RootsBooster Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Sadly it was his second post that alerted me to his dull wit So far you're not doing a very good job of discussing your topic What ever, may be it is too intelectual a topic for SF. Maybe you need to learn how to take part in a discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Sadly it was his second post that alerted me to his dull wit Just a tip, anything that Rupert Bear posts probably contains a mare's nest concealed somewhere within the verbiage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Sadly it was his second post that alerted me to his dull wit But there's a serious point behind it all. If you were willing to believe the tale about noxious gases being released on such flimsy evidence, and were therefore hoaxes - might it not be that your belief in all these other tales about nefarious experiments on the general population, might actually be based on very little more? After all, Velikovsky and von Daniken were able to hoodwink millions into considerably dafter beliefs, with no evidence whatsoever, just by linking together random pieces of information in an articulate and convincing manner. It's very easy to weave a conspiracy theory in such language as to make it sound very real - that's why there are such a vast number of them, many of which directly contradict each other. Have you applied critical analysis to all of them, of the same type that would have exposed Rupert's hoax in a matter of ten seconds' Google research? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 You mean .... von Daniken was deliberately lying? Nooooo! That cannot be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 You mean .... von Daniken was deliberately lying? Nooooo! That cannot be! He might actually have believed the rubbish he put out; several science writers have deliberately concocted similar rubbish out of genuine facts, linked together in plausible-sounding ways, just to prove how easy it is to come up with theories like that and make them sound sensible. Marvin Gardner wrote a half-page article about the numerological relationship between the Number of the Beast, and the Dewey Decimal classification number for books about numerology (512.73 if you ask) with the specific intention of showing people how easy it was. That still didn't stop a small number of idiots from taking him seriously and thinking he'd stumbled on a great truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Dent Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 The universe is vast. It would be very foolish and arrogant to presume that we were the only intelligent life within it. (some present company excepted) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 The universe is vast. It would be very foolish and arrogant to presume that we were the only intelligent life within it. I don't think any rational scientist does so any more - indeed, there was a BBC website article just last week about five exoplanets where there is a reasonable likelihood that life would be found, if only it were possible to go and look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 He might actually have believed the rubbish he put out; several science writers have deliberately concocted similar rubbish out of genuine facts, linked together in plausible-sounding ways, just to prove how easy it is to come up with theories like that and make them sound sensible. Marvin Gardner wrote a half-page article about the numerological relationship between the Number of the Beast, and the Dewey Decimal classification number for books about numerology (512.73 if you ask) with the specific intention of showing people how easy it was. That still didn't stop a small number of idiots from taking him seriously and thinking he'd stumbled on a great truth.I can see you've studied this field in great depth and are taking it seriously. I apologise for taking the p. about it. L Ron Hubbard invented a whole religion just to show how easy it was, and it's still taken seriously to this day. Conspiracy theories abound because people want to find meaning in the random events of their lives and would rather believe that 'the government' has a hand in them, rather than that **** happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 ... L Ron Hubbard invented a whole religion just to show how easy it was, and it's still taken seriously to this day... There must be something to that Diuretics stuff, though. It certainly did Elron no harm. He was born on 13 March 1911 and published his most recent book in June 1993. A pretty good performance - particularly as he died in January 1986. There aren't many people who keep on publishing books after they've died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Not again Next you'll be telling me they've been putting DHMO in the water supply again Yes. It's a bit of a con trick, too. The water companies are diluting the water with DHMO, but they're not reducing the price! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.