Phatboy,
I certainly feel you qualify as a crank. You're a lot nicer and less confrontational than the other cranks we harbor here. However, the citation in Percy's OP examined the context of Internet discussions, where the real-world feedback is missing and every post is a work of art on the wall of the digital gallery. Your groundless insistence that God exists, you have proof, your proof is valid, your source says so, your source is just as valid as any other, etc., would be drowned out by ridicule in any ordinary debate setting. The fact that the Internet allows crackpot ideas to assume the same respectable faade as those that are based in some rational methodology is what keeps crankdom alive.
Neither Syamsu, or Stephen ben, or you is truly 'debating' in the realistic sense of the word. A crank can't present anything more than his opinion to support his arguments, and part of rational debate is understanding the subject at hand in the context of the extensive body of knowledge that surrounds it. A crank dismisses any response to his claims as folly, since there is no conceivable evidence that can refute his assertions. There's a difference between engaging in a lengthy discussion and completely wasting one's time.
regards,
Esteban "Mine's a Kandinsky" Hambre
™ Version 4.2
