>> why be so one sided in your vocal defense of it?

The debunkers have monopolized the "other" side.


There is no monopoly. There are some views that I agree with other debunkers, and some I do not. I don't, as an example, think the posting of cute pictures helps either side's position.

Likewise, I have FIRM goalposts that, if crossed, would force me to reverse my position and endorse Nancy's views.

There is no monopoly on ideas. And your adoption or rejection of said ideas should have nothing to do with what other people think or do.

If there were no other debunkers about, what would your response be to Nancy? Would you be the 'lone debunker' if no one else posted counter to Nancy's claims? If so, what and how would you post your dissent? What is the Zetamax-Proper-and-Approved-Way of telling Nancy she might be mistaken?



>> Why not point out some of the issues with which you disagree with ZT?

Because I don't have enough "information". Nor I am likely to get anymore than is already available. Your prodding is nothing more than an attempt to get me to pass judgment on the ENTIRETY of ZetaTalk ONLY on the basis of the current information pool. And I say, it is INSUFFICIENT. So I will continue to refrain from drawing "conclusions". Think about that word - it's drawn from CONCLUDE which is the same as FINISH, TERMINAL, OVER, DONE, FINI! A THOUSAND TIMES ***NO*** - I will NOT render a verdict when the closing arguments haven't even started!!!


How is asking you specifically about where you disagree with the Zetatalk idea asking you to conclude the entire thing is wrong? You STATE you doubt practically all of Zetatalk, but won't be SPECIFIC in what you doubt about it? That seems terribly disingenuous of you, ZM.

I am not asking you for a 'final verdict,' whatever that means. I'm not asking you to conclude anything -- after all, you can always change your mind.

You have said, yourself, that you doubt. WHAT do you doubt, and WHY do you doubt it?

Or, perhaps, that was a little fib of yours?



>> Why not propose evidence that can confirm or falsify ZT to you?

Again, what's the point - you all have done it all for me anyway - and repeatedly ad nauseum. My additional "voice" would be inconsequential.


See that little 'to YOU' at the end of the question? Sure, there has been a lot of information and evidence -- some very damning -- regarding the ideas that Nancy has surrounded herself with. You have bent over backwards, sometimes adopting truly bizzare positions, defending Nancy, more fervently that anyone else seems to. Yet, you claim, you doubt. Well, how?

I don't think my asking for honest clarification is out of line, and don't particularly care for your tone -- but that's irrelevant. My questions to you, and YOUR opinion, and YOUR SPECIFIC 'goalposts' and YOUR SPECIFIC DISAGREEMENTS and YOUR SPECIFIC DOUBTS stand.

Were there no other debunkers on GLP regarding Nancy, how would you COMPLETELY spell out your position?

You have said you doubt 'practically all' of Zetatalk. Yet the only thing that can dismiss the idea of, say, a halted Earth, is for 2013 to come?

Is that an accurate assessment of your position? I certainly hope not.


Wow, a logical, reasonable, calm response without cut and paste pictures, or insults. What are you doing on this thread?