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

Steinn Sigurdsson (
15 May 95 17:01:20

Note altered followup. My sympathies to the residents
of sci.anthro...

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.

That is, the Internet character "John McCarthy" is undoubtedly the
Hoover Institute itself, seeking deliberately and systematically to
diminish its political enemies.

I presume Mr Hardwick is referring to me in the above missive,
despite the poor spelling.

As for Prof. McCarthy, I can assure Mr Hardwick that
he is in fact a single, and quite real person. I can even
recommend a biography of him if Mr Hardwick is interested.
I believe you will also find the Prof McCarthy is at the
department of computer science at Stanford, with only a
nominal connection with the Hoover Institution, your paranoid
ramblings not withstanding.

I sometimes agree with Prof McCarthy, I sometimes disagree with
him. It so happens that on some issues on which Mr Hardwick has seen
fit to share his dubious wisdom with the Net, me and McCarthy happen
to disagree in roughly the same fashion with Mr Hardwick.

Who, by the way, is "us"? Are we to infer that Hardwick's
prodigious output is a joint effort, or is that too strong
a violation of Ockham's maxim? ;-)