Us morons (was Re: Evidence . . . .

Gil Hardwick (
Wed, 17 May 1995 04:44:02 GMT

In article <>, Kai Henningsen
( writes:

>However, while I can't conclude what Gil's trying to do, it is obvious to
>me that he's not worth reading or even talking to. He has not presented a
>single coherent argument, and he has not responded coherently to a single
>coherent argument from other people.
>What an arrogant, stupid moron.

Well yes! We're all arrogant, stupid morons here. I have been saying
that for years now. This here entire Usenet was set up to make all of
the world's scientists appear to one another as arrogant, stupid

I have been telling you all there is a conspiracy! Can't you read?

Nah! Instead, to get the message through all I have to do is start
replying to someone else exhibiting themselves as an arrogant, stupid
moron for them to start calling me an arrogant, stupid moron back
again, for someone else again to agree with me and the next one to
jump on the bandwagon, and then everyone else here to start calling
everyone else an arrogant, stupid moron as well.

Soon, all we will see here at all are news items from arrogant, stupid
morons posted to be read by arrogant, stupid morons, and the plot will
have begun to work.

But once we've got to that point, no doubt all that effort will be
undone by some complete fool novice logging in for the first time to
exclaim, hey, what you have to say I find really very interesting.

Can we maybe start up a new sci.anthropology newsgroup away from all
these arrogant, stupid morons? So we can get back to our unrelenting
rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb on anthropology, to be interrupted by no more
serious an interjection than a colleague's (fresh in from the field and
still dazed) rutabaga rutabaga rutabaga . . . .

>Which is a rather lengthy way to say *PLONK*.

PLONK! Slurp! Gurgle . . .

>Note followups.

Duh! Hhhhmmmm? What's a follow-up . . .