is there evidence for alien abductions etc.?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meanwhile said:
"You could state things in a much clearer fashion."

right: why bother
Click to expand...
OK, suits me. Next time I see one of your posts I won't read it. Reason? Why bother.
 
Mr Anonymous said:


Quite what any of the above actually has to do with the subject to hand, on the other paw, perhaps you'd care to enlighten us all regarding that, since y'brought up the subject of enlightenment.... ;)
Click to expand...

Twas Rousseau who brought up the subject of enlightenment.

I was only trying to lighten the atmosphere just a tad.
 
Meanwhile said:
"You could state things in a much clearer fashion."

right: why bother
Click to expand...
May I assume from the above that you have no desire or intention to communicate much of anything on this thread? If not, could you perhaps communicate just what the intent of the above was - by explaining it more clearly.
 
Ophiolite said:
May I assume from the above that you have no desire or intention to communicate much of anything on this thread? If not, could you perhaps communicate just what the intent of the above was - by explaining it more clearly.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding.

What is this? The principle's office?

Sorry -- I'm skipping. LOL.
 
Meanwhile said:
You have got to be kidding.

What is this? The principle's office?

Sorry -- I'm skipping. LOL.
Click to expand...

the wannabee mod imagines sci to be his fiefdom
since there are no knuckles to rap over at the science forum, he slips in here still wearing his mod costume

what a frikkin loser of a nag one must be to constantly reprimand others and exhort them to measure up to his bogus standards

let me tell you this, senile grump
sci will never get as boring and tedious as you obviously are
we refuse to conform
now fuck off
 
Meanwhile said:
You have got to be kidding.

What is this? The principle's office?
.
Click to expand...
I am sorry if my original post was unclear in any way. I merely wished to convey the following deductions, based upon your post in which you commented why bother.
1) You are impolite
2) You are self indulgent
3) You are short on intellect
4) You are pretentious
5) I rather suspect that it will turn out that I don't like you

Does that help overcome your limited powers of comprehension somewhat? I do hope so.

[By the way, if it were the principal's office I would be deducting marks for you referring to it as the principle. ]
 
Communist Hamster said:
I can't see anything. Are you implying that surrealists are invisble? Or that nothing is surreal, so therefore surrealists don't exist?
Click to expand...

CHAAAHLIE! CHAAAHLIE DAHLIN!
 
Ophiolite said:
I am sorry if my original post was unclear in any way. I merely wished to convey the following deductions, based upon your post in which you commented why bother.
1) You are impolite
2) You are self indulgent
3) You are short on intellect
4) You are pretentious
5) I rather suspect that it will turn out that I don't like you

Does that help overcome your limited powers of comprehension somewhat? I do hope so.

[By the way, if it were the principal's office I would be deducting marks for you referring to it as the principle. ]
Click to expand...

Perfect example why pathological sceptics are so demanding to acquire evidence: so that they can tolerate to live with their conscience.
 
I am sure we would all be fascinated as to how you make this connection, but I am equally sure, were we to ask, you would reply 'why bother?'.
 
If I can bring a smile to the thoughtful members, such as yourself TDI, while putting down the anal cavities, such as Meanwhile and a Vast Gut, my work is done. ;) Thank you for your thanks.
 
Ophiolite said:
If I can bring a smile to the thoughtful members, such as yourself TDI, while putting down the anal cavities, such as Meanwhile and a Vast Gut, my work is done. ;) Thank you for your thanks.
Click to expand...
You know, it's funny how you can give a kid a computer and Internet access and all of sudden he/she thinks they know everything. :D

Of course, kids have always thought they knew everything - it just that they lacked the means to annoy so many people at the same time. :D
 
Gustav said:
let me tell you this, senile grump
sci will never get as boring and tedious as you obviously are
we refuse to conform
now fuck off
Click to expand...

That's odd. I'm of the impression that that moth eaten grump, and a few others who are equally capable of conveying a rational thought in a digestable wrapper, are actually the posters who make me visit sciforums.
 
Meanwhile said:
Perfect example why pathological sceptics are so demanding to acquire evidence: so that they can tolerate to live with their conscience.
Click to expand...
Nope. A perfect example of attempting to bring all you misguided an deluded "would-be's" a little closer to actual truth instead of the irrational garbage you believe now.

And I have to wonder: just what is it that makes all you obvious fools think that those of us who actually know things are unhappy and insecure? Actually, it's quite the opposite. YOU are the ones who cannot come to terms with yourselves, what you believe and what you actually see around you that proves you're wrong. Unhappy bunch, aren't you? Sad.
 
mouse said:
That's odd. I'm of the impression that that moth eaten grump, and a few others who are equally capable of conveying a rational thought in a digestable wrapper, are actually the posters who make me visit sciforums.
Click to expand...

perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to how the quoted text disputes your impression?

listen up, mouse
the grump hounds and harasses
if you do not see this, there is no point conversing any further in this vein.
sci is big enough to accomadate a myriad of viewpoints
that includes your own rather elitist one
allow me to have my own

senile old grump, you fucked off yet?
 
Vast Gut said:
the grump hounds and harasses
Click to expand...
Yes, the moth eaten, senile old grump of an Ophiolite hounds and harrases any who persistently display any of the following:

1) Self selected ignorance
2) Intolerance of language mistakes made by those for whom English is a second language
3) Use of sloppy English spelling, grammar or usage when English is their native language
4) Refusal to use logic
5) Refusal to use the methodology of science in scientific discussions
6) Religious intolerance
7) Excessive political correctness
8) Racial intolerance
9) Poorly structured arguments

The above list is not comprehensive. I am sure Tug Stav can think of some novel way of enhancing his cretin rating and thus prompt a further riposte.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top