Re: These guard dogs (Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory")

Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU)
7 May 1995 08:53:09 GMT

In article <>, (Gil Hardwick) writes:
=In article <3oai8c$>, Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) writes:
=>Why, you ARE too stupid to understand, Gil. I was referring to your claim that
=>everything's determined by cultural biases. Now, perhaps you can explain why
=>it's valid for you to dismiss the Big Bang theory as mere cultural bias, and
=>it's not valid for me to dismiss your ravings using the same argument? Are you
=>really that incompetent?
=Well, I MUST certainly be too stupid to understand, Carl old fruits,
=whatever it is you to want me understand in the first place.

What that is, Gil, is that you must apply your own moronic bullshit to
yoursrelf. You are, unfortunately, demonstrably too stupid to understand that.

=I argue Carl in consequence that Big Bang Theory is no more inherently
=important to anthropology than any other human narrative. My asking
="So What?" is a legitimate rejoinder to the assertion of Big Bang
=Theory made to us here on our own conference from among our peers and
=colleagues in the physical sciences.

In that case, Gil, if that's REALLY all you're asserting, then why don't you
confine your bullshit to the anthropology newsgroup, instead of inflicting your
ignorance on such groups as sci.astro? Or are you too stupid to learn how to
use your newsreader?

Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.