Re: Mysterious signals from 1000 light years away

From: Paul Lawler (stargazer_at_kilolaniDOT.net)
Date: 10/03/04 

Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 11:11:36 GMT

Thomas Lee Elifritz <crackpots@everywhere.net> wrote in
>
> The conditional evidence implies that ET is most probably infinitely
> smarter than you, and mobile. Thus, I suggest you start referring to
> your best modeling of the best available evidence, instead of sticking
> your head up your ass

> When arguing with an idiot like you, yes.

> Of course, some humans claim intelligence, but you convincingly fail
> to demonstrate it.

Your meltdown into multiple ad hominem attacks only serves to underline
your failure to produce EVIDENCE instead of speculation.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mobile Phones whilst driving...
    ... sounding much like they ... were saying: ... > So no evidence then? ... > using a mobile I found it very uncomfortable. ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: Traffic cops 26/10/2005
    ... and you refute the evidence that drivers using mobile ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: What records do networks keep on texts?
    ... Your friend would have had his mobile taken by ... >police and sent to one of the authorised companies so it could also be ... They even supply data stating which cell was used ... >If there was no evidence then he wouldn't have even heard from the police. ...
    (uk.telecom.mobile)
  • Re: Mysterious signals from 1000 light years away
    ... > The conditional evidence implies that ET is most probably infinitely ... > smarter than you, and mobile. ... > your best modeling of the best available evidence, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Photographing police activity.
    ... then you ain't breaking any law. ... mobile/camera as evidence itself. ... friends with the mobile phone. ...
    (uk.legal)
Quantcast