CCCToad on 14/12/2009 at 20:08
Quote Posted by ceebs
(i know, i know, he's been bribed to join the conspiracy)
You were trying to be mocking, but I can verify that he's been bribed to join the conspiracy because I bribed him.
heywood on 14/12/2009 at 20:45
That's not what the article says. It says the author of the original study, Eigil Friis-Christensen, stands by his conclusions.
I used to work for (sorta) a very knowledgeable skeptic. I'm going to have to Google around and see if he's still a skeptic so I can post something interesting in this thread.
Fragony on 14/12/2009 at 22:26
So suddenly one out of many matters after all, that is kinda confusing
Namdrol on 15/12/2009 at 00:34
Good article. I wanted to pull something out to quote but there's too much in it.
Hey Fragony, go on, give it a go.
Fragony on 15/12/2009 at 00:59
Well it tries to analyse the 'deniar' rather than defending the 'science'. That is normal.
Kolya on 15/12/2009 at 01:10
You're used to that. We understand.
Fragony on 15/12/2009 at 01:17
ah, didn't see that
Still, useless article, first he rambles on how complicated it all is and than how silly we are not to accept a single outcome, and somewhere he gets a psychology degree while doing it.
