World news (was Re: A typical scientist? (Re: Evidence . . . .

Gil Hardwick (
Fri, 19 May 1995 09:00:40 GMT

In article <>, Steinn Sigurdsson ( writes:
>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.

Ah, here we go. Somebody finally willing to stand up for Professor
John McCarthy. An indicator of his popularity, NOT!

And you state quite clearly and unambiguously, Steinn, that he is

Let there be no doubt about it. Department of _Computer Science_,


>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.

You agree with Prof McCarthy on what? Disagree with him on what?

Let me make it clear to you that I have nothing personal against the
man at all. In fact I agree with him entirely on computers; whatever
he might have to say about them at all. Why sure, how would I know?

But the question is raised on why he, and all you other programmers
employed to maintain your end of the Internet, so persist in posting
your unrelenting crud drivel on issues of which you know demonstrably
nothing whatsoever to newsgroups that have nothing to do with you.

Surely as we all politely defer to you computer people on computing,
it is reasonable that you defer to others with respect to their own
specialist areas.

That you so persistently refuse to do so, but quite to the contrary
as day after day, month after month, year by year we find your abuse
arriving at our sites for merely being so bold as to suppose that a
group like sci.environment might have been set aside for, guess who,
nah! can't be environmental scientists surely.

Or that sci.anthropology might have been set aside for GASP! Horror!
these ideological left-wing pinko commie sympathiser anthropologists,
without you worrying about it at all.

So, if there is no conspiracy among you, while any suggestion that
you might alternatively be common or garden variety morons brings
hysterical screaming ranting frothing flamebait from you all, why
don't you just sit calmly thinking for a moment then just tell us as
plainly and as simply as possible what it is you are up to.

So what's going on over there, eh?

>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? ;-)

Ah, but you on the other hand don't seem to be terribly interested in
the rest of the world ever being allowed to participate in this here
Usenet news, without being constantly and violently abused by y'all
freedom loving peaceful democratic Amurkuns.

Are we going to be allowed to join a series of world conferences on
particular issues via this medium, or not?

If the door can't be opened by knocking politely on it that we might
as politely be invited in by our own peers and colleagues, why, we all
down this way see no problem just driving a bulldozer right through
the middle of our own conference space, yes?

It's our planet just that same as it is yours, isn't that so.