So-called skeptics.

page: 3
19
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc4denmark
reply to post by humphreysjim
 





You're not a skeptic, you're a pseudo-skeptic trying to hijack the use of the word. I am not making you look bad because we are not remotely in the same camp. You do just fine making yourself look bad without anyone else's help.


You seem more like a nay-sayer, which really does not make you a sceptic.


A naysayer is what believers call people who repeatedly refute their delusions using logic and evidence.




posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Well, only when they repeatley states something is not true only based on their own idea of what is right and what is wrong, and they have absolutely no facts to back it up with

A good example is from a thread where the nay-sayers kept saying of cause there where no UFO "Its just bugs" and "The TV station is lying because they want higher viewer rating"

That is complete based on negativity and nay-saying... no facts what so ever



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc4denmark
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Well, only when they repeatley states something is not true only based on their own idea of what is right and what is wrong, and they have absolutely no facts to back it up with

A good example is from a thread where the nay-sayers kept saying of cause there where no UFO "Its just bugs" and "The TV station is lying because they want higher viewer rating"

That is complete based on negativity and nay-saying... no facts what so ever


I know the thread you are talking about, and still there is not a shred of evidence that they were NOT bugs. Saying that the media lie for ratings is not naysaying, or negativity, it is a fact, and I would think anyone posting on this forum would realise that.

Anyway, I think we've both said our piece, and that discussion is for the other thread.





new topics
 
19
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join