Research Discussion: You Don't Have To 'Believe' In UFOs Any Longer,

You Don't Have To 'Believe' In UFOs Any Longer,
Posts: 10

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
2009-10-27 04:38:35 EST
You Don't Have To 'Believe' In UFOs Any Longer By James Neff
<*r@sightings.com> 5/28/00

Whenever I hear the question "do you believe in UFOs?" there often
arises an instant feeling of frustration which quickly rolls over into
fatigue and a sense of pity. To most of those who have devoted even a
reasonable portion of time to acquiring an understanding of the
phenomenon, the term "belief" simply doesn't, and should never, apply.
To use this expression shoves the UFO over into the category of
religion or even fantasy, and nothing could be more inaccurate or
counter-productive. It takes absolutely no leap of faith, no mustering
of imagination or whimsy for any rational mind to realize what is
already a proven reality: UFOs exist and are as real and the
Pacific Ocean or the Rocky Mountains (and may have been here just as
long). The simple fact of the matter is, UFOs (and whatever may be
INSIDE them) are a real, verified and massively documented
phenomena ... but much of our culture and language perpetuate and
cling to the erroneous notion that we're dealing with some kind of
specter or myth.

One might 'believe' in fire-breathing dragons or fairies ... yet,
there is no evidence whatever that either of these exist. However, one
need only look at the facts now in evidence to see that 'flying
saucers' (not merely "unidentified flying objects") do, indeed, exist.
Those who know UFOs are 'real' need to make a serious effort to cease
using and condoning that negative terminology of doubt inspired by our
disinformation-driven culture. "Are you aware of UFOs?" (i.e., "have
you been educated on the existence of flying saucers?") should have
replaced "Do you believe in UFOs?" in both text and conversation long
ago. We no longer are soliciting people to 'believe'. Instead, we are
(or should be) asking the uninformed to become educated to the facts.
The issue of visitors to this planet, wherever (or whenever) they
originate, is as vital an issue as any world geopolitical, religious,
or economic affair or policy. In fact, it is probably far more
important.

It is simply a matter of education. The evidence we have for the
existence of unidentified flying machines, even if we toss out all
photographic evidence and all abduction accounts or close encounter
experience testimonies from the most reliable, credible civilian
experiencers, is...massive. Even if we dismiss the most credible
testimony and eyewitness accounts, the evidence is...enormous. What
remains is a nearly a century of 'expert' interaction with flying
saucers (and other shaped craft) under extremely scientific,
verifiable, and examinable circumstances. I am speaking of the
countless military and commercial pilot interactions with these
remarkable, unknown machines, in situations where often entirely
empirical testing of data has been recorded. One could not ask for a
much better 'test lab' for the UFO phenomenon than in the cockpit of a
military fighter or commercial airliner.

In both situations there are one, or more, specialists in the field of
atmospherics and aerodynamics in a 'flying laboratory,' well-equipped
with scientifically-approved and understood instrumentation which can
record and note verifiable time frames, locations, altitudes,
longitudes, latitudes of the UFO phenomena. Additionally, and
obviously, there is also (in countless cases) verification by radar --
which constitutes a second 'laboratory' of qualified, educated and
capable specialists interpreting data. Apart from pilots in their
'flying laboratories' and their ground-based radar counterparts, there
is now also the testimony of astronauts who are increasingly detailing
UFO evidence and information outside of the stratosphere.

>From these three sources alone, there exists undeniable proof of the
'flying saucer.'

UFOs have entered practically every 'sensitive' international
airspace, been tracked on uncountable
civilian and military radars, been pursued by the finest and most
advanced flying machines on the
planet, eye-witnessed by our best trained pilots, even fired upon (or
so attempted) by pilots dating
all the way back to reports from WWI aviators over England. Our
visitors have been tracked at speeds exceeding all known propulsion or
contemporary technology and fully-defying the laws of *our* physics.
Flying Saucers have on scores of occasions brought military units,
including our nuclear forces, to full alert and then engaged those
forces in what appear to be tests of our technological capacity.
Flying Saucers of gargantuan size have been seen at close range by
both civilian and military professionals and verified by radar...both
ground and airborne. Some would even say our visitors have taunted and
played with our military...the reports of incursions into our SAC
bases being particularly extraordinary.

Millions of dollars are spent every year by air force units around the
world from every advanced
nation to intercept these aerial interlopers. Countries do not spend
that kind of money chasing
Venus, 'heat inversions' or entertaining myths. To suggest so is
simply preposterous. The information and data, mountains of it, from
these civilian and military aviation and defense specialists regarding
the UFO match or exceed the information we have from "less than
expert" civilian eyewitnesses of UFOs, and only serves to validate and
support public accounts of UFOs and/or interactions with them. We
accept without reservation the existence of atomic and subatomic
particles which only a privileged handful of experts in that field of
study have ever 'seen' with the most advanced special instrumentation.

Granted, there is far more 'scientific' data and knowledge of atomic
and subatomic particles than
exists for flying saucers -- but data is data, and evidence is
evidence -- and we have no trouble in trusting and being dependent
upon the experiences and veracity of the physicists and scientists
involved. We accept the reality of these all but invisible atomic and
sub-atomic structures with no
hesitation. And yet with the flying saucer, we are not dealing with
'invisibles' at all. At best, one must define the flying saucer as
transitory, difficult and evasive -- but nonetheless, a real part of
our physical universe. Unlike the atomic particle which is governed by
laws already understood, or well on the way to being understood within
the sheer mechanics of the universe itself and its conditions and
measures, the UFO has behind it an intelligence of its own. We can no
more easily reach out and snatch a flying saucer for examination than
we can ball lightning... yet, both exist. (There is strong indication
our military has had examples of UFO technology ...and its flight
crews...for more than a half century, but that is another subject
altogether).

Our public sector scientific evaluation of the flying saucer is
therefore more akin to hunting a
rare and highly-advanced species of animal formerly classified as
'cryptozooligical' but now definitely reclassified as 'authentic' due
to the sheer weight of verifiable and coherent data from experts. Like
the Tasmanian Tiger, we now know they "are"... but to capture one for
more advanced study proves to be essentially impossible.

Ours or 'theirs'?

It does appear that the U.S. military has developed craft with similar
appearance and capabilities as
some 'flying saucers' (as reported by many reasonable and credible
individuals). However,
history shows us that the flying saucer has been coming and going on
planet earth for generations,
and centuries, which rules out the idea that all flying saucers are
manmade craft of a clandestine
technology. Considering these realities, our language regarding UFOs
should cease, immediately, to reflect the elements of myth, legend or
fantasy, and fully embrace its definitive reality, helping to bring in
a new cultural era regarding the UFO. We must each arm ourselves with
these most primary facts when dealing with those uneducated, prepared
to give a rational defense of the subject. There is absolutely no
reason to ever feel awkward about the issue simply because others are
poorly-educated about the facts. And educating them at every
opportunity is paramount. The reality of
UFOs is such that its implications require every human being to become
as aware of it as their
individual mental and emotional limits will allow. Our place in the
universe is likely to be defined
by this very subject, be it a truth we are ready to receive or a lie
we are miserably destined to
suffer.

Either way, we don't "believe" in UFOs. No faith is required. It is
not a religion or occult pseudo
science. It is a reality. What we do with that reality is now squarely
on the table.


A Rebuttal by Jim Foreman; Editor, The Skeptic Report
His rebuttal is published as follows...

OK, we'll grant that UFOs (in this, we mean Unidentified Flying
Objects) do exist. There are strange things in the sky that people see
and then report to their local branch of MUFON. Maybe these objects
are vehicles, or are at least unnatural phenomena built by intelligent
species. Some of
them. Maybe. Does this mean that those few that are actually physical,
manufactured objects made by humans? Probably. Does this mean that
they're created by aliens? Absolutely not. Other than grainy
photographs, radar ghosts and eyewitness testimony (which is always
highly questionable...ask any lawyer) I am not aware of anything
empirical or scientific. Simply noting that something is there, flying
around, or might be flying around, in no way proves (or even logically
suggests) that it is an alien spacecraft.

There's no evidence for any of that at all. There are also some pretty
cool accounts of vampires, but close examination by scientists
familiar with body decay and pathology have shown that vampires
probably weren't supernatural. Thus, historical accounts can't be
trusted without modern analysis.
What really saddens us about the flavor of this whole article is the
tendency for the people responsible for the dissemination of UFO
information to wholly embrace the scanty evidence
for Unidentified Flying Objects and then similarly assume, without any
corroboration, that the objects are alien in origin. That's
inexcusable, unscientific, and just plain unfair.

Reply

I love a skeptic, and consider myself one. A big one. It takes a lot
to convince me of anything. I'm
not even sure you are real, Jim :) You write:

"This article basically extols the virtues of UFO worship, though he
devotes the article to
damning that anyone could "believe" in UFOs at all.

God forbid ANYONE "worships" UFOs as you claim I have encouraged! My
entire point is that the UFO is undeserving of such mentality...
because of the weight of evidence.

Now, allow me to defend myself only on two points, the rest of which
I'll leave to the readers to
evaluate using that wonderful gray matter between their ears. My
admonition: BE SKEPTICAL. That's the entire point. EDUCATE yourself on
the facts. Once the facts are in evidence, you will come to the same
conclusion. Either that, or, turn in denial and ignore the truth.

(1) I make it very clear that we have in no way defined the ORIGINS of
the UFO; this has NOT been verified or proven -- admittedly it is
entirely speculative that they are "alien" craft from other
planets or 'outer space'. But what I DO say is that since these craft
have been recorded historically
dating far beyond our own industrial revolution, much less the
invention of manned flight, we can
surmise that these are not all "ours" (ie, man made craft). You
immediately debunk this idea. Well,
history is on my side here. Anyone can crack a Bible and read about
Ezekiel's UFO experience...
anyone can read the Upanishads of the Hindu's and read about 'air
cars' powered by an energy source called 'sidis'... and if one really
wants to educate oneself on the true history of UFOs, you
can read quite a lot in this excellent NIGHTWATCH article entitled
"UFOs Through The Ages...A
Timeline." Because human beings have been describing this same
phenomena for so many centuries persuades me that the phenomena is at
the very least not a production of modern technology. It remains to
determine what they are, where they come from, etc. So we are in
agreement -- your
first statement is:

"OK, we'll grant that UFOs (in this, we mean Unidentified Flying
Objects) do exist. There are strange things in the sky that people see
and then report to their local branch of MUFON. Maybe these objects
are vehicles, or are at least unnatural phenomena built by intelligent
species."

(2) My second point is to rise to your challenge of proof that the
military/air forces around the world spend millions of dollars dealing
with the UFO phenomena. These events are on record. Stanton Friedman
and many other researchers have amassed such data, and this is nothing
new or earthshaking (to the UFO educated). Iraqi & Israeli Air Force,
as well as the French government, have been entirely open about their
UFO encounters. Several of our own astronauts have openly told about
their encounters with UFOs when in the Air Force. Major Donald E.
Kehoe spent the latter part of his life documenting such cases
provoked by personal experience. Filer's Files frequently and
archivally have records of such events. These aren't buried someplace!
They've been known to anyone wanting to learn about it for years. Do
you have any idea how much it costs to send your best fighters after a
radar detected interloper traveling at 3000 mph over sensitive
airspace (only to close in on it and discover it's not a missile, but
a silver disc with brilliant lights playing cat and mouse)? Any person
in the air force will confirm this fact: it costs millions, even if it
only happens a few times a year. This website is overflowing with
these cases and accounts, as are many others. The documentation is
openly available. The witnesses, expert. The accounts, verified.

I will not defend the idea that UFOs are proven to be alien
spacecraft. I don't know what they are. I simply know they 'ARE' and
that historically the evidence for their existence reveals that,
whatever their origin, it is entirely unrelated to our own
technological status here on earth. Hence, it is not a "belief"
system. It is a rational assembly of facts with a reasonable
conclusion. Flying Saucers
(and other shapes and forms of this same aerial phenomena) EXIST. They
being of extraterrestrial origin is, indeed, a speculation; as is, a
metaphysical conclusion; as is a phenomenon of nature. My personal
speculation, based on the evidence, is that these are craft with
intelligent occupants and/or guided by intelligent means which is not
human; there is ample evidence of intelligent control behind these
devices.

As I said, what we do with this reality is squarely on the table. I
appreciate your skeptical prodding's. Keeps me on my toes :)
-----------
Geekatron <spamfree@geekatron.com> wrote on 9/5/0

At least he said something that will help this newsgroup and its
readers.
Unlike your.. erm.. I don't even want to call post.
-----------
Andreas Klokkaris <andre@spidernet.com.cy> responded on 9/5/00

Excellent post man!
-----------
Sir Arthur Wholeflaffer A.S.A. replied:
Thank you for your very insightful compliment.
This will put every debunker to shame,
-----------
Andreas Klokkaris <andre@spidernet.com.cy> added:

Hm...I wouldn't bet on it. Believe me I've tried it in the past with
posts similar to the one you posted. Debunkers don't seem to have the
word shame (or defeat) in their vocabulary. They are weird beings,
really. My advice: Ignore them until they rot! Ha-ha
-----------
Sir Arthur Wholeflaffer A.S.A. again:

Now we know the five stages of the UFO debunker:
anger, denial, bargaining, depression and acceptance.
-----------
Andreas Klokkaris <andre@spidernet.com.cy> wrote:

Well said, but you can sum it all up with the following cutie that's
been around the net lately:
"All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it
is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being -- Arthur
Schopenhauer


Hagar
2009-10-27 14:49:48 EST

"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <science@zzz.com> wrote in message
news:717be711-f82b-4fe8-a42a-7f9dece67599@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> You Don't Have To 'Believe' In UFOs Any Longer By James Neff
> <webmaster@sightings.com> 5/28/00


LipFlapper, whenever something requires "believing" or "faith", it is
called a "Religion".

Hope that clears it up for ya ...



Mantismind
2009-10-27 18:23:19 EST
"Hagar" <hagen@sahm.name> wrote in
news:sNydnR7-QqNQ3XrXnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d@giganews.com:

>
> "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <science@zzz.com> wrote in
> message
> news:717be711-f82b-4fe8-a42a-7f9dece67599@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com..
> .
>> You Don't Have To 'Believe' In UFOs Any Longer By James Neff
>> <webmaster@sightings.com> 5/28/00
>
>
> LipFlapper, whenever something requires "believing" or "faith", it is
> called a "Religion".
>
> Hope that clears it up for ya ...
>
>
>

Either you didn't read the article or you are a complete idiot.

Hagar
2009-10-28 10:54:25 EST

"mantismind" <mantismind@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CB1A6B726695mantismindyahoocom@69.16.185.250...
> "Hagar" <hagen@sahm.name> wrote in
> news:sNydnR7-QqNQ3XrXnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>>
>> "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <science@zzz.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:717be711-f82b-4fe8-a42a-7f9dece67599@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com..
>> .
>>> You Don't Have To 'Believe' In UFOs Any Longer By James Neff
>>> <webmaster@sightings.com> 5/28/00
>>
>>
>> LipFlapper, whenever something requires "believing" or "faith", it is
>> called a "Religion".
>>
>> Hope that clears it up for ya ...
>>
>>
>>
>
> Either you didn't read the article or you are a complete idiot.

One more time, fucktard:
I believe, simply based on the Drake Equation, that there must be
life in the Universe, other than ourselves. I would even go as far as
saying that life in the Universe is the rule, rather than the exception.

Taking into consideration the vast distances of just our own Solar
System, not to mention the Milky Way Galaxy, it will be highly
unlikely that we will encounter other intelligent life any time soon.

If any advanced intelligence had visited Earth, we would not exist
today. They would have recognized us for what we really are: a
blood thirsty ill tempered war mongering breed of species, who
have no regard for the planet we live on. As such, they would have
had the foresight to kill off all of us and save the greater Galaxy a
potential headache of epic proportions.

It may even be that they didn't do it, based on the premise that we
are doing an exemplary job of self extermination ourselves.

But I digress ... unless there is any kind of hard evidence, I vote
with the sane people of this world.

You guys are in the same league as those who insist that there is a
god, that he made the Earth and the entire Universe, that he screwed
a virgin and thusly produced an offspring who could walk on water.
And these nutz, just like you lame brains, affirm their "faith" on a
weekly basis ...now who's the complete idiot ...



Rex
2009-10-28 13:30:20 EST

>
> You guys are in the same league as those who insist that there is a
> god, that he made the Earth and the entire Universe, that he screwed
> a virgin and thusly produced an offspring who could walk on water.
> And these nutz, just like you lame brains, affirm their "faith" on a
> weekly basis ...now who's the complete idiot ...
>
>

Agreed.
UFOs are what one would call an untestable hypothesis, in scientific
terms. Not one of the UFO sightings/abductions/grainy footage over the
years can be counted as independently verifiable evidence. For that to
happen either of the following must happen:
a) The US Govt de-classifies all information related to Roswell and
other similar episodes, and confirms that yes, it indeed was a UFO that
crashed, occupants corpses are stored in Area 51 etc etc. Good luck with
that happening anytime ever.
b) A UFO makes a very public appearance, in broad daylight in a crowded
place like Times Square and the aliens come out and greet us. Preferably
they make a smooth landing and don't cause another Tunguska incident.

The chances of (a) happening is as good as nil. For the second scenario,
well, if UFOs do exist they're quite content with behaving like
delinquents- scrawling crop circles, killing cows and coring out their
assholes, and kidnapping people from redneck country.
(Aside: How come so many UFO encounters seem to happen only in the US?
How about showing up in other countries for a change?)

So for all practical purposes, UFOs are in the same league as fairies,
Jesus, Elvis and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

There's a lot of wishful thinking about them, and I'm sure every UFO
nerd secretly wishes for some incontrovertible evidence, 'absence of
proof != proof of absence' etc. etc. while watching re-runs of the X-Files.

This is still considered different from religious fundamentalists who
believe in the creation/apocalyptic myth of their professed religions
because of the desperation to win the approval and credibility of the
scientific community/rational minded folks. Religious fanatics by
contrast don't try to convince you about their beliefs, they expect it
to be taken as an article of faith.
And I think this is the difference that the OP was trying to point out.

--


------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Work is the curse of the drinking class."
-- Oscar Wilde



Benj
2009-10-30 02:55:08 EST
On Oct 28, 1:30 pm, Rex <rexdudeREMOVEANDREVERSEDOM...@liam.ur> wrote:
> > You guys are in the same league as those who insist that there is a
> > god, that he made the Earth and the entire Universe, that he screwed
> > a virgin and thusly produced an offspring who could walk on water.
> > And these nutz, just like you lame brains, affirm their "faith" on a
> > weekly basis ...now who's the complete idiot ...
>
> Agreed.

So in other words you place yourself in the class with people who say
that a whole array of stuff is "impossible". You do know that making
the statement that something is "impossible" is the mathematical
equivalent of saying "I'm a moron".

> UFOs are what one would call an untestable hypothesis, in scientific
> terms. Not one of the UFO sightings/abductions/grainy footage over the
> years can be counted as independently verifiable evidence.

This is bullshit. UFOs are not especially hard to see. I have seen
them. So that means we have actual physical observations of phenomena
by a scientifically trained person. Many trained persons have seen
them. Such is valid enough for any other scientific observation.

The part that is unknown and untestable is proof of what these objects
actually are. Hint: The U in UFO stands for "unidentified". Duh.

> For that to
> happen either of the following must happen:
> a) The US Govt de-classifies all information related to Roswell and
> other similar episodes, and confirms that yes, it indeed was a UFO that
> crashed, occupants corpses are stored in Area 51 etc etc. Good luck with
> that happening anytime ever.

Obviously you are not talking about UFO existence here, but the
extraterrestrial hypothesis.
And even if it did happen we all know that everything a government
says can be believed without question. Governments never lie, do they?

> b) A UFO makes a very public appearance, in broad daylight in a crowded
> place like Times Square and the aliens come out and greet us. Preferably
> they make a smooth landing and don't cause another Tunguska incident.

And what does that prove? That the government has saucer shaped
craft? Hey the GERMANS had that in WWII. Any guess as to what those
same Nazis have come up with by now? (working for the U.S.A., natch)

> The chances of (a) happening is as good as nil. For the second scenario,
> well, if UFOs do exist they're quite content with behaving like
> delinquents- scrawling crop circles, killing cows and coring out their
> assholes, and kidnapping people from redneck country.

Don't you think aliens advanced enough to get here from the stars
would have better things to do than this. But your list sure sounds
like the kind of stuff the folks at Langley would come up with?

> (Aside: How come so many UFO encounters seem to happen only in the US?
> How about showing up in other countries for a change?)

Lie and more chaff thrown in the wind to make everyone sneeze. UFO
phenomena is easily seen with the most minimal effort to be world-
wide. You obviously prefer to lie than make a minimal effort.


> So for all practical purposes, UFOs are in the same league as fairies,
> Jesus, Elvis and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

We already established that this statement is totally false. Of course
if you are talking about ALIENS then why not SAY aliens instead of
using the term UFOs which makes the statement false.

> There's a lot of wishful thinking about them, and I'm sure every UFO
> nerd secretly wishes for some incontrovertible evidence, 'absence of
> proof != proof of absence' etc. etc. while watching re-runs of the X-Files.

Well, sure. Hey, "unidentified" means it's a mystery. Wouldn't any
nerd love to solve a puzzle?

> This is still considered different from religious fundamentalists who
> believe in the creation/apocalyptic myth of their professed religions
> because of the desperation to win the approval and credibility of the
> scientific community/rational minded folks. Religious fanatics by
> contrast don't try to convince you about their beliefs, they expect it
> to be taken as an article of faith.

Religious beliefs ARE a matter of faith. That is why they are called
religion! Unknown mysteries are actual puzzles to be solved. There is
no faith involved. As the OP indicated, when someone says "do you
believe" in UFOs that is a totally stupid thing to ask. It's like
asking if someone "believes" in the wind. Well, do you believe in the
wind? If so then please show me a nice dark not-grainy high resolution
photograph of the wind! What's that? You can't? Well then obviously
you are one of those "Wind" nutcases!

> And I think this is the difference that the OP was trying to point out.

Yeah, that does show your level of understanding.

> "Work is the curse of the drinking class."
>                              -- Oscar Wilde


HVAC
2009-10-30 10:22:11 EST

"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:06cbd9a6-22d6-4f8c-8517-fdf3c9ff14e7@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

So in other words you place yourself in the class with people who say
that a whole array of stuff is "impossible".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi BJ!

Plenty of stuff is impossible, don't you agree?

Nothing can exceed C in our universe, don't you agree?

2 + 2 can never = 5 Don't you agree?

It is impossible to determine the area of a circle
without using Pi, Don't you agree?



Sir Arthur CB Wholeflaffers ASA
2009-11-01 10:49:22 EST
On Oct 30, 6:22 am, "HVAC" <harlowcampb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>
> news:06cbd9a6-22d6-4f8c-8517-fdf3c9ff14e7@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> So in other words you place yourself in the class with people who say
> that a whole array of stuff is "impossible".
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Hi BJ!
>
> Plenty of stuff is impossible, don't you agree?
>
> Nothing can exceed C in our universe, don't you agree?
>
> 2 + 2 can never = 5   Don't you agree?
>
> It is impossible to determine the area of a circle
> without using Pi, Don't you agree?

VD-VAC; please push your line of propaganda in some other venue, such
as the local playground or public swimming pool. You have no business
here with civilized, educated people. Maybe that bath house that you
frequent very often is another place to espouse your nonsense. Good
luck and please do NOT return.

Sir ArtiØ

HVAC
2009-11-02 10:43:16 EST

"Sir Arthur CB Wholeflaffers ASA" <science@zzz.com> wrote in message
news:41a9d949-885c-49c4-9ff8-28e251629e8a@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...

VD-VAC; please push your line of propaganda in some other venue, such
as the local playground or public swimming pool. You have no business
here with civilized, educated people. Maybe that bath house that you
frequent very often is another place to espouse your nonsense. Good
luck and please do NOT return.

Sir Arti\ufffd
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


OK Sir Rat

This will be my last post...



George
2009-11-02 15:22:49 EST
On Nov 2, 4:49 am, Sir Arthur CB Wholeflaffers ASA <scie...@zzz.com>
wrote:

> VD-VAC;  please push your line of propaganda in some other venue, such
> as the local playground or public swimming pool.  You have no business
> here with civilized, educated people.  Maybe that bath house that you
> frequent very often is another place to espouse your nonsense.  Good
> luck and please do NOT return.
>
Stop posting, go away and no-one will have to see let alone correct
your inanities.
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron