Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: one lab
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:59:00 EST
 <kmr4.222.721798047@po.CWRU.edu> <1992Nov16.025452.26730@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Nov16.025452.26730@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
> In article <kmr4.222.721798047@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov13.212112.1509@samba.oit.unc.edu> Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>>>
>>>No that is not the case. I did not hear anything from this person. I just
>>>happened to be talking to him today and he brought it up. This is all he
>>>told me, and you can feel free to look the stuff up on your own. I am
>>>still working on the original source of my information, and I hope to get
>>>it to you all soon.
>>
>>	Let me get this straight: You were talking to this person, but you 
>>didn't hear anything from him?
> 
> 
> I am terribly sorry for not spelling each and every possible detail out
> for your obviously unadvanced intuition. What I should have said was:
> "My original claims did not originate from the person who told me about MIU.
> I was just talking to him about OOB's and he mentioned that he knew of a
> place, so I asked him not less than ten times if he was sure, to which he
> finally became so irritated with me that he said, 'What is it with you
> Americans? You are always so paranoid that you're being lied to.' So I
> said, 'Ok, I will trust you on this one then.' I thought maybe you people
> would be interested in knowing about it. Excuse me if I was wrong, and
> excuse me for bringing up such an 'inferior' university. The point is,
> this was an added in thing, it had nothing to do with my original claims,
> i.e. the source of my original information was not this person. OK????????"

   Whether your original source of information was this person or 
another, you nonetheless heard what you said from said person
mentioned above.  Insulting someone for questioning your sources (an
especially valid activity for MIU) and asking for evidence is a waste
of both of our times and of bandwidth.

   BTW, ad hominem attacks will not get you much except a barbeque.

>>>>You realize, that if this were possible, as you described it; the US will 
>>>>stop using the keyhole's, and investing in OOB technology.
>>>
>>>You should not put words in my mouth Sir. 
>>
>>	You accuse me of putting words in your mouth, when there is no 
>>evidence that I ever did. Please substantiate this slander. 
>>	I was just pointing out some consequences if this "report" -that you 
>>talked about, but did not hear- was not some hoax.
> 
> You put words in my mouth in assuming that my info came from the
> person and that this was the laboratory I was refering to in my original
> posts. Oh, and by the way, you can just go ahead and stick your attitude
> right up your ass Sir. I am tired of it.

   He is not putting words into your mouth, he is taking them from it.
You said that you talked about OOBE with this person but did not hear
anything from him.  You made no reference to his being or not being 
the original source, but he was the source for your statement that 
MIU was working on OOBE.  On top of that, the statement you were 
replying to had nothing to do with your sources, it was about the 
implications of the discoveries you mentioned.

   Talk about a fucking attitude...

>>>Also, I would think you people
>>>would be a bit more patient and stop trying to immediately discount what I
>>>say just because you have a difficult time believing it. Just hang on to
>>>your balls, ok? You'll get the name of the laboratory I referenced, but I
>>>can't just snap my fingers and have the name, I have to find it, as I did
>>>not keep the name in mind when I heard it.
>>
>>	When we've heard a multitute of unsubstantiated claims, and outright 
>>deceit from others, its hard not to dismiss such far fetched sounding 
>>"proofs" as just another poor attempt at science. Especially if you didn't 
>>hear it.
> 
> Fine then, I won't even bother wasting my time and energy worrying about
> getting your proof then. Let's just drop the whole thing then because I
> have been wasting lots of precious time just to hopefully please you
> people and all you give me is a bunch of nasty remarks that would
> insinuate that not only am I a CRAZY-in-the-head Catholic, but I'm also
> gullible, ill-informed, and certainly not capable of being as intellectual
> as yourselves. You are just TOO high and mighty for me. I should just
> crawl back into my hole hey? Stupid Michelle, how dare she insult our
> intelligence like that!

   How dare she indeed.  Coming onto this newsgroup with a bunch of 
assertions that are both wildly improbable and backed up with absolutely
no evidence and then expecting us to believe them certainly insults my
intelligence.  Your behavior so far *does* suggest that you are both
gullible and ill-informed, and while you may be capable of it you are 
certainly not acting as intellectual as most of us.  You are one of the
most obnoxious people I have ever met on alt.atheism; even most of the 
fundies don't get so rude when confronted with a request for evidence.
If you were to crawl back in your hole I certainly wouldn't be crying.

>    The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
>      North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
>         Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.

   I should hope not!

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"