below --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > One more comment on Edg's post: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote: > > > > Magicians have fooled folks for 10,000 years, and such > > types are obsessed with finding new ways to fool more > > folks. Crop circles being made so quickly by folks who > > are intent on fooling others about their production > > methods is, well, very understandable and a far easier > > explanation to invest in than that something "other > > worldly" is a contender of merit on our list of theories. > > Absolutely, much more understandable and a far easier > explanation to invest in (although I'd want to change > the phrase in quotes to "inexplicable with current > knowledge," because, as noted in my earlier post, I > don't think they're "other worldly"). > > But facts don't necessarily always conform to the > comfortable "understandable" and "easier explanation" > criteria. > > The other thing I said about the skeptics is that > they're *ignorant*, and here too Edg fits the pattern. > > If Edg had done his homework, he'd know that there are > aspects to some of the crop circles that can't be > conveniently attributed to "fooling" abilities on the > part of human beans. I discussed some of these--with > links--the last time we had this discussion. Edg could > find those posts easily by searching for "authfriend" > and "crop circles." Then he could take a gander at the > links and inform himself.
Such acid in your tone, tsk. Why should I inform myself about what I think is an impossibility? If you're going to win this debate, you gotta at least own the topic enough to educate others again and again - like I do when I promote my "true knowledge about the Absolute" herein. Repeat repeat repeat. But you don't, and I think it's a tell -- not that you're lazy or a bad teacher -- but that you don't have the mojo to plunk down on the table, and so you send folks into the history of the posts -- knowing what a piece of shit the Yahoo search function is. Send folks on a wild goose chase ya does. Shame. Own the fucking topic. Tell us, 1., 2., 3. your top stunners about crop circles -- like: the stems are bent by methods we know not of but it sure isn't a guy with a plank and a rope stomping them down." That statement, fraught with illogic, can at least be examined, but we don't see you ponying up these kinds of items, and instead, we get you putting my personality to shame. Tsk. Your crop circle agnosticism is a know-nothing-ism sham stance. Judy, seriously, do you really mean to say that someone like The Great Randi couldn't make a joke out of the whole notion that there are non-human explanations, and that you'd still be there saying, "Nope, could be something non-human?" Frankly, I count on your intellect to post stuff here that penetrates the crop circle type of "mystery" enough to rule out non-human causes, but the fact that you're not doing so is a very strong tell that you are holding back from admitting your beliefs to us here lest you be ridiculed. Chicken shit!!!!! Edg > > If he runs true to form, though, he won't be bothered. > Neither did the other skeptics the last time (except > for Curtis). > > "Skeptics" isn't really the right term here. *I'm* a > skeptic, in that I've suspended judgment because we > simply don't know enough either way. The others are > skeptopaths. >
