Re: A typical scientist? (Re: Evidence . . . .
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Wed, 17 May 1995 04:11:16 GMT
In article <3p2t1u$mgd@shell1.best.com>, Todd Michel McComb (mccomb@best.com) writes:
>Sorry Gil, I don't believe it. It's nothing that simplistic.
It's not, Todd? Care to expand your argument?
It is very difficult goading people into offering information on what
is going on over there from this far away. Since you have expressed
your interest, perhaps you'd like to let us all know.
Or is Eric maybe right in taking up my cue in supposing that were we
assume a conspiracy, by such means we are able finally to expose the
manner in which certain of your people chose to communicate with the
rest of the world out here?
No conspiracy? Nah! Nothing so dramatic, is it.
Just the same old crud we had already come to expect from a nation of
oversexed illiterates who just happen to worship the idea that having
such large wads of money somehow makes one an intelligent, well read,
worldly, charming, witty, socially acceptable host.
I was right the first time. Carl is just another of your common or
garden variety morons, isn't that right. The rest tolerate his abuse
because they just don't know any different, yes?
Professor McCarthy is just another of your Photocopy Doctorates who
"earned" his Chair in Computer Programming at Stanford University by
going out on the hustings and raising lots of campaign money for the
Republican Party. That's the fact.
No conspiracy! It's nothing that simplistic indeed. It's all just part
of your Patriotic Amurkun Complex, ain't that so!
|