It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

10 top 'believers'

page: 3
19
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 





...and if English isn't your first language, then maybe you are missing the nuances of what I'm trying to say.


I think we can agree that we differ in opinion and that one of us may be ...hm...excuse my poor english..how do you say full of crap elegantly?




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TinkererJim
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 





...and if English isn't your first language, then maybe you are missing the nuances of what I'm trying to say.


I think we can agree that we differ in opinion and that one of us may be ...hm...excuse my poor english..how do you say full of crap elegantly?


It's odd how you criticized me for "smearing the reputations" of people like Edgar Mitchell (just because I disagreed with his opinions), but you still find it okay to say my opinion is "full of crap"

As I pointed out, I did NOT smear the reputation of Mitchell. In fact, I went out of my way in all of my posts to say I respected Dr. Mitchell and his opinion on the matter of alien visitation -- but I still disagreed with his conclusions about aliens among us. "Disagreeing" is not "smearing"

It seems you are again the only one not being tolerant of opinions -- which is fine, but don't criticize me for something I'm not doing, but your are doing (i.e., dismissing a person "as full of crap" for no good reason).

I don't say people are "full of crap" unless they were rude to begin with. I have not been rude to you, nor have I smeared Edgar Mitchell's reputation or Gordon Cooper's legacy.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Hm..I take it you are not a big fan of insinuation either. We do have much in common after all. Let's agree to disagree. Cheers!



I did NOT smear the reputation of Mitchell.


Indeed, you've lauded their reputations, but smeared their credibilities. (maybe smear is too strong a word, little help with my English here, how do you describe chipping away someone's credibility by hinting/alluding with unconfirmed/baseless assumptions?).

edit on 22-2-2011 by TinkererJim because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2011 by TinkererJim because: poor grammar



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
While Hawking is a genius, I find it mind-boggling that he would ignore the idea that a star-faring race wouldn't be dependent on resources (the impetus for every Earthly conflict since the dawn of history), and therefore wouldn't have a motivation to war with us. With the galaxy at one's beck and call, such a race could easily obtain any needed resources from unpopulated worlds, negating any reason to incite war.

The scarier part is that the ONLY remaining reason for war for such races would be numerous such races fighting for dominance for galactic resources. (which for Earthlings, could mean multiple enemies)....but even still, it's doubtful, as the galaxy is a BIG place....and the resources must surely be akin to limitless.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TinkererJim


I did NOT smear the reputation of Mitchell.


Indeed, you've lauded their reputations, but smeared their credibilities. (maybe smear is too strong a word, little help with my English here, how do you describe chipping away someone's credibility by hinting/alluding with unconfirmed/baseless assumptions?).


This is getting too far off-topic, but I feel you are unfairly mis-characterizing what I have said -- so the last thing I will say about this particular tangent of this thread is "READ MY POSTS".

I only disagreed with Dr. Mitchell's conclusions. I showed nothing but respect for Dr. Mitchell himself and his methods for reaching his opinion. Everyone has a different opinion on a subject. Disagreeing with a person's opinion is not necessarily a "bad" thing.

You seem to disagree with my opinion about alien visitation -- so does that mean YOU are chipping away at my credibility?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Again, I found we are in agreement that we are constantly losing focus here as you are showing signs of deviation. I am not chipping away your credibility (how can I as I have no knowledge of your background, whether you are an astronaut or a lawyer, I have no idea). I'm merely offering insight to the possible flaws/bias in your opinion as you do with that of Dr. Mitchel and Mr. Cooper. And I do so with First-Hand-Positive-Knowledge (your posts..unless they have been altered by 3rd party).

Excuse my brevity, but your general gist is that you need First-Hand-Positive-Knowledge to accept the possibility of alien visitation, however, you don't seem to need anything more than a whim to suggest that Dr. Mitchel and Mr. Cooper's claims were influenced by their pre-existing belief before entering their specialty field.

Your irritation with my response also confounds me as I see no reservation for you to infer that non-native English speakers are not capable of thoroughly comprehending your posts which contains nothing but fluff, hypocrisy, and repeated "It's ok to disagree (but one of us is right)"



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
And thank you Isaac for addressing 'quotation frustration.'


No problem. I should mention that this frustration exists in relation to some quotations on the Internet by skeptics as well as those by "believers" - although it tends to be "believers" that post long lists of quotations.


Originally posted by The GUT
But what I really want to say is somewhat off topic: I stumbled on isaackoi dotcom last night and it made my day. I used your brilliant search feature and got a treasure-trove of info on a subject I've been looking into for awhile. It unblocked a 'dead-end' for me. Thank You.


Shhh! I'm not ready to talk about that yet as it is so incomplete due to lack of time...


I'm very glad you found it useful.

All the best,

Isaac
edit on 23-2-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Hi Isaac,

Is the GEPAN/SEPRA study missing from your "best UFO cases" page? Might be worthwhile to mention it too.
edit on 23-2-2011 by jclmavg because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
Hi Isaac,

Is the GEPAN/SEPRA study missing from your "best UFO cases" page? Might be worthwhile to mention it too.


Thanks for the suggestion. I'll be covering the COMETA study separately. (I think I've created the page already and uploaded some references, but not added any other text as yet).

I'll add a cross-reference on the "best UFO cases" pages once the COMETA page is complete.

All the best,

Isaac



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
While Hawking is a genius, I find it mind-boggling that he would ignore the idea that a star-faring race wouldn't be dependent on resources (the impetus for every Earthly conflict since the dawn of history), and therefore wouldn't have a motivation to war with us. With the galaxy at one's beck and call, such a race could easily obtain any needed resources from unpopulated worlds, negating any reason to incite war...

One could argue that EVERYONE may be dependent on resources, and won't pass up a chance at obtaining those resources.

For example, the "New World" of the Americas were a pretty wide-open place 400-500 years ago, and had more resources than the native inhabitants needed. Why didn't the great sea-faring powers (who had ample resources of their own in the first place, which is why they were great sea-faring powers) just use only the resources in the new world that the native inhabitants weren't using?

Actually, I'm sure it may have started out that way...but it didn't end that way.


edit on 2/23/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join