I’m not trying to be better, that’s impossible, what I am doing is called “tit-for-tat”, and it isn’t ad-hominem because none of my arguments RELY on those “attacks” for my arguments to stand on their own. On the other hand, the people I am trying to have a civilized discussion with ARE basing their arguments on ad-hominem, which is a logical fallacy. For example, two arguments given here were: “I am not contributing to the noise level here because you are a donkey” and “Your argument has been well documented to be incorrect, and to prove it I am going to call you ridiculous and absolutist”. A logically proper and honest argument from either of those two would have been more along the lines of, “I am not contributing to the noise level here because what I claimed is relevent and important to the issue directly under dicussion as I will logically demonstrate as follows…” or “Your argument has been well documented to be incorrect, and to prove it I am going to post some of that documentation”.

“When you stick to giving meaningful discussions instead of seeing things as a win-lose competition, your comments are really worth reading”

To some people but not the people that really count. Don’t take me wrong though. What I mean is that the doctor needs to tend to those who are sick, not to those who are well, and you are not sick…or at least not as sick as the others :^)

“Have a good weekend”

Have a great weekend yourself too.

So glad to notice that you’re showing better form than the rest by refraining of ad-hominem attacks yourself, Sage

PS: I agree with what you wrote waaaaaay earlier about man’s arrogance and that “a species intelligent enough to traverse light years of space would be a species that learned to not destroy itself and it’s environment”. When you stick to giving meaningful discussions instead of seeing things as a win-lose competition, your comments are really worth reading.

Have a good weekend.

So please explain how replying with silly New Age pseudoscience or childish ad hominem attacks against ME instead of against THE ARGUMENT GIVEN, is going to provide any proper scientific evidence whatsoever, of ETs and UFOs?

By not providing any evidence whatsoever and by trying to change the subject from ETs and UFOs to “What I think about the Sage”, you are only proving none of you can be taken seriously. If any one of you intellectually cowardly little old ladies wanted to start being a man about it for once, why couldn’t you just admit that I am right — neither you nor anyone else has any acceptable and proper SCIENTIFIC evidence of ETs and UFOs, whatsoever! This fact is so obvious anyway, hence the reason you would resort to such childishly transparent dodge and evade tactics, but what harm could there be from being honest to begin with? By doing otherwise, all you are doing is giving UFOlogy a bad name, but I am beginning to think that maybe UFOlogy deserves to have a bad name — you have earned it for them!

PS — Anytime the subject here changes to THEE RB47 *CASE* (Notice how is always called “case” and not “cases”, Paul? So that kind of make believe strawmen won’t cut it, just in case you decide to get a hankering to use it), I would glad to comment on the ludicrousness of that one fairytale any time. I just hope all of you won’t be such sore losers then too.

You are no scientist. You are simply a
rather pathetic crank.

Think again. It is not a secret and by contributing a nonlinear response to this thread, you are increasing the noise level instead of the increasing the signal level.

Piece of cake…

Paul: Deconstruct the RB47 case, and explain to all of us mere mortals why that case would not be of interest to science

Objection your honor. The issue is not whether RB47 would be of interest to science, the issue is whether my claim that “when it comes to acceptable and proper SCIENTIFIC evidence of ETs and UFOs, there is none whatsoever” is a “ridiculous, absolutist statement”. So the real question is, does the RB47 case have any acceptable and proper SCIENTIFIC evidence of ETs and UFOs, and the answer is, “There is none whatsoever”.

That was Paul’s dodge and evade for his counterclaim, because he knows — we all know — he has no acceptable and proper SCIENTIFIC evidence of ETs and UFOs, none whatsoever. Absolutist statements are the easiest statements in the world to disprove: simply show us an exception. That fact that Paul could not even do this simplest and most obvious of tasks for my absolutist statement is evidence for his last two posts, is evidence he has no clue what he is talking about when it comes to UFOs or science.

“By contrast, Paul’s latest piece, on the Mantell case is a good model of investigative journalism”

“Investigative journalism” is not the same thing as “proper scientific investigation”, so be careful not to confuse one with the other…oops! Too late!

The truth hurts, doesn’t it? When it comes to acceptable and proper SCIENTIFIC evidence of ETs and UFOs, there is none whatsoever. You are supplying us with the “whatsoever” part…again and again. Aren’t you getting tired of me making you look so stupid?