🚀 go-pugleaf

Waiting for a critical review of the exchange below:



In <353fb853.0@news.netway.com> "Etherman" <etherman@mdc.net> writes: 
>
>
>Love Lies Squealing wrote in message
<35412108.15460428@news.demon.co.uk>...
>>On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:53:21 -0400, "Etherman" <etherman@mdc.net>
wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>>Again, Mr. Pongpa, please provide evidence that the "abduction"
>>>phenomena is purely psychological.  How long will my requests
>>>to pseudoskeptics be ignored?
>>
>>For as long as it takes for the rosy dawn of realisation that people
have
>>been seeing little faces in dream-like states for quite a few years
now.
>>Check your copy of the Malleus Maleficarum for a rough overview of
things
>>a mere five centuries ago (300 years before McDonalds!)
>
>Sure, people have been seeing lots of things for different reasons.
>Occasionally
>it's because what they see is really there.
>
>>Now, if you're interested in the root cause of 'abductions' start
taking a
>>really good look at what is peddled out there as truth.  Start with
>>foot-doctors and Ceto.
>
>
>What evidence do you have that the root cause of abductions is related
>to media representations of abductions?
>
>><snip>
>>>The problem is that Sagan himself didn't have any reasonable theory
>>>about abductions.  It's difficult to educate the public when you're
>>>as in the dark as they are.
>>
>>Actually he came up with one single interesting item that should be
at the
>>forefront of anyones investigations into these things;
>>
>>Succubi and Incubi.
>
>
>That's not a theory.  I completely agree that similarities exist.  Not
>just with succubi and incubi, but with faeries, angels, demons, etc.
>Instead we have the obvious question.  What are succubi and incubi
>caused by?
>
>Etherman
>
>The Internet's sole purpose is to get porn and
>bomb making plans into the hands of children.
>
>etherman@mdc.net
>
>
>
>