Re: A typical scientist? (Re: Evidence . . . .

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Keith Dever: "Why read sci.anthro?"
• Previous message: Erin Miller: "CALL FOR PAPERS: Chicago Anthropology Exchange"
• Maybe in reply to: Gil Hardwick: "A typical scientist? (Re: Evidence . . . ."
• Next in thread: Dan Drake: "Re: A typical scientist? (Re: Evidence . . . ."

In article <Admin.0ym6@oubliette.COM>,
Panopticon@oubliette.COM (Eric Shook) wrote:

<<Hectares of stuff deleted>>

>Recall that I was involved with speaking sanely within the context of this
>newsgroup. But, when you respond to posts with such well worded
>sentences as this following one: "Isn't his moronic paranoia impressive?"
>then I find that there is little dialogue being attempted, and I too begin
>to imagine that there are sets of people oout there conspiring to detract
>from the messages of those of us who originally were interested in a sane
>little newsgroup. Coincidentally, at the same time that I dedicate my
>resources to this idea of conspiracy, I am, in effect, launching a counter
>one.

Great verbiage! How do you guys do it? It must take training.

Peter

• Next message: Keith Dever: "Why read sci.anthro?"
• Previous message: Erin Miller: "CALL FOR PAPERS: Chicago Anthropology Exchange"
• Maybe in reply to: Gil Hardwick: "A typical scientist? (Re: Evidence . . . ."
• Next in thread: Dan Drake: "Re: A typical scientist? (Re: Evidence . . . ."