The Intelligent Professor

Matt deMille said:
Once again, you're operating with no evidence


Well gee, you don't have any either.


And again, saying someone has no evidence about your personal experience is exactly the reason that Anecdotal Evidence is fallacious. That's exactly the reason that your appealing to it has raised my ire repeatedly.

So stop bringing it up if you don't want people refuting it. There is no evidence for it.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Matt deMille said:
...given your endless appetite for cheap-shots and insults. Your anger and frustration speaks volumes. Yes, insults: "supposed" trip indeed. Once again, you're operating with no evidence, and clearly trying to make it sound as though I'm lying.
Don't get confused as these are not "cheap-shots and insults". I did not mock your name nor did I insult you. These are legitimate questions. Please, answer...

What happened during your supposed trip to Giza that is more traumatic than meeting an alien face-to-face?
 

Matt deMille

New member
Stoo said:
Don't get confused as these are not "cheap-shots and insults". I did not mock your name nor did I insult you. These are legitimate questions. Please, answer...

What happened during your supposed trip to Giza that is more traumatic than meeting an alien face-to-face?

As long as you continue to say "supposed" trip I'm going to take that for what it is -- a strong suggestion that I am lying, and thus, another insult.

Besides, I said before in the AA thread I'd rather not talk about it. It's uncomfortable and personal. If I was being treated with respect, maybe I'd be encouraged to shake off my feelings and tell the tale. But I'm not going into an uncomfortable place for someone who refuses to show me even basic courtesy. No way. You don't deserve it.
 

China Jim

New member
After skimming over many of the missives on this thread I must say that I salute you all. It is good to read a debate that is kept civil and with respect. Unfortunately we live in a culture today where such civility is a rare beast indeed, I know not how many contributors to the Raven listen to talk radio either conservative or liberal but a forum were civilized debate should be the rule it usually turns into "I am the on air broadcaster and if what you say does not agree with my liberal or conservative mind set then I will either cut you off or insult you by saying you are a mindless zombie" (drinking the kool-aid seems to be one of there favorite terms). I will admit I will listen to some of the shows that Whitley Streiber has been on and IMHO I find him to be a certifiable member of crazy town I have learned along time ago not to take what every Tom, Dick or Harry Mudd says as gospel if these folks such as Streiber, Hoagland, J.A. West and many others out there in the fringe science fields want to make there claims stick then as they said in the Car Fax commercials "Show me the Car Fax" I say gentlemen then show me your proof not suppositions about alien encounters, faces on Mars and Egypt had a super advanced technology If such claims were true I am sure no matter what the cost legitimate scientist would jump on it like as my father used to say "jump on it like a dog on a bone" since science is the search for knowledge facts and ultimately truth these claims should be looked into and either proven or debunked.:whip:
 

Matt deMille

New member
Hi, China Jim.

Well, I'm with you on the desire for truth and objectivity. If scientists would just dig into data and find the answers, that's be great. But that'd also be in a perfect world, which we don't have.

The real problem is politics. Meaning, for political reasons, scientists tend to avoid looking at data supporting paranormal claims. For example, say a good, true scientist is intrigued and wants to look at the data, problem is he can't because his superiors fear what such a study might do to their lab's reputation. Now, maybe even his superiors themselves are genuinely interested, but they may fear what the backers of their lab might think. It's endless. Nobody knows when it's safe to seriously look.

It's like when there's a cop driving 50mph on the freeway. Everyone knows they're entitled to drive 55 or even 65 or 70, but since the cop is hugging 50, nobody dares go faster. Nobody wants to be the one to take that chance and break ahead.

The same thing happens with science and the paranormal. There's been such a curtain of ridicule draped over everything that no scientist will break ranks and give the data proper scientific attention. Reinforcing this fear is that those few scientists who have done so have been barraged with ridicule. A perfect example would be the late John Mack. A Pulitzer-prize winning psychiatrist at Harvard, he started to investigate reports of alien abduction. Harvard warned him to back off as it made the school look bad. John Mack, however, continued to study the phenomena, and was blacklisted for it. So, if a Pulitzer-winning Harvard psychiatrist isn't credible enough, or if someone held in such high esteem who should be trusted on his studies can so easily be shut down just because of what it "might" do to the "reputation for the school", would any scientist have any better chance? Maybe, but nobody is going to risk their careers to find out.

So, again, in a perfect world, yes, scientists should be all over this stuff, separating the genuine data from the BS (and yes, there's a lot of BS that I'd like to see go away myself), and then taking the ball of the genuine data and running with it. Unfortunately, our culture has built up so much scorn, ridicule and distrust around these issues that it has polarized the scientific community.

Sagan is often quoted; "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I find that term rather poetic, more of the catchphrase of a promoter than the responsible view of a scientist, given that most extraordinary discoveries did not require extraordinary evidence for scientists to pursue them. But, okay, let's use that, but I'd like to add to it: "Extraordinary evidence requires an extraordinary investigation". That's really what we need. An extraordinary effort on the part of science. Could we get a number of high-profile, respectable labs with no bias (no history of debunking OR promoting the paranormal) to publicly declare "bring us your paranormal evidence and we'll examine it". That would be a good first step.
 
Last edited:

Sharkey

Guest
Matt deMille said:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I find that term rather poetic, more of the catchphrase of a promoter than the responsible view of a scientist...

You are officially blinded to science.

No where in your incoherent ramblings is there anything even remotely resembling an understanding of science. Everyone who has read them is now more stupid because of them. May God have mercy on your soul...or whatever hybrid pirate alien you recruit for.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Matt deMille said:
I've had 35 years to deal with the alien encounters. I've had only a few to deal with Egypt.
35 years ago was 1975. In a recent "Temple of Doom" thread you said you were born in '74. You also mentioned in the "Ancient Aliens" thread that your first 2 encounters were outside. What were you doing outside alone as a 1-year-old baby? If you were accompanied by someone older, why didn't the other person/s witness the same thing?
Matt deMille said:
As long as you continue to say "supposed" trip I'm going to take that for what it is -- a strong suggestion that I am lying, and thus, another insult.

Besides, I said before in the AA thread I'd rather not talk about it. It's uncomfortable and personal. If I was being treated with respect, maybe I'd be encouraged to shake off my feelings and tell the tale. But I'm not going into an uncomfortable place for someone who refuses to show me even basic courtesy. No way. You don't deserve it.
The word, 'supposed', was not meant as an insult. It would be nice to know the truth but there is more to suggest that you were never inside a Giza pryamid than there is to suggest that you were.

Considering the below quotes from you, what is worse and more uncomfortable than meeting an alien 3 times?:confused:

From Matt deMille:
"I have, later in life, had a gun to my head, seen people die, and been in various other "see your life" moments, and they did little to faze me. That's not "tough talk", either. That's a testament to the degree to which these earlier experiences of seeing these entities had on me. Once you've looked into alien eyes, there's nothing else that compares."

From Matt deMille:
"Bottom line, the only thing that really helped was being a bit like Rocky or Indy: Suck it up, get tougher than life, and go on with my head held high. It took a few years but I did it. And I never faltered."

From Matt deMille:
"Like I said before, seeing aliens will girt your mind against pretty much anything this world can throw at you."
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Sharkey said:
You are officially blinded to science.
While I agree, Mr. deMille's knowledge of scientific conventions seems exceptionally pitiful, nothing good comes with simply calling it out and leaving it at that. So once again, let's get down from our high horses and ivory towers and at least try to aproach the problem from the core basics...

Matt deMille said:
The real problem is politics.
This is a bold statement and something I'd call erraneous. The true "problem" might instead lie in the fact that unlike religion or wild mass guessing, science has certain rules it needs to play by, you know, to be science.

Most scientists tend to avoid paranormal phenomena because it's hardly empirical. There seems to be no consistent rules and any given occurence is technically impossible to repeat in a controlled environment. (Then again, if they were, would it be paranormal anymore?)

Science is also peer-reviewed. If a scientist gets 'blacklisted' it is likely because he skipped a few hoops or did not present his findings correctly, e.g. claiming something skimmed out of a simple hypothesis to be theory or trying to present something as the leading theory while there are more generally accepted explanations out there that contest less the Occam's razor. In other words, didn't play by the rules.

The peer-review process also means that science does not happen in a fortnight. A scientist can't simply publish his or her results and expect them to be immediately generally accepted, but instead has to wait if it gets support and gains recognition and spins some continuation research by other names in the field. A popular debating point especially among laymen even to this day, the theory of evolution is a fine example. (The Raven among all other forums holds some equally curious and frustrating threads on the subject, look 'em up.) The scientific community didn't simply nod, accept it and take it as part of their MO the day The Origin of Species was published in 1859, but actually took some building upon by subsequent scientists like Gregor Mendel and Hugo de Vries and wasn't widely accepted as the leading theory on the field until 1930s. That's over 70 years after Charles Darwin came forth with his theory and half a century after his death. He was never there to reap the fame.

Even more brutal example is Aristarchus, who was a 3rd century BC astronomer and generally credited as the first man to recognize that Earth goes around the sun, not vice versa. As we all know, this scientific fact was generally accepted in the 17th century, which is 1800 years after his time. If there's an afterlife, I'm sure he had a hearty yet sardonic laugh.

I'm not very familiar with Dr. Mack's research and whatever he came up, but if something's there it should get recognized, eventually. As I stated in the beginning of this wall of text, there is no consistent way to collect data concerning this subject and it certainly doesn't help that only a fraction of people coming across it are scientists. So we may yet have quite a wait ahead of us. I can tell however that if we want yet another respectable scientist to pick it up, acting like a conspiracy theorist isn't very encouraging.
 
Last edited:

Matt deMille

New member
I agree, Finn. I do wish the evidence would go through the proper scientific channels. And it does take time. But I do believe that we are overlooking basic human shortcomings here. Science may be peer-reviewed, but those peers are not always objective. For example, mention "Atlantis" to them. You'll more likely get a snicker and a giggle, when what you should be able to get is "Well, what's your theory?" Even if a scientist has heard a similar claim a thousand times before, he should still be open to possibilities on it. After all, Newton himself said he failed countless times trying to invent the light bulb ("I found ten thousand ways that didn't work . . .") Sometimes things take thousands of different approaches, but the mainstream which I criticize seems to just not have that kind of patience.

And I believe that patience is limited due to politics and money. Scientists, after all, don't just sit around the lab all day with no pressure. They have deadlines. They have peers to appease, backers to please, and more. Everything in this world revolves around money. However idealistic a scientist may be, someone has to pay for the lab, his paycheck, etc. That backing always has strings attached. What I'm arguing is not the scientists themselves, but the establishment around them that demands progress, and simply will not afford the time or the faith to give the "extraordinary investigation" that extraordinary claims require.

I actually feel sorry for the scientists. *They* usually mean well. But, the same as in any human endeavor, it's the people with the money that determine the agenda, and that is not always in the best interests of science.

For example: Take the Giza site and Hawass. Good ol' Hawass has denied countless investigations at the site because he knew they were supporters of the ancient alien theory. Well, if there's no chance of the AA-theory being proven, what's the harm? Why not let them dig? Because their very presence would raise questions. Tourists would ask "What's with those guys over there?" And Hawass would either have to lie or state their theory. Either one is uncomfortable at least. They don't even want to consider an alternative . . . because Egypt is their baby. It's the backbone of the country's tourist-trade. It's their national pride. Even if Hawass means well as an archeologist, he's probably got strict orders from the Egyptian government not to allow things that would encourage interest that would potentially distract from their "culture". See, it's a big, tangled web. It's the same thing you'd run into if you found evidence claiming anything that overturned any culture. It's why the Vatican keeps artifacts locked away, because they contest the church's teachings. And religion is just as strong as national or cultural pride, and things would indeed be suppressed or ignored if it threatened one's pride.

Sharkey said:
You are officially blinded to science.

No where in your incoherent ramblings is there anything even remotely resembling an understanding of science. Everyone who has read them is now more stupid because of them. May God have mercy on your soul...or whatever hybrid pirate alien you recruit for.

And this continued childish behavior is supposed to set you above the person who is being mature, rational and reasonable? Claiming to be scientific doesn't give you any loftier a position or give any weight to your argument. If you're so smart and so scientific, demonstrate it. Show us. And that means by raising good questions rather than cheap insults. You remind me of a person who claims to be Godly and thus by proxy "good" simply because he goes to church. Just because you claim scientific rationale doesn't count. Practice it. Prove it.

Stoo said:
You also mentioned in the "Ancient Aliens" thread that your first 2 encounters were outside. What were you doing outside alone as a 1-year-old baby? If you were accompanied by someone older, why didn't the other person/s witness the same thing?

Stoo, as always, I get criticized for not checking facts or making things up, but you're once again doing the same thing. I did not say I was outside nor did I say I was 1yo. You have pulled these out of thin air. I said I saw the entities outside. That doesn't mean I was outside, too. Have you ever heard of a window? I looked through it.

Stoo said:
The word, 'supposed', was not meant as an insult. It would be nice to know the truth but there is more to suggest that you were never inside a Giza pryamid than there is to suggest that you were.

When nearly every quote you've made of mine for the last few weeks has my name changed to "duh Mille" or some similar stupid (and unscientific) remark, when you say "supposed" in something as mundane as a tourist trip to Egypt (which countless people do every year), it clearly implies insult. You're like the boy who cried wolf. Even if you didn't intend an insult there, your past makes it look all the same. If no insult was intended, you should have made a point to clarify that.

Stoo said:
From Matt deMille:
"Bottom line, the only thing that really helped was being a bit like Rocky or Indy: Suck it up, get tougher than life, and go on with my head held high. It took a few years but I did it. And I never faltered."

From Matt deMille:
"Like I said before, seeing aliens will girt your mind against pretty much anything this world can throw at you."

I try to be positive in a troubling world. But I'm also human. And the same as I say about scientists who aren't always logical, so is it true with us all. Emotions have no logical pattern. My reasons for having distaste for discussing Egypt are not necessarily Earth-shattering, but they are personal, and I will deal with them at my own speed. I hope this will be the end of that question. After all, what more explanation is necessary? If I was claiming having gone to the moon, that'd be different. But I'm only saying I visited a place that millions of others have. Is that so hard to believe?
 
Last edited:

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Matt deMille said:
And I believe that patience is limited due to politics and money. Scientists, after all, don't just sit around the lab all day with no pressure. They have deadlines. They have peers to appease, backers to please, and more. Everything in this world revolves around money. However idealistic a scientist may be, someone has to pay for the lab, his paycheck, etc. That backing always has strings attached. What I'm arguing is not the scientists themselves, but the establishment around them that demands progress, and simply will not afford the time or the faith to give the "extraordinary investigation" that extraordinary claims require.
You seemed to miss my point. The peer-review system relies on acceptance by numbers, and this is what I tried to convey. A single scientist or a small group of them may have deadlines, or even if they don't, nothing's stopping them from putting out a thesis that applies to the rules and conventions in a day.

However, for this particular piece of work to be recognized and become generally acceptable, other scientists have to pick it up, try it and expand on it. And this may happen relatively quickly or it may take decades until somebody pays interest on it again, usually upon coming up something similar.

Any instance that funds a scientific study naturally doesn't have to wait for the peer process to end to pick up the benefits. But if we wish it to spread wide and far, other scientists have to pay interest on it, and this rarely happens unless it's somehow related to their own studies. These people don't have to have any strings attached to the backers of the original study so science really isn't that reliant on money breathing down their necks as you imply.

Also, one doesn't have to be a recognized scientist to make progress in a scientific field. Anyone can research anything given they have enough time and interest and then publish their findings. This must however be done according to the conventions. Otherwise it won't be a huge surprise it gets dismissed. Also, anything can be studied. Looking into extraterrestial visits on Earth is not automatically a poppycock subject. However, amateur researchers often make basic mistakes in their enthusiasm and end up skipping some hoops in order to get their voice out and over the rooftops.

You yourself have lately been given some hard time here on these forums. While there are people who clearly do so because they think the subject in question is ridiculous, I'd still say the main reason is - pardon me for saying this, no disrespect meant - is that you clearly don't know the rules.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Actually, Finn. I agree. No disrespect taken. I never claimed to be a scientist. In fact, just the opposite. I started posting about aliens because I wanted to encourage others -- better qualified than I -- to look at it. I know I do not know the scientific rules. However, I do have to disagree to that being where a lot of my trouble comes from. Some of it, sure. But the majority, I believe, is rooted elsewhere.

My initial trouble was the subject matter itself being met with scorn. I defended myself. Bullies don't like being stood up to. It snowballed from there.

Certainly my theories, ideas, suggestions, whatever would be better served if I knew better the, pardon the expression, "scientific etiquette". But I don't think that would have made much of a difference. People who want to flame will flame. After all, I've tried being reasonable, making peace-offers, backstepping and even apologizing many times. But those who give me heat have never done any of the above.

Switching gears a bit, I can certainly see your point now, about scientific peer review, and I did misunderstand. I thank you for clarifying it for me. This is one step I'm glad to take.

Going back a bit, I'd like to offer this: Since it seems some of us will never agree (me, Stoo, RA, Gabeed), how about this? We simply agree that we disagree. If we post in the same threads, let's just keep it civil. If you don't agree, sure, say so, but without the antics. I'm willing to drop all the past flaming right here, right now, and just say "Truce", provided neither side encourages it again. It only takes a spark to start a fire, after all. And, should I say something that *does* insult someone (as my blanket statements of scorn for the scientific establishment have apparently done), then please correct me on it before starting the fires. I'm willing to offer a little latitude for similarly misconstrued intentions. For example, and as a gesture of good faith, Stoo: Such a statement as "supposed" is a good example of the sort of thing that can be taken out of context or too far. If the truce is accepted, I will email you, privately, my Egyptian story. It must be kept in confidence, however, as there are reasons I don't list it publicly.

I will wait a good amount of time before checking back in at The Raven, to give folks a good, reasonable amount of time to consider what I've said.
 
Matt deMille said:
Actually, Finn. I agree. No disrespect taken. I never claimed to be a scientist. In fact, just the opposite. I started posting about aliens because I wanted to encourage others -- better qualified than I -- to look at it. I know I do not know the scientific rules. However, I do have to disagree to that being where a lot of my trouble comes from. Some of it, sure. But the majority, I believe, is rooted elsewhere.



Then why in the hell do you think you're qualified to say that science is wrong?


Matt deMille said:
My initial trouble was the subject matter itself being met with scorn. I defended myself. Bullies don't like being stood up to. It snowballed from there.

Oh whatever, Matt. More CYA. You came out the gates with scorn in your very first post. You just like to ignore these things because of your self-victimizing complex.
 

Sharkey

Guest
You want control.

You want to orchestrate the narrative with in this Community.

These are the personalities that make up The Raven.

The community you have recently joined.

You are a willing participant and continue to be, misunderstood or not.

If you haven't noticed all the crying in the world doesn't change anything. Crying and complaining only prolong your difficulty getting along.

These are the people you're sharing the Raven with...
 

Matt deMille

New member
Well, I tried. If my above post doesn't show a willingness to cooperate, then it's obvious that nothing will. It's also obvious that some people here just want trouble, no matter what cheap excuses they throw out there to try and justify their ridiculous behavior. After all, extending a hand in truce is supposed to get everyone past all arguments of "who started it". One side can just as easily make their claim as the other. So, RA and Sharkey have shown their true colors beyond any doubt.

As for Stoo and Gabeed, since no response was given, I leave the offer open to you. Having heard nothing one way or the other, I will, in good faith, assume there's a truce with us, and simply let your posts to come demonstrate your position.
 

Sharkey

Guest
Matt deMille said:
Well, I tried. If my above post doesn't show a willingness to cooperate, then it's obvious that nothing will. It's also obvious that some people here just want trouble, no matter what cheap excuses they throw out there to try and justify their ridiculous behavior. After all, extending a hand in truce is supposed to get everyone past all arguments of "who started it". One side can just as easily make their claim as the other. So, RA and Sharkey have shown their true colors beyond any doubt.

As for Stoo and Gabeed, since no response was given, I leave the offer open to you. Having heard nothing one way or the other, I will, in good faith, assume there's a truce with us, and simply let your posts to come demonstrate your position.

Youre like a dog wiping its ass on every floor in the house! You say the same crap over and over across threads derailing trains like some psycho terrorist. Use the friggin PM option. You just go on with your alien crusade and victim tour drumming along.

This has got to be trolling. You continually bait with your off topic posts. Enough already. Yeah we know you won't answer the abusive posts...just let me say this...

What the hell man.


All you do is keep this crap rolling and rolling. You think your gong to get the last word?


You wonder why you can have a conversation in a thread? Look no further than post 55.

I think I'll start a thread with posts of all the times you said you were going to ignore people but just ignored your own words.
 
Last edited:
Exposed?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y5MVVtFYTSo?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y5MVVtFYTSo?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
 

Gabeed

New member
Matt deMille said:
As for Stoo and Gabeed, since no response was given, I leave the offer open to you. Having heard nothing one way or the other, I will, in good faith, assume there's a truce with us, and simply let your posts to come demonstrate your position.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I've been nothing but cordial to you outside the Ancient Alien thread, and have no personal vendetta against you. But if you continue to spout off unsubstantiated or ill-researched theories in said thread, it's likely that I'll call you out on that.
 

Matt deMille

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y5MVVtFYTSo?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y5MVVtFYTSo?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
[

Interesting video. But, is there a second half? I just cuts off.

Personally, I have a really weird take on the "moon hoax" theory. I'm not sure if this is the thread for it, but it's been raised, so I guess I'll respond.

I wonder if *both* are true: We *did* go to the moon, but we *also* faked some elements of it. Certainly there was plausibility that we faked the entire thing, but I give humans more credit than that. However, is it possible that what was found on the moon was so different than what was expected that faked-footage on standby was broadcast in place of the live feed? Or, perhaps more simply, that transmission was lost for whatever reason and "backup landing footage" was used to placate the world audience?

There are many things that could have gone wrong with the cameras of the time (especially in the vacuum of space), and there's no way the government would just say "Ooops, sorry, no broadcast of the landing". It actually makes a lot of sense to have "backup" footage ready, for a multitude of possibilities. But if that happened, the reason as to why it would have been used is up for grabs.

.....

Sharkey said:
Youre like a dog wiping its ass on every floor in the house! You say the same crap over and over across threads derailing trains like some psycho terrorist. Use the friggin PM option. You just go on with your alien crusade and victim tour drumming along.

This has got to be trolling. You continually bait with your off topic posts. Enough already.

So, why don't you say the same thing about ResidentAlien? After all, he makes posts like this in "Pirates", a thread not at all connected to aliens;

ResidentAlien said:
Pirates never really existed. It was just a ploy by aliens in ancient times so that hipster kids of today could have a group of people to idolize as if they were Gods.

I should know-- I was abducted by pirates and held for ransom. It's really traumatizing-- they kept singing about their rum and threatening to take my Johnson. I'm kind of attached to it.

So, where's your flaming for this guy? Only for me, right? Shows prejudice. In fact, you're often agreeing with his posts, however juvenile they are, when it's an attack on me. That's why I call you a "gang". Pack animal mentality. Kind of undoes your every argument about being rational, scientific, etc.

.....

And since we're in a thread called "The Intelligent Professor", I'd like to use this to raise a point about that pack mentality: Human beings are, after all, still pack animals, biologically speaking. Most of us operate that way without realizing it. To me, it's not necessarily a bad thing (unless it becomes personal), but it does contribute to what I have said before about the mainstream. Part of the reluctance to take chances, I believe, comes from that "safety of the pack" that's in our DNA. Again, it's not a bad thing, but rather, I think we should give a bit more credit than we do to those who are bold enough to break from the pack and take the big risks. More attention should be given to those scientists and other researchers whose efforts focus on things that are not yet accepted or even fringe -- At the very least, give 'em credit for daring to go there, rather than the ridicule they tend to get instead (especially in the media).
 
Last edited:
You know Matt, when you opened threads like "Good '30's songs" and even "Aliens And Open Minds" I posted in them. Why would you validate what Sharkey says by quoting him and then whine about him in my thread?

You're worse in my opinion for constantly writing that you're above it and will ignore it. I'm tired.
 
Top