🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1869@cci632.UUCP> mark@cci632.UUCP (Mark Stevans) writes:
>My patience is non-existence when it comes to matters such as these.  The
>issue of blood turning to liquid is not a scientific one.  It is a religious
>one.  This is supposedly a scientific newsgroup.
>
>It is rude, childish, and entirely out-of-place for persons like Jeff
>Lindorff and Jim Kendall to use this topic to ridicule the (albeit
>unscientific) tenets of the Catholic church.
>
>There is nothing useful whatsoever that can be said on this topic in
>"sci.misc".  You can only offend people.  So drop it immediately, or move
>to "soc.religion".
>

I couldn't disagree more with these comments. The questions is *not* one of
religion; it is that of information or misinformation. It is either true or
false that the 'blood' liquefied as claimed. If it really did, then this is an
earth-shaking event that has immense ramifications for the current state of
scientific knowledge. If it didn't, then we're in the realms of delusion,
mistake and trickery. I have no interest in ridiculing the tenets of the
Catholic Church, or any other religion. But I believe it is dangerous for
people to accept so-called paranormal events uncritically. One of the
reasons that this happens so much is that science and scientists don't do
enough to popularise rational thought. Flame off.

[This is a shared account. Please ignore the From: field, and reply to the
 following address. Thanks]

Toby Howard      Computer Graphics Unit, Manchester University, UK.
                 janet: thoward@uk.ac.man.cs.cgu
                 internet: thoward%cgu.cs.man.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk