Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Friedman: Any Opponent In Any Debate

Next!

Friedman And Shermer In Any Debate

By Alfred Lehmberg



David — Goliath. Still fighting it seems. One's over-cocky, and once again reamed. One strides the mainstream opposed by too few, while his honored opponent's courageously true.
.
See? One narrows scope to a slender percentage, the other is open to data, comprende? One is a scoffer — all knee-jerk dismissals; the other's employing real facts as his missiles.
.
Filled with his confidence, and the weight of his creed, Goliath is RIPE for a fall that he needs! David, well read and prepared for his role show that Philistines fight up with their heads locked below! David shoots well; he infuses his points. He cited them, hell — he was owning the joint!
.
Bereft of his homework, Goliath's ungainly. He fumbles around for his words so inanely. He cheery-picks data still grinding the axe that qualifies comfort he knows cannot last.
 .
Why — Goliath seems caught in his own vicious trap; he hadn't prepared and was pinned to the mat! Stone-marked and bleeding he moans on the floor! He proves to his last that his less... is not more.
 .
Goliath is vanquished for arrogance, friend. He lies belly up like his close minded kin. Plus? The sneers from his camp are the stones that are used in the sling of a righteous, experienced few.
 .
Round and around went the weight of Stan's sling; his arguments whistling like fiery stings on the physics, the cosmic, and base relativity! Shermer's insured his own failure's proclivity, his ignorance plain in our search for the answers that excise our ignorance — our cognitive cancer!
 .
See, Friedman could read and he'd read the man's book. He's studied his Rommel, so like Patton? He cooked!
 .
Shermer, assured of vainglorious might, that he's to prevail in a "no contest" fight, was covered with gaps in his armor-cum-science which weakened his impact beyond all reliance!
 .
"Goliath," well beaten, at least should admit that the intrepid David had merit and grit. Dismissal's outrageous, a listener concludes. The argument's valid, and the thought now intrudes that space is a huge place, completely unknown, and it's filled to the BRIM with anomalous foam!
 .
Lost in its hugeness is mind undefined by concepts which limit and keep us *confined*.
 .
We hold to the tails of timid tradition — are blind to the front in this backside position.
 .
Complacent, believing proud "science" must win, we turn a blind eye to the fringe that begins just a mean tiny distance from what we now know is the little we know of what's hidden there, Bro! What can be measured; what can be seen, when what is seen CHANGES to fit errant schemes!
 .
Friedman wins out once again 'cause he's right. His scholarship proves what he sees in that light! He follows the traces the data proscribes, arriving at the places the facts can't deny!
 .
Why, he has what compels me to question the *man*, for all the *man's* blandishment, pretence, and elan. He had the right stones, and he hurled them well. Degrees will mean nothing if buying to sell. So flourish, false skeptic, your arrogant spite — and feel that stone as your forehead it strikes!



alienview@roadrunner.com
http://www.alienview.net/



When Dr. Shermer says that a 'spaceship' and 'body' would "do it" for him, frankly? He lies, I suspect. That's just to start. He's a CSICOP affiliate, forgetting he's Prometheus-published and lap-dog media nay-saying "goto"guy.
 .
Dr. (lapsed fundamentalist) Shermer: a reasonable man who can at last be convinced given extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims? What a load.
 .
Nothing would *do it* for him, but that *it's* sent back for additional analysis. He would continue to demand further analysis until *it* was either 'proven' wrong; however ephemerally, or he was checked into a rubber room and thorozined to incontinence.
 .
Stanton Friedman believes we are not served by our ignorance in these matters. I suspect that Dr. Shermer believes we are. That's why he'll lose the real debate.
 .
Moreover, with regard to Dr. Shermer: I suspect all his points as based on ignorance, misinformation and an apparent will to promote these things. Who did he cite but fellow ax grinders. Ax-grinders handily blown away by Friedman already, Clancy and Pflock spring to mind... but forget that.
 .
Asked who it is trying to cleave to the closest science one can only give Stanton Friedman that nod. There's some irony, on the surface at least. Dig even shallowly to find there's no irony, really, at all.
 .

1 comment:

Blogger said...

Did you know that you can create short urls with AdFly and make cash from every visitor to your short urls.