Pretty much agreed, HOWEVER, is this not the "pseudoscience" section of the forum? What the heck right do the "frustrated" have to constantly IGNORE the facts and demand THEIR interpretation of "evidence" Photographs are evidence. UFO trace cases are evidence. Governmental documents are evidence. Expert Eye Witness testimony is evidence. When should I stop? I don't agree that people's frustrations should allow them a condescending right to badger and insult those who propose hypotheses without evidence to their satisfaction. I mean after all, what is pseudo science other than false science? If you ask me, which no one is assuredly, these find locals merely look for trouble and attention. I could understand if this was taking place on the, eh hem, legitimate sections of the forum.
You referred to astrological phenomena when the appropriate word was astronomical phenomena. I have only witnessed this confusion on the part of individuals wholly ignorant of science. Your credentials to argue a scientific case are seriously called into question by such a blunder. It is, therefore, valuable to point out yet another example of your profound limitations in this discussion.
Please don't compound your ignorance with silliness. Will you address the ignorance of your bumbling confusion of astrology and astronomy? That is a subtantive issue in this thread, where we are asked to take arguments presented by you seriously. Or will you run away from that with yet more juvenile ad hominems?
Perhaps it would be best stated then that you're thoughts are dealing with "Theory", "Belief", "Lack of Credible Evidence". As opposed to asserting that it's an Absolute truth with no shadow of a doubt, If you state the obvious, then the obvious can only be accepted. You might think that Pseudoscience isn't to be held to the same scientific scrutiny, however if you want to just want to talk about Science Fiction where no Evidence is necessary then use the Scifi subforum. I by no means am saying this at you to upset you in anyway, I hope you realise that. I'm merely trying to get people to realise why the Pseudoscience subforum tends to be a mixture of those who are intolerant to people that have "bubble" perceptions (Where things work a particular way in their bubble, but not outside of it) and those people with bubble perceptions that just can't see anything outside of their bubble.
I really cannot begin to express my gratitude for your tolerance Stryder. Why? You have taken the time, rising above childish impulse and authority driven ego meistering, and actually comprehended me. That's rare! I will hence fourth NEVER refer to, or claim as, the UFO phenomenon as being absolute fact on this forum. This out of sheer respect for the sincerity that you have demonstrated concerning me as a member here. (which I am proud of, my membership that is) This being even though I do HONESTLY believe (as many here do in Evolution and Atheism) that more than sufficient evidence has been offered up by exceptional scientists such as Stanton Friedman, J. Allen Heineck, James McDonald, Bruce McCabe, etc., that conclusively proves the case for extraterrestrial or unexplainable supranormal (so far beyond known human capability, as to exclude basic human origins) aerial technologies. These carefully constructed cases by men that I fully realize are far and away deserving of great praise by their scientific brethren, the same research shunned by the close minded donut dunkers that are the makings of basic scientific peer review and those here that repeatedly IGNORE the irrefutable factual excellence in substantiation that their proofs consist of. All that I ask in return is that members like Read-Only, Ophiolite, Oli, Phlog and even the mighty SkinWalker, QUIT insulting, condescending, cheapening and inflaming the average (not everyone that is a member here has a 12 year degree, or more accurately struts around like they are Gods) SciForums membership. There should be a respectful, and God forbid, even contextually harmonious camaraderie within all areas of this forum. In another words, if a member posts something that is not intentionally vehement, DO NOT attack them, but rather intelligently offer opposing information. Opposing information does not consist of the predictable ego based assessments like: "more foolishness and lies from the mind bearing no more than an 8th grade education. Go back to school you retarded primordial ooze" Responses like these are directly inflammatory and serve zero purpose other than the underlining of bitterness and frustration on the part of the member posting such social poison and disease. Truthfully Stryder, there is positively no good that can come from this type of self motivated nonsense. Any member, including myself, that blatantly shoots down a well meaning emotionally positive post by a member in the flames of their own bitterness without a respectful and proper INFORMATIVE response, should be banned for a day. Now it's different if someone comes out in their initial post and vehemently states that George Bush is a fucking derelict and an asshole that has betrayed all the basic ideologies of fundamental democracy. Why? Because that person is begging in invitation a vehement response. In this sense all I am asking is that each response to whomever should be met with a like and respectable emulation of the tone in which the poster's response was initially made. You want to see an example of what I am talking about? Look at ANY of James R's posts in response to pseudo scientific claims. You will NEVER find that James resorts to tauting his holier than thou scientific education. Nor will you find that he attempts to "thrash" those that he is responding to. His replies are informative, focused and specifically directed in refute. Above all, he is respectful, non emotional and non ego based self projecting in response. I know that no one most likely cares about my personal psychological assessment as to the underlining "why" that separates constructive responses from destructive responses, but I will flatter myself and reveal my convictions: It seems as though "constructive" responses are actually non ego based. Whereas it seems as "destructive" (cruel and self serving) responses are ego based. Bottom Line: The ego based responses seem to be generated by members that actually "know" where they stand and they respond in a non defensive manner that serves to hopefully enlighten those they are responding to. Destructive responses seem to be generated by those who in all reality, don't HONESTLY "know" where they stand, and thus, their own fears are manifest and projected via their frustrated and intolerant responses. Thank you for your management of the pseudoscience section of this forum Stryder.
It is you who apparently don't understand the difference between astrology and astronomy, since you used the two terms interchangeably. Now stop trying to move the goal posts and explain how you can be so ignorant as to make such a blunder.
If there was evidence, the case would be proven. It is not proven. I'm not paying Friedman for his faerie stories thankyou.
'emotionally positive'? Oh please, get a backbone. Also, it's called debate, you try and fly your woowoo ideas, and we shoot them down with scientific analysis. It's not bitterness, because we are not emotionally involved, science tries to remove the human element from analysis, so we do not affect the results. You might be overly fond of your pet theories, and get upset, but that's tough, it shows you aren't using reason. Now, less prose, and more facts please. And no geese or jesus freaks.
