 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 13:56, Warp wrote:
> Sometimes you just have to accept colloquialisms even when they are
> *technically* inaccurate.
I know that. Unfortunately, I believe the people promoting the idea of alien
space craft are intentionally calling them "UFOs" instead of "flying
saucers" because it eliminates the only non-biased term to refer to the
topic at hand.
I.e., I dislike people calling space ships "UFOs" for the same reason I
dislike people saying "Evolution is only a theory": because they're doing it
on purpose to simply muddle the conversation to the point where you can no
longer debate clearly.
Not that I think that's what you were doing. I was more just making a
humorous observation. Not unlike a comment string I saw once that went
something like
1) We should all just switch to solar power.
2) And who will pay for that? Solar cells don't grow on trees, you know.
3) Well, technically....
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:54:45 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 16:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> (Incidentally, "UFOs" - are real. I see things in the sky every day
>> that I can't identify - so for me, it is a flying object that's
>> unidentified. ;) )
>
> I remember the story of one lady who got on a jury after being asked if
> she believed in UFOs and she said no. Later, she got kicked off the jury
> for having firm convictions in aliens. Her excuse for lying? "I was
> asked if I believe in UFOs, and no, I believe they've been identified as
> alien space craft." :-)
Interesting - but what was the case about?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Or
>
> There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
> Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
>
Possibility yes, logic indicates is not probable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> On 10/25/2011 22:43, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> The point being: there are indications of some things out there that are
>> suspicious, and can't be explained
>
> Good so far...
>
>> but the logical conclusions are this and that... etc.
>
> If they can't be explained, how can you call your conclusions "logical"?
Well all the recollection of testimonials, scientific testing of samples
taken on sites and ufologist analysis, some ufologists with a background
of decades and they having normal jobs, so I assume you don't hire crazy
people so I think they reasoning is sound, they don't do it for a
living, they are thinking normal people that dedicate their time and
resources to find out the truth of course they must get money from their
help but I doubt is big. Ufologists are far more scientific than you
might think.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I see what you mean and a "crazy" person obsessed is different from a
respected ufologist, check the series, is not like that at all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fair enough, I've even seen such particles in space videos in YouTube
and even teenagers can say is not UFOs, so with all the technology &
knowledge available now is not easy to fool people, those video are
obvious hoaxes and ufologist know better than that.
The ufologist in the series are not newage hippies, you write out of
ignorance again, you try to demonstrate they're a bunch of delusional
losers when you haven't even see much evidence of the series or other
ufologists research, you are referencing to some bad experiences you had
in the past, with an obvious bias to avoid what I tried to show you.
> When you say "you're like the ignorant which hunters, only seeing what
> you want to see, science and nothings else", it certainly sounds like you
> adamantly want me to accept what you believe.
That is your opinion not reality, is also reality that you like science
a lot and you're not willing to see things any other way with the same
attitude: "Give me facts or give me death!", that's what I meant. I like
Astrophysics too and some day UFO & astrophysics probably will be the
same, but OK you don't want to have anything to do with UFO/ghost/etc I
respect your opinion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
:) well I meant if possible, why not? let's do it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
yeah, you know every possible outcome and you know everything there is
to it and for a fact you can demonstrate there can't be anything else,
sure... your opinion hardly could be more biased, but OK, I see now how
difficult is to reason when the people don't want to and find some
intellectual pretext to not do so. But is your opinion and I respect it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/10/2011 7:06 AM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> so I assume you don't hire crazy people
I'm gobsmacked that anyone who has ever worked can say that. The last
job I was on there were at least two fully paid up members the raving
loony party, who needed minders when they went out and one that was so
delusional she regularly dined with the Princess Royal and her family.
Being crazy dies not bar you from holding down a job.
> so I think they reasoning is sound
I don't think that yours is.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/26/2011 23:31, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> :) well I meant if possible, why not? let's do it.
The "let's do it" part is difficult if we don't even think it's possible.
"Hey, if it's possible to fly by flapping your arms, why not? Let's do it!"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
