much for eyewitness testimony, which has NEVER been part of the scientific method. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Mad Scientist wrote in
Kill file me. Do yourself a favour, its much quieter around here than having to listen to your bull****. ad hominem You are obviously obsessed in your little corner of the universe. Pitiful little person you are. ad hominem No you demonstrate harassment with everyone of your sick rants. ad hominem (For example we have eyewitness testimony from police officers worldwide Obvious to whom? Eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable. So much for scientific observation in the scientific method. He's right. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Of course you beleive pretty much anything that's said tghat agrees with your fantasy. I see this statement only applies to UFO sightings, never in a court of law. NO, you don't see... Eyewitness testimony is accepted often in a court of law. But never in the scientific method. Remember what you said 4 lines ago... "so much for scientific observation in the scientific method?" |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Mad Scientist wrote in
Wally recommends his hobby and life focus to others on line. Irrelevant Who said anything about secondary evidence verses primary evidence there ****twaddle? I see this is where you twist things some more as per your sociopathology? ad hominem (I think... but I'm not clear on the definition of "****twaddle") Why would I want to keep up with your insanity? ad hominem Liar. That is all you will ever be, a liar and stinkin scoundrel. ad hominem |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Mad Scientist wrote in newsHDWc.8007$y5J1.4390
Paul Lawler wrote: Mad Scientist wrote in You are nothing but a sociopath full of crap. Now bugger off and let the real men demonstrate real logic without hecklers harassing what is an otherwise decent forum. Okay Mad... I'll bite. Whom do you consider the "real men" in this newsgroup? You think life is a game don't you? No wonder the games of earth keep going around in circles. People believe it is nothing more than a 'win-loose' situation. Thanks for the cogent analysis of my character. Now how about answering the question? Whom do you consider the "real men" in this newsgroup? |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Mad Scientist wrote in
Paul Lawler wrote: Sorry. He is neither a loon nor mad by advancing this argument. By international treaty (to which the U.S. is a signator), there is no "ownership" of the moon. Then why put a flag up there, if not to 'rub it in every countries face' that America is 'superior'? Who cares about treaties, they are broken all the time by the signatories. Okay great. Please provide eividence that the flag on the Moon has been declared by ANY government (U.S. or otherwise) to be a declaration of "ownerhship" of the Moon. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Lawler wrote: Mad Scientist wrote Ray Vingnutte wrote: All of them refer to government statements. You obviously didn't look very hard. I am not going to waste my time responding to you anymore. That will be fine Mad, I wish you luck in whatever direction you feel you may be heading. This is my last response to you, since you don't bother to really do any research on your own and lazily expect others to do it for you. Again... it is not OUR job to do research to support YOUR position. Doh. Yes it is your job to do your own research. Fact is you know it as well as everyone else, that millions of people can say the exact same thing but be oblivious to a thread where the exact same questions were already answered. Do your own research, I am not going to do it for you. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Lawler wrote: Mad Scientist wrote in Please rephrase. This would be correctly stated as "thousands of people worldwide have "CLAIMED" to have seen UFOs. There is no physical evidence for UFOs (which you still have not defined, btw). I notice that you Usenet sociopaths never tell off people like Wally for harassment. I wonder why that is? If I am such a crackpot as he suggests, then just ignore me. Afraid I might get some attention from people that are new to astronomy? Is that what provokes you and him to 'gang up' on my posts? No doubt it is. What does that have to do with your failure to provide evidence to back up your claims. You remember you talked about a straw man argument. Well, congratulations, you have just employed one. More like your failure to look at the evidence. You can keep saying the exact same thing and you only prove how out to lunch you are. Obvious to whom? Eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable. So much for scientific observation in the scientific method. No... so much for eyewitness testimony, which has NEVER been part of the scientific method. Your oberservation in this matter is unreliable. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Lawler wrote: Mad Scientist wrote in newsHDWc.8007$y5J1.4390 Paul Lawler wrote: Mad Scientist wrote in You are nothing but a sociopath full of crap. Now bugger off and let the real men demonstrate real logic without hecklers harassing what is an otherwise decent forum. Okay Mad... I'll bite. Whom do you consider the "real men" in this newsgroup? You think life is a game don't you? No wonder the games of earth keep going around in circles. People believe it is nothing more than a 'win-loose' situation. Thanks for the cogent analysis of my character. Now how about answering the question? Whom do you consider the "real men" in this newsgroup? More games Paul? |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Lawler wrote: Mad Scientist wrote in Paul Lawler wrote: Sorry. He is neither a loon nor mad by advancing this argument. By international treaty (to which the U.S. is a signator), there is no "ownership" of the moon. Then why put a flag up there, if not to 'rub it in every countries face' that America is 'superior'? Who cares about treaties, they are broken all the time by the signatories. Okay great. Please provide eividence that the flag on the Moon has been declared by ANY government (U.S. or otherwise) to be a declaration of "ownerhship" of the Moon. More games Paul? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 5th 04 01:36 AM |
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes | Michael Ravnitzky | Space Station | 5 | January 16th 04 04:28 PM |
NASA Releases Near-Earth Object Search Report | Ron Baalke | Misc | 0 | September 10th 03 04:39 PM |
Risks | Hallerb | Space Shuttle | 38 | July 26th 03 01:57 AM |
NYT: NASA Management Failings Are Linked to Shuttle Demise | Recom | Space Shuttle | 11 | July 14th 03 05:45 PM |