Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Mon, 08 May 1995 04:49:18 GMT
In article <3oi1j4$6ap@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) writes:
>Why, yes, Gil. I know that in your moronic world-view where everything's a
>religion, and therefore uncertainty isn't allowed, this sort of statement
>undoubtedly seems incredibly alien, but unlike some moronic soi disant
>anthropologists, most scientists will admit when they don't have enough
>information to answer a question.
Indeed, you get our drift finally. Perhaps you will now proceed to
explain why the remainder of said scientists are so self-consciously
aggressive about the whole thing, and find themselves unable to come
out in public to confess such a heresy.
The rest of us out here are quite comfortable with the idea.
>Seems like you insist that everything must be a religion, and are unable to
>copy with anything that isn't.
Oh well, have it your own way, Carl. Let's simply trust that one day,
when they finally decide that the decommissioning of your VAX is long
overdue, they will unlock your booth and discover you still sitting
there gazing square-eyed in wonderment at this here crud make-believe
Cybervoid, fully believing that it is the real world.
With cum down your pants from all the masturbating you'd been doing
locked away in there like that for so long. But don't worry, it's not
so abnormal as they once thought and they'll probably only keep you
there in an observation ward overnight before letting you go home to
your mommy.
Before spraying the place out with disinfectant . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
+61 97 53 3270
|