Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Thu, 04 May 1995 03:06:55 GMT
In article <3o43dl$457@quilla.tezcat.com>, Mike Scher (strange@tezcat.com) writes:
>Sigh, social anthropologists....
Tum te tum te tum te tum . . . :-))))
>I note for Mr. Willems's sake that one of the "important differences
>between" the "opposing viewpoints" of social and cultural anthropology is
>whether we have unending Rhubarb Rhubarb Rhubarb, or unending Rutabaga
>Rutabaga Rutabaga. This particular point has caused the fractioning of
>departments, boycotting of journals, and the loss of Nobel prizes.
>
>A similar rift was noted among the Yahoos over something to with terminum
>ovae.
Well, no Mike. Unless you happen to be referring to Yahoo Serious The
Young Tasmanian Einstein who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics
for splitting the beer atom, I suggest that the important differences
here concern the propensity of all these crud politically active G7
"hard scientists" to suppose that the mere act of x-posting their news
on the origins of the universe into sci.anthropology suddenly makes us
anthropologists collectively subject to extant party policy.
It is a similar sort of problem we experience here in the propensity
of Americans generally to assume that just because all this nonsense
is being posted down to the Antipodes through the one silly bit of
wire stretching across the Pacific, that suddenly makes Australia a
new member of the Union.
Odd that so very long ago now I thought we had settled the argument on
appropriateness and context. Sigh, foolish of me . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
+61 97 53 3270
|