> You are so sure of what I can or cannot see yet
> you are oblivious to what has actually been said
> and why. To put it simply, you have no idea what
> you are talking about yet you still feel qualified
> to offer an opinion anyways. The bane of our
> species in general. Can you quote me anywhere ever
> in any thread, most importantly this one, where I
> have "argued against aliens" if only the opposite?
> In this thread I have not said a word about the
> subject and have only focused on taking Laird to
> task for his self-serving misrepresentation of the
> facts. Nothing more, nothing less.
I often have no clue where you're going. I could pay more attention but, frankly, I just don't care. Yes, this is willfull ignorance.
> And yet despite
> your ignorance of the conversation, it is the
> simple fact I am contradicting Laird at all this
> somehow means to you: "You can't even see that
> you are arguing against aliens because you know
> there isn't enough evidence to support their
> existence in the past, present, or future (there
> are no time traveling aliens either)..
Perhaps the comment wasn't warranted at this time but I wager it doesn't change the fact that everything is interpretation just as this subthread suggested when it began. You can interpret the writing as you choose and (I'm sure you believe in gods rather than aliens) and I'll interpret the writing as I choose. Sometime mebbe we should talk about our respective interpretations and see if we can get past name calling. I could probably even come to care what you're talking about.
> Willful. Ignorance. You see nothing but what you
> want to see and have no interest in making the
> effort to actually know what the facts are
> particularly when they contradict your beliefs.
As I explained a couple posts back; I have no beliefs, or at least it is beliefs which I'm trying to shed. Almost everything people "know" is really more belief than it is knowledge. Even true knowledge is usually held in the form of a belief.
> You make the nonsensical claim it is I
> somehow who "already knows the correct
> interpretation of the evidence" yet in the same
> breath you do so yourself despite the fact you
> do not even know what the evidence is. And
> this is ok with you?
The facts to which you refer are not going to be determinative of whether aliens existed on earth or not. Facts are always interesting and you're a bottomless pit of facts (kudos) but there simply isn't sufficient evidence at this time to be drawing conclusions and irrelevancies won't change this.
> And where does pathologically talking out one's ass take us?
Really bad breath is better than wrong thinking. (at least to the speaker)