Ice meteors, climate, sceptics

In alt.paranormal.crop-circles Eric Hocking wrote:
Brian Sandle wrote in message ...
The parent thread article continues to be discsussed on
alt.paranormal.crop-circles, where our other replies, missing from
nz.general, are.
snip
[...]

So maybe we have a hint there of Eric Hocking's (subconscious?) need to
suppress.

HOw about keeping my name out of your bizarre conspiracy theories
Brian and address the points of the discussion that I raise instead.

Personal attacks are unbecoming at the best of times, but to imply
that an atheist is consciously or subconsiously a papal apologist
should be beyond even your most wild conjectures.

Actually an atheist, or `a-theist' is actually reacting against theists,
or followers of gods or supernatural powers.

I don't think it is a personal attack, just an observation of
possible sceptic motivation. Are sceptics witch burners?

If we agree that witches ought to be burnt, then we need to find out
(i) which of their creations are supernatural, (ii) which creations are
part of their rituals, and though may be intended to portray the
supernatural, are not actually created supernaturally. Then we have to
decide whether (i) or (ii) or both are causes for burning.

Or are some of them (iii) something not understood, like ball lightning.
Then do we burn witches whom we think caused it, a sort of thing which has
happened. Last evening we had a TV program about schools in the 1950s and
punishments and admonishments were handed out on misunderstandings, it
seemed.

Maybe you feel, Eric, that if you can point to crop circles being `hoaxes'
that you can defuse the situation. If some of them don't happen when
naughty people are not supposed to go onto crop areas then that is a
reason that all crop circles are `hoaxes', jokes or some sort of graffiti,
and witches do not have to be burned. But you want to go so far as to
remove the term, `fairy rings' from the scientific literature, which seems
to indicate a hypersensitivity.