posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:04 PM
I'm sorry stereologist but if you want to debunk something as complex as the 2012 drama you will have to step up your game just a tad. You can't
just write a couple of lines as you did here and expect everyone to change their minds. The problem is that you are writing from the point of view of
"I know this whole thing is a scam and it's so obvious I shouldn't have to go very deep for the rest to understand it". If you want to fight the
good fight then create a well thought out thread in which you go into detail about all the points you are trying to raise. Such as: if you think the
number of earthquakes is not greater than it was before, then quote different sources to show you are right. Same with animal die offs, weather change
and whatever you want to debunk.
Also, ostension is not "believing false data". In general, it's used to convey a message by an example (giving you a pack of cigarettes instead of
asking you if you want a smoke), and in folklore is used when the legend itself somehow affects people's lifes. For instance when a crime is commited
echoing a crime from an urban legend or when a person modifies his/her sexual behaviour because of some HIV tale they once heard. Quasi-ostension is
used when someone interprets an event for which they have not complete knowledge as something supernatural, and pseudo-ostension is used when someone
replicates an action from an urban legend knowing full well what they're doing.
I don't believe in all this 2012 hype but as someone who enjoys listening to Terence McKenna I sometimes lurk this forum, and it's interesting to me
seing you in just about every single thread in this subforum trying to debunk it. And everytime I read your posts you seem somehow (sorry if this
sounds rude as it's not the intention) extremely close-minded and your debunking efforts usually come across as extremely flaky because they are more
about the way you choose to express yourself instead of what you are actually trying to say.
My point is that there are several ways to present information, and if you are trying to change anyone's mind or at least make them think (and I'm
assuming you do based on your insistive posting on the 2012 forum) you should try to make something a little more academic and actually explain your
points with sources and extensive investigation instead of just assuming you're right and as such you don't need to go into great detail.