Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Gil Hardwick (
Sat, 06 May 1995 05:44:09 GMT

In article <3od1e8$>, Bruce D. Scott ( writes:
>Ob this thread: I would be quite interested, actually, to see some serious
>anthropologists give comment. So far it has just been the jealous ranting
>club of what Marvin Harris calls the "obscurantists" (although I do confess
>I got into it initially to bask in the afterglow of Gil's enlighted

Marvin Harris? Do you actually mean the paperback writer after the
fashion of Von Daniken and Wilson? Please any "serious anthropologist"
do give comment. Welcome indeed.

>Gil, I challenge you to demonstrate that the above claim is based on
>anything other than your own ranting.

I challenge you at any time to offer us here your valid scientific
argument supported by independently observed facts, Scott.

>Well, congratulations, you trolled me back. Tuoche!

I'm learning well from your lot, aren't I now. Nice to see you enjoy
the experience, although everyone to their own thing as the B&D freaks
would have it.

>What a lot of paranoia! Who is "they", Gil? I do enjoy reading you, since
>I just like to laugh at you. Puts a light edge on a hard day. Carl got
>several screens out of you with two or three sentences; quite efficient if
>you ask me!

Well, sorry, but I have been obliged to change servers here at this
end through continuing pressure already traced reliably to a small
group of universities in the far north east of the US, being placed on
my sysop to have my account closed.

Yes, in the meantime, we do know what Lydick is up to. No problems
with as many screens as he wants, with as many others looking on as
so choose.

>Gil, you don't fool me at all -- you aren't very representative of
>anthropologists as a group, although you like to set yourself up as such in
>this thread.

Oh, I'm not out to fool you Dr Scott. Other anthropologists are free
to post their own material as they see fit, without me bothering to
suppose that I represent their views. That more don't contribute is
merely a comment on their lack of interest in becoming a target for
continuing abuse, while I don't care two hoots any longer what stunt
you try to pull.

I am able to simply continue shifting my system around, if it comes
to that again . . .

>BTW, the time you spend haranguing us in these rants shows you do indeed
>care what "we" think about you. I put "we" in quotes since the people you
>are setting up as a group quite often, as in this case, don't have anything
>to do with each other, and most of the time don't agree with each other.

You appear to confuse the issue, Bruce, as usual. Whatever you choose
to do otherwise, what we see in common from the lot of you is your
continuing abuse of anthropologists who happen to post material which
just happens to contradict your peculiarly fascist mindset.

>The conspiracy is all in your mind.

Let me just say that I no longer bother archiving the crud you people
insist on propagating to the Internet science conferences.

>No power. We physicists are used by the economy until it no longer needs
>us, and then at that point it throws us onto the street. We are not well
>enough paid to join the financial class on our own. But ranters who write
>fluffy books can do rather well.

Well, apears we might have something in common after all. Pity you
can't see yourself clear to engaging with us as fellow scientists,
but then that's a problem I am certain you can sort out for yourself
as time goes by.

>So Gil, why don't you collect your sumptuous wisdom in a book and cast it
>before the masses? Save them from all of us! And then you, too, can join
>the financial class. And you, too, can smirk haughtily when people like
>poor little me ask you for a job and enough pay to cover beans and rice. :-)

You actually want a copy of my collected thoughts, Bruce?

>Well, _I_ have. See my last response to Robert Rossen. I haven't seen you
>do it, yet. Are you going to discuss a belief system as it stands, or
>simply continue to entertain us with more conspiratorial nonsense? Pass
>the chips, please!

Oh yes, I read it. You appear capable of responding to a PhD in
physics with very small post-graduate grounding in anthropology

I have been asking rather that you reply to anthropology, here on this
forum so clearly and abundantly assigned to that particular field of
study. Given that you want to post anything here at all.

>Relax, Gil, and have a cool beer. I at least am not out to get you.

That's nice to know.

>It is outweighed, of course, by religious and happy-day ranting against a
>logical world view in general, and science in particular. Sci.astro is
>full of nonsense (from both "sides", actually) about "God". Groups like
>alt.atheism are totally unreadable due to each semester's new crop of
>crusading Xians.

LET IT BE OUTWEIGHED! That one set of persuasions outweighs another
is of very considerable interest to anthropology. If you don't happen
to like it, or to understand just why anthropologists might be so
very interested in exploring the phenomenon, just go off and play
elsewhere why don't you.

>The opposite is true.

Well, I should say myself that neither is true, or both. Maybe you
can talk to McCarthy about it, eh?

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