🚀 go-pugleaf

[First an aside: I'll be away from the net for a few weeks soon.]

In article <2555@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes:
>I reread it, and it still makes no sense.  The tides "debate"
>had more content, because the tides are real and measurable.
>That's more than I can say for PK (so far) or for the substantive
>content of your reply to me, which was zero, except for the
>personal attack.  Buzz off.

I admit I didn't put much content in that particular posting, as I 
didn't think you warrented much.

I have spent more than half of my contribution to the discussion on
discussing how this topic (which I did not start) relates to proper
and improper use of the scientific method.  Perhaps this sub-topic
belongs in net.sci (sci.misc, now), but not on a non-existant
mod.psi.  (If a mailing list exists, I would like to be added to it.)

If I knew QM terminology I would use it with reguard to PK and 
telepathy and hunches, but Mitsu has already demonstrated
that ability (the words, I mean), and I hope that he is not scared
off by your contentless flames.

As for myself, I think that some of the responses my followups have
generated have been well worthwhile, and flames don't bother me much.

See you in a month, give or take some; lack of response from me in the
near future just means I'm away from the net for a while.

	- Phil		prs@oliven.UUCP (Phil Stephens)     or: prs@oliveb.UUCP 
	or:			{get to 'nike' somehow, then}!oliveb!prs 
				{I *think* this will work everywhere}