Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Eric Shook (Panopticon@oubliette.COM)
Sat, 13 May 95 18:51:36 CST

In article <3osfh5$> (Triple Quadrophenic) writes:
> Well I think we can all agree with Eric on this one. Hold on though,
> what's this? Posted not 30 minutes after his whinge about x-posting.
> Here's part of the header.
> ~Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.astrology,,soc.culture.indian,
> ~ soc.culture.punjab,alt.religion.vaisnava,
> ~From: Panopticon@oubliette.COM (Eric Shook)
> ~Subject: Re: If god exists, what created god?
> Hmmm, cross posted to seven groups. Obviously this post must be applicable
> to all of them. Wow! Must see this.
> >1+1=2. But no, 1+1=1. We are all prisoners here, just making little
> >rocks out of big rocks. How profound. OOOO! oooohhhh!
> >
> >God in a can. God bigger than God. More God at eleven. The God update.
> >
> >What I want to know, is:
> >
> >If God were a golfer, and he bogeyed the seventh hole, playing par the
> >rest of the course, then what would his handicap be?
> >
> >God!
> Yup, this is obviously applicable to all the above groups.
> Frank J Hollis_________________________________________

Zoom! Zip! You form the upset! You gleen a perspective from the text.
You form your world "of the moment." You are centered. Get it. Got it.

Lightening quick, you love your point. So supple you cling to
bleed. I'm around when you want me....I think of you when I've
got the time. You care a lot. You nicely put it out. Knocked
about in youth, and still vigorous to reach for the points.

Could be drivel. Could be worthy of a black hole burn bag of
electric diffusion.

Point anyone? Sure. There's always a point:

I'm begining to love this medium. I recently learned my lessons.
Sense must be desperately worked for on the net, but not by the writer so
much as by the reader, the one who brings sense with him. This also means
that you must pick the places in which you intend to thrive/survive.
To thrash around inside somebody else's words....kind of a cut and snip
way of life...limits what you are going to say. If one has reason to speak,
then by the nature of the game he contributes to the dialogue. He joins the

It is good to see Frank creating an anthology of my text. I don't agree
with the selection, necessarily, but at least he is participating in some

Was I asked to explain? No. (BTW, Frank, the two posts were days apart,
so I can only wonder where your thirty minute estimation came from...)
Does it matter if I explain two different attitudes given in two different
posts? Nope! In fact, is there a point to made other than Frank's? Nope.
Only that I intend to take as much freedom as I wish in expressing myself
effectively. Sometimes that will require not even taking another post
seriously enough to respond. Yet, I respond here for Frank's bene!
As well as for clarification of my own point of view.

Finally, the point. Frank: Were you pro posts, or con posts? Because,
for me, it makes absolute sense that those groups were all posted to.
I chose not to snip any of them. I figured that anyone involved with the
conversation as it came to me might want to hear my response. That is what
the cross-posts were there for when I got the message, right?

Or, are you saying that I was being hypocritical? Which is as ridiculous,
because my post was both a blow off to the strict followers of that thread,
as well as designed to appeal to the more philosophical types in the
Zen-Buddhist and Hindu groups. Thereby I could tell some to push off, yet
entertain the possibility of finding some real responses from others.

Yours, though, I did not expect! It is somewhere in between, a real treat!
Do you feel that I should not have proposed, nicely, that we diminish the
cross-posts in the big bang newsgroup? And, do you feel that my blasting
nonsense is not a painful reprise to all those possibly responsible for
posting the god argument to the anthro group?

Which is it, Frank?

Frank? Frank? Are you still there? Or, did I lose you when you began
jumping to so many other conclusions when you first glanced superficially
at this post.....Why you little scanner, you. How many dots per inch do
you read in one pass. Hmmmm?

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