Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Sat, 06 May 1995 05:01:42 GMT
In article <3oavau$fe2@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, Phil A. Willems (paw@cco.caltech.edu) writes:
> I joined the thread because I was interested in
>hearing what the anthropologists had to say about big
>bang theory, but saw the thread quickly degenerate into
>insult and accusation. So I e-mailed Gil and asked if
>he was willing to pursue the discussion privately,
>without acrimony. That was a compliment, Gil, and one
>that you accepted. But you didn't stop attacking people,
>and when I referred to this, you became evasive and wordy
>rather than pay me the respect of dealing with me honestly.
Oops! Getting your recall of events badly confused here Phil, old
bean. Although I do anticipate from experience that it may well have
arisen from your lack of experience with the history of these types
of argument.
At no time have I become evasive and wordy beyond keeping you at bay
until I know more about where you are coming from. Otherwise I have
been quite directly to the point I would assert.
Our response to Big Bang and just about any other scientific theory
is already understood. As Lydick, Scott, McCarthy et alia well know.
That they choose to muscle in on our deliberations all over again
is the reason we here choose to "degenerate rapidly into insult"!
If you want me to engage an astronomer or physicist on debate on the
origins of the universe, please pay attention to keeping your dogs at
bay.
> I wasn't just posting "crud" to your account, Gil.
>I was pursuing a discussion that you agreed to. And now
>that it doesn't go your way, you post my private messages
>to you and then ridicule them. Why don't you post ALL the
>e-mail I sent you? Then these people would know I wasn't
>just stuffing hate mail into your box.
Do pay attention also to keeping yourself clear of the fascists, if
you want me to pay any serious attention to somebody from around the
other side of the planet e-mailing me a challenge to debate.
> I have learned one thing. I have no further
>interest in hearing what sci.anthropology has to say.
>Even this "convicted of heresy" story.
That's your choice entirely, although I find myself now extending to
you a welcome to membership of these "science" conferences.
Let's hope that at some far remote time in the future we here on the
Internet will finally be free of the extremists going out of their way
to having our sites closed down because we happened to have disagreed
with them over something or other, that we might relax a little more
toward trusting the attention of strangers.
In the meantime, hang in there best you can won't you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
+61 97 53 3270
|