🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5017@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
> Read Omni instead of Scientific American.  It's much better because it has 
> all things Futuristic in it, be they science fact or science fiction (i.e.
> science yet-to-be-fact).

	Omni, unlike Scientific American, erodes the scientific ethos, which
I care about, and you should too unless you want to be Japanese vassals...


	Science is not facts. It's not theories. It's most certainly not 
pretty images. It's a world view based on a class of bullshit detectors...


It has no place for democratic determinations of what is the case; thus, 
Omni's UFO "reportage" is, in the absence of convincing evidence, mere 
pandering, more comparable to the supermarket tabloids than to Sci Am.

That's why I think Omni is a sort of Trojan Horse for the marching morons.


(UFO believers please flame me in talk.bizarre or /dev/null!)

Cheers,
	Ed