Re: A typical scientist? (Re: Evidence . . . .
Gil Hardwick (email@example.com)
Mon, 15 May 1995 09:35:36 GMT
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) writes:
>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 no, Carl. Wrong again! We are rather less concerned with people
objecting to bullshit, as they have every right to do, than we are
with their flooding the newsgroups of other branches of science with
their constant abuse.
The problem we are addressing here has to do with the manner of your
participation in our conference. That you and so many identifiable
other computer programmers SO PERSIST over such extended periods of
time to post SO MUCH of your abuse to SO MANY newsgroups leads us to
understand that you may be doing it deliberately so as to obfuscate
and diminish our own right to use the Usenet for our own legitimate
Sufficient to have checks run on your bona fides.
Sadly it would now appear that there is no grand conspiracy at all;
at least that would have let you off the hook in the moron stakes.
Nah! You're all just too stupid for words, you lot, and it is that
which makes you are far greater danger to the rest of the world than
had you sufficient grey matter to have been able to put together a
viable plot in the first place.
Like that other pair of bean brains you had elected to the White
House, along with their toadies like Ollie North and similar crud
jerks, it only makes you and the likes of John McCarthy all the more
All the more reason to set up an internationally coordinated campaign
to have you all exposed for what you are than ever.