In alt.paranormal.crop-circles Eric Hocking wrote:
Brian Sandle wrote in message ...
In alt.paranormal.crop-circles Eric Hocking wrote:
Brian Sandle wrote in message ...
The parent thread article continues to be discsussed on
alt.paranormal.crop-circles, where our other replies, missing from
nz.general, are.
snip
[...]
So maybe we have a hint there of Eric Hocking's (subconscious?) need to
suppress.

HOw about keeping my name out of your bizarre conspiracy theories
Brian and address the points of the discussion that I raise instead.

Personal attacks are unbecoming at the best of times, but to imply
that an atheist is consciously or subconsiously a papal apologist
should be beyond even your most wild conjectures.

Actually an atheist, or `a-theist' is actually reacting against theists,
or followers of gods or supernatural powers.

OK, so I was wrong about this being beyond your most wild conjectures.

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.


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.

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

Or baptism by immersion?


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,

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?

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.

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

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.

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.
****


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

Things not understood later become understood.