Re: I Spoke to Nancy Online and all I got was this Lousy T-Shirt!

In Article <[email protected]> Stig Bull wrote: 
> [email protected] (Idon't) wrote
>
> > The "something" IS the "voices". You contend that if it is voices in
> > her head, it is NOTHING. My point is simply that she is NOT faking it,
> 
> You CAN'T tell. You CAN'T know. All you do, is believe because
> YOU don't think anyone could pull off such a trick alone. Here are
> some news for you: never underestimate people.
 
Excuse me? When did I say that I "believe"? How many times do I have
to point out that I am NOT arguing about her "science"? You insist
upon characterizing me as a "follower" of Nancy. I have PERSONALLY
poked holes in some of her assertions. GET IT? I am just not afraid to
consider other parts of her story as separate hypothesis and discuss
the SOURCE of the message. Remember that? That was my original point.
Now, you say it is a "trick"? Before, you said it was "voices". I
presume that you would now insist that ALL psychic ability and ALL
channelling, etc, is a "trick". Yes? No?
 
> > and that there IS some source of what she is calling "Zetas". Up to
> > now, people have just deemed her nutty or conniving and let it go at
> > that. I submit that it is not that simple. You dismiss, out of hand,
> > the whole idea of "aliens" speaking through her, aparently because
> > what is being said is "incorrect". 
> 
> It's not only incorrect (quotation marks intentionally removed), it
> goes against ALL logic thinking. I believe it is NAIVE to even
> think that another civilization knows about us, since all detectable
> (and the strongest detectable was sent out in 1973) signals from us,
> have travelled less than 100 light years from us. Consider the size of
> this galaxy alone, it has what, 200 BILLION stars? What are the
> chances do you think, such an civilization will stumble upon us?
> On the other hand and let me make this perfectly clear, I sincerely
> DO believe we are not alone in this universe. I just don't believe
> we are being visited. Except from eye witness contacts, blurry
> photographs, and ah, voices in somebody's head which are allegedly
> aliens, there are NO evidence - WHATSOEVER we are being visited by
> another civilization. Period.

Well, we are FINALLY discussing something here. OK - your first point
that our signals couldn't have reached "them" yet.... sorry, but weak.
No reason to presume that "others" could not make the first move, or
cannot have not known about us for eons. Distance problems?
What makes you think that limitations to OUR travel or communication
would apply to those with vastly superior technology? Here is your
"science" insisting that anything unknown to IT cannot exist. You go
on to say that THREE catagories of examples equals NO evidence - non
sequitur. You seem to think that IF aliens were around, they would
make their presence OBVIOUS. Perhaps not. I see that what Nancy (and
others) say about the GRADUAL introduction to the presence of
"others", makes sense. I see lots of possible evidence of that
occurring now. You would, I guess, just assume that all phenomenon are
explainable via other means. That would be your choice in the above
scenario. 
 
> > You, and others, leap directly to
> > "crazy", and dismiss the whole issue without further consideration. I
> > submit that there is SOMETHING there which could be considered
> > further. Do I wish to try to define the "something"? Not at this time.
> > However, I will say that I have followed the UFO/ET phenomenon for
> > many years and although it can seem quite nebulous and bizarre, it is
> > definately NOT nothing.
> 
> The UFO pehonmenon - maybe not. The Zetacults own twisted version of
> Mother Theresa - definiately.

UFO phenomenon maybe not WHAT? What is your point there? I'm not
particularly concerned about the second point.

> >  
> > Well, "follow up" question means exactly that - a question which
> > follows up on the previous question or seeks more clarity on the
> > answer already given. That is not what you did. You tried to insert a
> > NEW question where one was not called for, therefor, it was not
> > "legal". English is aparently not your primary language.
> 
> Great observation, being Norwegian, English is of course not my
> primary language. However I asked questions CLEARLY within the

You clearly did not.

> boundaries. If I asked questions like 'how does a car engine work?' I
> would ask a new and different question, but I didn't. Here's the only
> chance to ask CRITICAL questions to Nancy, in which she cannot
> withdraw and think about what to answer, she cannot go get some
> documentation to quote from, she HAD to answer them up front - if
> she dared. Now, the clever thing is, one of her minions devoiced me,
> making her seem a bit more innocent so she can later on say 'but I was
> about to answer his questions, but then he was devoiced by someone
> else. I didn't do anything to him!'.
> 
> 
> > Your question was simplistic and insipid. What was it?..something like
> > "Why do they flunk in science?"?  Right - they were AFRAID to answer
> > your question because it was so PROBING...
> 
> Nonsense. Nancy couldn't answer my questions. It's as simple as that.
 
Sorry, but you vastly overestimate your own cleverness. I could have
faked an answer to your questions. I know that she claims that
Hale-Bopp was a nova only at FIRST and then was switched to identify
another object (comet)later. You assume an extrapolation to a longer
debate where you would "get her", but it just didn't happen pal. You
didn't come close to outwitting her. You don't possess the weaponry.
 
> > HUH? Your question was VERY much the same. Christ, I'll go find the
> > actual quote.... OK, here it is: "(Afermio) How come they flunk in
> > astronomy and physics?" Yours was a simpleton question. You think it
> > astute? You think you INTIMIDATED with it? Laugh!
> 
> Intellilgence seems to hardly be your strong point. What were the
> other questions I asked like?
 
None of your questions related to what was being discussed. Simple as
that. 
 
> > HUH? What are you talking about? Grasping at straws here? Nancy's
> > words certainly are not "soothing", nor am I unable to comprehend
> > science. You just don't get that I am not defending Nancy's "science".
> > Logic is not your strong suit - try another.
> 
> Clearly something is missing in your life, or you wouldn't go around
> believing in stupid gibberish. Maybe you are in search of the
> equivalent of a religion - could be.

You continue to say what I "believe in", directly after I have stated
otherwise. You continue to falsely characterize my position so you can
make some irrelevant point. You ignore points you can't answer. You
excel at non sequitur arguements. Does all this pass for logic where
you hang out?

I