Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Gil Hardwick (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 03 May 1995 04:57:46 GMT
In article <email@example.com>, Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) writes:
>Based on every post I've ever seen from you, Gil, I'd say you're abysmally
>ignorant of damned near everything.
Well, I can live with that comfortably enough Carl, given the one or
two known political activists making such statements balanced against
the large wad of e-mail arriving here in support.
Either I and the greater number of who post here to this conference
are so ignorant, Carl, or you few computer programmers employed to
maintain the Internet just happen to know everything.
The advice is for me to let you all continue with your misdirected
aggression, no doubt arising from your work frustration, or maybe not
being paid enough, or I do reckon myself from being so continuously
ignored by the scientists posting to these conferences.
But I like to have my own bit of fun with you, eh? ;-)
>Gee. Anthropologists are all too stupid to use a library, eh? I'm sure your
>fel;low anthropologists will be glad to hear you claiming that.
No, We anthropologists simply have more important things to do within
our own field. Else we would have opted for physics no doubt.
Or do you assert here that you and your pals represent the very latest
in Renaissance Men, capable of such a detailed and all-encompassing
knowledge as to transcend the established disciplines? Do pardon that
we would tend to scoff at such a puerile arrogance.
How silly can you get?
He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
+61 97 53 3270