Re: Guide for anti-AATers
Tom Clarke (clarke@longwood.cs.ucf.edu)
1 Nov 1995 09:04:03 -0500
bcat@netcom.com (Bearcat) writes:
>cc3265@CNSVAX.ALBANY.EDU wrote:
>: Usenet is full of less scientific discussions than this particular newsgroup
>: is supposed to represent.
>hardly. this is the only place i've seen anything as idiotic and
>unscientific as AAH.
You must not have ranged very far on usenet.
Look for the writings of Plutonium or Alexander Abian on
sci.physics (often crossposted to other hard science groups).
ALso, sci.physics.fusion is dominated by cold fusion types and
need I mention sci.nanotech?
They all put the AAH to shame in terms of producing a psuedo-scientific
theory that has just enough of an iota of plausibility to still fit
under the umbrella of science.
Oh, and nearer to this group, have you noted the "van Daniken" type
threads on sci.archeology?
Tom Clarke
--
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment
and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against
the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices - Adam Smith, WofN
|