Do you think I am supporting the notion of LGM?

All I know is that you're giving me a hard time.

Look- Neverfly. You know I'm at least on good terms with if if not your friend on here. But you can't go jumping down people's throats about things like this. Daffy's approach and admission that he could be wrong is highly respectable. In fact its a far step ahead of most of the people on here.

I don't expect you to agree with him - but that doesn't give you the right to bash him into the ground - particularly because he's stated that he could have been wrong.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

If I walked up to you and slapped you across the face out of the blue- then suddenly got apologetic- I don't think my admitting I could have been wrong for walking up and whacking your head would make much difference.
I shouldn't have done it in the first place.


Daffy is not being as reasonable as he is ensuring that he appears to be.

Don't be fooled.

Here's what it comes down to.

Daffy and SagoSans were Bitterly Complaining that Debunkers debunk UFO/alien visitation sightings.
Well Duh.
What ELSE is a debunker going to do but debunk? Pander to their little egos and stroke the backs of their hands and humor them that maybe they saw paranormal phenomena or aliens or Secret Military Anti-gravity conspiracy evidence?
Man Whatever.

I have neither the time nor the energy to sit here and 'play the game' right now.

What they're doing is about the same things as bitterly complaining that their math teacher actually, you know, taught them math. Instead of listening to their misconceptions.

I don't even know how to respond to this.

If anyone else would like to discuss this subject, I would be happy to (LotusExcelle, thanks for understanding).

Otherwise, I am finished with this one. Neverfly, you win.

That was predetermined from the beginning. You could not have won.
Your claim was bunk.

In other words- Pander to me and my belief system and I'll play nicely with you. If you give me critical thinking, logic, rationality or debunking- I'll consider you closed minded and aggressive and avoid you.


Gee, I never encountered that mentality before

What claim? Please tell me what claim I made.

(Yes, I couldn't resist replying to this one.)

Still waiting, Neverfly.

What claim?

What belief system?

Would you like to clarify your claim then Daffy?


Perhaps you can enlighten us all- including LotusExcell and gzhpcu and dirty_g, who seem confused as to why you're jumping on my back and why it APPEARS that I am jumping on yours?

So sorry to keep you waiting for a few minutes...

This thread speaks for itself.

You know what?
Yeah, it does.

"I tawt I taw a putty tat"

I'm not fooled. Sorry. Not fooled one bit.

You can play "victim" til you're blue in the face- that doesn't make you a victim.

Let's give an example:

Suzy Q is standing on the back porch and sees an object in the sky.
Well it's a big sky and there's a LOT in it- so nothing odd about seeing something in the sky.
And the sky, is vague to most people. People keep their eyes on what they need to see.
Only us stargazers spend inordinate amounts of time looking up.
So she doesn't know what she's seeing. But her imagination kicks in. She gets excited.
She calls her husband out. They look and are baffled- and it's MORE exciting to the imagination because now they BOTh saw it- seeming to confirm that they are seeing something unusual.
So guess what just magically happened?
They began BELIEVING they saw something Out of the Ordinary and Unusual.
In that moment, they had already decided- Yes, CHOSEN- to reject mundane explanations.

THEN, they get upset at debunkers for offering mundane explanations.
The mean ol' debunkers are the Bad guys- they Just Don't Understand.

Seriously- why would a person feel "disturbed" at having seen something in the sky?
Why would that "disturb" them SagoSans? Can you give a reason why it would disturb them that is rational?
The only reason I can think of is if they allowed their imagination to fill in the blanks with something, well, Disturbing.

So what it really comes down to is that yall are bitter that Debunkers won't pander to you.

So I get to be the bad guy and get hounded by other members- But I'm not fooled- and I'm not going to back down.

well like I said. I did see a classic saucer shaped object flying off from my old back garden in the east of England. I could not explain what it was at all. I won't say its a UFO as it would mean I couldnt I.D it. I could though it was a flying saucer!! ha ha sounds funny to write as i'm looking at it. oh dear.

__________________
"Attack the idea, not the person" Posted by a Moderator.
Useful words around here indeed!!

Yes, but what you're doing is you're actually supporting my case here.
And at the moment your timing is perfect and I am sincerely appreciative.

I dont mind what I'm doing I'm just saying I saw what i saw no more and no less. I seriously can't think of anything else it could be. I'm not claiming that it was an alien having a jolly in his craft.

__________________
"Attack the idea, not the person" Posted by a Moderator.
Useful words around here indeed!!

Yes, but it supports the Example of Suzy Q I just gave.

And therein lies the entire problem that stemmed the argument in this thread.

We already know that Daffy has also seen a UFO that he has described previously as "unexplainable."
(Daffy, correct me if I'm wrong.)
Daffy has never said little green men were aboard.
And we know SagoSans experience from this thread.
Now tie those experiences into the Suzy Q example.

Then relate that to their arguments in this thread: That Debunkers are basically closed minded. Debunkers offer mundane or rational explanations that, basically, the observer of the UFO has made themselves predisposed to not wanting to hear.

SagoSans and Daffy's complaint was that debunkers debunk UFO's. Like that is Wrong. Like Debunkers shouldn't do that.
Now---- why would they claim such a thing?

well kind of but suzy q is not a stsrgazer. I am. I spend many evenings with my 200mm reflector in my light polluted yard (bah) looking at the skies.

__________________
"Attack the idea, not the person" Posted by a Moderator.
Useful words around here indeed!!

As am I.

There's a worn spot on the shingles on my roof from where my butt rubs I've seen my share of UFO's too.
Daffy, you may have noticed that I have now clarified what your claims were, even though you have not. In fact, you remained vague enough as to almost seem to make no claims at all. Hopefully, it is more clear now to others as to why you remained shadowed about that now too.

anyway im not close minded about it. but I just can't think of a rational explanation.

__________________
"Attack the idea, not the person" Posted by a Moderator.
Useful words around here indeed!!

Neverfly,
Are you saying that dirty_g did a "Suzy Q" and just thinks he saw a flying saucer?

Exactly

well it's not necessarily a bad thing that I can't think of a rational explanation.

__________________
"Attack the idea, not the person" Posted by a Moderator.
Useful words around here indeed!!

Yes, I am saying that.

Not just Dirty_g either. But myself as well. I've seen TWO of them, in fact.

I don't talk about them much, not because debunkers are mean or anything...
But just because it took about two years before I learned that what I had seen was, in fact, Mundane.

In fact- the MOST Mundane explanation of all - Balloons.

No and I'm not arguing with You - you are being direct and honest.

well as the Krankies used to say "Fandaba Dosi!!"

__________________
"Attack the idea, not the person" Posted by a Moderator.
Useful words around here indeed!!

I have no idea how many "UFO" questions I have seen in Q&A in which people openly and routinely ask, "What was it that I saw?"
They make no allusions nor pretenses to Aliens, or sometimes point out that they don't think it was aliens.

They receive lots of replies offering suggestions of likely things.

No One treats them like they are Kooks.

Occasionally, you see them get frustrated by offers such as "Helicopter" as they say, "No.. it wasn't a helicopter..."

But still, no one is treating them like a kook.

I can give plenty of anecdotes from my own life where no one treated them like a kook.

The only times I've ever observed people treat the claimant like a kook is when the claimant made kooky claims.

In an attempt to further clarify what was said and what generated Reactions:
I will put in bold key points:

Why was she quite disturbed? That's very important.
What made the conversations frustrating- well... let's get to that.

Ok, here, SagoSans types out how the "debunkers" respond- like they are ejaculations of exuberant nonsense. Must have been a helicopter!
With an exclamation point.
Like the debunker had no idea what he was talking about. Just throwing stuff out there willy nilly... SagoSans- Intentional or not, you made a clear insinuation here.
Well, a skeptic will ask questions about what was seen and try to describe the visual effects along with the minds attempts to reconcile what it's seeing with known information. Which is not always accurate when the mind does that.

Offending how?
Because they didn't want to say it was a Glowing Dragon or something? What was offensive about them also being frustrated?

What does this mean: Silly explanations?

No, I really cannot imagine. I'm only hearing your biased version here.

Instead of say, debunking this thing that disturbed her?


Maybe those "debunkers" you met weren't even knowledgeable debunkers anyway.
But it sounds like, from your telling, very strongly, that you had begun to make up your mind.

I listed out four examples in this thread.
In each of the four examples, the claimant did not have to make the claim of aliens, ghosts, angels or demons in order to have rejected all debunking hands down- and then acted all offended and gotten upset with the debunker.

So what's REALLY going on here?

The natural trend for a claimant is to become defensive and when defensive to make accusations.
You and Daffy are wanting to make it look like it's the other way around.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.