On Jul 5, 1:07 pm, Benj wrote:
Androcles wrote:
I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.
Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a complete
and total ****head. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity is sick.
But then, that's just what you are. Sick.

"Androcles" calling someone else "sick" THAT is a good one!!!

I presume I'm speaking to a government spokesman here, right?

Again, you are wrong.


That's the way I am too. When I hear about a new idea I never go read
the original paper.

How many "original papers" have you EVER read?

I'm PROUD that I never read it! I simply point out
that the idea is clearly ridiculous and the author must be totally
stupid, insane and a complete "****head".

Ideas which are in conflict with experiment are "clearly ridiculous".

Usually that is all the
"proof" anyone needs that the new idea should be rejected. Debate?
Discussion? We doan need no stinkin' scientific debate!

You can discuss it all you want - no one is stopping you. "Discussion"
doesn't make a wrong idea corrrect.


You know, Androcles, I love recess as much as anybody, but you really
are a poopy-face!
In other words, you DID notice that these are newsgroups given to
scientific discussions and not grade school play periods. Right?

"Scientific discussions" are best undertaken by scientists, or at
least people who know something about science. One can sit with 4 year
olds, and ask them about the "nature of the chemical bond", and they
will certainly be wrong, no matter how earnest and cute they seem.

It is not a coincidence that the greater one's scientific education,
the more absurd this drivel about "hoaxes" seems.