--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <steve.sun...@...> wrote: > > Dang, the Edgster telling it like it is. I have hi-lighted > some of the parts I most enjoyed, and which I felt were most > right on.
Since I chimed in on this earlier by reposting Judy's "definitive statement" about why those who disagree with her about crop circles will *never* know as much about them as she does: "You aren't going to be able to get it right, because you haven't been paying attention to what I'm saying." I'll agree with both Edg and lurk here. The sheer *arrogance* of the statement above indicates a level of attachment to her "There is some Woo Woo going on" belief. Add to that a continued demon- ization of anyone who does *not* "pay attention" to her holy word as "skeptopaths" and "having no cojones" -- *while claiming that she has never demonized them -- and you have someone who is not only attached in the extreme to her point of view, but unable to recognize the attachment. THIS is what I was talking about last week with Richard M, about why I don't *believe* Judy when she says one thing about what she believes, and then acts in a manner that indicates that she believes something completely different. Don't take my word for it. Just look at the history on this thread. Almost everyone who has dared to disagree with Judy's holy word about crop circles has been called a "skeptopath," has been accused of dishonest debating tactics, and of "lacking cojones." Does that SOUND like someone who merely "doesn't know for sure" the "truth" about crop circles? I also agree with Lurk that Edg's statement is a fine example of moderation and balance and economy of language. He sees what almost every- one else here sees, and what the person claiming that she's not demonizing those who disagree with her cannot. But, speaking of "economy of language," one picture is better than a thousand words: [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_k2rfk6VyHkQ/SFaF7R_8BnI/AAAAAAAAAc8/cMuzXd79i\ TA/s400/TinFoilHatArea.jpg] > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Why should I waste my time doing research into crop circles? > > > > All I need to do is read one article by a person who has done this, > and the below is a typical "balanced" view about crop circles. The > writer has done some homework, saved me the effort, and the conclusion > is that "man made" is overwhelmingly the "best guess" to support. > > > > Judy, do you agree with the below article? If so, we have no basis for > our having a debate. > > > > Right now though, I put you in the same category as the guy who said > to me about professional wrestling "Some of it's fake, but some's real." > Good line. Great analogy > > > > To me, you're wanting something, anything will do, to point at that > suggests woo-woo is operative in the world. You're a witch doctor trying > to find a "special bone" "special bone, I love that to shake at a > patient when you say, "I'm the exception to the rule, my bones work and > ooogaboooga is a real power that can those in the know can wield." > > > > Stop clinging to your need for wooism to be justifiable. > > > > No one's levitating, 2012 will be like Y2K, Tony's a fraud, Maharishi > dumped Guru Dev and sold out to money, crop circles are man made, > psychic surgeons palm chicken parts, Sai Baba is a pedophile, Barry > isn't all bad, you are not always right, and you are comfortable calling > names as much as Vaj. What part of this paragraph don't you agree with? > Edg in top form. Bam, bam. No malice here. Just calling > people out on their crap. It's got to be done. > > > > Your intellectual heft is often put to a low use -- you've spend 15 > years beating a dead horse you call "loser." It's sick to beat a dead > horse, and you know it. Everyone here knows it. It is true. Raunchy, > are we wrong here.? I don't think so. It's easy to get into a rut. I > think we have to call it like it is. > > I don't think there was one wasted word in this post. > > > > Edg > > > > http://www.unmuseum.org/cropcir.htm <http://www.unmuseum.org/cropcir.htm> > > The article: > > > > For over twenty years the southern English countryside has been the > site of a strange phenomenon that has baffled observers and spawned > countless news stories and not a few books. In the middle of the night, > flattened circular depressions have appeared in fields of wheat, rye and > other cereal crops. They range in diameter from ten feet to almost a > hundred feet wide and vary from simple circles to complex spirals with > rings and spurs. All have sharply defined edges. > > > > The most striking feature of the circles is the frequency with which > they occur. In 1990 over 700 crop-circles appeared in Britain. > > > > People who attempt to study these circles have coined a name for > themselves: cereologists. The word comes from the name of the Roman > goddess of vegetation, Ceres. There are two favorite theories held by > cereologists that think crop circles are the result of some not well > understood physical phenomena. The first is that the depressions are the > result of an unusual weather effect. George Tenence Meaden, a former > professor of physics, calls this a "plasma vortex phenomenon" which he > defines as "a spinning mass of air which has accumulated a significant > fraction of electrically charged matter." According to Meaden the effect > is similar to that of ball lightning, but larger and longer lasting. > > > > The second theory is that somehow crop-circles are created by UFOs. > Proponents of this theory note that occasionally crop circles seem to > appear in conjunction with a UFO sighting. > > > > Some of the early, simple crop circles certainly do suggest fields > that might have been flattened by the weight of a grounded flying > saucer. As the circles have become more complex in shape, though, > proponents of the UFO theory have had to modify their ideas suggesting > that the marks left are due to a strange effect of the craft's drive > force on the plants. Others even argue that the shapes are messages > purposefully left by the saucer's crew. > > > > The most likely explanation for almost all of the crop circles is that > they are hoaxes. Even the most ardent fans of either the weather or UFO > theories admit that a significant fraction of the circles are man-made. > One cereologist, a believer in the weather theory, Jenny Randles, wrote: > "I would put the hoaxes to comprise something over 50 percent of the > total." > > > > Why don't these backers of the weather or UFO explanations believe > that all the circles are hoaxed? Most would argue that a close > examination of a circle will reveal differences between a hoaxed circle > and a "genuine" circle. There is no clear criteria about what makes > circles genuine or not, though. In fact the BBC asked one circle > "expert" to examine a formation they had found. The expert declared it > real, only to have to reverse his judgment when the BBC film crew told > him they'd had the circle especially built for the occasion. > > > > Some cereologists claim that the plants in hoaxed circles have broken > stems while those in real circles are bent. It seems the bending is the > result of the condition of the plant rather than the type of force used > in flattening it. During the summer green, moist, wheat is easily bent > and can only be broken with great difficulty. > > > > So how do you hoax a crop circle? The tools are simple: A stake, a > chain or rope, some boards, and a few people. The stake is pounded into > the ground at the center of the soon-to-be circle and the rope attached > to it. The rope is then stretched out and someone standing at the end > marches around the stake to make a perimeter. The boards can then be > used to easily flatten the plants within the circle. Rings can be made > through the same technique simply by leaving some sections undamaged. > (Warning: The above information is not meant to encourage anybody to > trespass or vandalize. If you want to experiment with making a circle > get the owner of the grounds permission before starting.) > > > > Since nobody can tell the difference between a hoaxed and "genuine" > circle, is there any reason not to believe that all of them are hoaxed? > Probably not. Several factors argue in favor of the complete hoax > theory. First, there is a lack of historical precedent for crop circles. > Crop circles as they are seen today are a recent phenomenon only twenty > or thirty years old. Secondly, the number and complexity of the circles > have grown in proportion to the media coverage of them (suggesting that > people are more apt to make circles if the circles get in the news). > Finally, there are almost no credible reports of someone actually seeing > a circle being made by either a UFO or weather phenomena (suggesting > that the hoaxers are purposefully keeping out of sight). > > > > Perhaps the mystery here is not what makes the circles, but what would > cause so many other-wise normal people in southern Britain to make > strange circles in the middle of the night in a farm field? > > > > Correction: For a while we mis-identified the crop circle expert in > the BBC incident as Colin Andrews. Our apologies to Mr. Andrews. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" jstein@ wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > If Edg had done his homework, he'd know that there > > > > > are aspects to some of the crop circles that can't > > > > > be conveniently attributed to "fooling" abilities on > > > > > the part of human beans. I discussed some of these- > > > > > -with links--the last time we had this discussion. > > > > > Edg could find those posts easily by searching for > > > > > "authfriend" and "crop circles." Then he could take > > > > > a gander at the links and inform himself. > > > > > > > > Such acid in your tone, tsk. > > > > > > After you've called me a liar, I should be all > > > sweet and submissive? > > > > > > Why should I inform > > > > myself about what I think is an impossibility? > > > > > > "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the > > > facts." > > > > > > > If you're going to win this debate, > > > > > > What would "winning" mean in this context, Edg? > > > > > > You aren't going to be able to get it right, > > > because you haven't been paying attention to > > > what I'm saying. You're much too anxious to > > > hear yourself talk than to listen to the person > > > you're talking to. > > > > > > you > > > > gotta at least own the topic enough to educate others > > > > again and again - like I do when I promote my "true > > > > knowledge about the Absolute" herein. Repeat repeat > > > > repeat. But you don't, and I think it's a tell -- not > > > > that you're lazy or a bad teacher -- but that you > > > > don't have the mojo to plunk down on the table, and so > > > > you send folks into the history of the posts -- > > > > knowing what a piece of shit the Yahoo search function > > > > is. > > > > > > Yahoo Search works just fine for most posts before > > > March 19. My past posts on this topic, in which I > > > plunked down more mojo than you have the guts to > > > deal with, are easily accessible. > > > > > > <snip> > > > > Judy, seriously, do you really mean to say that > > > > someone like The Great Randi couldn't make a joke out > > > > of the whole notion that there are non-human > > > > explanations > > > > > > It's "The Amazing Randi," and he's perfectly > > > capable of making a joke out of anything he > > > doesn't care to believe in. Big whoop. At least > > > get his moniker right. > > > > > > <snip> > > > > Frankly, I count on your intellect to post stuff here > > > > that penetrates the crop circle type of "mystery" > > > > enough to rule out non-human causes > > > > > > Been there, done that, to the extent that it *can* > > > be done. You don't want to know about it, so you > > > aren't going to look it up. > > > > > > You wouldn't even have to refer to my past posts, > > > BTW, to inform yourself sufficiently to have a > > > reasonable discussion. I just thought it would > > > be easier for you to start with the sources I > > > cited than have to plow through the Web on your > > > own to find them. > > > > > > It's a big topic. Google gives you over a million > > > hits. Most of them are crap. > > > > > >
