---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 19:04:24 -0700 Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: -------- Let's see, Darkstar/G2k/Robert Scott Anderson, brings up a theory, that just might work for an X-Files plot, provides no evidence to support this theory, when his position is refuted, he claims that the opposing side is resorting to character assassination because they can't refute a claim of his that he has never backed up with any evidence. Then if any one calls him on a fallicy, he goes to twice as much words to claim that the other side is doing the exact thing that he is doing (The Child going that's you are.) Then repeats the pattern infinatly, and in a reverse Xaviar's Paradox, he always posts TWICE what the opposition has posted and then demand that the opposition should keep their posts as brief as possible. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 04:32:08 GMT Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: -------- "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote in message news:Dusm9.1732$hp7.527520933@news.inreach.com... 'Tired of Warsie BS' mode engaged: I see that you've lost your mind. Let's watch: > Let's see, Darkstar/G2k/Robert Scott Anderson, brings up a theory, that just > might work for an X-Files plot, provides no evidence to support this theory, Lie #1: "no evidence to support this theory" What the hell do you think I've been saying all this time? Recipes? > when his position is refuted, Lie #2: "his position is refuted" When, praytell, did this happen? > he claims that the opposing side is resorting to character assassination Who, Wong? No . . . though he's slipping up a great deal, he's actually being good compared to his normal behavior. > Then if any one calls him on a fallicy, he goes to twice as much words to > claim that the other side is doing the exact thing that he is doing Lie #3 --^ What is this stupidity? What, only one side can try to identify the other's fallacies? And the accusation that I simply say "no, actually you're doing the fallacy you just said" is preposterous. Have you even read the debate? > he always posts TWICE what the opposition has posted and then demand > that the opposition should keep their posts as brief as possible. Lie #4 --^ My posts are as long as they need to be. Ever participate in a debate with a creationist, or go to a creationist presentation? They sit there and within five minutes spray as much mental feces as possible. Naturally, it takes longer to disentangle the truth from the fictions spoken. And what's this crap about me getting on to someone about brevity? I simply pointed out that if brevity is desired, brevity should be engaged in by the other side. What the hell is wrong with you people? Can you not read? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 00:39:53 -0400 Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: <3D9A7899.BC1F5D1E@daltonator.net> -------- DarkStar wrote: > > "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote in message > news:Dusm9.1732$hp7.527520933@news.inreach.com... > > 'Tired of Warsie BS' mode engaged: Colin is 100% neutral. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net "All tribal myths are true, for a given value of 'true'." --"The Last Continent", Terry Pratchett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nitramtahalshia@aol.comAntiSpam (Sir Nitram) Date: 02 Oct 2002 04:43:32 GMT Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: <20021002004332.00848.00007165@mb-ms.aol.com> -------- >"Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote in message >news:Dusm9.1732$hp7.527520933@news.inreach.com... > >'Tired of Warsie BS' mode engaged: > You enter a new level of geekiness. But mocking aside. I really must ask. Do you believe the things you say? Or do you only think of this for Vs debating? I'm sorry, I'm having trouble someone can actually watch Star Wars and come to your conclusions. I mean, did you suffer some early brain damage? I know how debilitating that is, but even I can see it's not some magic chain reaction, and that Parsimony doesn't work the way you say. -- SirNitram ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius Uptight Christians pray for God to save themselves. Upright Christians pray for God to save others in need. "And they say that a hero can save us, I'm not gonna stand here to wait..." -Hero ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 21:43:48 -0700 Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: <3Qum9.1740$le.530669713@news.inreach.com> -------- And if you check the KB, he's even performed the reverse of Xaviar's Paradox, posting twice the KB, to accolmplish NOTHING. So I guess if I left all of your posts, and my posts together with your butchered snippages of my posts, the end product would exceed the ability of most dial up services to download, in about a week. While under Xaviar's Paradox, everything get's haved each generation, the Darkstar Paradox, is that everything Grows by 50% each generation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 22:01:08 -0700 Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:cFum9.410585$5r1.18927648@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote in message > news:Dusm9.1732$hp7.527520933@news.inreach.com... > > 'Tired of Warsie BS' mode engaged: > I see that you've lost your mind. Let's watch: > Again as per my central theme he introduces exactly what fallicies he's guilty of first. > > Let's see, Darkstar/G2k/Robert Scott Anderson, brings up a theory, that > just > > might work for an X-Files plot, provides no evidence to support this > theory, > > Lie #1: "no evidence to support this theory" > > What the hell do you think I've been saying all this time? Recipes? > Bizzare "rings" that no one else sees, an inability to distiguish scale, repeated focus on one subsection of one tiny part taken out of context and then blown far out of perpotion, yeah a recipie for cow pies. > > when his position is refuted, > > Lie #2: "his position is refuted" > > When, praytell, did this happen? > Everywhere EXCEPT in your mind. Actually, when I was in college I developed a reputation as the Devil's Advocate, because I had a talent for doing some research, and defending of attacking a position reguardless of what it was. I also got kicked out of the Debate team, for being too big of a Fan of Niccolo Machevelli. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 23:56:02 GMT Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: -------- "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote in message news:j4vm9.1741$hm.531189794@news.inreach.com... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:cFum9.410585$5r1.18927648@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote in message > > news:Dusm9.1732$hp7.527520933@news.inreach.com... > > > > 'Tired of Warsie BS' mode engaged: > > I see that you've lost your mind. Let's watch: > > > Again as per my central theme he introduces exactly what fallicies he's guilty > of first. > > > Let's see, Darkstar/G2k/Robert Scott Anderson, brings up a theory, that > > just > > > might work for an X-Files plot, provides no evidence to support this > > theory, > > > > Lie #1: "no evidence to support this theory" > > > > What the hell do you think I've been saying all this time? Recipes? > > > Bizzare "rings" that no one else sees No one else sees rings? My goodness . . . I can feel my IQ drop as I read this. >, an inability to distiguish scale, WTF > repeated focus on one subsection of one tiny part taken out of context Don't lie. > > > when his position is refuted, > > > > Lie #2: "his position is refuted" > > > > When, praytell, did this happen? > > > Everywhere EXCEPT in your mind. And reality. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 02:52:48 GMT Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: <3d9bb0b9.33314469@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 23:56:02 GMT, "DarkStar" wrote: > >"Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote in message >news:j4vm9.1741$hm.531189794@news.inreach.com... >> >> "DarkStar" wrote in message >> news:cFum9.410585$5r1.18927648@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >> > >> > "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote in message >> > news:Dusm9.1732$hp7.527520933@news.inreach.com... >> > >> > 'Tired of Warsie BS' mode engaged: >> > I see that you've lost your mind. Let's watch: >> > >> Again as per my central theme he introduces exactly what fallicies he's >guilty >> of first. >> > > Let's see, Darkstar/G2k/Robert Scott Anderson, brings up a theory, >that >> > just >> > > might work for an X-Files plot, provides no evidence to support this >> > theory, >> > >> > Lie #1: "no evidence to support this theory" >> > >> > What the hell do you think I've been saying all this time? Recipes? >> > >> Bizzare "rings" that no one else sees > >No one else sees rings? My goodness . . . I can feel my IQ drop as I read >this. I fail to see how that's possible, another lie. >>, an inability to distiguish scale, > >WTF You are unable to determine the size of one object based on the size of another which is X distance from the first one. >> repeated focus on one subsection of one tiny part taken out of context > >Don't lie. Practice what you preach? >> > > when his position is refuted, >> > >> > Lie #2: "his position is refuted" >> > >> > When, praytell, did this happen? >> > >> Everywhere EXCEPT in your mind. > >And reality. > Your mind, luckily, is not reality. -- As you read this sig I waste your worthless life. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 12:11:20 GMT Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: -------- "The Baron" wrote in message news:3d9bb0b9.33314469@news.freeserve.co.uk... > You are unable to determine the size of one object based on the size > of another which is X distance from the first one. Where the hell does this claim derive from? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: swineherd@7dof.org (The Baron) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 20:13:26 GMT Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: <3d9ca4bc.5140008@news.freeserve.co.uk> -------- On Thu, 03 Oct 2002 12:11:20 GMT, "DarkStar" wrote: > >"The Baron" wrote in message >news:3d9bb0b9.33314469@news.freeserve.co.uk... > >> You are unable to determine the size of one object based on the size >> of another which is X distance from the first one. > >Where the hell does this claim derive from? > That doesn't concern me, you said 'WTF' to an assertation that you couldn't distinguish scale, leading me to believe you didn't understand that, which would be logical given your complete stupidity. -- As you read this sig I waste your worthless life. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 23:36:35 -0400 Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:lILm9.432161$5r1.19010213@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote in message > news:j4vm9.1741$hm.531189794@news.inreach.com... > > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:cFum9.410585$5r1.18927648@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote in message > > > news:Dusm9.1732$hp7.527520933@news.inreach.com... > > > > > > 'Tired of Warsie BS' mode engaged: > > > I see that you've lost your mind. Let's watch: > > > > > Again as per my central theme he introduces exactly what fallicies he's > guilty > > of first. > > > > Let's see, Darkstar/G2k/Robert Scott Anderson, brings up a theory, > that > > > just > > > > might work for an X-Files plot, provides no evidence to support this > > > theory, > > > > > > Lie #1: "no evidence to support this theory" > > > > > > What the hell do you think I've been saying all this time? Recipes? > > > > > Bizzare "rings" that no one else sees > > No one else sees rings? My goodness . . . I can feel my IQ drop as I read > this. He's referring to your imaginary bands. Moreso I was not aware that IQ coudl be measure in negative values. > >, an inability to distiguish scale, > > WTF The Voyager asteroid you misscaled, not directly related to the topic of your debate with Mike but indicative of your genrally failing in many things. Also this could be included to your belief in atmospehric effets when refraction dictates great altitude. > > repeated focus on one subsection of one tiny part taken out of context > > Don't lie. You took "parrallel unvierses" and decided that it completely over ruled "do intrude." That's about as truthful as one can get. > > > > when his position is refuted, > > > > > > Lie #2: "his position is refuted" > > > > > > When, praytell, did this happen? > > > > > Everywhere EXCEPT in your mind. > > And reality. Have you ever wondered why no one is supporting your cause...at all? I've shown this to firends of mine who believe a GCS could kill the DS and they still agree that the D killed the plaent with raw firepwoer. Trekkies here, at SB.com, and Mike's baord disagree with you. Do you yet udnerstand that only in your delusion reality are your points unrefuted. The vast majority of the viewing public long ago realized that every point fo yours has been torn to shreds and that you've had to resort to a series of interconnected logical fallacies and a misunerstanding of the scientific method to keep going. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 12:14:47 GMT Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:ange00$e58ql$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > The Voyager asteroid you misscaled, No misscaling occurred. Arguments contrary to my scaling have been shown to be specious, with gaping holes in logic and evidence. > > > repeated focus on one subsection of one tiny part taken out of context > > > > Don't lie. > > You took "parrallel unvierses" and decided that it completely over ruled "do > intrude." Incorrect, as previously demonstrated. > Have you ever wondered why no one is supporting your cause...at all? No one ever supports anything I say on here. I could claim there are stars in the sky and you'd argue against it . . . why should I expect this pattern to change now? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 20:41:56 -0400 Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:XwWm9.101945$q42.3126349@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:ange00$e58ql$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > The Voyager asteroid you misscaled, > > No misscaling occurred. My scaling has been shown > to be specious, with gaping holes in logic and evidence. The above would be a more correct reponse. > > > > repeated focus on one subsection of one tiny part taken out of context > > > > > > Don't lie. > > > > You took "parrallel unvierses" and decided that it completely over ruled > "do > > intrude." > > Incorrect, as previously demonstrated. So you never stated: news:av6j9.192294$5r1.7991431@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com Even if your claim that we cannot analyze his comments is correct, it could only apply to the new, ad-libbed parts . . . such as the "intrude" comment. The above indicates a prejudice on your part with no grounding or further proof which you have used to justify ignoring the quote as a continuous whole and focusing on the parrallel universe quote. > > Have you ever wondered why no one is supporting your cause...at all? > > No one ever supports anything I say on here. I could claim there are stars > in the sky and you'd argue against it . . . why should I expect this pattern > to change now? > So the fact that on no less than three occasion the two of us have agreed on non-trivial matters, despite an utter disgust on my part of many of your actions, means no one ever supports you? that's a great way to fake persecution. Its not that we intrinsically hate you, we just hate your stupid ideas, we only hate you when you spew them forth. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 23:43:07 -0500 Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:anio4u$ejocl$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:XwWm9.101945$q42.3126349@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:ange00$e58ql$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > The Voyager asteroid you misscaled, > > > > No misscaling occurred. My scaling has been shown > > to be specious, with gaping holes in logic and evidence. > > The above would be a more correct reponse. Your inability to make a worthwhile reply has been noted. > > > > > repeated focus on one subsection of one tiny part taken out of > context > > > > > > > > Don't lie. > > > > > > You took "parrallel unvierses" and decided that it completely over ruled > > "do > > > intrude." > > > > Incorrect, as previously demonstrated. > > So you never stated: > news:av6j9.192294$5r1.7991431@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com > Even if your claim that we cannot analyze his comments is correct, it could > only apply to > the new, ad-libbed parts . . . such as the "intrude" comment. Your effort to claim that the above, part of my effort to point out the logical inconsistency in Wong's argument, is actually my own personal claim is stupid, but unsurprising. > So the fact that on no less than three occasion the two of us have agreed When did that happen? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cmdrwilkens" Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 19:18:50 -0400 Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:Vn2dnc0r5_TQgQCgXTWc3Q@News.GigaNews.Com... > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > news:anio4u$ejocl$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > news:XwWm9.101945$q42.3126349@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > news:ange00$e58ql$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > The Voyager asteroid you misscaled, > > > > > > No misscaling occurred. My scaling has been shown > > > to be specious, with gaping holes in logic and evidence. > > > > The above would be a more correct reponse. > > Your inability to make a worthwhile reply has been noted. Your inability to accept your own limitations and failing is already well documented. > > > > > > repeated focus on one subsection of one tiny part taken out of > > context > > > > > > > > > > Don't lie. > > > > > > > > You took "parrallel unvierses" and decided that it completely over > ruled > > > "do > > > > intrude." > > > > > > Incorrect, as previously demonstrated. > > > > So you never stated: > > news:av6j9.192294$5r1.7991431@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com > > Even if your claim that we cannot analyze his comments is correct, it > could > > only apply to > > the new, ad-libbed parts . . . such as the "intrude" comment. > > Your effort to claim that the above, part of my effort to point out the > logical inconsistency in Wong's argument, is actually my own personal claim > is stupid, but unsurprising. You made a claim then attempted to rebute it in order to prove a poitn hwoever your rebuttal is a failure in light of the fact that it does not deal with evidence compeltely to the contrary. In other words you stated a premise to rebut in order to show logical inconsitencies however since you have fialed to actually rebut it we must assume your claim is correct. > > So the fact that on no less than three occasion the two of us have agreed > > When did that happen? > Various OT arguments mostly, I could do a google search for "hell freezing over" with my name and yours but I'd rather not sort through extra crap it'll give me. -- Lcpl Burnett, G.R. USMCR BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG "Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure" - IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net) "I'm a genocidal maniac, hold me." -Anakin Vader ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 22:45:12 -0700 Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: -------- "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message news:anl7lp$fjvq0$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > "DarkStar" wrote in message > news:Vn2dnc0r5_TQgQCgXTWc3Q@News.GigaNews.Com... > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > news:anio4u$ejocl$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > "DarkStar" wrote in message > > > news:XwWm9.101945$q42.3126349@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > "Cmdrwilkens" wrote in message > > > > news:ange00$e58ql$1@ID-97732.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > > > > The Voyager asteroid you misscaled, > > > > > > > > No misscaling occurred. My scaling has been shown > > > > to be specious, with gaping holes in logic and evidence. > > > > > > The above would be a more correct reponse. > > > > Your inability to make a worthwhile reply has been noted. > > Your inability to accept your own limitations and failing is already well > documented. > > > > > > > > repeated focus on one subsection of one tiny part taken out of > > > context > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't lie. > > > > > > > > > > You took "parrallel unvierses" and decided that it completely over > > ruled > > > > "do > > > > > intrude." > > > > > > > > Incorrect, as previously demonstrated. > > > > > > So you never stated: > > > news:av6j9.192294$5r1.7991431@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com > > > Even if your claim that we cannot analyze his comments is correct, it > > could > > > only apply to > > > the new, ad-libbed parts . . . such as the "intrude" comment. > > > > Your effort to claim that the above, part of my effort to point out the > > logical inconsistency in Wong's argument, is actually my own personal > claim > > is stupid, but unsurprising. > > You made a claim then attempted to rebute it in order to prove a poitn > hwoever your rebuttal is a failure in light of the fact that it does not > deal with evidence compeltely to the contrary. In other words you stated a > premise to rebut in order to show logical inconsitencies however since you > have fialed to actually rebut it we must assume your claim is correct. > > > > > So the fact that on no less than three occasion the two of us have > agreed > > > > When did that happen? > > > > Various OT arguments mostly, I could do a google search for "hell freezing > over" with my name and yours but I'd rather not sort through extra crap > it'll give me. > > > > -- > Lcpl Burnett, G.R. > USMCR > BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG > You know Hades has been pretty damn cold this year, and Pigs are trying on Jango Fett (tm) jetpacks.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 21:09:28 -0700 Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: -------- Sir, Your preception of events conflicts so greatly with the vast majority of the populace, here, Stardestroyer.net, and Space Battles, and even with the perceptions of people who would be predisposed to try and support your side (Edam, Alyesaka, The Baron), that only a limited number of posibilities occure. 1. You are suffering from a severe dissasociative conddition and as such can not distiguish reality from your own imagination 2. You are a resident of another reality 3. You have been partaking in a large quanity of hallucinagenics and have not been sharing them. (My personal theory) 4. There is a large quanity of mind control, and photo doctoring, going all the way back to the ILM labs at Lucasfilm, as the scenes you discribe do not corresspond with scripts, and visuals 5. You are the one true sane person, everyone else is an alien or a communist or both, (Make sure to adjust your alunanum foil hat. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 12:16:27 GMT Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: -------- "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote in message news:TpPm9.8$Sw1.5464109@news.inreach.com... > Sir, Your preception of events conflicts so greatly with the vast majority of > the populace Irrelevant. > 1. You are suffering from a severe dissasociative conddition and as such can > not distiguish reality from your own imagination Incorrect. > 2. You are a resident of another reality Incorrect. > 3. You have been partaking in a large quanity of hallucinagenics and have not > been sharing them. (My personal theory) Incorrect. > 4. There is a large quanity of mind control, and photo doctoring, going all the > way back to the ILM labs at Lucasfilm, as the scenes you discribe do not > corresspond with scripts, and visuals Incorrect. > 5. You are the one true sane person Possibly closer to being correct, but still incorrect . . . I assume I am not alone in sanity. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 20:34:33 -0700 Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: <6%7n9.68$1L5.22496310@news.inreach.com> -------- Your perceptions of reality, and what the overwhelming majority, books, basic physics etc. depect as "Reality" has such a vast seperation, and conflict that you are either a Schizaphrenic, or 90% of the english speaking population is. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 23:43:44 -0500 Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: -------- "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote in message news:6%7n9.68$1L5.22496310@news.inreach.com... > Your perceptions of reality, and what the overwhelming majority, books, basic > physics etc. depect as "Reality" has such a vast seperation, and conflict that > you are either a Schizaphrenic, or 90% of the english speaking population is. > > Your philosophy is in error: reality is not dictated by the majority. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "C.S.Strowbridge" Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 05:48:27 GMT Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: <3D9D2B43.3090402@shaw.ca> -------- DarkStar wrote: > "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote: >>Your perceptions of reality, and what the overwhelming majority, books, >>basic physics etc. depect as "Reality" has such a vast seperation, and conflict >>that you are either a Schizaphrenic, or 90% of the english speaking population >>is. > > Your philosophy is in error: reality is not dictated by the majority. 'I will not bow down to the tyranny of the majority!' Anywho, it's not the majority, it's everyone here. You don't even have an Elim or Paul Jacques H.R. Jr. backing you up. You have no one. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 00:51:30 -0700 Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: <0Mbn9.77$v97.28390572@news.inreach.com> -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:aNydnVmitObpgQCgXTWcow@News.GigaNews.Com... > > "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote in message > news:6%7n9.68$1L5.22496310@news.inreach.com... > > Your perceptions of reality, and what the overwhelming majority, books, > basic > > physics etc. depect as "Reality" has such a vast seperation, and conflict > that > > you are either a Schizaphrenic, or 90% of the english speaking population > is. > > > > > > Your philosophy is in error: reality is not dictated by the majority. > > I am not saying that the earth is flat, and the universe revolves around it. that was the belief of the majority of the population prior to Galileo. No, I am saying that your differences in perspective, and recall, or so vast that you are either stoned or your Schizophrenic. Mind you, one of my best friends is bipolar, a Good deal of the population is. Even some really brilliant folks (John Nash for one). No your recall an incident clearly different from every other witness, when someone goes back and retrieves your own words you claim that it's a fabrication. You have hallucinated "Rings" into existence, have claimed that the asteroids that impacted each other at Alderaen, were identical to the one vaporized by the ISD in ESB. Not even taking into consideration that: Millennium Falcon < Stardestroyer, by order's of magnitude. Clearly your perception of reality is at fault. Your claims of persecution and conspiracy are very symptomatic of Schizophrenia. You NEED medical help! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: setesh@aol.com (Setesh) Date: 04 Oct 2002 08:32:17 GMT Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: <20021004043217.22977.00007655@mb-co.aol.com> -------- Darkstar in his 'long' sleeved coat: >Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote in message >news:6%7n9.68$1L5.22496310@news.inreach.com... >> Your perceptions of reality, and what the overwhelming majority, books, >basic >> physics etc. depect as "Reality" has such a vast seperation, and conflict >that >> you are either a Schizaphrenic, or 90% of the english speaking population >is. >> >> > >Your philosophy is in error: reality is not dictated by the majority. > True, reality is 'percieved' by the majority, the men in white coats come for the minority. People who can't percieve it seperatly from their imagination and see things that aren't there. Skywarp:"Starscream, What's Megatron's plan this time? Starscream:"Who cares? You just Know it's going to be evil. And evil is always fun." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: joelfooxj@hotmail.com (Kube) Date: 4 Oct 2002 09:56:36 -0700 Subject: Re: Commentary on the Wong-Anderson Debate (Mr. Anderson is a Broken Record) Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:... > "Colin'The Yosemite Bear'Witz" wrote in message > news:6%7n9.68$1L5.22496310@news.inreach.com... > > Your perceptions of reality, and what the overwhelming majority, books, > basic > > physics etc. depect as "Reality" has such a vast seperation, and conflict > that > > you are either a Schizaphrenic, or 90% of the english speaking population > is. > > > > > > Your philosophy is in error: reality is not dictated by the majority. Yes, Reality isn't dictated by the majority, take for example the population that thought Christopher Columbus as a freak and madman. But when he came back, they all slapped their heads and said "do'h". Are you saying that your perception becomes wrong once the majority of the world's population starts yo believe that they are actually amoeaba on the surface of a pond?