Discussion:
space exploration $$$
(too old to reply)
Monkey FourSevenZeroOne
2004-02-17 22:43:30 UTC
Permalink
However it may have formed,
the main asteroid belt
is an existing real feature
of our solar system.

Among the many lines of evidence
that an exploded planet did happen
are these:

* Asteroids occupy the entire volume of phase space
(the full range of positions and velocities)
between Mars and Jupiter
that is stable against planetary perturbations
over millions of years.
And their mean relative velocities,
averaging 5 km/s,
are too high to result from
collisions, fragmentation,
or planetary perturbations.

* The distribution of asteroid orbital elements
contains "explosion signatures" similar to those
first catalogued for fragments of artificial
Earth satellites that blew up in orbit.

* The cosmic ray exposure ages of stony meteorites
are generally only some millions of years, not billions -
distinctly shorter than the mean time between collisions.

* Comets, which are spectrally, photometrically,
and chemically similar to asteroids,
have all their major properties explained better
by an explosion origin than by the solar nebula model.

An orbital "traceback" indicates origin at
a common time and place
in the inner solar system.

* Comets and asteroids seem to have
orbiting debris clouds.

No other known method can produce
such clouds except the explosion
of a larger parent body.

* There is a pattern by black residue
on moons and planets in the outer solar system
consistent with an explosion blast wave
traveling through it.

See!: <http://www.metaresearch.org/> - click!
Wally Anglesea™
2004-02-18 00:54:14 UTC
Permalink
On 17 Feb 2004 14:43:30 -0800, ***@yahoo.com (Monkey
FourSevenZeroOne) wrote:

>However it may have formed,
>the main asteroid belt
>is an existing real feature
>of our solar system.
>
>Among the many lines of evidence
>that an exploded planet did happen
>are these:
>
> * Asteroids occupy the entire volume of phase space
> (the full range of positions and velocities)
> between Mars and Jupiter
> that is stable against planetary perturbations
> over millions of years.
> And their mean relative velocities,
> averaging 5 km/s,
> are too high to result from
> collisions, fragmentation,
> or planetary perturbations.
>
> * The distribution of asteroid orbital elements
> contains "explosion signatures" similar to those
> first catalogued for fragments of artificial
> Earth satellites that blew up in orbit.
>
> * The cosmic ray exposure ages of stony meteorites
> are generally only some millions of years, not billions -
> distinctly shorter than the mean time between collisions.
>
> * Comets, which are spectrally, photometrically,
> and chemically similar to asteroids,
> have all their major properties explained better
> by an explosion origin than by the solar nebula model.
>
> An orbital "traceback" indicates origin at
> a common time and place
> in the inner solar system.
>
> * Comets and asteroids seem to have
> orbiting debris clouds.
>
> No other known method can produce
> such clouds except the explosion
> of a larger parent body.
>
> * There is a pattern by black residue
> on moons and planets in the outer solar system
> consistent with an explosion blast wave
> traveling through it.
>
>See!: <http://www.metaresearch.org/> - click!

Tom's a nut. HTH.


--

http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/Alien_recipes.html

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
2004-02-19 01:38:48 UTC
Permalink
Wally Anglesea? <***@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> On 17 Feb 2004 14:43:30 -0800, ***@yahoo.com (Monkey
> FourSevenZeroOne) wrote:
>
> >However it may have formed,
> >the main asteroid belt
> >is an existing real feature
> >of our solar system.
> >
> >Among the many lines of evidence
> >that an exploded planet did happen
> >are these:
> >
> > * Asteroids occupy the entire volume of phase space
> > (the full range of positions and velocities)
> > between Mars and Jupiter
> > that is stable against planetary perturbations
> > over millions of years.
> > And their mean relative velocities,
> > averaging 5 km/s,
> > are too high to result from
> > collisions, fragmentation,
> > or planetary perturbations.
> >
> > * The distribution of asteroid orbital elements
> > contains "explosion signatures" similar to those
> > first catalogued for fragments of artificial
> > Earth satellites that blew up in orbit.
> >
> > * The cosmic ray exposure ages of stony meteorites
> > are generally only some millions of years, not billions -
> > distinctly shorter than the mean time between collisions.
> >
> > * Comets, which are spectrally, photometrically,
> > and chemically similar to asteroids,
> > have all their major properties explained better
> > by an explosion origin than by the solar nebula model.
> >
> > An orbital "traceback" indicates origin at
> > a common time and place
> > in the inner solar system.
> >
> > * Comets and asteroids seem to have
> > orbiting debris clouds.
> >
> > No other known method can produce
> > such clouds except the explosion
> > of a larger parent body.
> >
> > * There is a pattern by black residue
> > on moons and planets in the outer solar system
> > consistent with an explosion blast wave
> > traveling through it.
> >
> >See!: <http://www.metaresearch.org/> - click!
>
> Tom's a nut. HTH.

"Tom received his Ph.D. degree in Astronomy,
specializing in celestial mechanics, from
Yale University in 1969. He spent 20 years
at the U.S. Naval Observatory, where he
became the Chief of the Celestial Mechanics
Branch. In 1991, Tom formed a Washington,
DC-based organization, Meta Research, to
foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported solely because they conflict with
mainstream theories in Astronomy.
Tom is editor of the Meta Research Bulletin,
which specializes in reporting anomalies and
evidence that does not fit with standard
theories in the field. During the past few
years, he has also been a Research Associate
at the University of Maryland Physics
Department in College Park, MD, and a
consultant to the Army Research Laboratory
in Adelphi, MD, working on improving the
accuracy of the Global Positioning System (GPS)."
http://www.metaresearch.org/home/about%20meta%20research/vanflandern.asp
Wally Anglesea™
2004-02-19 02:44:36 UTC
Permalink
On 18 Feb 2004 17:38:48 -0800, ***@ziplip.com (Koyaanisqatsi
Fahrvergnugen) wrote:

<SNIP>
>>
>> Tom's a nut. HTH.
>
>"Tom received his Ph.D. degree in Astronomy,
>specializing in celestial mechanics, from
>Yale University in 1969. He spent 20 years
>at the U.S. Naval Observatory, where he
>became the Chief of the Celestial Mechanics
>Branch. In 1991, Tom formed a Washington,
>DC-based organization, Meta Research, to
>foster research into ideas not otherwise
>supported solely because they conflict with
>mainstream theories in Astronomy.
>Tom is editor of the Meta Research Bulletin,
>which specializes in reporting anomalies and
>evidence that does not fit with standard
>theories in the field. During the past few
>years, he has also been a Research Associate
>at the University of Maryland Physics
>Department in College Park, MD, and a
>consultant to the Army Research Laboratory
>in Adelphi, MD, working on improving the
>accuracy of the Global Positioning System (GPS)."
>http://www.metaresearch.org/home/about%20meta%20research/vanflandern.asp

So what?, Toms' still a nut. HTH
--

http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/Alien_recipes.html

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
Ugly Bob
2004-02-20 03:45:09 UTC
Permalink
"Wally AngleseaT" <***@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote in
message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On 18 Feb 2004 17:38:48 -0800, ***@ziplip.com (Koyaanisqatsi
> Fahrvergnugen) wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> >>
> >> Tom's a nut. HTH.
> >
> >"Tom received his Ph.D. degree in Astronomy,
> >specializing in celestial mechanics, from
> >Yale University in 1969. He spent 20 years
> >at the U.S. Naval Observatory, where he
> >became the Chief of the Celestial Mechanics
> >Branch. In 1991, Tom formed a Washington,
> >DC-based organization, Meta Research, to
> >foster research into ideas not otherwise
> >supported solely because they conflict with
> >mainstream theories in Astronomy.
> >Tom is editor of the Meta Research Bulletin,
> >which specializes in reporting anomalies and
> >evidence that does not fit with standard
> >theories in the field. During the past few
> >years, he has also been a Research Associate
> >at the University of Maryland Physics
> >Department in College Park, MD, and a
> >consultant to the Army Research Laboratory
> >in Adelphi, MD, working on improving the
> >accuracy of the Global Positioning System (GPS)."
> >http://www.metaresearch.org/home/about%20meta%20research/vanflandern.asp
>
> So what?, Toms' still a nut. HTH

Absoutely Goddamn right! Tom, Kevin and Mike van Flandern are
_all_ nuts!

-Ugly Bob
*
2004-02-20 04:56:47 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:45:09 -0800, "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Wally AngleseaT" <***@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote in
>message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>> On 18 Feb 2004 17:38:48 -0800, ***@ziplip.com (Koyaanisqatsi
>> Fahrvergnugen) wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>> >>
>> >> Tom's a nut. HTH.
>> >
>> >"Tom received his Ph.D. degree in Astronomy,
>> >specializing in celestial mechanics, from
>> >Yale University in 1969. He spent 20 years
>> >at the U.S. Naval Observatory, where he
>> >became the Chief of the Celestial Mechanics
>> >Branch. In 1991, Tom formed a Washington,
>> >DC-based organization, Meta Research, to
>> >foster research into ideas not otherwise
>> >supported solely because they conflict with
>> >mainstream theories in Astronomy.
>> >Tom is editor of the Meta Research Bulletin,
>> >which specializes in reporting anomalies and
>> >evidence that does not fit with standard
>> >theories in the field. During the past few
>> >years, he has also been a Research Associate
>> >at the University of Maryland Physics
>> >Department in College Park, MD, and a
>> >consultant to the Army Research Laboratory
>> >in Adelphi, MD, working on improving the
>> >accuracy of the Global Positioning System (GPS)."
>> >http://www.metaresearch.org/home/about%20meta%20research/vanflandern.asp
>>
>> So what?, Toms' still a nut. HTH
>
> Absoutely Goddamn right! Tom, Kevin and Mike van Flandern are
>_all_ nuts!
>
> -Ugly Bob
>
Not as insane as you are with your fanatical religious fundamentalist
zealotry. And your dad's.
Ugly Bob
2004-02-24 08:47:11 UTC
Permalink
"*" <***@plz.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:45:09 -0800, "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Wally AngleseaT" <***@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote in
> >message
> >news:***@4ax.com...
> >> On 18 Feb 2004 17:38:48 -0800, ***@ziplip.com (Koyaanisqatsi
> >> Fahrvergnugen) wrote:
> >>
> >> <SNIP>
> >> >>
> >> >> Tom's a nut. HTH.
> >> >
> >> >"Tom received his Ph.D. degree in Astronomy,
> >> >specializing in celestial mechanics, from
> >> >Yale University in 1969. He spent 20 years
> >> >at the U.S. Naval Observatory, where he
> >> >became the Chief of the Celestial Mechanics
> >> >Branch. In 1991, Tom formed a Washington,
> >> >DC-based organization, Meta Research, to
> >> >foster research into ideas not otherwise
> >> >supported solely because they conflict with
> >> >mainstream theories in Astronomy.
> >> >Tom is editor of the Meta Research Bulletin,
> >> >which specializes in reporting anomalies and
> >> >evidence that does not fit with standard
> >> >theories in the field. During the past few
> >> >years, he has also been a Research Associate
> >> >at the University of Maryland Physics
> >> >Department in College Park, MD, and a
> >> >consultant to the Army Research Laboratory
> >> >in Adelphi, MD, working on improving the
> >> >accuracy of the Global Positioning System (GPS)."
> >>
>http://www.metaresearch.org/home/about%20meta%20research/vanflandern.asp
> >>
> >> So what?, Toms' still a nut. HTH
> >
> > Absoutely Goddamn right! Tom, Kevin and Mike van Flandern are
> >_all_ nuts!
> >
> > -Ugly Bob
> >
> Not as insane as you are with your fanatical religious fundamentalist
> zealotry. And your dad's.

We're Atheists. HTH.
Tom
2004-02-24 16:02:40 UTC
Permalink
"Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ycqdnen6PY-KkqbdRVn-***@comcast.com...
>
> "*" <***@plz.com> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:45:09 -0800, "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Absoutely Goddamn right! Tom, Kevin and Mike van Flandern are
> > >_all_ nuts!
> > >
> > Not as insane as you are with your fanatical religious fundamentalist
> > zealotry. And your dad's.
>
> We're Atheists. HTH.

Atheists are all nuts.
*
2004-02-24 16:16:38 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:02:40 GMT, "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ycqdnen6PY-KkqbdRVn-***@comcast.com...
>>
>> "*" <***@plz.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@4ax.com...
>> > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:45:09 -0800, "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Absoutely Goddamn right! Tom, Kevin and Mike van Flandern are
>> > >_all_ nuts!
>> > >
>> > Not as insane as you are with your fanatical religious fundamentalist
>> > zealotry. And your dad's.
>>
>> We're Atheists. HTH.
>
>Atheists are all nuts.

Glad I'm not an atheist!
Tom
2004-02-24 22:40:04 UTC
Permalink
"*" <***@plz.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:02:40 GMT, "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >Atheists are all nuts.
>
> Glad I'm not an atheist!

Doesn't mean *you're* not nuts, too.
Ugly Bob
2004-02-25 04:49:29 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:AAK_b.6302$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ycqdnen6PY-KkqbdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> >
> > "*" <***@plz.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@4ax.com...
> > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:45:09 -0800, "Ugly Bob"
<***@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Absoutely Goddamn right! Tom, Kevin and Mike van Flandern are
> > > >_all_ nuts!
> > > >
> > > Not as insane as you are with your fanatical religious fundamentalist
> > > zealotry. And your dad's.
> >
> > We're Atheists. HTH.
>
> Atheists are all nuts.

'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all does,
Mr. van Flandern? Hey, Tom, found "planet X" yet? Heh, ya moron.

-Ugly Bob
Tom
2004-02-25 06:41:04 UTC
Permalink
"Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sb-dnRAXYadwtaHdRVn-***@comcast.com...
>
> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:AAK_b.6302$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ycqdnen6PY-KkqbdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "*" <***@plz.com> wrote in message
> > > news:***@4ax.com...
> > > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:45:09 -0800, "Ugly Bob"
> <***@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Absoutely Goddamn right! Tom, Kevin and Mike van Flandern are
> > > > >_all_ nuts!
> > > > >
> > > > Not as insane as you are with your fanatical religious
fundamentalist
> > > > zealotry. And your dad's.
> > >
> > > We're Atheists. HTH.
> >
> > Atheists are all nuts.
>
> 'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all does,

An atheist isn't someone who doesn't believe in flying saucers, ya nut.
Unless, of course, they suspect that God may be riding in one.

Jehovah borada nicto.
*
2004-02-25 07:51:08 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 06:41:04 GMT, "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote:

>God may be riding in one.

And there you have it.
Tom
2004-02-25 16:44:03 UTC
Permalink
"*" <***@plz.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 06:41:04 GMT, "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >God may be riding in one.
>
> And there you have it.

Yes, there you have a phrase taken completely out of context.

What can be reasonably concluded from this?
Ugly Bob
2004-02-26 04:06:19 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4sX_b.7370$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sb-dnRAXYadwtaHdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:AAK_b.6302$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ycqdnen6PY-KkqbdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > "*" <***@plz.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:***@4ax.com...
> > > > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:45:09 -0800, "Ugly Bob"
> > <***@hotmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Absoutely Goddamn right! Tom, Kevin and Mike van Flandern are
> > > > > >_all_ nuts!
> > > > > >
> > > > > Not as insane as you are with your fanatical religious
> fundamentalist
> > > > > zealotry. And your dad's.
> > > >
> > > > We're Atheists. HTH.
> > >
> > > Atheists are all nuts.
> >
> > 'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all
does,
>
> An atheist isn't someone who doesn't believe in flying saucers, ya nut.
> Unless, of course, they suspect that God may be riding in one.

Gods, flyin' saucerz, it's all the same. Just another fairytale that
credulous rubes like your clientele believe in, Tom.

-Ugly Bob
*
2004-02-26 05:16:04 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:06:19 -0800, "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:4sX_b.7370$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:sb-dnRAXYadwtaHdRVn-***@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > news:AAK_b.6302$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> > >
>> > > "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:ycqdnen6PY-KkqbdRVn-***@comcast.com...
>> > > >
>> > > > "*" <***@plz.com> wrote in message
>> > > > news:***@4ax.com...
>> > > > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:45:09 -0800, "Ugly Bob"
>> > <***@hotmail.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Absoutely Goddamn right! Tom, Kevin and Mike van Flandern are
>> > > > > >_all_ nuts!
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > Not as insane as you are with your fanatical religious
>> fundamentalist
>> > > > > zealotry. And your dad's.
>> > > >
>> > > > We're Atheists. HTH.
>> > >
>> > > Atheists are all nuts.
>> >
>> > 'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all
>does,
>>
>> An atheist isn't someone who doesn't believe in flying saucers, ya nut.
>> Unless, of course, they suspect that God may be riding in one.
>
> Gods, flyin' saucerz, it's all the same. Just another fairytale that
>credulous rubes like your clientele believe in, Tom.
>
> -Ugly Bob
>

I sincerely doubt you're a rube, David. And you know full well that
extraterrestrial existence was proven decades ago.

And the extraterrestrial saucer is at Groom Lake.
Tom
2004-02-26 05:53:59 UTC
Permalink
"Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8rqdnRek9YvY7aDdRVn-***@comcast.com...
>
> Gods, flyin' saucerz, it's all the same. Just another fairytale that
> credulous rubes like your clientele believe in, Tom.

One of the signs of a nut is his blithe assumption that he knows who he's
talking to without ever bothering to check. Your critical thinking
apparatus seems to have jammed up, probably from neglected maintenance. I
don't have any clientele, credulous or otherwise. You got the wrong Tom,
nutzo.

That's two ridiculous delusions you've revealed so far.

1. Atheists are people who don't believe in flying saucers because flying
saucers are the same as gods.
2. Everyone named "Tom" is the same person.

Got any more nutty ideas you'd like to share?
*
2004-02-26 05:55:49 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 05:53:59 GMT, "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8rqdnRek9YvY7aDdRVn-***@comcast.com...
>>
>> Gods, flyin' saucerz, it's all the same. Just another fairytale that
>> credulous rubes like your clientele believe in, Tom.
>
>One of the signs of a nut is his blithe assumption that he knows who he's
>talking to without ever bothering to check. Your critical thinking
>apparatus seems to have jammed up, probably from neglected maintenance. I
>don't have any clientele, credulous or otherwise. You got the wrong Tom,
>nutzo.
>
>That's two ridiculous delusions you've revealed so far.
>
>1. Atheists are people who don't believe in flying saucers because flying
>saucers are the same as gods.
>2. Everyone named "Tom" is the same person.
>
>Got any more nutty ideas you'd like to share?

Hey, what should one expect from second rate CIA agents who are more mouth
than brains? ;)
>
Ugly Bob
2004-02-27 04:02:24 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:XRf%b.9986$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8rqdnRek9YvY7aDdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> >
> > Gods, flyin' saucerz, it's all the same. Just another fairytale that
> > credulous rubes like your clientele believe in, Tom.
>
> One of the signs of a nut is his blithe assumption that he knows who he's
> talking to without ever bothering to check. Your critical thinking
> apparatus seems to have jammed up, probably from neglected maintenance. I
> don't have any clientele, credulous or otherwise. You got the wrong Tom,
> nutzo.
>
> That's two ridiculous delusions you've revealed so far.
>
> 1. Atheists are people who don't believe in flying saucers because flying
> saucers are the same as gods.
> 2. Everyone named "Tom" is the same person.

Those are yours, not mine.

> Got any more nutty ideas you'd like to share?
>
>
Tom
2004-02-27 05:44:51 UTC
Permalink
"Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZLCdnfB7wfNHXaPdRVn-***@comcast.com...
>
> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:XRf%b.9986$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:8rqdnRek9YvY7aDdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > Gods, flyin' saucerz, it's all the same. Just another fairytale that
> > > credulous rubes like your clientele believe in, Tom.
> >
> > One of the signs of a nut is his blithe assumption that he knows who
he's
> > talking to without ever bothering to check. Your critical thinking
> > apparatus seems to have jammed up, probably from neglected maintenance.
I
> > don't have any clientele, credulous or otherwise. You got the wrong Tom,
> > nutzo.
> >
> > That's two ridiculous delusions you've revealed so far.
> >
> > 1. Atheists are people who don't believe in flying saucers because
flying
> > saucers are the same as gods.
> > 2. Everyone named "Tom" is the same person.
>
> Those are yours, not mine.

Well, let's see...

"Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sb-dnRAXYadwtaHdRVn-***@comcast.com...
>
> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:AAK_b.6302$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Atheists are all nuts.
>
> 'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all does,

Here you claim that atheists are people who don't believe in flying saucers.
Are you now going to claim that you do *not* think that atheists are people
who don't believe in flying saucers? Who is this "we", then?

"Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8rqdnRek9YvY7aDdRVn-***@comcast.com...
>
> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:4sX_b.7370$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > An atheist isn't someone who doesn't believe in flying saucers, ya nut.
> > Unless, of course, they suspect that God may be riding in one.
>
> Gods, flyin' saucerz, it's all the same.

And here you claim that atheists don't believe in flying saucers because
gods and flying saucers are the same.

Are you also going to contradict yourself now and say that gods and flying
saucers are *not* the same?

As for the second of your nutty delusions, you demonstrated it clearly.

"Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sb-dnRAXYadwtaHdRVn-***@comcast.com...
>
> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:AAK_b.6302$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Atheists are all nuts.
>
> 'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all does,
> Mr. van Flandern? Hey, Tom, found "planet X" yet?

Are you going to claim that you did *not" imagine that I was someone named
"Mr. van Flandern" simply because my name happens to be "Tom"? If so, how
do you account for addressing me that way?

No, "Ugly Bob", they are clearly *your* delusions and trying to blame them
on someone else is either an infantile lie or yet another nutty delusion.
Defending them won't help. It just makes you look all the more like a nut.
Of course, nuts never realize that they look like nuts, so I suspect you
won't either.
Ugly Bob
2004-02-28 05:40:27 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nPA%b.10150$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ZLCdnfB7wfNHXaPdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:XRf%b.9986$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8rqdnRek9YvY7aDdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > Gods, flyin' saucerz, it's all the same. Just another fairytale
that
> > > > credulous rubes like your clientele believe in, Tom.
> > >
> > > One of the signs of a nut is his blithe assumption that he knows who
> he's
> > > talking to without ever bothering to check. Your critical thinking
> > > apparatus seems to have jammed up, probably from neglected
maintenance.
> I
> > > don't have any clientele, credulous or otherwise. You got the wrong
Tom,
> > > nutzo.
> > >
> > > That's two ridiculous delusions you've revealed so far.
> > >
> > > 1. Atheists are people who don't believe in flying saucers because
> flying
> > > saucers are the same as gods.
> > > 2. Everyone named "Tom" is the same person.
> >
> > Those are yours, not mine.
>
> Well, let's see...
>
> "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sb-dnRAXYadwtaHdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:AAK_b.6302$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > Atheists are all nuts.
> >
> > 'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all does,
>
> Here you claim that atheists are people who don't believe in flying
saucers.

That was a question, not a claim. Nice editing job, moron.

> Are you now going to claim that you do *not* think that atheists are
people
> who don't believe in flying saucers? Who is this "we", then?

TINW, HTH.

> "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8rqdnRek9YvY7aDdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:4sX_b.7370$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > An atheist isn't someone who doesn't believe in flying saucers, ya
nut.
> > > Unless, of course, they suspect that God may be riding in one.
> >
> > Gods, flyin' saucerz, it's all the same.
>
> And here you claim that atheists don't believe in flying saucers because
> gods and flying saucers are the same.

You're attempting to put words in my mouth. I claimed no such thing.

> Are you also going to contradict yourself now and say that gods and flying
> saucers are *not* the same?

No, they're both fantasy.

> As for the second of your nutty delusions, you demonstrated it clearly.

No, you did, moron.

> "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sb-dnRAXYadwtaHdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:AAK_b.6302$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > Atheists are all nuts.
> >
> > 'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all
does,
> > Mr. van Flandern? Hey, Tom, found "planet X" yet?
>
> Are you going to claim that you did *not" imagine that I was someone named
> "Mr. van Flandern" simply because my name happens to be "Tom"? If so, how
> do you account for addressing me that way?

I suspect that you're van Flandern. If not, so what?

> No, "Ugly Bob", they are clearly *your* delusions and trying to blame them
> on someone else is either an infantile lie or yet another nutty delusion.
> Defending them won't help. It just makes you look all the more like a
nut.
> Of course, nuts never realize that they look like nuts, so I suspect you
> won't either.

Strawmen, all.
Tom
2004-02-28 16:22:23 UTC
Permalink
"Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46-dndPfra7ItN3dRVn-***@comcast.com...
>
> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:nPA%b.10150$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > >
> > > 'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all does,
> >
> > Here you claim that atheists are people who don't believe in flying
> saucers.
>
> That was a question, not a claim. Nice editing job, moron.

Well, I'm not going to try to tell you what you believe. You tell me.
Let's see your response in its entirety and I'll let you interpret it for
me.

"'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all does, Mr.
van Flandern?"

This was in response to my statement that all atheists are nuts. Now,
explain to me why you think this question does not contain an assertion that
atheists are people who don't believe in flying saucers.

> > Are you now going to claim that you do *not* think that atheists are
> > people who don't believe in flying saucers? Who is this "we", then?
>
> TINW, HTH.

And what does that mean, precisely? Don't be evasive or obscure.

> > "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:8rqdnRek9YvY7aDdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > Gods, flyin' saucerz, it's all the same.
> >
> > Are you also going to contradict yourself now and say that gods and
flying
> > saucers are *not* the same?
>
> No, they're both fantasy.

Are atheists are people who don't believe any fantasies at all? Is that
what you're saying?

> > As for the second of your nutty delusions, you demonstrated it clearly.
>
> No, you did, moron.

OK, if you prefer it that way. I demonstrated your nutty delusions clearly.

> > "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:sb-dnRAXYadwtaHdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > 'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all
> > > does, Mr. van Flandern? Hey, Tom, found "planet X" yet?
> >
> > Are you going to claim that you did *not" imagine that I was someone
named
> > "Mr. van Flandern" simply because my name happens to be "Tom"? If so,
how
> > do you account for addressing me that way?
>
> I suspect that you're van Flandern. If not, so what?

You didn't say you suspected it, Ugly Bob, you quite clearly concluded it.
It means that you decided that because my name is "Tom" I must be a
particular "Tom", one with whom you are personally familiar. What evidence
did you use to make this decision? Was it evidence that would convince a
rational person, do you think? Or is it the kind of evidence that a nut
would use?

> > No, "Ugly Bob", they are clearly *your* delusions and trying to blame
them
> > on someone else is either an infantile lie or yet another nutty
delusion.
> > Defending them won't help. It just makes you look all the more like a
> > nut. Of course, nuts never realize that they look like nuts, so I
suspect you
> > won't either.
>
> Strawmen, all.

You have acted in a way that would be consistent with a nut. You have
definitely acted in a way that is inconsistent with a rational person. You
have lept to unwarranted conclusions, stubbornly insisted on the correctness
of your conclusions despite a lack of solid evidence, and have refused to
investigate those conclusions when challenged.
Ugly Bob
2004-02-28 20:00:08 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3f30c.13023$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46-dndPfra7ItN3dRVn-***@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:nPA%b.10150$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all
does,
> > >
> > > Here you claim that atheists are people who don't believe in flying
> > saucers.
> >
> > That was a question, not a claim. Nice editing job, moron.
>
> Well, I'm not going to try to tell you what you believe. You tell me.
> Let's see your response in its entirety and I'll let you interpret it for
> me.
>
> "'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all does, Mr.
> van Flandern?"
>
> This was in response to my statement that all atheists are nuts. Now,
> explain to me why you think this question does not contain an assertion
that
> atheists are people who don't believe in flying saucers.

It's a question. If you don't want to answer it, don't.

> > > Are you now going to claim that you do *not* think that atheists are
> > > people who don't believe in flying saucers? Who is this "we", then?
> >
> > TINW, HTH.

There is no "we," Hope that helps.

> And what does that mean, precisely? Don't be evasive or obscure.
>
> > > "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8rqdnRek9YvY7aDdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > Gods, flyin' saucerz, it's all the same.
> > >
> > > Are you also going to contradict yourself now and say that gods and
> flying
> > > saucers are *not* the same?
> >
> > No, they're both fantasy.
>
> Are atheists are people who don't believe any fantasies at all? Is that
> what you're saying?

No, I'm saying that Gods and flying saucers haven't been shown
to exist. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Why do
you keep trying to twist what I'm saying?

> > > As for the second of your nutty delusions, you demonstrated it
clearly.
> >
> > No, you did, moron.
>
> OK, if you prefer it that way. I demonstrated your nutty delusions
clearly.

Which delusions were those?

> > > "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:sb-dnRAXYadwtaHdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > 'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all
> > > > does, Mr. van Flandern? Hey, Tom, found "planet X" yet?
> > >
> > > Are you going to claim that you did *not" imagine that I was someone
> named
> > > "Mr. van Flandern" simply because my name happens to be "Tom"? If so,
> how
> > > do you account for addressing me that way?
> >
> > I suspect that you're van Flandern. If not, so what?
>
> You didn't say you suspected it, Ugly Bob, you quite clearly concluded it.

Yes I did. Just there. Didn't you see?

> It means that you decided that because my name is "Tom" I must be a
> particular "Tom",

That is an assumption on your part. How do you know _why_ I
might suspect that you're van Flandern. You're just jumping to
conclusions.

> one with whom you are personally familiar.

I'm not familiar with him at all. You're assuming again.

> What evidence
> did you use to make this decision?

What makes you think that I used more than your name? Above, you
stated that I believed that you were van Flandern simply because your
name was Tom. Do you now suspect the existence of some unseen
evidence?

> Was it evidence that would convince a
> rational person, do you think?

What evidence is that, Tom?

> Or is it the kind of evidence that a nut
> would use?

I'm sure that I have no idea.

> > > No, "Ugly Bob", they are clearly *your* delusions and trying to blame
> them
> > > on someone else is either an infantile lie or yet another nutty
> delusion.
> > > Defending them won't help. It just makes you look all the more like a
> > > nut. Of course, nuts never realize that they look like nuts, so I
> suspect you
> > > won't either.
> >
> > Strawmen, all.
>
> You have acted in a way that would be consistent with a nut. You have
> definitely acted in a way that is inconsistent with a rational person.
You
> have lept to unwarranted conclusions,

Hypocrite much?

> stubbornly insisted on the correctness
> of your conclusions despite a lack of solid evidence,

Oops, there's another one of those assumptions, again...

> and have refused to
> investigate those conclusions when challenged.

And another! How do you know what I investigate or not?
Tom
2004-02-28 23:15:03 UTC
Permalink
"Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8Wdnc8BQvVPb93dRVn-***@comcast.com...
>
> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3f30c.13023$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:46-dndPfra7ItN3dRVn-***@comcast.com...
> >
> > "'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all does,
Mr.
> > van Flandern?"
> >
> > This was in response to my statement that all atheists are nuts.
> > Now, explain to me why you think this question does not
> > contain an assertion that atheists are people who don't believe
> > in flying saucers.
>
> It's a question. If you don't want to answer it, don't.

Well, first, it wasn't a question directed to me, since I'm not someone
named "Mr. van Flandern", so I don't feel obliged to answer it. Second, you
don't seem to be able to explain your statement at all. Instead, you're
trying quite hard to avoid it. What's the matter, Ugly Bob? Why are you so
reluctant to explain your own words?

> > > > Are you now going to claim that you do *not* think that atheists are
> > > > people who don't believe in flying saucers? Who is this "we", then?
> > >
> > > TINW, HTH.
>
> There is no "we," Hope that helps.

Read your sentence again, Ugly Bob. Tell me if you don't see the word "we"
in it.

"'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all does, Mr.
van Flandern?"

To whom does the "we" in this sentence refer? Since it was a response to
the statament that all atheists are nuts, isn't it reasonable to interpret
the "we" as referring to atheists in general? If not, I invite you to
explain what the word "we" in that sentence refers to.

> > > > "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8rqdnRek9YvY7aDdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > Gods, flyin' saucerz, it's all the same.
> > > >
> > > > Are you also going to contradict yourself now and say that\
> > > > gods and flying saucers are *not* the same?
> > >
> > > No, they're both fantasy.
> >
> > Are atheists are people who don't believe any fantasies at all? Is that
> > what you're saying?
>
> No, I'm saying that Gods and flying saucers haven't been shown
> to exist.

So you're not saying that atheists are people who don't believe in
fantasies, yet, you claimed that atheists (the people you refer to as "we",
although you now are trying to deny that you used the word at all) don't
believe in flying saucers because they are both fantasies.

Let's explore another aspect of your thinking, though. You assert that God
and flying saucers are fantasies because they haven't been shown to exist.
Let's take an example from recent scientific debate. The existence of black
holes was asserted by a number of scientists before the existence of one had
never been shown. Was the notion of a black hole a fantasy?

> Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I can see the word "we" in a sentence you wrote whereas you don't seem to be
able to.

> Why do you keep trying to twist what I'm saying?

I keep offering you opportunities to clarify, but you don't seem very
interested in doing so. You deny the existence of a word that is quite
obviously present. You refuse to explain the apparent assumptions in your
question. I'm not twisting, Ugly Bob, but you do seem to be doing a lot of
wriggling.

> > OK, if you prefer it that way. I demonstrated your nutty delusions
> clearly.
>
> Which delusions were those?

Bob, Bob, don't you have any short term memory at all? Read back through
the thread and you'll find them described quite clearly and unambiguously.
Try not to miss any of the words this time.

> > > I suspect that you're van Flandern. If not, so what?
> >
> > You didn't say you suspected it, Ugly Bob, you quite clearly
> > concluded it.
>
> Yes I did. Just there. Didn't you see?
>
> > It means that you decided that because my name is "Tom" I must be a
> > particular "Tom",
>
> That is an assumption on your part. How do you know _why_ I
> might suspect that you're van Flandern. You're just jumping to
> conclusions.

You addressed me as "Mr. van Flandern". You have not offered the slightest
shred of evidence why you drew that conclusion. The only evidence visible
that would even suggest it is that this "Mr. van Flandern" and I apparently
share the same first name. I've asked you if you have any other evidence
and you don't seem to have any to offer. So it's not unreasonable to
conclude that you have decided that because my first name is "Tom" that my
last name is "van Flandern" and that I believe in and promote the existence
of flying saucers.

> > one with whom you are personally familiar.
>
> I'm not familiar with him at all. You're assuming again.

Then who is this "Mr. van Flandern" you refer to and why do you think he has
anything to do with belief in flying saucers? Is he a fantasy of yours?
Did you just pick that name out of thin air?

> > What evidence
> > did you use to make this decision?
>
> What makes you think that I used more than your name?

I don't think you did. Hence my reasoned conclusion that you are under the
delusion that I am a UFO believer named "Mr. van Flandern" based solely on
the evidence that he and I have the same first name.

> Above, you stated that I believed that you were van Flandern
> simply because your name was Tom. Do you now suspect the
> existence of some unseen evidence?

I was willing to give you the opportunity to reveal any, if you had some.
You don't seem to have any, though, so my conclusion seems to be correct.
You're laboring under a delusion.

> > Was it evidence that would convince a
> > rational person, do you think?
>
> What evidence is that, Tom?

That someone named "Tom" must be someone named "Mr. van Flandern". Your
memory seems to be failing again.

> > Or is it the kind of evidence that a nut
> > would use?
>
> I'm sure that I have no idea.

Yes, I think you do, Ugly Bob. It's pretty obvious. You don't seem to have
any trouble determining what's nutty about what other people believe, so it
seems very likely that you know what kind of evidence a nut would use to
draw a nutty conclusion. You don't want to have to admit it, though, because
it supports my assessment that *you* are a nut.

> > You have acted in a way that would be consistent with a nut. You
> > have definitely acted in a way that is inconsistent with a rational
> > person. You have lept to unwarranted conclusions,
>
> Hypocrite much?

An irrelevant accusation won't help you establish that you're not a nut,
Ugly Bob. That's not a rational response either.

> > stubbornly insisted on the correctness
> > of your conclusions despite a lack of solid evidence,
>
> Oops, there's another one of those assumptions, again...

Let's check it. Do you still feel that I am "Mr. van Flandern" or have you
now changed your mind?

> > and have refused to
> > investigate those conclusions when challenged.
>
> And another! How do you know what I investigate or not?

You have been invited to and you have taken no evident action or indicated
in any way that you're willing to do so. If you are doing some
investigating in secret, of course I don't know about it. Are you?

So far, I haven't seen any evidence that you are not a nut. Your
conversation continues to support my assertion. If you want to counter it,
you'll have to resort to rational debate, not evasion and irrational
accusations.
Ugly Bob
2004-02-29 06:15:30 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xh90c.13468$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b8Wdnc8BQvVPb93dRVn-***@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f30c.13023$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:46-dndPfra7ItN3dRVn-***@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all does,
> Mr.
> > > van Flandern?"
> > >
> > > This was in response to my statement that all atheists are nuts.
> > > Now, explain to me why you think this question does not
> > > contain an assertion that atheists are people who don't believe
> > > in flying saucers.
> >
> > It's a question. If you don't want to answer it, don't.
>
> Well, first, it wasn't a question directed to me, since I'm not someone
> named "Mr. van Flandern", so I don't feel obliged to answer it. Second,
you
> don't seem to be able to explain your statement at all. Instead, you're
> trying quite hard to avoid it. What's the matter, Ugly Bob? Why are you
so
> reluctant to explain your own words?

I've been explaining them over and over.

> > > > > Are you now going to claim that you do *not* think that atheists
are
> > > > > people who don't believe in flying saucers? Who is this "we",
then?
> > > >
> > > > TINW, HTH.
> >
> > There is no "we," Hope that helps.
>
> Read your sentence again, Ugly Bob. Tell me if you don't see the word
"we"
> in it.

I guess you just had to be there...

> "'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all does, Mr.
> van Flandern?"
>
> To whom does the "we" in this sentence refer? Since it was a response to
> the statament that all atheists are nuts, isn't it reasonable to interpret
> the "we" as referring to atheists in general? If not, I invite you to
> explain what the word "we" in that sentence refers to.

Good Gawd, you're as humorless as Dave Tholen!

> > > > > "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8rqdnRek9YvY7aDdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gods, flyin' saucerz, it's all the same.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you also going to contradict yourself now and say that\
> > > > > gods and flying saucers are *not* the same?
> > > >
> > > > No, they're both fantasy.
> > >
> > > Are atheists are people who don't believe any fantasies at all? Is
that
> > > what you're saying?
> >
> > No, I'm saying that Gods and flying saucers haven't been shown
> > to exist.
>
> So you're not saying that atheists are people who don't believe in
> fantasies, yet, you claimed that atheists (the people you refer to as
"we",
> although you now are trying to deny that you used the word at all) don't
> believe in flying saucers because they are both fantasies.

Jesus, how many assumptions can you cram into one sentence?

> Let's explore another aspect of your thinking, though. You assert that
God
> and flying saucers are fantasies because they haven't been shown to exist.
> Let's take an example from recent scientific debate. The existence of
black
> holes was asserted by a number of scientists before the existence of one
had
> never been shown. Was the notion of a black hole a fantasy?

Apparently, they thought that there was adequate evidence.

> > Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
>
> I can see the word "we" in a sentence you wrote whereas you don't seem to
be
> able to.

Yeah, I see it. I put it there. What's your point?

> > Why do you keep trying to twist what I'm saying?
>
> I keep offering you opportunities to clarify, but you don't seem very
> interested in doing so. You deny the existence of a word that is quite
> obviously present.

Really? Fascinating! Do go on (as if I need to tell you).

> You refuse to explain the apparent assumptions in your
> question.

That which is asked; inquiry; interrogatory; query.

> I'm not twisting, Ugly Bob, but you do seem to be doing a lot of
> wriggling.

Actually, I'm sitting quite comfortably.

> > > OK, if you prefer it that way. I demonstrated your nutty delusions
> > clearly.
> >
> > Which delusions were those?
>
> Bob, Bob, don't you have any short term memory at all? Read back through
> the thread and you'll find them described quite clearly and unambiguously.
> Try not to miss any of the words this time.

I'm sorry, I didn't recognize any delusions. That's your gig.

> > > > I suspect that you're van Flandern. If not, so what?
> > >
> > > You didn't say you suspected it, Ugly Bob, you quite clearly
> > > concluded it.
> >
> > Yes I did. Just there. Didn't you see?
> >
> > > It means that you decided that because my name is "Tom" I must be a
> > > particular "Tom",
> >
> > That is an assumption on your part. How do you know _why_ I
> > might suspect that you're van Flandern. You're just jumping to
> > conclusions.
>
> You addressed me as "Mr. van Flandern". You have not offered the
slightest
> shred of evidence why you drew that conclusion.

Good job, Captain Obvious (to borrow a phrase).

> The only evidence visible
> that would even suggest it is that this "Mr. van Flandern" and I
apparently
> share the same first name. I've asked you if you have any other evidence
> and you don't seem to have any to offer.

Yeah, so?

> So it's not unreasonable to
> conclude that you have decided that because my first name is "Tom" that my
> last name is "van Flandern" and that I believe in and promote the
existence
> of flying saucers.

From your perspective, I guess you're right.

> > > one with whom you are personally familiar.
> >
> > I'm not familiar with him at all. You're assuming again.
>
> Then who is this "Mr. van Flandern" you refer to and why do you think he
has
> anything to do with belief in flying saucers? Is he a fantasy of yours?
> Did you just pick that name out of thin air?

Who _is_ Tom van Flandern?

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1998/apr/m16-015.shtml

http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/mar.html

http://members.aol.com/GBR262/face2.html

http://www.alienzoo.com/politicsandlaw/ufoactivists.html

Etc, etc...

> > > What evidence
> > > did you use to make this decision?
> >
> > What makes you think that I used more than your name?
>
> I don't think you did. Hence my reasoned conclusion that you are under
the
> delusion that I am a UFO believer named "Mr. van Flandern" based solely on
> the evidence that he and I have the same first name.
>
> > Above, you stated that I believed that you were van Flandern
> > simply because your name was Tom. Do you now suspect the
> > existence of some unseen evidence?
>
> I was willing to give you the opportunity to reveal any, if you had some.
> You don't seem to have any, though, so my conclusion seems to be correct.

Another assumption, Tom. You've really got to guard against that.

> You're laboring under a delusion.
>
> > > Was it evidence that would convince a
> > > rational person, do you think?
> >
> > What evidence is that, Tom?
>
> That someone named "Tom" must be someone named "Mr. van Flandern". Your
> memory seems to be failing again.

I know of no such evidence. Are you sure that it's not you who are
delusional?

> > > Or is it the kind of evidence that a nut
> > > would use?
> >
> > I'm sure that I have no idea.
>
> Yes, I think you do, Ugly Bob. It's pretty obvious. You don't seem to
have
> any trouble determining what's nutty about what other people believe, so
it
> seems very likely that you know what kind of evidence a nut would use to
> draw a nutty conclusion. You don't want to have to admit it, though,
because
> it supports my assessment that *you* are a nut.

More assuptions. Didn't I warn you about those?

> > > You have acted in a way that would be consistent with a nut. You
> > > have definitely acted in a way that is inconsistent with a rational
> > > person. You have lept to unwarranted conclusions,
> >
> > Hypocrite much?
>
> An irrelevant accusation won't help you establish that you're not a nut,
> Ugly Bob. That's not a rational response either.

If you say so, Mr. van Flandern.

> > > stubbornly insisted on the correctness
> > > of your conclusions despite a lack of solid evidence,
> >
> > Oops, there's another one of those assumptions, again...
>
> Let's check it. Do you still feel that I am "Mr. van Flandern" or have
you
> now changed your mind?

Why, who wants to know?

> > > and have refused to
> > > investigate those conclusions when challenged.
> >
> > And another! How do you know what I investigate or not?
>
> You have been invited to and you have taken no evident action or indicated
> in any way that you're willing to do so. If you are doing some
> investigating in secret, of course I don't know about it. Are you?
>
> So far, I haven't seen any evidence that you are not a nut. Your
> conversation continues to support my assertion. If you want to counter
it,
> you'll have to resort to rational debate, not evasion and irrational
> accusations.

What, exactly, have you been accused of, Mr. van Flandern? Do
you wish legal council?
Tom
2004-02-29 07:58:26 UTC
Permalink
"Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vYqdnfso97OQHtzdRVn-***@comcast.com...
>
> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Xh90c.13468$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Well, first, it wasn't a question directed to me, since I'm not someone
> > named "Mr. van Flandern", so I don't feel obliged to answer it. Second,
> > you don't seem to be able to explain your statement at all. Instead,
you're
> > trying quite hard to avoid it. What's the matter, Ugly Bob? Why are
you
> > so reluctant to explain your own words?
>
> I've been explaining them over and over.

Like when you claimed there was no "we" in "'Cause we doesn't believe in all
them flyin' saucerz like y'all does, Mr.
van Flandern?"

Like when you decided I was "Mr. van Flandern" and couldn't come up with a
single valid reason why you did so.

Yeah, those were some explanations, alright.

> > > There is no "we," Hope that helps.
> >
> > Read your sentence again, Ugly Bob. Tell me if you don't see the word
> > "we" in it.
>
> I guess you just had to be there...

What a nutball.

> > "'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all does,
Mr.
> > van Flandern?"
> >
> > To whom does the "we" in this sentence refer? Since it was a response
to
> > the statament that all atheists are nuts, isn't it reasonable to
interpret
> > the "we" as referring to atheists in general? If not, I invite you to
> > explain what the word "we" in that sentence refers to.
>
> Good Gawd, you're as humorless as Dave Tholen!

Is that you're explanation, nutzo?

> > So you're not saying that atheists are people who don't believe in
> > fantasies, yet, you claimed that atheists (the people you refer to as
> > "we", although you now are trying to deny that you used the word
> > at all) don't believe in flying saucers because they are both fantasies.
>
> Jesus, how many assumptions can you cram into one sentence?

Another evasion. Face it. You're a nut case.


> > Let's explore another aspect of your thinking, though. You
> > assert that God and flying saucers are fantasies because they
> > haven't been shown to exist. Let's take an example from
> > recent scientific debate. The existence of black holes was
> > asserted by a number of scientists before the existence of one
> > had never been shown. Was the notion of a black hole a fantasy?
>
> Apparently, they thought that there was adequate evidence.

Was it a fantasy or not, Ugly Bob? Answer the question.

> > > Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
> >
> > I can see the word "we" in a sentence you wrote whereas you
> > don't seem to be able to.
>
> Yeah, I see it. I put it there. What's your point?

You denied it was there. You're either a really bad liar or a really nutty
fruitcake or both.

> > I keep offering you opportunities to clarify, but you don't seem very
> > interested in doing so. You deny the existence of a word that is quite
> > obviously present.
>
> Really? Fascinating! Do go on (as if I need to tell you).

Yes really. You wrote, "There is no 'we,'"

You'd better learn to dodge better, nutball. You're getting hit by every
shot.

> I'm sorry, I didn't recognize any delusions.

Of course you didn't. Nutcases never recognize their own delusions.

> > > That is an assumption on your part. How do you know _why_ I
> > > might suspect that you're van Flandern. You're just jumping to
> > > conclusions.
> >
> > You addressed me as "Mr. van Flandern". You have not offered the
> > slightest shred of evidence why you drew that conclusion.
>
> Good job, Captain Obvious (to borrow a phrase).

Hilarious. All you need now is a big clock in the background going
"Cuckoo!"

> From your perspective, I guess you're right.

Just so. You're a nut.

> > > I'm not familiar with him at all. You're assuming again.
> >
> > Then who is this "Mr. van Flandern" you refer to and why do you think he
> has
> > anything to do with belief in flying saucers? Is he a fantasy of yours?
> > Did you just pick that name out of thin air?
>
> Who _is_ Tom van Flandern?
>
> http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1998/apr/m16-015.shtml
>
> http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/mar.html
>
> http://members.aol.com/GBR262/face2.html
>
> http://www.alienzoo.com/politicsandlaw/ufoactivists.html
>
> Etc, etc...

And so, with all this information on the guy, you still claim you're not
familiar with him. You arer without a doubt the most inept liar I've run
across in a long, long time.

> > I was willing to give you the opportunity to reveal any, if you had
some.
> > You don't seem to have any, though, so my conclusion seems to be
correct.
>
> Another assumption, Tom. You've really got to guard against that.

You don't even know the difference between an assumption and a conclusion.

> > > > Was it evidence that would convince a
> > > > rational person, do you think?
> > >
> > > What evidence is that, Tom?
> >
> > That someone named "Tom" must be someone named "Mr. van Flandern". Your
> > memory seems to be failing again.
>
> I know of no such evidence. Are you sure that it's not you who are
> delusional?

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

> > An irrelevant accusation won't help you establish that you're not a nut,
> > Ugly Bob. That's not a rational response either.
>
> If you say so, Mr. van Flandern.

Thank you. You've made my point eloquently. You're a nut.
Ugly Bob
2004-03-01 05:11:12 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CYg0c.14662$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vYqdnfso97OQHtzdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xh90c.13468$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > Well, first, it wasn't a question directed to me, since I'm not
someone
> > > named "Mr. van Flandern", so I don't feel obliged to answer it.
Second,
> > > you don't seem to be able to explain your statement at all. Instead,
> you're
> > > trying quite hard to avoid it. What's the matter, Ugly Bob? Why are
> you
> > > so reluctant to explain your own words?
> >
> > I've been explaining them over and over.
>
> Like when you claimed there was no "we" in "'Cause we doesn't believe in
all
> them flyin' saucerz like y'all does, Mr.
> van Flandern?"

That was a joke, you moron. Gawd, you're thick.

> Like when you decided I was "Mr. van Flandern" and couldn't come up with a
> single valid reason why you did so.

Yeah, so?

> Yeah, those were some explanations, alright.
>
> > > > There is no "we," Hope that helps.
> > >
> > > Read your sentence again, Ugly Bob. Tell me if you don't see the word
> > > "we" in it.
> >
> > I guess you just had to be there...
>
> What a nutball.
>
> > > "'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all does,
> Mr.
> > > van Flandern?"
> > >
> > > To whom does the "we" in this sentence refer? Since it was a response
> to
> > > the statament that all atheists are nuts, isn't it reasonable to
> interpret
> > > the "we" as referring to atheists in general? If not, I invite you to
> > > explain what the word "we" in that sentence refers to.
> >
> > Good Gawd, you're as humorless as Dave Tholen!
>
> Is that you're explanation, nutzo?

Well, if the shoe fits...

> > > So you're not saying that atheists are people who don't believe in
> > > fantasies, yet, you claimed that atheists (the people you refer to as
> > > "we", although you now are trying to deny that you used the word
> > > at all) don't believe in flying saucers because they are both
fantasies.
> >
> > Jesus, how many assumptions can you cram into one sentence?
>
> Another evasion. Face it. You're a nut case.

You're the one making all the assuptions, kookboi.

> > > Let's explore another aspect of your thinking, though. You
> > > assert that God and flying saucers are fantasies because they
> > > haven't been shown to exist. Let's take an example from
> > > recent scientific debate. The existence of black holes was
> > > asserted by a number of scientists before the existence of one
> > > had never been shown. Was the notion of a black hole a fantasy?
> >
> > Apparently, they thought that there was adequate evidence.
>
> Was it a fantasy or not, Ugly Bob? Answer the question.

How would I know? As a cosmologist.

> > > > Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
> > >
> > > I can see the word "we" in a sentence you wrote whereas you
> > > don't seem to be able to.
> >
> > Yeah, I see it. I put it there. What's your point?
>
> You denied it was there. You're either a really bad liar or a really
nutty
> fruitcake or both.

Facts not in evidence.

> > > I keep offering you opportunities to clarify, but you don't seem very
> > > interested in doing so. You deny the existence of a word that is
quite
> > > obviously present.
> >
> > Really? Fascinating! Do go on (as if I need to tell you).
>
> Yes really. You wrote, "There is no 'we,'"

TINW <----- Joke. Humorous usage. Hello? Are you there, Tom?

> You'd better learn to dodge better, nutball. You're getting hit by every
> shot.

I've no clue of which you speak here, kookboi. Dodge? Shots?
Are you _sure_ you're not delusional?

> > I'm sorry, I didn't recognize any delusions.
>
> Of course you didn't. Nutcases never recognize their own delusions.

Makes sense, see above.

> > > > That is an assumption on your part. How do you know _why_ I
> > > > might suspect that you're van Flandern. You're just jumping to
> > > > conclusions.
> > >
> > > You addressed me as "Mr. van Flandern". You have not offered the
> > > slightest shred of evidence why you drew that conclusion.
> >
> > Good job, Captain Obvious (to borrow a phrase).
>
> Hilarious. All you need now is a big clock in the background going
> "Cuckoo!"

Uh huh, sure, Tom. Whatever you say, kid.

> > From your perspective, I guess you're right.
>
> Just so. You're a nut.
>
> > > > I'm not familiar with him at all. You're assuming again.
> > >
> > > Then who is this "Mr. van Flandern" you refer to and why do you think
he
> > has
> > > anything to do with belief in flying saucers? Is he a fantasy of
yours?
> > > Did you just pick that name out of thin air?
> >
> > Who _is_ Tom van Flandern?
> >
> > http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1998/apr/m16-015.shtml
> >
> > http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/mar.html
> >
> > http://members.aol.com/GBR262/face2.html
> >
> > http://www.alienzoo.com/politicsandlaw/ufoactivists.html
> >
> > Etc, etc...
>
> And so, with all this information on the guy, you still claim you're not
> familiar with him.

Never met the man.

> You arer without a doubt the most inept liar I've run
> across in a long, long time.
>
> > > I was willing to give you the opportunity to reveal any, if you had
> some.
> > > You don't seem to have any, though, so my conclusion seems to be
> correct.
> >
> > Another assumption, Tom. You've really got to guard against that.
>
> You don't even know the difference between an assumption and a conclusion.

Your "conclusions" aren't based on anything tangible. If the shoe fits...

> > > > > Was it evidence that would convince a
> > > > > rational person, do you think?
> > > >
> > > > What evidence is that, Tom?
> > >
> > > That someone named "Tom" must be someone named "Mr. van Flandern".
Your
> > > memory seems to be failing again.
> >
> > I know of no such evidence. Are you sure that it's not you who are
> > delusional?
>
> This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Not much in the way of evidence, Tom, fish not withstanding.

> > > An irrelevant accusation won't help you establish that you're not a
nut,
> > > Ugly Bob. That's not a rational response either.
> >
> > If you say so, Mr. van Flandern.
>
> Thank you. You've made my point eloquently. You're a nut.

I'm sorry, did you have a point?
Tom
2004-03-01 20:12:11 UTC
Permalink
"Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@comcast.com...
>
> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:CYg0c.14662$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Like when you claimed there was no "we" in "'Cause we doesn't
> > believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all does, Mr. van Flandern?"
>
> That was a joke, you moron. Gawd, you're thick.

A feeble joke instead of an answer. Who does the "we" refer to, Ugly Bob?
Are you going to continue to avoid that question?

> > Like when you decided I was "Mr. van Flandern" and couldn't come up with
a
> > single valid reason why you did so.
>
> Yeah, so?

So it's your delusion, like I said. That's why you can't back it up with
any evidence.

> > Another evasion. Face it. You're a nut case.
>
> You're the one making all the assuptions, kookboi.

You keep evading, looking nuttier and nuttier all the time.

> > Was it a fantasy or not, Ugly Bob? Answer the question.
>
> How would I know?

Well, you made the claim that gods and flying saucers are fantasies because
they have not been shown to exist. However, when asked about black holes,
which had not been shown to exist at the time they were first theorized, you
refuse to apply your own criteria to that example and declare that black
holes were fantasies because they too had not been shown to exist. Why did
you refuse? What's the difference between one thing that has not been shown
to exist and another thing which has not been shown to exist? Why would you
so enthusiastically label one a fantasy but refuse to do so for the other?
It seems that you must have some other criteria for determining what's
fantasy and what's not other than a lack of demonstration. What could those
criteria be? Will you explain?

> > You'd better learn to dodge better, nutball. You're getting hit by
every
> > shot.
>
> I've no clue of which you speak here, kookboi.

Of course not. You've shown yourself to be clueless thoughout this
exchange.

> > And so, with all this information on the guy, you still claim you're not
> > familiar with him.
>
> Never met the man.

You're familiar with him through his writings and public statements. Have
you considered doing a Google search using my address as a keyword to see if
there is any similarity between what van Flandern believes and espouses and
the things I have written? If you do, you'll find that I have never once
declared a belief in extraterrestrial visitors or the so-called "face on
Mars". Quite the opposite, in fact. I am deeply skeptical of both claims.
However, since that will demolish your delusion and foirce you to admit
you're wrong, I strongly doubt you'll ever do it.

> Your "conclusions" aren't based on anything tangible.

What is your conclusion that I am Tom van Flandern based upon?

> If the shoe fits...

Indeed.
Ugly Bob
2004-03-05 02:51:00 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vOM0c.14290$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:CYg0c.14662$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > Like when you claimed there was no "we" in "'Cause we doesn't
> > > believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all does, Mr. van Flandern?"
> >
> > That was a joke, you moron. Gawd, you're thick.
>
> A feeble joke instead of an answer. Who does the "we" refer to, Ugly Bob?
> Are you going to continue to avoid that question?
>
> > > Like when you decided I was "Mr. van Flandern" and couldn't come up
with
> a
> > > single valid reason why you did so.
> >
> > Yeah, so?
>
> So it's your delusion, like I said. That's why you can't back it up with
> any evidence.
>
> > > Another evasion. Face it. You're a nut case.
> >
> > You're the one making all the assuptions, kookboi.
>
> You keep evading, looking nuttier and nuttier all the time.
>
> > > Was it a fantasy or not, Ugly Bob? Answer the question.
> >
> > How would I know?
>
> Well, you made the claim that gods and flying saucers are fantasies
because
> they have not been shown to exist. However, when asked about black holes,
> which had not been shown to exist at the time they were first theorized,
you

Scientific theory is based on fact. Not that it has _anything_ to do with
flyin' saucerz an' Gawds an' shit.

> refuse to apply your own criteria to that example and declare that black
> holes were fantasies because they too had not been shown to exist. Why
did
> you refuse?

You're the one that brought up black holes.

> What's the difference between one thing that has not been shown
> to exist and another thing which has not been shown to exist?

That depends on what "things" they are, doesn't it?

> Why would you
> so enthusiastically label one a fantasy but refuse to do so for the other?
> It seems that you must have some other criteria for determining what's
> fantasy and what's not other than a lack of demonstration. What could
those
> criteria be? Will you explain?

No.

> > > You'd better learn to dodge better, nutball. You're getting hit by
> every
> > > shot.
> >
> > I've no clue of which you speak here, kookboi.
>
> Of course not. You've shown yourself to be clueless thoughout this
> exchange.
>
> > > And so, with all this information on the guy, you still claim you're
not
> > > familiar with him.
> >
> > Never met the man.
>
> You're familiar with him through his writings and public statements. Have
> you considered doing a Google search using my address as a keyword to see
if
> there is any similarity between what van Flandern believes and espouses
and
> the things I have written? If you do, you'll find that I have never once
> declared a belief in extraterrestrial visitors or the so-called "face on
> Mars". Quite the opposite, in fact. I am deeply skeptical of both claims.
> However, since that will demolish your delusion and foirce you to admit
> you're wrong, I strongly doubt you'll ever do it.

I did that several days ago, Mr. Obvious. New to usenet, are you?

> > Your "conclusions" aren't based on anything tangible.
>
> What is your conclusion that I am Tom van Flandern based upon?

Where did I conclude that, Tom?

> > If the shoe fits...
>
> Indeed.
>
>
Tom
2004-03-05 04:53:05 UTC
Permalink
"Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@comcast.com...
>
>
> Scientific theory is based on fact. Not that it has _anything_ to do with
> flyin' saucerz an' Gawds an' shit.

Gracious! Are you still here?

I'm surprised. I thought you'd had enough of loking like a fool. But I
guess not.

Apparently you believe that the theories of any scientist can't be
fantasies. I wonder where you got that notion.

> > refuse to apply your own criteria to that example and declare that
> > black holes were fantasies because they too had not been shown
> > to exist. Why did you refuse?
>
> You're the one that brought up black holes.

Because I knew that you couldn't bring yourself to apply the same critical
rules to things you believed in that you apply to things you *don't* believe
in. You've done precisely what I expected you to do and, by doing so,
you've exposed your own irrationality.

> > What's the difference between one thing that has not been shown
> > to exist and another thing which has not been shown to exist?
>
> That depends on what "things" they are, doesn't it?

Yes. You apply different standards of evidence to the things you believe in
than you apply to things you don't believe in.

> > Why would you
> > so enthusiastically label one a fantasy but refuse to do so for the
other?
> > It seems that you must have some other criteria for determining what's
> > fantasy and what's not other than a lack of demonstration. What could
> > those criteria be? Will you explain?
>
> No.

Of course not. That's why you can't argue effectively against the charge
that you are a nut.

> > You're familiar with him through his writings and public statements.
> > Have you considered doing a Google search using my address as
> > a keyword to see if there is any similarity between what van
> > Flandern believes and espouses and the things I have written? If
> > you do, you'll find that I have never once declared a belief in
> > extraterrestrial visitors or the so-called "face on Mars". Quite the
> > opposite, in fact. I am deeply skeptical of both claims.
> > However, since that will demolish your delusion and foirce you to
> > admit you're wrong, I strongly doubt you'll ever do it.
>
> I did that several days ago, Mr. Obvious. New to usenet, are you?

If you think so, then you haven't actually did that Google search at all.

I say you're not only a nutcase, but a liar. Prove me wrong, nut-boy. Cite
any post in which I declared a belief in extraterrestrial visitors.

> > What is your conclusion that I am Tom van Flandern based upon?
>
> Where did I conclude that, Tom?

In your very first response to my posts, in which you addressed me as "Mr.
van Flandern". What evidence did you use then? You can keep dodging,
nutzo, but you can't get away from it. You blew it right at the start. No
amount of backpedalling or obfuscation is going to make you look any less
nutty. In fatc, you look even more irrational with each post.

Keep it up. You're making my case for me quite tidily.
Ugly Bob
2004-03-06 02:51:59 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:RIT1c.22191$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@comcast.com...
> >
> >
> > Scientific theory is based on fact. Not that it has _anything_ to do
with
> > flyin' saucerz an' Gawds an' shit.
>
> Gracious! Are you still here?
>
> I'm surprised. I thought you'd had enough of loking like a fool. But I
> guess not.
>
> Apparently you believe that the theories of any scientist can't be
> fantasies. I wonder where you got that notion.

theory n : a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the
natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that
applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of
phenomena.

> > > refuse to apply your own criteria to that example and declare that
> > > black holes were fantasies because they too had not been shown
> > > to exist. Why did you refuse?
> >
> > You're the one that brought up black holes.
>
> Because I knew that you couldn't bring yourself to apply the same critical
> rules to things you believed in that you apply to things you *don't*
believe
> in. You've done precisely what I expected you to do and, by doing so,
> you've exposed your own irrationality.

Utter pap.

> > > What's the difference between one thing that has not been shown
> > > to exist and another thing which has not been shown to exist?
> >
> > That depends on what "things" they are, doesn't it?
>
> Yes. You apply different standards of evidence to the things you believe
in
> than you apply to things you don't believe in.

More assuption. You're good at this.

> > > Why would you
> > > so enthusiastically label one a fantasy but refuse to do so for the
> other?
> > > It seems that you must have some other criteria for determining what's
> > > fantasy and what's not other than a lack of demonstration. What could
> > > those criteria be? Will you explain?
> >
> > No.
>
> Of course not. That's why you can't argue effectively against the charge
> that you are a nut.

Who's arguing?

> > > You're familiar with him through his writings and public statements.
> > > Have you considered doing a Google search using my address as
> > > a keyword to see if there is any similarity between what van
> > > Flandern believes and espouses and the things I have written? If
> > > you do, you'll find that I have never once declared a belief in
> > > extraterrestrial visitors or the so-called "face on Mars". Quite the
> > > opposite, in fact. I am deeply skeptical of both claims.
> > > However, since that will demolish your delusion and foirce you to
> > > admit you're wrong, I strongly doubt you'll ever do it.
> >
> > I did that several days ago, Mr. Obvious. New to usenet, are you?
>
> If you think so, then you haven't actually did that Google search at all.
>
> I say you're not only a nutcase, but a liar. Prove me wrong, nut-boy.
Cite
> any post in which I declared a belief in extraterrestrial visitors.

Why should I want to do that?

> > > What is your conclusion that I am Tom van Flandern based upon?
> >
> > Where did I conclude that, Tom?
>
> In your very first response to my posts, in which you addressed me as "Mr.
> van Flandern".

That doesn't mean that I concluded that you were van Flandern.
You merely assumed that.

> What evidence did you use then? You can keep dodging,
> nutzo, but you can't get away from it. You blew it right at the start.
No
> amount of backpedalling or obfuscation is going to make you look any less
> nutty. In fatc, you look even more irrational with each post.
>
> Keep it up. You're making my case for me quite tidily.

What case is that?
Otis Reed
2004-03-06 06:56:14 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:51:59 -0800, "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:RIT1c.22191$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@comcast.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Scientific theory is based on fact. Not that it has _anything_ to do
>with
>> > flyin' saucerz an' Gawds an' shit.
>>
>> Gracious! Are you still here?
>>
>> I'm surprised. I thought you'd had enough of loking like a fool. But I
>> guess not.
>>
>> Apparently you believe that the theories of any scientist can't be
>> fantasies. I wonder where you got that notion.
>
>theory n : a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the
>natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that
>applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of
>phenomena.
>

That is one definition,there are others.

The·o·ry ( th¶“…-r¶, thîr “¶) n. pl. the·o·ries 1. a. Systematically
organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of
circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted
principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or
otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of
phenomena. b. Such knowledge or such a system. 2. Abstract reasoning;
speculation. 3. A belief that guides action or assists comprehension
or judgment: rose early, on the theory that morning efforts are best;
the modern architectural theory that less is more. 4. An assumption
based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

# 2 and 4 show theories can be fantasy as well.

I am sure that many theories that are presented as #1 are in reality
# 2 and or 4. Like Hoagland, he thinks his theories are in the #1
category when most reasonable people can see they are a definite #4.
Tom
2004-03-06 06:56:38 UTC
Permalink
"Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TYCdnUXmPPJPodTdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> >
> > Of course not. That's why you can't argue effectively against the
charge
> > that you are a nut.
>
> Who's arguing?

Very well, then. You're not arguing that you're not a nut.

Just what do you think you *are* arguing?

> > In your very first response to my posts, in which you addressed me
> > as "Mr. van Flandern".
>
> That doesn't mean that I concluded that you were van Flandern.
> You merely assumed that.

Backpedal all you want. You don't want to stand behind what you wrote now
because you realize you've made a fool of yourself. All that's left for
you is to try to confuse the issue, but the only person you're confusing is
yourself.
Morpheal
2004-03-06 21:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Ugly Bob wrote:

Wait a minute.

You cannnot be "Ugly Bob".

I am Bob, and I am ugly.

You have no right to usurp my identity and to use it on the internet.
Change your name immediately and stop using the name Bob and stop
using my epithet. There can only be ONE "ugly Bob" in Neutopia.

There isn't room in this society for two of anything. Least of all
two of anything by the same name.

M.
Morpheal
2004-04-01 11:59:15 UTC
Permalink
* wrote:

> Lockheed is now god.

Goodess, not god ? Why god not goddess ?

> Yeah, nuke 'em 'til the glow.

There are better weapons. Weapons that ONLY destroy the mind.

M.
Ka
2004-04-01 23:30:51 UTC
Permalink
"Morpheal" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:***@sympatico.ca...
> * wrote:
>
> > Lockheed is now god.
>
> Goodess, not god ? Why god not goddess ?
>
> > Yeah, nuke 'em 'til the glow.
>
> There are better weapons. Weapons that ONLY destroy the mind.
>

Yes, it's called TV.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.639 / Virus Database: 408 - Release Date: 22/03/04
Morpheal
2004-04-02 21:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Ka wrote:

> Yes, it's called TV.

You are talking strange again. You are talking about
those men and women who dress up in the clothing of the opposite gender.
I think that is very very wierd. You're too too strange.

M.
Meltdarok
2004-02-27 05:02:11 UTC
Permalink
"Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8rqdnRek9YvY7aDdRVn-***@comcast.com...
>
> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:4sX_b.7370$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:sb-dnRAXYadwtaHdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:AAK_b.6302$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:ycqdnen6PY-KkqbdRVn-***@comcast.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "*" <***@plz.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:***@4ax.com...
> > > > > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:45:09 -0800, "Ugly Bob"
> > > <***@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Absoutely Goddamn right! Tom, Kevin and Mike van Flandern are
> > > > > > >_all_ nuts!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Not as insane as you are with your fanatical religious
> > fundamentalist
> > > > > > zealotry. And your dad's.
> > > > >
> > > > > We're Atheists. HTH.
> > > >
> > > > Atheists are all nuts.
> > >
> > > 'Cause we doesn't believe in all them flyin' saucerz like y'all
> does,
> >
> > An atheist isn't someone who doesn't believe in flying saucers, ya nut.
> > Unless, of course, they suspect that God may be riding in one.
>
> Gods, flyin' saucerz, it's all the same. Just another fairytale that
> credulous rubes like your clientele believe in, Tom.
>

I hate to break the news to you, (again) but God is so real that His
Fingerprint
is an indelible part of our culture as Human Beings. Now run *that* up the
flagpole
and see who salutes it!!!


> -Ugly Bob
>
>

--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
Tom
2004-02-27 05:49:23 UTC
Permalink
"Meltdarok" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nbA%b.47835$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> I hate to break the news to you, (again) but God is so real that His
> Fingerprint
> is an indelible part of our culture as Human Beings.

Theists are nuts, too.

Like atheists, they've lept to an unwarranted conclusion because they simply
can't handle uncertainty.
Meltdarok
2004-02-27 13:51:31 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:DTA%b.10157$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Meltdarok" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:nbA%b.47835$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > I hate to break the news to you, (again) but God is so real that His
> > Fingerprint
> > is an indelible part of our culture as Human Beings.
>
> Theists are nuts, too.
>
> Like atheists, they've lept to an unwarranted conclusion because they
simply
> can't handle uncertainty.
>

Naw Tommy-boy. I've also counted on those that have done their research
baby.
Like I said; it's *already* written down and illustrated.

>

--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
Tom
2004-02-27 15:48:17 UTC
Permalink
"Meltdarok" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:DXH%b.104581$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:DTA%b.10157$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Theists are nuts, too.
> >
> > Like atheists, they've lept to an unwarranted conclusion because
> > they simply can't handle uncertainty.
> >
>
> Naw Tommy-boy. I've also counted on those that have done their
> research baby.
> Like I said; it's *already* written down and illustrated.

So you think it must be true simply because someone wrote it down?
Meltdarok
2004-02-27 19:12:29 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5FJ%b.11653$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Meltdarok" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:DXH%b.104581$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:DTA%b.10157$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > Theists are nuts, too.
> > >
> > > Like atheists, they've lept to an unwarranted conclusion because
> > > they simply can't handle uncertainty.
> > >
> >
> > Naw Tommy-boy. I've also counted on those that have done their
> > research baby.
> > Like I said; it's *already* written down and illustrated.
>
> So you think it must be true simply because someone wrote it down?
>
>

No.
I think it's true because it happened to me also.

--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
Tom
2004-02-27 22:07:49 UTC
Permalink
"Meltdarok" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:xEM%b.106114$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:5FJ%b.11653$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > Naw Tommy-boy. I've also counted on those that have done their
> > > research baby.
> > > Like I said; it's *already* written down and illustrated.
> >
> > So you think it must be true simply because someone wrote it down?
>
> No.
> I think it's true because it happened to me also.

Your suggestibility isn't very good evidence, either.
Meltdarok
2004-02-28 06:49:56 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:VcP%b.12005$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Meltdarok" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:xEM%b.106114$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:5FJ%b.11653$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > Naw Tommy-boy. I've also counted on those that have done their
> > > > research baby.
> > > > Like I said; it's *already* written down and illustrated.
> > >
> > > So you think it must be true simply because someone wrote it down?
> >
> > No.
> > I think it's true because it happened to me also.
>
> Your suggestibility isn't very good evidence, either.
>

Yeah, I thought about that also. But if my brain went through so much
trouble underneath my regular consciousness, God Damn it, I believe It
anyways! So There!



>

--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
Tom
2004-02-28 16:39:40 UTC
Permalink
"Meltdarok" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:oSW%b.52051$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:VcP%b.12005$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Your suggestibility isn't very good evidence, either.
>
> Yeah, I thought about that also. But if my brain went through so much
> trouble underneath my regular consciousness, God Damn it, I believe It
> anyways! So There!

We wouldn't want to think that all that hard work was in vain, eh?
Meltdarok
2004-02-28 18:40:31 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gv30c.13035$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Meltdarok" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:oSW%b.52051$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:VcP%b.12005$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > Your suggestibility isn't very good evidence, either.
> >
> > Yeah, I thought about that also. But if my brain went through so much
> > trouble underneath my regular consciousness, God Damn it, I believe It
> > anyways! So There!
>
> We wouldn't want to think that all that hard work was in vain, eh?
>

I don't care what they say about you, I still like you Tom.
Have a good year with you and yours.

>

--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
Tom
2004-02-28 19:27:11 UTC
Permalink
"Meltdarok" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:zg50c.53858$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> I don't care what they say about you, I still like you Tom.
> Have a good year with you and yours.

Thanks, bro. Likewise.
Old Coyote
2004-02-27 22:59:42 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<DTA%b.10157$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "Meltdarok" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:nbA%b.47835$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > I hate to break the news to you, (again) but God is so real that His
> > Fingerprint
> > is an indelible part of our culture as Human Beings.
>
> Theists are nuts, too.
>
> Like atheists, they've lept to an unwarranted conclusion because they simply
> can't handle uncertainty.

Well said. Consider though that there might be as many different (possibly false)
'warrants' that lead to either conclusion as there are individuals who bear
them there.
Tom
2004-02-28 01:32:32 UTC
Permalink
"Old Coyote" <***@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<DTA%b.10157$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > "Meltdarok" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:nbA%b.47835$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > I hate to break the news to you, (again) but God is so real that His
> > > Fingerprint
> > > is an indelible part of our culture as Human Beings.
> >
> > Theists are nuts, too.
> >
> > Like atheists, they've lept to an unwarranted conclusion because they
simply
> > can't handle uncertainty.
>
> Well said. Consider though that there might be as many different (possibly
false)
> 'warrants' that lead to either conclusion as there are individuals who
bear
> them there.

Yes, we must consider the possibility that some people are nuts. In fact,
we might also consider the possibility that *all* people are nuts.
Jeremy Donovan
2004-02-28 05:43:45 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"Old Coyote" <***@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
>news:***@posting.google.com...
>> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:<DTA%b.10157$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>> > "Meltdarok" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
>> > news:nbA%b.47835$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> > >
>> > > I hate to break the news to you, (again) but God is so real that His
>> > > Fingerprint
>> > > is an indelible part of our culture as Human Beings.
>> >



>> > Theists are nuts, too.
>> >
>> > Like atheists, they've lept to an unwarranted conclusion because they
>simply
>> > can't handle uncertainty.

Nice. Concisely sums up centuries of balderdash.



>> Well said. Consider though that there might be as many different (possibly
>false)
>> 'warrants' that lead to either conclusion as there are individuals who
>bear
>> them there.
>
>Yes, we must consider the possibility that some people are nuts. In fact,
>we might also consider the possibility that *all* people are nuts.

What would it mean -- the term "nuts" -- if all people were said to
be? Nuts compared to what?

Some hypothetical model of 'perfect sanity'?

Coincidentally, just such a hypothetical model is perhaps the most
common pathway to religious delusion. It goes something like this:

1) All people are nuts. There's something very wrong with everyone.
2) I, the Guru, have discovered the ideal way to live and be.
3) If you work hard doing x,y,z, you'll be sane and live in bliss.
4) And for $499.95 -- or, if you prefer, become my slave for life...


-Jeremy
Tom
2004-02-28 16:37:29 UTC
Permalink
"Jeremy Donovan" <***@socal.spamming.rr.spammer.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
>
> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Like atheists, they've lept to an unwarranted conclusion
> >> > because they simply can't handle uncertainty.
>
> Nice. Concisely sums up centuries of balderdash.

Thank you. I agree.

> >Yes, we must consider the possibility that some people are nuts. In
fact,
> >we might also consider the possibility that *all* people are nuts.
>
> What would it mean -- the term "nuts" -- if all people were said to
> be? Nuts compared to what?

As compared to someone who doesn't leap to unwarranted conclusions.

> Some hypothetical model of 'perfect sanity'?

Yes. We might want to consider the possibility that we all fall short of
the ideal. However, we are not all nuts in exactly the same way. Some
people are nutty about a particular subject that others may not be nutty
about. For example, theists and atheists are both nuts, as compared to
agnostics, because both have lept to the unwarranted conclusion about
something utterly unprovable while the agnostic has not. This doesn't mean
agnostics are not nuts about something else, though.

> Coincidentally, just such a hypothetical model is perhaps the most
> common pathway to religious delusion. It goes something like this:
>
> 1) All people are nuts. There's something very wrong with everyone.
> 2) I, the Guru, have discovered the ideal way to live and be.
> 3) If you work hard doing x,y,z, you'll be sane and live in bliss.
> 4) And for $499.95 -- or, if you prefer, become my slave for life...

You are injecting some notions here that I have not espoused. Specifically,
I do not claim that there is no possibility that I myself am not nuts. I
have set forth an idea of what it would take to not be nuts, but I don't
claim to embody it at all times, nor have I claimed it is an attainable
state if one simply works hard doing x,y, and z. Certainly I'm not claiming
that anyone who sends me money isn't nuts.
Old Coyote
2004-02-29 06:25:01 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<QcS%b.12296$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "Old Coyote" <***@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
> news:***@posting.google.com...
> > "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<DTA%b.10157$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > > "Meltdarok" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:nbA%b.47835$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > >
> > > > I hate to break the news to you, (again) but God is so real that His
> > > > Fingerprint
> > > > is an indelible part of our culture as Human Beings.
> > >
> > > Theists are nuts, too.
> > >
> > > Like atheists, they've lept to an unwarranted conclusion because they
> simply
> > > can't handle uncertainty.
> >
> > Well said. Consider though that there might be as many different (possibly
> false)
> > 'warrants' that lead to either conclusion as there are individuals who
> bear
> > them there.
>
> Yes, we must consider the possibility that some people are nuts.

That's not what I meant. I was attempting to point out that your
assumption "because they simply can't handle uncertainty"
might turn out to be wrong. Not that it's any big deal to me, I just
think there's a little more to it than some assumed intrinsic flaw
in human personality, which is really what you've indicated.

> In fact,
> we might also consider the possibility that *all* people are nuts.

More like probability, since that's a judgement. Just depends
on who you ask.
Tom
2004-02-29 08:03:53 UTC
Permalink
"Old Coyote" <***@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<QcS%b.12296$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >
> > Yes, we must consider the possibility that some people are nuts.
>
> That's not what I meant. I was attempting to point out that your
> assumption "because they simply can't handle uncertainty"
> might turn out to be wrong. Not that it's any big deal to me, I just
> think there's a little more to it than some assumed intrinsic flaw
> in human personality, which is really what you've indicated.

I'm open to suggestions on this. Can you think of any reason why it would
be rational to jump to either conclusion rather than accept uncertainty?

> > In fact,
> > we might also consider the possibility that *all* people are nuts.
>
> More like probability, since that's a judgement.

OK, we might also consider the probability that all people are nuts.
Old Coyote
2004-02-29 07:31:12 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<DTA%b.10157$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "Meltdarok" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:nbA%b.47835$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > I hate to break the news to you, (again) but God is so real that His
> > Fingerprint
> > is an indelible part of our culture as Human Beings.
>
> Theists are nuts, too.
>
> Like atheists, they've lept to an unwarranted conclusion because they simply
> can't handle uncertainty.

<for clarity>
"
> because they simply
> can't handle uncertainty
"

I don't think that's a very good assumption. I think people handle uncertainty
regularly, daily even. Isn't that how we deal with the future? In terms
of probabilities that is.

Also, if those people can't handle uncertainty,
would they ever gamble? Betcha find at least some of them in the casino
on any given weekend. Would they obsess over the future? Do they avoid the
stock maret, instead stashing every penny in the matress? Probably some
might but I seriously doubt it would be symptomatic.

It's the particular idea under discussion, deity, that allows you
to drag out this outdated notion. It's bad for a number of reasons, not
the least of which is that it implies weakness in other people which you,
or people like you, do not posess. That might not be wrong, but
somehow it doesn't seem likely.

I think if you look closely at the situation, you might discover that
it has more to do with identity than fear. Theism and atheism are both
institutions, independent of any individual, and so they attract
many people, who wear the uniforms and bear the flags of their chosen
institution, not out of fear but out of a need to create an identity.

When looked at this way, it seems as though you are basically deriding
both camps for a lack of critical thinking skills, but that's not very
fair. Those skills are like any other; some are more proficient than
others. It's like calling someone nuts because they are a poor musician.

There are other possibilities here, do let me know if I'm wrong.
Tom
2004-02-29 08:21:29 UTC
Permalink
"Old Coyote" <***@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<DTA%b.10157$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "
> > because they simply
> > can't handle uncertainty
>
> I don't think that's a very good assumption.

It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion.

> I think people handle uncertainty
> regularly, daily even. Isn't that how we deal with the future? In terms
> of probabilities that is.

Not really. Lots of people can't cope with the uncertainty of the future.
They believe in prophecies, divinations, and all manner of prognostications
designed to lessen the feeling of uncertainty about what's going to happen.

> Also, if those people can't handle uncertainty,
> would they ever gamble? Betcha find at least some of them in the casino
> on any given weekend. Would they obsess over the future? Do they avoid the
> stock maret, instead stashing every penny in the matress? Probably some
> might but I seriously doubt it would be symptomatic.

Since different people are nutty about different things, we can reasonably
conclude that people can handle a greater uncertainty in some areas than in
others. My theory is that the more emotional investment one has in a
particular area, the less uncertainty in that area can be tolerated.

> It's the particular idea under discussion, deity, that allows you
> to drag out this outdated notion.

At what point in time did it become "outdated"?

> It's bad for a number of reasons, not
> the least of which is that it implies weakness in other people
> which you, or people like you, do not posess.

I have not stated anywhere that I do not possess a similar flaw. Mine
simply isn't in the same area as that of the theists and atheists.

> When looked at this way, it seems as though you are basically deriding
> both camps for a lack of critical thinking skills, but that's not very
> fair.

It seems quite fair to me. I don't have the skills at basketball that
Shaquille O'Neal has. It's not unfair to either of us that I acknowledge
it.

> There are other possibilities here, do let me know if I'm wrong.

I rarely hesitate in such matters.
Old Coyote
2004-02-29 16:42:59 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<dih0c.14685$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "Old Coyote" <***@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
> news:***@posting.google.com...
> > "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<DTA%b.10157$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > "
> > > because they simply
> > > can't handle uncertainty
> >
> > I don't think that's a very good assumption.
>
> It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion.
>
> > I think people handle uncertainty
> > regularly, daily even. Isn't that how we deal with the future? In terms
> > of probabilities that is.
>
> Not really. Lots of people can't cope with the uncertainty of the future.
> They believe in prophecies, divinations, and all manner of prognostications
> designed to lessen the feeling of uncertainty about what's going to happen.

I disagree. I think the purpose of such things is not to reassure
folks regarding things they are uncertain of, but rather to give
them hope concerning things they *are* certain of. "Will I get that
promotion?", "Will I hook up with so-and-so?"; I'm sure you know
as well as I, if you have to ask...

> > Also, if those people can't handle uncertainty,
> > would they ever gamble? Betcha find at least some of them in the casino
> > on any given weekend. Would they obsess over the future? Do they avoid the
> > stock maret, instead stashing every penny in the matress? Probably some
> > might but I seriously doubt it would be symptomatic.
>
> Since different people are nutty about different things, we can reasonably
> conclude that people can handle a greater uncertainty in some areas than in
> others. My theory is that the more emotional investment one has in a
> particular area, the less uncertainty in that area can be tolerated.

I think that might be true, but only for a portion of the general
population, and only in a certain context, say people who could be
reasonably said to have an obsession about something. Again though,
I don't think it's fear that motivates the behaviour, but rather
a desire for control of the object of obsession.

> > It's the particular idea under discussion, deity, that allows you
> > to drag out this outdated notion.
>
> At what point in time did it become "outdated"?

I think it's pretty well accepted that people are generally motivated a
lot more by positive things (like desire) than negative (like fear). When
this came to be I'm not sure. In terms of the modern academic establishment,
probably sometime in the second half of the last century.

> > It's bad for a number of reasons, not
> > the least of which is that it implies weakness in other people
> > which you, or people like you, do not posess.
>
> I have not stated anywhere that I do not possess a similar flaw. Mine
> simply isn't in the same area as that of the theists and atheists.
>
> > When looked at this way, it seems as though you are basically deriding
> > both camps for a lack of critical thinking skills, but that's not very
> > fair.
>
> It seems quite fair to me. I don't have the skills at basketball that
> Shaquille O'Neal has. It's not unfair to either of us that I acknowledge
> it.

Yes but acknowledging a fact and issuing a derogatory judgement based
on that fact are not the same thing.

> > There are other possibilities here, do let me know if I'm wrong.
>
> I rarely hesitate in such matters.

Never thought you did.
Tom
2004-02-29 18:03:31 UTC
Permalink
"Old Coyote" <***@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> "Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<dih0c.14685$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >
> > Not really. Lots of people can't cope with the uncertainty of the
future.
> > They believe in prophecies, divinations, and all manner of
prognostications
> > designed to lessen the feeling of uncertainty about what's going to
happen.
>
> I disagree.

Feel free to do so. We can explain things all sorts of ways.

> I think the purpose of such things is not to reassure
> folks regarding things they are uncertain of, but rather to give
> them hope concerning things they *are* certain of. "Will I get that
> promotion?", "Will I hook up with so-and-so?"; I'm sure you know
> as well as I, if you have to ask...

Sounds to me like they're looking for certainty. Of course, it may sound
different to you.

> > Since different people are nutty about different things, we can
reasonably
> > conclude that people can handle a greater uncertainty in some areas than
in
> > others. My theory is that the more emotional investment one has in a
> > particular area, the less uncertainty in that area can be tolerated.
>
> I think that might be true, but only for a portion of the general
> population, and only in a certain context, say people who could be
> reasonably said to have an obsession about something. Again though,
> I don't think it's fear that motivates the behaviour, but rather
> a desire for control of the object of obsession.

I haven't found a single person in all my life who did not display a certain
amount of nuttiness. Not all of them were obsessed. Just nutty.

> > > It's the particular idea under discussion, deity, that allows you
> > > to drag out this outdated notion.
> >
> > At what point in time did it become "outdated"?
>
> I think it's pretty well accepted that people are generally motivated a
> lot more by positive things (like desire) than negative (like fear). When
> this came to be I'm not sure. In terms of the modern academic
establishment,
> probably sometime in the second half of the last century.

The difference between desire and fear is a matter of perspective. Do we
fear death because we desire life, or do we desire life because we fear
death?

> > > When looked at this way, it seems as though you are basically
> > > deriding both camps for a lack of critical thinking skills, but
> > > that's not very fair.
> >
> > It seems quite fair to me. I don't have the skills at basketball that
> > Shaquille O'Neal has. It's not unfair to either of us that I
acknowledge
> > it.
>
> Yes but acknowledging a fact and issuing a derogatory judgement based
> on that fact are not the same thing.

Sometimes acknowledging a fact does not flatter. Does that make it less a
fact? Does that make it "unfair"?
*
2004-02-24 16:18:01 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:47:11 -0800, "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"*" <***@plz.com> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 19:45:09 -0800, "Ugly Bob" <***@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Wally AngleseaT" <***@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote in
>> >message
>> >news:***@4ax.com...
>> >> On 18 Feb 2004 17:38:48 -0800, ***@ziplip.com (Koyaanisqatsi
>> >> Fahrvergnugen) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <SNIP>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Tom's a nut. HTH.
>> >> >
>> >> >"Tom received his Ph.D. degree in Astronomy,
>> >> >specializing in celestial mechanics, from
>> >> >Yale University in 1969. He spent 20 years
>> >> >at the U.S. Naval Observatory, where he
>> >> >became the Chief of the Celestial Mechanics
>> >> >Branch. In 1991, Tom formed a Washington,
>> >> >DC-based organization, Meta Research, to
>> >> >foster research into ideas not otherwise
>> >> >supported solely because they conflict with
>> >> >mainstream theories in Astronomy.
>> >> >Tom is editor of the Meta Research Bulletin,
>> >> >which specializes in reporting anomalies and
>> >> >evidence that does not fit with standard
>> >> >theories in the field. During the past few
>> >> >years, he has also been a Research Associate
>> >> >at the University of Maryland Physics
>> >> >Department in College Park, MD, and a
>> >> >consultant to the Army Research Laboratory
>> >> >in Adelphi, MD, working on improving the
>> >> >accuracy of the Global Positioning System (GPS)."
>> >>
>>http://www.metaresearch.org/home/about%20meta%20research/vanflandern.asp
>> >>
>> >> So what?, Toms' still a nut. HTH
>> >
>> > Absoutely Goddamn right! Tom, Kevin and Mike van Flandern are
>> >_all_ nuts!
>> >
>> > -Ugly Bob
>> >
>> Not as insane as you are with your fanatical religious fundamentalist
>> zealotry. And your dad's.
>
> We're Atheists. HTH.

No you're not.
Pontifex Maximus
2004-02-20 05:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Wally Anglesea? <***@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> <SNIP>
> >> Tom's a nut. HTH.
> >http://www.metaresearch.org/home/about%20meta%20research/vanflandern.asp
> So what?, Toms' still a nut. HTH

"Acharya S " <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm>...

[] From: Acharya S <***@yahoo.com>
[] To: ***@yahoo.com
[] Subject: The Christ Conspiracy: The Antidote to the Passion of the Christ
[] Date: Feb 13, 2004 2:41 PM
[] Hello! It is time to start an email campaign
[] countering the Religious Right's ecstatic
[] endorsement of Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion."
[] I have been asked numerous questions regarding
[] this violent movie, and after recommending people,
[] remembering that "it's only a movie, it's only a
[] movie," I have now decided that a BOYCOTT would be
[] a much better idea. Instead of spending the money
[] on seeing "The Passion," buy a copy of "The Christ
[] Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold" and give
[] it to the friends who are trying to get you to see
[] the movie. "The Christ Conspiracy" is the
[] antidote to "The Passion of the Christ." Please
[] feel free to pass this message along to family,
[] friends, churches, synagoguges, favorite media
[] outlets and any other interested parties.
[] Acharya S
[] http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm
[]

Mel LOVES Toture, e.g. Road Warrior, Lethal Weapon,
Brave Heart, Payback, The Patriot, The Passion.
http://members.wri.com/billw/images/passion09.jpg
$o, what el$e is new under the Hollywood $ign?
[No Pain - No Gain] -- Pontifex Maximus

> Paul Harvey comments on upcoming movie
>
> "The Passion" by Mel Gibson
>
> Movie due for general release February 25.
> The majority of the media are complaining about this movie. Now
> Paul Harvey tells "The rest of the story."
>
> Paul Harvey's words:
>
> I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have
> been invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film
> "The Passion," but I had also read all the cautious articles
> and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much of my
> own faith journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply
> held aversion to anything that might even indirectly
> encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language
> or actions.
>
> I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion", held in
> Washington DC and greeted some familiar faces. The
> environment was typically Washingtonian, with people
> greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you,
> having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very
> briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room
> darkened. From the gripping opening scene in the Garden
> of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of
> the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest,
> the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter with
> the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene
> in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an
> encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.
>
> In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an
> artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection,
> sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since
> my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly,
> I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this
> "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in
> Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this time from
> sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place.
> The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was
> now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were
> woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that
> is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.
>
> One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my
> mind. A brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again
> under the weight of the cross. His mother had made her
> way along the Via Della Rosa. As she ran to him, she
> flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in
> the dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to
> protect him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his
> wounded adult face. Jesus looked at her with intensely
> probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through
> the screen) and said "Behold I make all things new."
> These are words taken from the last Book of the New Testament,
> the Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was
> so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so
> difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body,
> became intensely beautiful.
> They had been borne voluntarily for love.
>
> At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to
> recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous
> praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as
> astounding as the compliments were effusive. The questions
> included the one question that seems to follow this film, even
> though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film
> considered by some to be "anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having now
> experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a
> question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom
> I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded
> "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can
> insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed
> Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my
> sins killed Jesus" I agree. There is not a scintilla of
> anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film.
> If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully
> tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and
> profoundly engaging way.
>
> Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the
> film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This
> is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only
> to those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus
> Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply
> touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art.
> Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has
> remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer
> acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands
> that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right
> to tell it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever
> told and that its message is for all men and women. The greatest
> right is the right to hear the truth.
> We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel
> narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written
> by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and
> teaching have forever changed the history of the world.
> The problem is not the message but those who have
> distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution
> is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind
> of gift of love that is Mel Gibson's filmmaking masterpiece,
> "The Passion."
> It should be seen by as many people as possible.
> I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is the case.
> I am passionate about "The Passion."
>
> You will be as well. Don't miss it! -- Paul Harvey
>
> "Wisdom is the reward you get for a lifetime of listening
> when you'd have preferred to talk." Doug Larson
>
> http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=7037&goto=nextoldest
>

What?!
What sort of complete moron lists watching
a movie as evoking as much emotional reflection
as the birth of his child?
How emotionally impoverished can you be?

Quote:
Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so
clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film
had been so difficult to see in His face, His
back, indeed all over His body, became
intensely beautiful. They had been borne
voluntarily for love.

A moronic, emotionally impoverished sadist.
And he's a Christian.
Into the marshes with him!
http://members.wri.com/billw/images/passion09.jpg



> > http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm

Excommunicate DNA Now!!
Loading...