Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Gil Hardwick (
Mon, 01 May 1995 10:25:37 GMT

In article <3nq7ef$>, Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) writes:
>No, Gil. The hypothesis described above is quite distinct from the tired light
>hypothesis. Once again, you demonstrate your abysmal ignorance.

Ignorance of what, Carl? VAX/VMS, or your "tired light hypothesis"?

The one set of ideas belongs to the comp.* hierarchy, the other to
sci.astro, isn't that so?

This here is sci.anthropology, yes?

If you don't want even further demonstrations of ignorance of BOTH,
perhaps you and your cronies will find your purpose better served by
having the x-post to this newsgroup deleted from subsequent headers.

Do I need to repeat myself? If you don't want to be subject to any
more of our collective witty, charming, monty-pythonesque foolery
towards your unending crud political wars over such esoterica ad
infinitum as you choose to pursue, why, just get it off here.

We are not physicists. We have no access to your data. It all comes
across to us here as just so much latter-day mysticism and myth. On
top of all that your legend's retelling is ABSOLUTELY GROSS, and the
whole thing has become VERY BORING indeed.

Maybe you can get the lyrics rewritten to Ravel's Bolero, and jive it
up a bit. A bit of romance, glamour, sensuality . . .

For sheer breathtaking grandeur already, on the other hand, give me
any of the *jiridja mada* Song Cycles any day.


He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
+61 97 53 3270