Never mind
The point is, Chuckles, is that you, personally, have convinced me(and just about everyone else you’ve come in contact with, probably) that this book isn’t worth touching, let alone reading. I might even drop a note to the publisher thanking you for your efforts.
How does that work? What relationship do my views and posting style have to the content of this book, if you don’t mind explaining?
Millions of books out there, bucky, and I’ve only got one lifetime to read them in. You have given me no reason to waste some of that time on this book.
Still does nothing to explain your reasoning in post #242.
And have you read ANY of the books written in this genre? Maybe you can convince the readers that this would be a genuine field of enquiry for your good self.
I’m done with this
“I don’t understand”
explanation
“I don’t understand”
explanation
“I don’t understand”
game. This game is usually played by idiots and jerks, but I’ll leave it to the other posters to decide which applies here. The best I can do is give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are one or the other, and not both.
When a reputable person refers one to an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal, one reads it. When an imbicile playing with shit in his hands tells one to also play with the shit because playing with shit is the true way to enlightment, one does not join in playing with the shit. Since your views and posting style amount to playing with your own shit, readers are not willing to join in your party.
Let the record show that Czarcasm failed to answer a simple non-leading question, instead prefering to do some irate muttering and threaten to throw his rattle out of the crib.
You are only convincing yourself and the already decided with your throwaway insults and pathetic jibes.
Oh, and it’s imbEcile, not imbIcile, you fucking imbecile.
Having never read the Origin of Species, and having very little idea of what it’s about other than maybe something to do with Galapagos Finches and speciation thereof…
I can still discuss evolution infinitely more competently than you have thus far discussed UFO evidence.
And I say this as a person perfectly willing to believe in UFOs if I see some evidence–HD photographs will do for a start, perhaps some actual physical evidence?
We’ll just add “UFO-credulous” and “incoherent debater” to the list of reasons to ignore you. For reference, that list also contains “belligerent asshole”, “lives with parents far, far too long”, “incompetent criminal (since you got caught)”, “anti-semite racist” and “generally too stupid to live”.
I see that he is an expect in at least one field:
I used to be all up in this alien business. I read Whitley Strieber’s Communion and watched all the alien and area 51 documentaries on TV. Then I turned 10.
I’ll be in my bunk.
At least you’re honest about the lack of evidence, but it just adds to the question of why you believe it and why anyone else should. The worlds of law and science are based on evidence, but whereas law is based on the system of beyond reasonable doubt, science constantly updates itself to amend for new or contradictory evidence discovered. Not sure what you expect the world of science to do given the admitted lack of empirical evidence. Examine the circumstantial evidence, based mostly on unreliable witnesses? The method stalls straight away, back to square one.
I still have several of Whitley’s books, including Communion. It’s too bad he, like **ivan **here, can’t produce any actual evidence, and his claims amount to exactly the same as me claiming that I am actually Iron Man, I just don’t want anyone to see the suit.
The stupidest part about ivan’s thread here is people like me. I literally “want to believe”. I would LOVE actual evidence of extraterrestrial presences on this planet. Unfortunately, said evidence does not exist so far as I’m aware, and like **Czarcasm **I’m not going to read one more book by one more idiot recommended by a lazy-ass with no apparent redeeming qualities without a clearer idea of what I would gain from it.
Exactly where it is today. (Real quantum mechanics that is, not the retardo mystical “your brain changes the universe” quantum mechanics of crackpot pseudoscience.)
Quantum mechanics exists as a field because people who saw phenomenon that couldn’t be explained by existing theory worked hard to come up with repeatable, quantifiable experiments which could only be explained by a new quantum theory. It was all Occam’s Razor. No one for one second would have expected the scientific community to accept such a radical change in the model of atomic scale physics without incontrovertible evidence. (Note that to scientists, incontrovertible doesn’t mean “a bunch of hearsay accounts in a book I read”.)
This is why it’s so comical when people who believe ridiculous things without evidence argue conspiracy by the scientific community. Quantum mechanics shows that scientists as a group will accept some fairly radical changes to their entire field, if there’s actually evidence to support them.
No one experts the Spanish Inquisition!
I inspected you to say that!
I haven’t read the entire thread, so my apologies if this was addressed in one of the middle pages. But has it ever been settled as to which muppet our OP was accusing xtisme of being? Elmo? Grover? Kermit the Frog? Inquiring minds want to know!
Beaker, perhaps?
(ETA: My personal preference would be the Chef)
-XT