Eric Hocking wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Eric Hocking wrote:
[..]

Wow, that's a great deal of discussion you've decided to ignore there.

It would be easier after seeing your data.

How about you do a nice little table of when and where crop circles
appeared in UK with the dates that restrictions were lifted, as that is
your claim and it is a bit hard to look up. Then we can try to decide what
percentage level of significance can be attached to any correlation in the
data set, given the amount of data.

I had this discussion back when it when it happened, often with the
cropcircleresearcher site hosts and contributors themselves. You think I've
not already charted this data and had this discussion over 2 years ago?

So it should be no trouble to repeat it, or else I have to assume it does not
stand up to scrutiny.

I'm not going to be dragged, yet again, into a discussion only to have it
culminate with the entire post being deleted and ignored. I smacks too much
of the blinkered approach by "believers" of ignoring facts that they don't
like (remember the weather?).

That is still a little bit possible - a day or two later, but there is not
really a large enough sample to say.

Two examples below, descriptions from the UK database, summing up why I
think it's next to pointless discussing this subject "scientifically" with
proponents of non-humans being circle builders.

1: The word 'Sexsmith' within a circle - presumably made as a hoax to
promote the Canadian rock singer of the same name?
2. A series of letters, forming the word 'COCK' - presumably indicating it's
status as a hoax."

Now there's scientific, unbiased analysis if ever I saw it.

There is nothing to stop people having fun.

And there is also a bit of a sinister side to pretence. When I used to write
on talk.euthanasia quite a bit someone wrote a `manifesto' of the Church of
Euthanasia under my name (though a different email address). And their
associations seem not too savoury.