UFO: The Greatest Story Ever Denied.

[_Ray A]

I am comparing UFO apologetics to Mormon apologetics. Comparing Dr. Peterson to Friedman is specifically relevant.

Saying it over and over doesn't make it so. You posted with the deliberate intention mocking, which I understand is not the intention of the CF.

Rule No3:

No disrespectful communications allowed.

When I have been in the wrong, I haven't argued with the Umpire's decision, no matter how much I felt I was in the right. No decision has been made, but as far as I'm concerned the thread is off track, and off purpose.

You do not appear to know what "ad hominem" actually means. "Saying things I don't like" is not the definition of "ad hominem."

Arguing so does not make it so.

Nor am I threadjacking. In your OP, you explained your rationale for posting this thread on this board. I am responding to the rationale of posting a UFO thread on this board.

Your purpose from your first post was not to join a respectful discussion, but to mock and disrupt it.

Make all the mockery you want in the Terrestrial, and I'll eventually join you there.

[_Ray A]

I'm not playing any mind games, or any other kinds of games. I genuinely would like to know the difference between UFO apologetics and Mormon apologetics, apart from their respective subject matters.

I already gave you an answer to that, so stop trying to kid yourself. You have already made up your mind that there is no differentiation.

Did you view the UFO video I linked in the OP?

[_Darth J]

I am comparing UFO apologetics to Mormon apologetics. Comparing Dr. Peterson to Friedman is specifically relevant.

Saying it over and over doesn't make it so. You posted with the deliberate intention mocking, which I understand is not the intention of the CF.

Rule No3:

No disrespectful communications allowed.

When I have been in the wrong, I haven't argued with the Umpire's decision, no matter how much I felt I was in the right. No decision has been made, but as far as I'm concerned the thread is off track, and off purpose.

You do not appear to know what "ad hominem" actually means. "Saying things I don't like" is not the definition of "ad hominem."

Arguing so does not make it so.

Nor am I threadjacking. In your OP, you explained your rationale for posting this thread on this board. I am responding to the rationale of posting a UFO thread on this board.

Your purpose from your first post was not to join a respectful discussion, but to mock and disrupt it.

Make all the mockery you want in the Terrestrial, and I'll eventually join you there.

So, Ray, is the purpose of this thread for anecdotal whimsy, speculation, hearsay, and arguing from ignorance to be taken at face value as proof that space aliens are present on the Earth?

If that is your intent, and you feel that I am distracting from it, then just say so and I will go.

[_Ray A]

So, Ray, is the purpose of this thread for anecdotal whimsy, speculation, hearsay, and arguing from ignorance to be taken at face value as proof that space aliens are present on the Earth?

If that is your intent, and you feel that I am distracting from it, then just say so and I will go.

Answer my question: Did you view the UFO video I linked in the OP?

[_Darth J]

So, Ray, is the purpose of this thread for anecdotal whimsy, speculation, hearsay, and arguing from ignorance to be taken at face value as proof that space aliens are present on the Earth?

If that is your intent, and you feel that I am distracting from it, then just say so and I will go.

Answer my question: Did you view the UFO video I linked in the OP?

I have started watching it. It's about an hour and a half long. Is it as good as the UFO fast and testimony meeting you previously directed me to?

But I have to say that any "documentary" starting with title cards announcing that "somewhere, in the back of your mind, you always knew it was true" certainly holds promise.

[_Ray A]

I have started watching it. It's about an hour and a half long. Is it as good as the UFO fast and testimony meeting you previously directed me to?

But I have to say that any "documentary" starting with title cards announcing that "somewhere, in the back of your mind, you always knew it was true" certainly holds promise.

So there you go. You hadn't even watched the video and you come on to the thread to mock, not to honestly inquire or ask questions. But that's typical.

When you've viewed the video, then make some informed comment or criticisms.

[_Darth J]

I have started watching it. It's about an hour and a half long. Is it as good as the UFO fast and testimony meeting you previously directed me to?

But I have to say that any "documentary" starting with title cards announcing that "somewhere, in the back of your mind, you always knew it was true" certainly holds promise.

So there you go. You hadn't even watched the video and you come on to the thread to mock, not to honestly inquire or ask questions. But that's typical.

When you've viewed the video, then make some informed comment or criticisms.

Is this video the smoking gun proving that space aliens are here among us?

Do you always just take it as a foregone conclusion that those not of your faith have not looked at the tenets of your faith? Do you just take it as a given that I have never heard anything about UFO's before encountering you on this message board?

You insisted that I had not looked at the National Press Club fast and testimony meeting, but then when I commented on specific parts of that video, you started talking about how I am closed-minded or already made my mind up or some such. Did your response there foreshadow what is likely to be your reaction here?

[_Ray A]

But I have to say that any "documentary" starting with title cards announcing that "somewhere, in the back of your mind, you always knew it was true" certainly holds promise.

Sure, judge a book by its cover. And when you once again get to the "absence of evidence" part, just remember that you had it out of context. The commentator didn't mean there was no evidence, but that it has been covered up by the government, much of which has come to light through people like himself, but the government is still withholding very important evidence. That's what he means by "absence" of evidence.

Later on, I'm going to ask you to explain some of the phenomena shown in the video, and I'd like to hear your explanations, which will predictably be like your replies to me: "I don't know what you saw", but it obviously could not have been an alien craft, because you know "aliens don't come to planet earth". Not possible. So don't even consider that.

[_Darth J]

But I have to say that any "documentary" starting with title cards announcing that "somewhere, in the back of your mind, you always knew it was true" certainly holds promise.

Sure, judge a book by its cover. And when you once again get to the "absence of evidence" part, just remember that you had it out of context. The commentator didn't mean there was no evidence, but that it has been covered up by the government, much of which has come to light through people like himself, but the government is still withholding very important evidence. That's what he means by "absence" of evidence.

Sure, I've seen argument from ignorance before.

Later on, I'm going to ask you to explain some of the phenomena shown in the video, and I'd like to hear your explanations, which will predictably be like your replies to me: "I don't know what you saw", but it obviously could not have been an alien craft, because you know "aliens don't come to planet earth". Not possible. So don't even consider that.

Of course, I never said that there are not any space aliens, but only that I have seen no compelling evidence to make me believe that. I guess you could add "straw man" to your talk about "ad hominem" and all that?

[_Ray A]

Is this video the smoking gun proving that space aliens are here among us?

Do you always just take it as a foregone conclusion that those not of your faith have not looked at the tenets of your faith? Do you just take it as a given that I have never heard anything about UFO's before encountering you on this message board?

You insisted that I had not looked at the National Press Club fast and testimony meeting, but then when I commented on specific parts of that video, you started talking about how I am closed-minded or already made my mind up or some such. Did your response there foreshadow what is likely to be your reaction here?

Do you always judge video A by what you see in video B? Do you judge The Sound of Music by what you see Godspell?