Page 39 of 57
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:26 pm
by Forum Monk
I don't mean to attack you guys in any way or critisize but I am curious about a few things. I joined this forum in December so I may have missed something. You guys have been reviewing this book for 7 months and some 38-39 pages of thread. But as a casual reader it looks like a private message session between two or three guys. Other than Marduk's interesting posts, I am trying to get something from this but after all you've written I still have no real idea what this book is about, does it have validity, or is there anything earth-shattering.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:34 pm
by Beagle
does it have validity, or is there anything earth-shattering
That depends on the reader Monk, so I can'tanswer that for you. As to my feelings, I'm going to sum that up at the end of this discussion.
I've never read Hancock before, so I'm still checking it out.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:46 pm
by marduk
That depends on the reader Monk, so I can't answer that for you. As to my feelings, I'm going to sum that up at the end of this discussion
come back spring 2011 for that announcement
I've never read Hancock before, so I'm still checking it out
the book has only been out for 12 years now so I can see why youre still only 3/4 the way through
its the long words thats giving you the trouble isn't it
here try this
SUE
DO
ARC
EAR
OLOGY
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:41 pm
by Minimalist
You guys have been reviewing this book for 7 months and some 38-39 pages of thread.
We're retired. What's the rush?
Look at it this way. You can read it and catch up. We'll still be here.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:49 pm
by Beagle
You know that reminds me. We've gotten a lot of accolades over this thread.
Hello lurker fans!
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:10 pm
by Minimalist
We have?
WTF is wrong with people?
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:11 pm
by marduk
We've gotten a lot of accolades over this thread.
prove it
from what I've seen all you've had is people asking is this really neccesary for a book which was debunked over 10 years ago and whos most honest amazon review reads
My father gave me this book after reading it himself. I became very dismayed with his cognitive abilities after reading this tripe. This is a book for stupid people.
ce la vie
personally I wouldn't have said stupid people
I would have said stupid people with an I.Q. on a par with a P.E. teacher who have never studied real history and who often find themselves ripped off on timeshare deals
though this one is also very enlightening
Why is this book getting any credibility? Hancock is a reporter, which is not the same thing as a scientist. His views are totally, and I do mean totally, off the deep end. He offers no real scientific evidence to back up anything he says except circumstantial evidence, which would not even hold up in a court of law if this were a court case. His views do not hold up to scientific scrutiny at all. I am totally fed up with the public view that states that any crackpot theory that includes the keywords "ancient pyramids," "lost civilizations," or "Atlantis" is somehow on the verge of some heretofore unheralded scientific mega-discovery that will prove all that we know is false or misleading. Scientists spend entire careers studying in their fields, and are specially trained to observe and interpret data using sound scientific methods. But when one of them disparages any of these nonsense theories they are dismissed by the lunatic fringe as being "establishment" or part of some conspiracy to fool mankind for some dark nefarious purpose. If being a responsible, informed scientist is being "establishment," than I am super proud to be of the "establishment" crowd. LONG LIVE THE ESTABLISHMENT! And please, IGNORE THIS BOOK!
but seeing as you two have both declared that when it comes to factual posts (i.e. mine) you'd rather not know the truth
so please
carry on making asses of yourselves
everyones laughing at you
theyre even posting it
You guys have been reviewing this book for 7 months and some 38-39 pages of thread. But as a casual reader it looks like a private message session between two or three guys. Other than Marduk's interesting posts, I am trying to get something from this but after all you've written I still have no real idea what this book is about
or in the words of General Melchett
That's the spirit, George. If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:29 pm
by Beagle
Minimalist wrote:
We have?
WTF is wrong with people?
You know dammit. Hey, it takes a little while for the board to get pretty mucked up in the morning. What time do you wanna start. Or is tomorrow bad for you? No football for me.
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:36 pm
by marduk
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:08 am
by Beagle
Yo Min, you really thinking about going to Charlies site?
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:31 am
by Minimalist
Beagle wrote:Yo Min, you really thinking about going to Charlies site?
Hell....I'm retired. I can do what I want. The answer is yes. I'd like to see it before the Club pays someone to pave it over for a parking lot for another Burger King or something. Those bastards will do anything to maintain the status quo, you know!
Why don't you roll on down from Tennessee?
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:32 am
by Minimalist
Tomorrow's fine. I've got a hockey game in the afternoon but that won't even slow me down.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:37 am
by Beagle
That would be very easy. Just point the RV Southwest. We'll talk.
OK, tomorrow.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:02 am
by Forum Monk
Minimalist wrote:Look at it this way. You can read it and catch up. We'll still be here.
I keep waiting for the cliff-notes.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:03 am
by Forum Monk
Minimalist wrote:Tomorrow's fine. I've got a hockey game in the afternoon but that won't even slow me down.
Been cold in Arizona this winter, eh?