| |
|
Article: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected](Nancy )
Subject: Re: Zetas pick and choose who to reply to
Date: 20 Jan 1997 22:01:17 GMT
In article <[email protected]> Christopher
Scott writes:
> Why do you continue to ignore me? It seems to me that you
> pick who you will reply to very carefully. ...
> Reread my posts to you requesting support of your ideas.
> Christopher Scott <[email protected]>
Christopher, everyone posting on sci.astro picks and chooses what they want to respond to! Are the Zetas to be held to a different standard than everyone else? Unless someone can quote an authority, a topic cannot be discussed? No original thinking here?
If you went into a kindergarten and tried to explain how water could be forced to a higher level by the use of a siphon to children who didn't understand physics concepts such as air pressure, and if the children kept insisting you use ONLY THE TOYS IN THE PLAYROOM during your explanation, and ONLY THEIR PRE-EXISTING NOTIONS during your explanation, rejecting your argument as non-authoritative if you could not proceed, would you consider this appropriate? The Zetas are pointing out why their explanations are correct, using human experiments that can certainly be replicated, simply logic in most cases, contradictions that humans have already noted and discussed among themselves in many cases.
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
If you wish to end your dialog here with us, because you cannot
address the facts that we have presented, then simply end it.
Attempting to force us into the narrow mold that humans use
during discussions, cutting away the broad scope of reality until
the area under discussion is so tiny that SOME sort of
explanation seems to fit, is not progress. We refuse to be boxed
in by narrow minded thinking, and are asking humans to address
the facts that are before their noses. Other than that this makes
humans uncomfortable and reminds them that they don't really HAVE
an explaination, why is this a problem?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])