| |
Home
|
|
 |
Messages
|
|
| |
Chat
|
|
| |
Files
|
|
| |
Photos
|
|
| |
Links
|
|
| |
Database
|
|
| |
Polls
|
|
| |
Members
|
|
| |
Calendar
|
|
| |
| |
| |
Promote
|
|
| |
| |
| |  = Owner | |
| |  = Moderator | |
| |  = Online | |
|
|
|
From:
"Carl Wilson" <carl@k...>
Date: Sun Aug 4, 2002 4:33
am
Subject: Fw: How to Fool absolutely Nobody, Part 5
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Baker" <jb@s...>
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.ufo.files
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: How to Fool absolutely Nobody, Part 5
>
> "Roberta 'Mop Jockey' Wolfe" <rob@w...> wrote in message
> news:3D46D670.64058032@w...
> > >
> > > Gee whiz, Bobby, maybe you're not as dumb as I thought you were.
> >
> > Gee diddley, Ned Flanders, coming here to post your lame attempts at
> nothing is
> > pretty damn dumb.
>
> Did I strike a nerve, Bobby? Hit a little too close to home, maybe? :-) I
> wasn't attempting to do anything other than poke a little fun at the
overly
> credulous. Your humorless response is ample evidence of my success.
>
> >
> > > That's the
> > > point, you see. *None* of them are very convincing when you look a
> little
> > > closer.
> >
> > Then what are you "proving" besides you are either incapable or
unwilling
> to
> > attempt a convincing FAKE to "prove" that ALL UFO photos are fakes?
>
> I have yet to see one that isn't either an obvious fake or of such low
> quality that you can't honestly say what it actually is. Bad photos of
> unidentified lights or amorphous blobs don't cut it as evidence. If you
can
> show me even one unambiguous photo that you can prove is the genuine
> article, I might be willing to listen to what you have to say. Until then,
> you're just another credulous woo woo. BTW, that little diversion might
have
> taken me a whole 10 minutes from conception to finished "product." As I
> said, I was only poking a little light-hearted fun at the saucer geeks.
For
> one thing, I wouldn't have used that background image if I'd really been
> trying to fool anyone. For another, I'd have spent a good deal more time
on
> it. If I'd actually done a *serious* job and posted it as the real deal,
> you'd have bought it without question, and if you have the balls to be
> honest with yourself, you damn well know it. Given the level of credulity
> you generally demonstrate, I'm not so sure you wouldn't have bought this
one
> if I hadn't identified it up front as a simple fake.
>
> >
> > > Of course, I'd be willing to be that you'd have accepted it as real
> > > if I hadn't said up front that it's a fake. <G>
> >
> > I don't care what you're *willing* to "be"... you are nothing but a
troll.
>
> And I got you on the first cast, didn't I? That hook must really hurt. <G>
> BTW, criticizing typos is a sure sign you're shooting with blanks. But
then
> what else could we expect, since you obviously completely missed the point
> of the original post. It's a joke, son. Nothing more. Of course, I'm not
> surprised at the tone of your response. It's no more (or less) than I'd
> expect from someone with no detectable sense of humor.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh, BTW, you have it ass-backwards.
> >
> > Oh, BTW the interference pattern would be the same. It would look like
> shit.
> >
> > > The source is low-res, taken with a
> > > digital camera. The background is hi-res.
> >
> > Isn't your very presence in this NG ass-backwards in and of itself?
HTH.
>
> It's an unmoderated group. If you don't like it, plonk me.
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
