Merged Their Return

[bruto]

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of inappropriate content.

I don't generally worry myself or others about lapses of grammar or spelling, since many people of intelligence are poor spellers or poorly educated, and many others are simply sloppy at the keyboard. However, you are, we presume, attempting to communicate with others, and to convince them that you are a sensible, rational and reliable correspondent. One of the symptoms of being just the opposite of that is wilfully eccentric writing and punctuation. You may argue the point and count yourself an exception and you may even be right, but unfortunately, it's too often the case that people who are unreliable, mentally unstable, silly, disturbed, or filled with inappropriate ideas of their own wisdom and grandeur, abuse the language and adopt eccentric styles in the belief that it distinguishes them, and insist that their writing style is either quite all right, or beside the point.

If you actually wish to influence the ideas of others, your writing style is doing you no favors at all.

 

[carlitos]

What bruto said is much kinder than what I would have said, and it conveys the same sentiment. Kudos.

 

[Cuddles]

However, you are, we presume, attempting to communicate with others, and to convince them that you are a sensible, rational and reliable correspondent.

The evidence does not appear to support your supposition.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I have nothing that would 'be accepted as evidence here'.

What would though...?

What you should do is switch to a belief in something that actually exists. Evidence for that sort of thing is abundant.

 

[aggle-rithm]

"Lights" alone didn't lead me to any conclusion...but I've said this exact thing to your exact statement at least a half a dozen times, so I'm sure I'll be saying it again.

Does it matter to you that your memory of the lights is very likely incorrect?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I don't generally worry myself or others about lapses of grammar or spelling, since many people of intelligence are poor spellers or poorly educated, and many others are simply sloppy at the keyboard. However, you are, we presume, attempting to communicate with others, and to convince them that you are a sensible, rational and reliable correspondent. One of the symptoms of being just the opposite of that is wilfully eccentric writing and punctuation. You may argue the point and count yourself an exception and you may even be right, but unfortunately, it's too often the case that people who are unreliable, mentally unstable, silly, disturbed, or filled with inappropriate ideas of their own wisdom and grandeur, abuse the language and adopt eccentric styles in the belief that it distinguishes them, and insist that their writing style is either quite all right, or beside the point.

If you actually wish to influence the ideas of others, your writing style is doing you no favors at all.

This post would be so relevant and useful in so many different situations, that there should be a button allowing us to insert it at will.

Unfortunately, I'll have to make do with the "Nominate" button.

 

[aggle-rithm]

What bruto said is much kinder than what I would have said, and it conveys the same sentiment. Kudos.

I tried to make much the same point in a different thread, but was not able to be quite so nice about it. The post is now languishing in AAH.

 

[King of the Americas]

Does it matter to you that your memory of the lights is very likely incorrect?

What makes you say that?

Why is it 'likely' that I am incorrect?

My senses haven't failed me before or sense, even if my memory has, AS EXPECTED, proven itself to be less than 100% accurate.

Also, my friend's senses and memory record the same event, in the same manner.

So, now why is it 'likely' that we both hallucinated and remembered the same non-event?

 

[King of the Americas]

...

If you actually wish to influence the ideas of others, your writing style is doing you no favors at all.

Skepticism, NOT my writing style, is responsible for my lack of headway, here.

 

[King of the Americas]

No, you didn't. You saw something that you believe demonstrated an intelligence that was non-human, and was piloting an aircraft that was more advanced than modern aircraft. You have given us no valid reason for your continued maintenance that any of this is true, beyond "I think it was, therefore it was".

I have my logic and reason, where conclusive proof remains absent.

If I heard a "quack", and saw webbed feet, and heard wings flap, I'd conclude it was a duck, while a skeptic WOULDN'T reach that conclusion without PROOF of the duck in question.

Skeptic abandon both logic and reason in the absence of evidence, and hold that no conclusion can be reached.

I used my experience and my deductive reasoning skills to draw that conclusion.

I DID NOT "see lights, then leap to believe in aliens"...

 

[Psiload]

I have my logic and reason, where conclusive proof remains absent.

If I heard a "quack", and saw webbed feet, and heard wings flap, I'd conclude it was a duck, while a skeptic WOULDN'T reach that conclusion without PROOF of the duck in question.

Skeptic abandon both logic and reason in the absence of evidence, and hold that no conclusion can be reached.

I used my experience and my deductive reasoning skills to draw that conclusion.

I DID NOT "see lights, then leap to believe in aliens"...

Ten years ago you believed that what you had seen was indeed aliens. The outer space type of aliens. Ten years ago your deductive reasoning skills led you to draw the conclusion that you had seen alien spaceships.

You even sent me a book which outlined the entire UFOs-as-alien-spaceships-visiting-Earth phenomenon. Remember?

Ten years on, and you vehemently chastise anyone who dares to suggest that you believe in extraterrestrial aliens. What a difference a decade makes, huh?

You can argue that your current conclusions are accurate, but you can't honestly claim that your conclusions have always been consistent, now can you?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

[King of the Americas]

Ten years ago you believed that what you had seen was indeed aliens. The outer space type of aliens. Ten years ago your deductive reasoning skills led you to draw the conclusion that you had seen alien spaceships.

You even sent me a book which outlined the entire UFOs-as-alien-spaceships-visiting-Earth phenomenon. Remember?

Ten years on, and you vehemently chastise anyone who dares to suggest that you believe in extraterrestrial aliens. What a difference a decade makes, huh?

You can argue that your current conclusions are accurate, but you can't honestly claim that your conclusions have always been consistent, now can you?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

So, now that I have changed my mind about the origin of these E.T.'s, that makes me inconsistent...?

Keep poking, you haven't found the witch's spot yet.

 

[carlitos]

Also, my friend's senses and memory record the same event, in the same manner.

To be blunt - I don't believe you about your "friend" and your story. Please post evidence of this for us to evaluate.

Not that this matters, but the topic of this thread doesn't appear to have anything to do with your specific account of anything. It's a game of let's pretend.

 

[aggle-rithm]

What makes you say that?

Why is it 'likely' that I am incorrect?

My senses haven't failed me before or sense, even if my memory has, AS EXPECTED, proven itself to be less than 100% accurate.

Also, my friend's senses and memory record the same event, in the same manner.

So, now why is it 'likely' that we both hallucinated and remembered the same non-event?

I'm sure your senses are fine. However, most people do not remember events exactly as they happened.

If your friend truly does remember the event exactly as you do, then you are both exceptional. There is usually very little agreement between two people describing a shared experience years later. Even if one person has perfect recall, it is unlikely that both do.

If the stories do match, then I would suspect that the two have reminisced together a number of times, and therefore their interpretation of the memory may be similar. It could still be wrong, however.

That's why a written record or some other way of memorializing the event is so important. When Pliny the Younger witnessed the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius, he didn't simply watch and then tell people about it years later. He wrote down his experiences as he witnessed them. That's the kind of history we can all get behind.

 

[Psiload]

So, now that I have changed my mind about the origin of these E.T.'s, that makes me inconsistent...?

Yes, it absolutely does. Ten years ago you attacked anybody who doubted your claim that space aliens exist with the same passion and anger that you now unleash upon anyone who accuses you of believing in space aliens. That, my friend, is the very definition of inconsistent.

Keep poking, you haven't found the witch's spot yet.

I don't know what that means. What, pray tell, is a "witch's spot"? Is that the origin from which you believe the E.T.'s hail now?

 

[carlitos]

I was just reminiscing with a friend regarding a concert we attended years ago. Parliament Funkadelic, complete with mothership landing. Bootsy Collins, George Clinton - a fantastic show. While we both remembered the jist of the night, I had completely forgotten that P-Funk announced from the stage that Tupac Shakur had been shot. I can't believe that I forgot this - for many young people this is akin to "where were you when you heard about JFK?" I had completely forgotten about this.

I'd bet my life savings that King of the Americas' friend (Jon?) wouldn't describe 6/7 lights, undulating red/blue, etc. in the same way. Not bloody likely, since even the man himself has changed the story over the years.

 

[King of the Americas]

To be blunt - I don't believe you about your "friend" and your story. ...

...

And here we have the last resort of the skeptic, "I don't BELIEVE you."

And that is really the basis for all skepticism, people, photographs, videos, historical denotations are "not to be believed"...

And so while I CAN be skeptical about some things, I am most certainly not a skeptic.

I believable the believable.

Rather than claim that ALL the videos and photographs are fake, that expert witnesses hallucinated or saw something they didn't, that the whole of human religion and mythology is pure fiction, and that 'I' myself had a one-time break with reality and imagined, 'with a friend', seeing star-like objects perform feats beyond that of conventional aircraft...

Rather than discount ALL of that.

I think the simplest answer here, is that we misinterpreted history.

"God" isn't what we see in the heavens. They are simply more advanced beings not unlike us, and they likely came from right here...

If we are looking for the simplest answer, isn't that it?

 

[King of the Americas]

Yes, it absolutely does. Ten years ago you attacked anybody who doubted your claim that space aliens exist with the same passion and anger that you now unleash upon anyone who accuses you of believing in space aliens. That, my friend, is the very definition of inconsistent.


I don't know what that means. What, pray tell, is a "witch's spot"? Is that the origin from which you believe the E.T.'s hail now?

I have consistently argued of an existence in our heavens that wasn't us...

That I 'named' them one thing one day, and then something else another day is meaningless.

Flying purple people eaters one day, angels the next, U.F.O.'s today, which does it matter, all of them are an undefined entity.

The "devil's spot" maybe? It was a technique of "trying a proposed witch" by poking her to find a numb spot. You keep poking her in different spots, until she stops protesting, then you kill her. Look it up...

 

[bruto]

I have consistently argued of an existence in our heavens that wasn't us...

That I 'named' them one thing one day, and then something else another day is meaningless.

Flying purple people eaters one day, angels the next, U.F.O.'s today, which does it matter, all of them are an undefined entity. The "devil's spot" maybe? It was a technique of "trying a proposed witch" by poking her to find a numb spot. You keep poking her in different spots, until she stops protesting, then you kill her. Look it up...

So you say in this post in response to one argument, and yet most of this thread has consisted in your insistence, often vehement and bordering on actionably impolite, that you do actually know what these entities are! Your proposed plan to invite them to return is entirely dependent on your supposition of what they are. Much of this thread has been involved with your insistence that you know what they are. You have insisted here that they are not aliens, and even that, although they are or were the bloodthirsty gods of precolumbian times, they have evolved.

So yes, you've been inconsistent, not only over the last ten years, but over the last weeks of this thread. If addressing your supposition about what these so-called ET's are is meaningless, then a large proportion of your argument here has been meaningless as well. You just can't have it both ways.

 

[RoboTimbo]

My senses haven't failed me before or sense, even if my memory has, AS EXPECTED, proven itself to be less than 100% accurate.

Isn't it your memory of your senses that we're talking about that has been shown to be so unreliable?