Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Phil A. Willems (
4 May 1995 16:28:14 GMT

Maybe if the other readers of this thread knew what
you were referring to in toto, and not as selectively quoted
by you, your noble position would become less tenable.

I joined the thread because I was interested in
hearing what the anthropologists had to say about big
bang theory, but saw the thread quickly degenerate into
insult and accusation. So I e-mailed Gil and asked if
he was willing to pursue the discussion privately,
without acrimony. That was a compliment, Gil, and one
that you accepted. But you didn't stop attacking people,
and when I referred to this, you became evasive and wordy
rather than pay me the respect of dealing with me honestly.

I wasn't just posting "crud" to your account, Gil.
I was pursuing a discussion that you agreed to. And now
that it doesn't go your way, you post my private messages
to you and then ridicule them. Why don't you post ALL the
e-mail I sent you? Then these people would know I wasn't
just stuffing hate mail into your box.

I have learned one thing. I have no further
interest in hearing what sci.anthropology has to say.
Even this "convicted of heresy" story.