Propriety of demythologization (was: Replacing babies (was Re: PROPOSAL: Alt.terriorism.american))

Cameron Laird (claird@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM)
5 May 1995 13:27:10 -0500

In article <Admin.0wk5@oubliette.COM>,
Eric Shook <Panopticon@oubliette.COM> wrote:
>In article <> (Michael Bauser) writes:
>> Note: I'm adding sci.anthropology to the "Newsgroups" header, because
>> all of a sudden, we're talking about sociobiology. Sociobiology AND
>> politics. Wonderful combination, isn't it?
>I'm cross-posting back to you, because I am
>discussing anthopology and anthropology. Interesting combination, isn't it?
>What makes certain people believe that every thread in usenet which deals
>with social darwinism and other over-thrown, completely discredited,
>completely falacious * crap * should be cross-posted to sci.anthropology?
>From what I've seen of Mr. Bauser, he's more
discriminating than this caricature. He
regularly, and usefully, contributes to
sci.anthropology. Detouring Mr. Chapman's
militia brigades through the s.a outskirts
*is* on the reckless side, but Mr. Bauser
always supplies content in what I've seen
him post. You make it clear you think he
made a bad decision. I don't agree.
>Just because it was anthropology that supplied the vast majority of the
>information that discredited so many of these heirarchical, linear
>models of existence, does this mean that we must always be sent the posts
>which contain fresh argument about it?
Different question: why is anthropology
so ineffective (or is it more effective
than you credit it?) at communicating
these falsifications to the larger society?
Follow-ups narrowed.


Cameron Laird +1 713 267 7966 +1 713 996 8546