Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 54 of 54

Thread: [Nidio_Ohio's UFO thread]

  1. #31

    New Empirical Observations

    "You need to get out more." (chrlzs)

    A healthy suggestion. By now everybody knows about sunlight and vitamin D (or K, maybe?). However, you don't need a walk in the park if you eat large amounts of butter and egg white (albumen). Going out is not at all pleasant in big cities.

    "Is that because you cannot back up the claims? The proper thing to do, I would think, would be to either back them up or withdraw them..." (Ibid.)

    How could I possibly supply anyone with indisputable proof? Even if I were to arrange a meeting between you and the abductee, and I don't even know if he's still with us, he might not be able to convince you. Ultimately you have to rely on your own good judgement in such cases, based on the published data available. You can't go around interviewing people all over the world. My educated or uneducated guess was that it could, in fact, be an authentic case.

    Hynek discusses these "close encounters of the third type" in chapter 10. He chooses not to rely on that kind of evidence on the grounds that he was able to talk to very few witnesses.


    "What exactly do you mean by 'pseudophilosophy' (…)?" (Ibid.)

    It was a pun that was mistaken for something else, yet I do object to the usual attitude associated particularly with the natural sciences. It has to do with refusing to examine what Hynek calls "(new) empirical observations". Please see further ahead.

    "Just ONE piece of indisputable evidence, and ET will be accepted as valid. If we are being visited in numerous forms and multiple times, why would that be so difficult?" (Ibid.)


    That's a common and logical reasoning: "They come and go. By now there ought to be a museum somewhere full of hard evidence." It's as though they were playing hide and seek, and that's exactly the case. There's such a thing as the Law of Free Will or Law of Confusion. They respect the right to decide for ourselves. If everything were perfectly clear --if they were to make a parade down a big avenue and then proceed to solve all our problems--, it would be an illegitimate involvement in affairs that are our own responsibility. Their purpose is to intrigue people and lead them to look into the matter.

    Besides, it's broader than just ET's. It's our older brothers and sisters, or "spiritual guides", with or without the hardware. Some of them have no physical presence. That some of them actually come on spaceships is irrelevant because it's a collective enterprise.

    "No, he didn't claim that." (Ibid.)

    In that case then I don't understand his point. He seems to be focusing on a single case in order to show that the entire affair is ridiculous.

    "You're filling an already wonderful universe with sordid inventions that are completely unnecessary. Why?" (HenrikOlsen)

    That's your personal interpretation of the matter. I am not inventing anything. Your innocence is childlike, and even charming. So many astonishing things are going on that you refuse to look into. There is a blind spot in your mind.

    "Please tone down your style or you will find yourself being infracted for rudeness." (Capt. Swoop)

    I'm striving to adjust to the strictness of the rules here and I understand the need for them, given the human tendency towards violent strife. Maybe this forum will manage to take it out of me? It's not bad if you're somewhat on the wild side, if you're eager to learn.

    "Kindly identify what you assume to be the higher ground, and why you consider it to be so." (Abaddon the Avenging Angel, or something like that)

    This is a good place to go back to Hynek's concept of "new empirical observation". The phrase is self-explanatory and has to do with the history of science --the way it progresses. Science moves forward whenever it encounters NEO's that don't fit the present theoretical framework and lead to drastic changes in the same. This is discussed in Thomas Kuhn's book on scientific revolutions. Hynek claims that unexplainable UFO's are, in fact, an example of a NEO, and that most scientists refuse to deal with the problem. This is the gist of the matter. We are witnessing it right here in this forum. The "higher ground" involves a willingness to examine NEO's.

    " (…) there are several French speakers here who would happily translate for you." (chrlzs)

    I learned French at school decades ago. Otherwise, how could I have read a book in French? What I meant was that if I was to quote I'd have to translate the quotes and it would be a little time-consuming, but it looks like it wasn't necessary.

    I'm sorry. This is exhausting. I'll have to continue some other day.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    19,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    ...Hynek claims that unexplainable UFO's are, in fact, an example of a NEO, and that most scientists refuse to deal with the problem.
    Near Earth Object?
    North East Ohio?
    New European order?
    New Economic order?
    The Lithuanian band?
    Characters in "the Matrix"?
    Me?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,201
    Oh dear, Nidio_Ohio. I do hope you don't think you're saying anything new.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    It's as though they were playing hide and seek, and that's exactly the case. There's such a thing as the Law of Free Will or Law of Confusion. They respect the right to decide for ourselves. If everything were perfectly clear --if they were to make a parade down a big avenue and then proceed to solve all our problems--, it would be an illegitimate involvement in affairs that are our own responsibility. Their purpose is to intrigue people and lead them to look into the matter.
    Anybody can come up with excuses for not presenting evidence. This example is one of the worst excuses I've seen since the thread some years ago when someone likened fleeting alien appearances to teaching scared youngsters to swim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    Besides, it's broader than just ET's. It's our older brothers and sisters, or "spiritual guides", with or without the hardware. Some of them have no physical presence. That some of them actually come on spaceships is irrelevant because it's a collective enterprise.
    Whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    That's your personal interpretation of the matter. I am not inventing anything. Your innocence is childlike, and even charming. So many astonishing things are going on that you refuse to look into. There is a blind spot in your mind.
    Again the patronising assumption that anybody who disagrees with mumbo-jumbo must have failed to look into it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    This is a good place to go back to Hynek's concept of "new empirical observation". The phrase is self-explanatory and has to do with the history of science --the way it progresses.
    It's funny how scientists who actually produce evidence and get things done simply talk about "empirical observation" without any need to put the word "new" in front.

    So:

    empirical observation = careful, objective measurement

    new empirical observation = spooky anecdote

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Beardsley View Post
    Anybody can come up with excuses for not presenting evidence.
    I recently read Voodoo Histories by David Aaronovitch; one of the common themes running through most of the conspiracy theories is the lack of evidence. One of the most common "reasons" given is that it proves there must be a powerful conspiracy because they have managed to hide all the evidence. Brilliant.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,068
    Yes, I hear that one all the time. It fails to impress.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    "Is that because you cannot back up the claims? The proper thing to do, I would think, would be to either back them up or withdraw them..." (Ibid.)
    How could I possibly supply anyone with indisputable proof? Even if I were to arrange a meeting between you and the abductee, and I don't even know if he's still with us, he might not be able to convince you.
    Wrong tack entirely, it's an interview with the abductors that'll be proof.

    Eyewitnesses are inherently unreliable, even when the witness is sincere and truthful, and can never stand alone as proof.
    Last edited by HenrikOlsen; 2012-Jan-05 at 09:08 PM. Reason: Stole the "sincere and truthful" bit from Garrison because that does make the statement stronger
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    [B]
    How could I possibly supply anyone with indisputable proof? Even if I were to arrange a meeting between you and the abductee, and I don't even know if he's still with us, he might not be able to convince you. Ultimately you have to rely on your own good judgement in such cases, based on the published data available. You can't go around interviewing people all over the world. My educated or uneducated guess was that it could, in fact, be an authentic case.
    It's not a matter of judgement, empirical and experimental evidence points to the fallibility of human perception and memory, combined with established phenomenon like sleep paralysis the default explanations for abduction are either hallucination or of course hoax.

    Hynek discusses these "close encounters of the third type" in chapter 10. He chooses not to rely on that kind of evidence on the grounds that he was able to talk to very few witnesses.
    He could interview thousands and it still wouldn't amount to evidence, especially given the cultural contamination that ensures abduction stories from around the world share similar elements.


    It was a pun that was mistaken for something else, yet I do object to the usual attitude associated particularly with the natural sciences. It has to do with refusing to examine what Hynek calls "(new) empirical observations". Please see further ahead.
    Hynek was an astronomer interviewing people long before the myriad problems with eyewitness testimony were well known, the value of those unsupported stories is effectively zero.


    That's a common and logical reasoning: "They come and go. By now there ought to be a museum somewhere full of hard evidence." It's as though they were playing hide and seek, and that's exactly the case. There's such a thing as the Law of Free Will or Law of Confusion. They respect the right to decide for ourselves. If everything were perfectly clear --if they were to make a parade down a big avenue and then proceed to solve all our problems--, it would be an illegitimate involvement in affairs that are our own responsibility. Their purpose is to intrigue people and lead them to look into the matter.
    Except such an image is contradicted by any number of encounter claims in which the aliens are clearly attempting to interfere and their craft are described in contradictory but definitely technological terms not to mention there are endless numbers of different 'species' described and yet they all abide by this 'Star Trek' code of ethics. If you are going to advocate the UFO phenomenon you need to deal with the whole of it, not just cherry pick a few events that if your favourite vision of what they are supposed to be.
    Besides, it's broader than just ET's. It's our older brothers and sisters, or "spiritual guides", with or without the hardware. Some of them have no physical presence. That some of them actually come on spaceships is irrelevant because it's a collective enterprise.
    As I already pointed flatly contradicted by many accounts, on what basis are you ignoring those that disagree with your view of the phenomenon?
    That's your personal interpretation of the matter. I am not inventing anything. Your innocence is childlike, and even charming. So many astonishing things are going on that you refuse to look into. There is a blind spot in your mind.
    As is so often the case with CT's they see the reflection of themselves in others.

    I'm striving to adjust to the strictness of the rules here and I understand the need for them, given the human tendency towards violent strife. Maybe this forum will manage to take it out of me? It's not bad if you're somewhat on the wild side, if you're eager to learn.
    But you don't seem to have any desire to learn, you've drawn an evidence free conclusion about the nature of UFOs. Are you willing to listen when people explain the flaws in your ideas?

    This is a good place to go back to Hynek's concept of "new empirical observation". The phrase is self-explanatory and has to do with the history of science --the way it progresses. Science moves forward whenever it encounters NEO's that don't fit the present theoretical framework and lead to drastic changes in the same. This is discussed in Thomas Kuhn's book on scientific revolutions. Hynek claims that unexplainable UFO's are, in fact, an example of a NEO, and that most scientists refuse to deal with the problem. This is the gist of the matter. We are witnessing it right here in this forum. The "higher ground" involves a willingness to examine NEO's.
    Not when it comes to unsupported eyewitness testimony it doesn't. Experiments have demonstrated time and again that eyewitness accounts are inherently unreliable even when the witness is sincere and truthful. That doesn't even address the ways in which badly conducted interviews and simply sharing a story with others can reshape memory.

    I'm sorry. This is exhausting. I'll have to continue some other day.
    If you do so please try for some actual empirical evidence, not just eyewitness stories.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    I'm not inventing anything.
    So you have evidence for these..."older brothers and sisters", or "spiritual guides"...some of which have "no physical presence"???


    I await the presentation of that evidence.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    (snip)
    I do think that the Knights of Kilopi et al. are the kind of people who make a selective use of their sources, rejecting whatever doesn't agree with their convictions, and that they're UNWILLINGLY part of a "conspiracy", a "coverup", a "plot" or whatever term is best for the occasion. However that may be, it's an honor to be able to have contradictors who are willing to pick a quarrel.
    (snip)
    Indeed. Most of mainstreamers here select and accept only sources that meet the tagline below. For example, string theorists are still in limbo; there are as yet no testable predictions. For SR and GR, known to be as one scientist put it, “Embarrassingly correct”, fully accepted.

    But the Knights are not too stuffy. Where else can you follow the misadventures of the invisible elf? (Those recent rumors about an incident with Lady Gaga and the elf are just totally unfounded.)

    Regards, John M.
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isn’t a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  10. #40

    Evidence

    "Never heard of him/her before and no idea who he/she may be." (Abaddon)

    I've mentioned the report at the Universe Today website that has comments of mine, and I use my real name there. My pseudonym here appeared in a dream around the time when I joined the BAUT Forum, so I decided to use it here.

    "new empirical observation = spooky anecdote" (P. Beardsley)

    You're not paying attention: I've explained how objective observations that don't fit have played a part in the history of science. Read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Th. Kuhn, already mentioned, and Hynek's book, which I still find useful.

    As for the obsessive demand for what you understand to be the only sort of legitimate evidence, please see my discussion on the nature of evidence in my thread on Mars.

    I already described what I call "Dawkinsism": an unwillingness to examine the NEO's that move science forward.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    You're not paying attention: I've explained how objective observations that don't fit have played a part in the history of science. Read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Th. Kuhn, already mentioned, and Hynek's book, which I still find useful.
    And you are still debating by links. Give the very best example here, in your own words, that backs up what you say. Show how it applies to the very best example you have of alien visitation.

    As for the obsessive demand for what you understand to be the only sort of legitimate evidence, please see my discussion on the nature of evidence in my thread on Mars.
    No thanks. Bring the key ontopic points here, as described above... Examples, logical analysis. Not handwaving.

    I already described what I call "Dawkinsism": an unwillingness to examine the NEO's that move science forward.
    Who's refusing to examine claims? The claims either stand on their merits, or they do not. If there's a better way, I'm all ears, but if you keep avoiding giving a direct and relevant example to discuss... there is nothing to discuss. Can you provide some Kuhn quotes that are directly relevant?

    I have heard the old comment "there are so many ufo reports, so some of them must be alien" before, many times. You may as well substitue any fantasy entity for 'alien'.

    Strangely, I think there just might be a lot of ufo reports because people:
    - are unfamiliar with their skies (which contain a lot of moving stuff)
    - like telling stories
    - have seen too many sci-fi movies
    - are trying to make a buck
    - are trolling/hoaxing
    .. (I'll stop there, but there are more)

    The ONLY way to prove an alien visitation is NOT to add up lots of sightings. It's to find evidence of an alien visitation.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    You're not paying attention: I've explained how objective observations that don't fit have played a part in the history of science.
    The part you're leaving out is the confidence regarding the observations. By confidence I mean the assurance that a new observation genuinely represents a significant new phenomenon and is not simply an error, a misinterpretation, or an unremarkable anomaly. The observations that advance science do not arise out of what is fundamentally an uncertainty.

    As for the obsessive demand for what you understand to be the only sort of legitimate evidence, please see my discussion on the nature of evidence in my thread on Mars.
    Attempting to redefine what evidence is will not earn you respect among scientists. You seem to be trying to argue that ufology should get the recognition it deserves as a new legitimate science. But what you're really doing is asking the scientific community to cut you some slack and lower their standards.

    I already described what I call "Dawkinsism": an unwillingness to examine the NEO's that move science forward.
    Inventing a new name for ordinary scientific skepticism does not justify your vilification of it. Handwaving is handwaving, no matter what you call it. If you want your anecdotes to be afforded respect in scientific circles, you have to satisfy the burden of proof for confidence in the observation.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    As for the obsessive demand for what you understand to be the only sort of legitimate evidence, please see my discussion on the nature of evidence in my thread on Mars.
    I take it you mean the part where you listed intuition as a form of evidence. I can't remember if that was before or after you dismissed people's patient explanation as to why bulldozers would be an absurdly impractical idea, and insisted on an even more absurdly impractical idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    I already described what I call "Dawkinsism": an unwillingness to examine the NEO's that move science forward.
    You see, the trouble with reality is that there is (probably) an infinite number of things that might be true. An infinite number is an unmanageable number, so scientists insist on only entertaining those might-be-true things that are actually supported by evidence. Now this might seem narrow-minded to people who don't understand the value of science, but the alternative would be insanity.

    Intuition, dreams, overheard conversations, misheard song lyrics - anything - might inspire people to try out a new avenue of investigation. But these things are not themselves evidence, and real evidence will be required to support any findings. Real evidence and reason.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    You're not paying attention: I've explained how objective observations that don't fit have played a part in the history of science.
    I've highlighted the key word there because UFO's are an almost entirely subjective phenomenon. It's based on the subjective experiences and memories of often uncorroborated eyewitnesses. It's based on people seeing lights in the sky and subjectively deciding they must be alien spacecraft; while the person who looks at them through a telescope sees aircraft. And all of this being largely investigated by people who have already subjectively decided that alien spacecraft are in our skies, and will dismiss all contrary evidence.

    If you have objective evidence for a UFO that can be positively identified as something alien/exotic please share it.

  15. #45
    I would move that the entire idea of "objective observation" is suspect. This is why science puts so much stock on independent verification and repeatability.

    ETA: oh and while I probably shouldn't ask, but just for the heck of it I shall -- why is "an unwillingness to examine the NEO's that move science forward" specifically "Dawkinsism"?
    Last edited by tnjrp; 2012-Jan-12 at 07:57 AM.
    The dog, the dog, he's at it again!

  16. #46

    Throwing Pearls To the Swine?

    I's going to "cease & desist" with no further ado and comments, then I thought I might send one last comment --"MARGARITAE AD PORCOS"-- and vanish in the night forevermore, but something encouraged me to keep going. I received this "notification" from a "lurker":

    Welcome back

    Hey, I've been lurking over at the now closed Mars thread and was glad to see you come back. The ATM/conspiracy theories sections are a bit brutal (some might say over the top), but I do not think you should lose heart. I agree with the others that time was not wasted there, even if some of your ideas grew criticism. I am in [here the unexpected well-wisher names a profession] and could speak to the challenges and merits of some of your ideas if you had any specific questions. See you around!

    I'd already suspected that like-minded people were abstaining from backing me up for fear of being ridiculed, and here I finally found proof of this. The cautious attitude is understandable but it gives the false impression that there is a consensus on this forum enforced by the Knights of Kilopi and their foot soldiers. It now turns out that there is another army here, which chooses to remain far in the background.

    Actually, that message of encouragement doesn't show how like-minded that person is. It simply voices an interest in the Martian project. Even so, I'd now like to make some additional remarks.

    First, the core of the matter is not the need to give scientific evidence because, as explained on the other thread, there is more than one way of knowing. There is no single royal road to certainty. This can't be discussed fully unless you've acquainted yourself with epistemology. We're dealing with what is a personal quest, which is ultimately an "inner voyage". In the so-called "Western world", but particularly in northern Europe, where 70 percent of the population claims to be atheist (in the U.S. the percentages are the opposite), most people have chosen to close the door leading to it. They greatly fear what might be found beyond it.

    Second, from the very start I found myself surrounded by people for whom the said quest was a given datum, but also someone who'd closed the door for me. There was a grandfather who'd established the first Theosophical lodge in our country, a grandmother who'd gone to two spiritual séances after the death of her oldest child in 1930 and who'd shown me the written message from someone who couldn't've been other than her ("automatic writing" is what they call it), and, more recently, and more to the point, an uncle's widow who knows someone belonging to a group of people who are in telepathic communication with ET's. They gather at a farm near Leticia, our southernmost city, in the Amazonian jungle, which is completely isolated by land and has no other access routes except by airplane or along the Amazon River. They occasionally see a spaceship at night hovering above. (Years ago none other than Bill Gates came down in his yacht all the way over from the East Coast up in North America and went upriver, but how far, I can't say.)

    So, that is the kind of evidence I've always had. If this is a breach of the rules here then I'm afraid this thread must be closed, too.

    I haven't mentioned another reason for their not showing up officially: eventually humans develop telepathy to the point that thoughts can't be hidden. It can only be a common feature of morally advanced societies, not people like us, who still harbor occasionally violent, disturbing emotions. We don't want people rummaging through our minds. The presence of such individuals would be intolerable for most of us. Birds of a feather flock together. A tiny minority, which I do not belong to, is up to their lofty standards.

    If I'd read something like that when I was a conceited skeptic, I, too, would've thought it was the work of a madman, a liar or a delusional drug addict. I hope it doesn't lead anybody here to nightmares or psychotic episodes!

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    There is no single royal road to certainty.
    That is clearly true. People are certain about all sorts of nonsense.

    However, there is, as far as I know, only one road to useful information. And it is not a royal road; it is extremely hard work (maybe that is what puts people off and encourages them to look for easy answers). Do you think the computer you are using, and the Internet we are using, was built via "intuition" or "automatic writing" or similar magic? No, it was built using solid scientific and engineering disciplines.

    You can of course believe in telepathic powers or whatever you like. Let me know when you have built a usable communication device based on these principles.
    Last edited by Strange; 2012-Jan-14 at 10:56 AM. Reason: replace expletive!

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    I's going to "cease & desist" with no further ado and comments, then I thought I might send one last comment
    Yes, announcing your departure and then backpedalling seems to be something you like to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    First, the core of the matter is not the need to give scientific evidence because, as explained on the other thread, there is more than one way of knowing.
    No, it wasn't explained, it was asserted. It was not a convincing assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    There is no single royal road to certainty.
    I really cannot better Strange's excellent demolition of this platitude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    This can't be discussed fully unless you've acquainted yourself with epistemology.
    Once again, despite your mistake being pointed out to you by others, you continue to assume that the only reason people disagree with you is because they are ignorant or unfamiliar with these things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    We're dealing with what is a personal quest, which is ultimately an "inner voyage". In the so-called "Western world", but particularly in northern Europe, where 70 percent of the population claims to be atheist (in the U.S. the percentages are the opposite), most people have chosen to close the door leading to it. They greatly fear what might be found beyond it.
    Yes of course the only reason we close that door is because we fear what's behind it. There can be no other reason, can there? And because you are not afraid, you are obviously a more enlightened person, surely?

    What rubbish! You have no idea of our many and varied experiences. For myself, life has been a journey of trying things out, often being drawn to weird and wonderful ideas and beliefs because they are strange beliefs. Fear has had nothing to do with it! There have been times when I have denied solid physical evidence because it conflicted with my intuition and firmly-held beliefs. That was before I learnt that "science" is another way of saying "being honest". Science makes mistakes, but they are honest mistakes based on faulty evidence or reasoning which are recognised as such. Science endeavours to correct itself rather than rely on past dogma. Science doesn't rely on gossip and anecdote and name-dropping - "Well Bill Gates thinks Newton was onto something!"

    [Snip attempt to twist the meaning of "evidence".]

  19. #49

    Parochial Peasants

    "People are certain about all sorts of nonsense./(…)/(…) only one road to useful information." (Strange)

    Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. One man's certainty is another man's nonsense. One man's useful info is another man's "flapdoodle".

    "(…) you continue to assume that the only reason people disagree with you is because they are ignorant or unfamiliar with these things." (P. Beardsley)

    Exactly: "ignorant or unfamiliar" with the things you refuse to look into. Once again, don't expect to find any answers on your screen. GO OUT AND ESTABLISH RELATIONSHIPS WITH THOSE WHO MAKE WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE WEIRD, NONSENSICAL CLAIMS. Stop shunning them as though they had the plague. Find out for yourself, on a personal basis, what they're up to. You're like a parochial peasant with no knowledge of what goes on beyond his village, and who's afraid of going beyond his own doorstep.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    28°10'30"N 16°44'31"W
    Posts
    2,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    then I thought I might send one last comment --"MARGARITAE AD PORCOS"-- and vanish in the night forevermore!
    The Latin Vulgate has ....margaritas .... ante porcos, by the way. Is it acceptable in BAUT rules to insult the whole of the membership, as long as it is done incorrectly in another language?

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. One man's certainty is another man's nonsense. One man's useful info is another man's "flapdoodle".
    The world is not so subjective. A man in Scotland can exchange meaningful information with a woman in New Zealand using the internet whether you believe in it or not. The same two cannot exchange meaningful information using telepathy, spirit guides, invisible elves or anything of that ilk whether you believe in them or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    "(…) you continue to assume that the only reason people disagree with you is because they are ignorant or unfamiliar with these things." (P. Beardsley)

    Exactly: "ignorant or unfamiliar" with the things you refuse to look into. Once again, don't expect to find any answers on your screen. GO OUT AND ESTABLISH RELATIONSHIPS WITH THOSE WHO MAKE WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE WEIRD, NONSENSICAL CLAIMS. Stop shunning them as though they had the plague. Find out for yourself, on a personal basis, what they're up to.
    Been there, done that, found it wanting. I just devoted much of my last post explaining to you that I'd been there, done that and found it wanting! Why do you take part in a discussion if you won't read the things you're arguing with?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    You're like a parochial peasant with no knowledge of what goes on beyond his village, and who's afraid of going beyond his own doorstep.
    Your worldview obviously requires you to believe this is true of anyone who rejects it. You couldn't be more wrong. I've spent so much time exploring beyond my metaphorical village that I've only recently started to discover the village itself.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Perikles View Post
    The Latin Vulgate has ....margaritas .... ante porcos, by the way. Is it acceptable in BAUT rules to insult the whole of the membership, as long as it is done incorrectly in another language?
    FTW!

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    "People are certain about all sorts of nonsense./(…)/(…) only one road to useful information." (Strange)

    Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. One man's certainty is another man's nonsense. One man's useful info is another man's "flapdoodle".
    So you think your computer runs on flapdoodle. Got it.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    38,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Nidio_Ohio View Post
    I's going to "cease & desist" with no further ado and comments, then I thought I might send one last comment --"MARGARITAE AD PORCOS"-- and vanish in the night forevermore, but something encouraged me to keep going. I received this "notification" from a "lurker":
    We are done, this thread is closed.

    Nidio_Ohio, I don't know what you are rambling about, but it isn't UFOs and your backhanded insults against the membership of this forum are tiresome, enough to give you an infraction. If you ever again bring up a non-mainstream idea on BAUT, you better be prepared to defend it by our rules or you will be suspended.

    To be officially correct, I will add the words that if anyone has a good reason to reopen this thread, Report the post and give the reason, but as far as I'm concerned the reason had better involve a GUT or a cure for cancer.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Similar Threads

  1. The "Every thread that's ever annoyed you" thread
    By Paul Beardsley in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 156
    Last Post: 2012-May-05, 08:43 PM
  2. Don J ATM thread
    By Don J in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 2010-Mar-23, 10:41 AM
  3. A serious thread about pedal...thread
    By Nicolas in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2006-Oct-11, 05:40 PM
  4. Flu thread from GA forum HST thread
    By beskeptical in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2005-Jan-23, 08:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: