Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Another one from skeptic62

Expand Messages
  • rubyhoney97402
    Seems Renfield/skeptic62 had sent me another email that I missed, somehow. I get so many emails i don t always see them all. Anyway, here it is, for your
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 1 8:07 PM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Seems Renfield/skeptic62 had sent me another email that I missed, somehow. I get so many emails i don't
      always see them all. Anyway, here it is, for your entertainment:

      Hi Ruby, I found your comment comparing me to Dwight Frye's character
      Renfield(not Redfield)silly but amusing.
      I'm also not the sidekick or follower type, why you're making it
      sound like i'm some sort of sidekick of JD's I have no idea,never
      chatted with the person, only seen some of his posts. (gee, did it occur to this creep that maybe I know that,
      and am just making a "silly but amusing" comment?)

      I know by being here i'm only giving your boring little club more
      material to feed off of, but i'll appease you anyway. (he'll "appease" me? Did I ASK?)
      Let's see, you only have 40 some members, maybe this will help
      increase membership, you know you need us skeptics Ruby,(right, I need skeptics....I also need a 4,000ton
      yak in my bathtub) otherwise
      what else would this lame little rant club talk about. (for someone that thinks this club is "alme" he sure likes
      reading the posts in here, LOL.)Gotta go now,
      feeling a little under the weather today, (oh, that is TOO bad! poor dear.)hope everyone has a great
      afternoon or evening and Ruby, as always, all the best to you. ("all the best" my ass! Plase, this is more of
      that passive aggressive crap skeptoids are so fond of engaging in.) >>

      It's more like I'm appeasing you dear skeptic62, my little Renfield friend, who has emailed me TWICE without
      any invitation by me...


      ~ ruby "they love me, they really love me!" honey
    • zen_witch
      What a classic. *lmao* They do love you. Thing they don t get is we don t need them, they need us. Without people who have a fortean approach to the
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 2 1:51 PM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        What a classic. *lmao* They do love you. Thing they don't get is we don't
        need them, they need us. Without people who have a fortean approach to the
        paranormal, they have nothing to debunk or sneer at. We, on the other hand,
        have plenty of fun dicussing possibilities of paranormal/unexplained
        phenomena.
        ~ zw ~

        --- In debunkingdebunkers@y..., rubyhoney97402 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > Seems Renfield/skeptic62 had sent me another email that I missed,
        somehow. I get so many emails i don't
        > always see them all. Anyway, here it is, for your entertainment:
        >
        > Hi Ruby, I found your comment comparing me to Dwight Frye's character
        > Renfield(not Redfield)silly but amusing.
        > I'm also not the sidekick or follower type, why you're making it
        > sound like i'm some sort of sidekick of JD's I have no idea,never
        > chatted with the person, only seen some of his posts. (gee, did it occur to
        this creep that maybe I know that,
        > and am just making a "silly but amusing" comment?)
        >
        > I know by being here i'm only giving your boring little club more
        > material to feed off of, but i'll appease you anyway. (he'll "appease" me?
        Did I ASK?)
        > Let's see, you only have 40 some members, maybe this will help
        > increase membership, you know you need us skeptics Ruby,(right, I need
        skeptics....I also need a 4,000ton
        > yak in my bathtub) otherwise
        > what else would this lame little rant club talk about. (for someone that
        thinks this club is "alme" he sure likes
        > reading the posts in here, LOL.)Gotta go now,
        > feeling a little under the weather today, (oh, that is TOO bad! poor
        dear.)hope everyone has a great
        > afternoon or evening and Ruby, as always, all the best to you. ("all the best"
        my ass! Plase, this is more of
        > that passive aggressive crap skeptoids are so fond of engaging in.) >>
        >
        > It's more like I'm appeasing you dear skeptic62, my little Renfield friend,
        who has emailed me TWICE without
        > any invitation by me...
        >
        >
        > ~ ruby "they love me, they really love me!" honey
      • thevirtualgreek
        ... don t ... to the ... other hand, ... paranormal/unexplained ... Now hold on just a durn minute! You re absolutely right that skeptics need Forteans. After
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 2 2:06 PM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In debunkingdebunkers@y..., zen_witch <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > What a classic. *lmao* They do love you. Thing they don't get is we
          don't
          > need them, they need us. Without people who have a fortean approach
          to the
          > paranormal, they have nothing to debunk or sneer at. We, on the
          other hand,
          > have plenty of fun dicussing possibilities of
          paranormal/unexplained
          > phenomena.

          Now hold on just a durn minute! You're absolutely right that skeptics
          need Forteans. After all, what would we have to be skeptical about?

          But you need us too, to stir the pot. Otherwise the conversation just
          sounds like some kind of New Age convention with everyone on Valium.
          A New York Review of Each Other's Books. Preaching to the choir. Ten
          years of chatting about Forteana with no skeptics would produce a
          giant cauldron of twisty anecdotal factoids all the same.

          ~~ Paul
        • zen_witch
          ... I beg to differ. If you have ever read any exchange between Forteans you will soon see we don t all agree on everything. It would hardly be a new age high
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 2 3:26 PM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In debunkingdebunkers@y..., "thevirtualgreek" <yahoo@w...> wrote:
            > --- In debunkingdebunkers@y..., zen_witch <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            > > What a classic. *lmao* They do love you. Thing they don't get is we
            > don't
            > > need them, they need us. Without people who have a fortean approach
            > to the
            > > paranormal, they have nothing to debunk or sneer at. We, on the
            > other hand,
            > > have plenty of fun dicussing possibilities of
            > paranormal/unexplained
            > > phenomena.
            >
            > Now hold on just a durn minute! You're absolutely right that skeptics
            > need Forteans. After all, what would we have to be skeptical about?
            >
            > But you need us too, to stir the pot. Otherwise the conversation just
            > sounds like some kind of New Age convention with everyone on Valium.
            > A New York Review of Each Other's Books. Preaching to the choir. Ten
            > years of chatting about Forteana with no skeptics would produce a
            > giant cauldron of twisty anecdotal factoids all the same.
            >
            > ~~ Paul

            I beg to differ. If you have ever read any exchange between Forteans you will
            soon see we don't all agree on everything. It would hardly be a new age high
            fiving session where everyone BYOO&A (bring your own ooohs & aaaahs).
            Most people with paranormal experiences and beliefs differ greatly, and seek
            to understand them. This can spring forth some heated and not so heated
            debates. We aren't all clones who follow the same path. The same cannot be
            said for Randibots. ;-)

            ~ zw ~
          • thevirtualgreek
            ... Forteans you will ... age high ... aaaahs). ... and seek ... heated ... cannot be ... Ha! Spend a day at the JREF forum and you ll see that the same CAN be
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 2 6:30 PM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              > I beg to differ. If you have ever read any exchange between
              Forteans you will
              > soon see we don't all agree on everything. It would hardly be a new
              age high
              > fiving session where everyone BYOO&A (bring your own ooohs &
              aaaahs).
              > Most people with paranormal experiences and beliefs differ greatly,
              and seek
              > to understand them. This can spring forth some heated and not so
              heated
              > debates. We aren't all clones who follow the same path. The same
              cannot be
              > said for Randibots. ;-)

              Ha! Spend a day at the JREF forum and you'll see that the same CAN be
              said for Randibots! ;-)

              The skeptics keep the paranormal investigators at their game. If not
              for skeptics, the investigators would just pronounce all the
              paranormal ideas proven and be done with them. This has happened with
              telepathy recently---it's now just a proven phenomenon---so I predict
              that it may go morbid very soon (yeah, fat chance). It has also
              happened with the transmogrification of Creationism into Intelligent
              Design.

              I think it would be more of a high-fiving session than you imagine:

              Person 1: It's aliens from outer space!

              Person 2: No, you nincompoop, it's transdimensional beings.

              Person 3: Idiots! It's government spooks.

              Person 1: Whatever it is, it's abducting people.

              Person 2: Yeah! Cool!

              Person 3: I love you guys.

              This is not to say that a skeptics convention isn't also a high-
              fiving extravaganza.


              ~~ Paul
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.