Brian Sandle wrote in message ...
snip
Sorry, Brian. You do not get to define my belief (or lack of belief)
system.

To be an atheist has to involve a belief that some people are under
control of belief.

Brian? Brian? Try reading my post again.
"You do not get to define my belief (or lack of belief) system."
The above is only YOUR interpretation of what an atheist is, and, as
usual, it is incorrect.

I don't think it is a personal attack, just an observation of
possible sceptic motivation. Are sceptics witch burners?

No. There is no such thing as (magical) witches, therefore, there is
nothing to burn.

Though sceptics seem to get very emotionally involved in trying to
persuade about that.

Incorrect, yet again. I made a statement - no emotion involved, not
attempts at persuasion, just a statement.

Now DROWNING, there's a different matter (A DUCK! A
DUCK!)

Or baptism by immersion?

Or lack of humour or realisation that a MOVIE might have been hinted
at.

If we agree that witches ought to be burnt,
*We* do not, therefore the rest of your points mean little to me.

i.e. that what is not understood should be denied,

Wrong again. What do you think science, and for that matter
scepticism, is all about. Attempting to understand the mysteries of
the universe. No denial there, but short shrift is usually given to
fantasy and fairy tales.

snip
Maybe you feel, Eric, that if you can point to crop circles being `hoaxes'
Again with the conjecture.

So you are not trying to give that idea of crop cirlces all being hoaxes?

I have, in spite of your diversion attempts, tried (and I believe
succeeded) in showing that the crop circle proponent's arguments that
FMD (pedestrian) restrictions had no impact on circle building in 2001
in the UK is unsupportable. What can be concluded from that is up to
those that have been lurking.

Thanks very much for attempting to voice
what you think my feelings on the matter are, but frankly , I can
speak for myself. All you are doing with this conjecture is
demonstrating your own biases in the matter.

Or trying to get yours explicitly stated.

YOU are not in a position to "explicitly state" my views or feelings.
You don't know me and until 2 weeks ago had never heard of me.

Lastly, my feelings on the matter are as irrelevant as fairy rings are
to the discussion. Try playing the ball instead of the man.

that you can defuse the situation. If some of them don't happen when
naughty people are not supposed to go onto crop areas then that is a
Correction - NONE of the circles were created when FMD restrictions
were in place.

Unless farmers give permission for the crop circle to be made then the
makers are being naughty and are not supposed to be there doing it.

"Being naughty"?! How exquisitely coy.
No, you're right, they're very naughty little boys, and when caught
face a fine for property damage.

[So] if hoaxers are doing it they are doing when restrictions of another sort
are in place.

As I said, I'm not here to analyse "hoaxers'" motives.
There's a huge difference between a £100 fine and a slap on the wrist
and a £5,000 fine, a conviction, and the possibility of spreading a
disease that can wipe out your neighbour's livelihood. Then again,
the farmer's might be promoting it so that they can get more money
from the Countryside Stewardship Scheme - oh, no, we've already
unclenched that straw, haven't we.

Why don't you try a little perspective here?

reason that all crop circles are `hoaxes', jokes or some sort of graffiti,
I do not call them "hoaxes" - but, neither do I call them "real",
which seems to imply that ET or something makes circles. Manmade,
rather than "hoax", is a better description.

Yes, maybe religious symbols following the circle tradition which may have
had roots as I quoted.
http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/database/index.html
I wonder if kansan2125 is looking into the dates.

Nothing but speculation from you, is there? How about some of your
own original thoughts rather than just regurgitating other peoples
views. Then back them with data.

and witches do not have to be burned. But you want to go so far as to
remove the term, `fairy rings' from the scientific literature, which seems
to indicate a hypersensitivity.
Whoa, when you get stuck in a non sequitur loop you really like to go
to town don't you?
When did I say that I wanted to "remove the term, `fairy rings' from
the scientific literature",
You wrote:
Why introduce fairies into the discussion?
****
I wrote:
The term has captivated scientists. They use it a lot: see Medline. Even
fairiefungin a potent toxin.
You wrote:
Junk scientists get as much print space as any on Medline.
****

Ayup - nothing there about removing the term from scientific
literature. Just a comment that scientific literature is open to all
sorts of junk science.

No literary censorship there my dear boy, only criticism of poor
science.

and what the HELL does it have to do with
the discussion in the first place?

Things not understood later become understood.

Truly profound. Hang fire while I write that down...

Nah, why bother - what's not understood about fairy rings Brian? I
even quoted a refernce page for you that explains them.

Scientifically.

That used the term "fairy ring"

--
Eric Hocking