Re: A typical scientist? (Re: Evidence . . . .

Eric Shook (Panopticon@oubliette.COM)
Sat, 13 May 95 08:09:22 CST

In article <3p0gn6$> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
> In article <>, (Gil Hardwick) writes:
> =While without wishing to spook a conspiracy theory, we do know that
> =extreme right wing political "think tanks" and their sympathisers have
> =been flooding the "left", "green", and "alternative" Usenet groups
> =with deliberate flame bait. It is not possible that one or two people
> =can achieve such extensive coverage of so very many groups, although
> =the pattern is becoming a familiar one.
> =
> =Carl Lydick, Steinn Siggurdson, and others (note I have removed Bruce
> =Scott from the short list) are well known to us as supporters of "John
> =McCarthy" of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. I quote the
> =name here not because I doubt that the person is real, but because it
> =is not possible that he acting alone is able to achieve such coverage
> =as he does.
> In other words, Gil thinks that for folks to object to his bullshit, there must
> be som grand conspiracy. Isn't his moronic paranoia impressive?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, we understand so little about "conspiracy." Really there is often
a confusion between conspiracy and solidarity, conspiracy and any group
spirited action.....especially when that group seems to move without
reference to itself. A very good example of this is to be seen in the fact
that GIl is not the only one flooding the Big Bang theory with responses. I
somehow joined him. We could be seen as two anthropologist-types who have
a weak concept of volume, allowing us to engage in a repetitively mundane
task which doen't immediately seem sane. However, let me validate Gil's
actions. The act of responding with just about _any_ contradictory
information maintains a place for the general views that we hold to be true
in a much more specific way. Really, if I had to spend much time typing
out my thoughts in the usenet because I actually thought that the specific
sense was well conveyed, then I _would_ be insane. The truth is that I have
joined a conspiracy unintentionally. I realize the worth of inflating the
big bang topic line. I am even ready to add on cross-posts as we flicker by
other unrelated topics. It is an expanding point.

So, if you are trying to make Gil seem odd, it won't really work with me.
I recognize that you are involved in the conspiracy of volume, and any
attempt to point the spotlight elsewhere will be met by me with a response
focusing upon you. In other words, you are becoming the
unfortunate that you don't have a fan.newsgroup to which we could
cross-post this to!

Recall that I was involved with speaking sanely within the context of this
newsgroup. But, when you respond to posts with such well worded
sentences as this following one: "Isn't his moronic paranoia impressive?"
then I find that there is little dialogue being attempted, and I too begin
to imagine that there are sets of people oout there conspiring to detract
from the messages of those of us who originally were interested in a sane
little newsgroup. Coincidentally, at the same time that I dedicate my
resources to this idea of conspiracy, I am, in effect, launching a counter

The mere believe in a conspiracy seemingly ensures that there is one.

Maybe you will eventually believe, too, and then we will be correct, and
you will be ready to admit the level upon which you communicate.

After all, isn't every conspiracy just another bullshit story?

-- Eric Nelson --
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee: