🚀 go-pugleaf

(The following, in retrospect, is personal response to personal flames.
Neither has real content with reguard to either psi or physics, but I am
posting because the insults were public, so the reply must be.  Feel free
to skip this if you prefer substance.)

In article <2581@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes:
>< [Phil Stephens, in response to Greg]
>< Ridicule is appropriate on Saturday Night Live and Not Neccessarily The News.
>< It has no place in establishing truth.  
>-------
>No, but it's a very effective tool when the other guy is being ridiculous!

Which is why I ridicule you and Greg.  You're being ridiculously skeptical,
not reasonably skeptical.

>-------
>< extremes, learn to live.  Part of that is to learn what is, not what theory
>< says.  If you limit yourself, your power of observation is reduced.  Either
>< limitation of too much belief or too much skepticism puts blinders on you.
>----------------
>I'm underwhelmed.   When it comes to physics, or bullshit, there is no such
>thing as too much skepticism.

Not so.  Devout disbelief tends to reduce one's ability to observe just as
much as devout belief.  You indict yourself.  Thank you.

>----------------
>< If I told you I had seen rocks fall from the sky (or that my Dad and my
>< sister had), would you scoff that there are no rocks in the sky, therefore
>< the report HAS to be false?
>---------------
>No, I would say that it probably was meteorites.  You HAVE heard of them,
>haven't you.

You missed my point.  You HAVE heard of them, and have accepted them all
your life because the books say they exist.  This was not true a few 
centuries ago, as someone else recently posted.  I submit that you would be
one of those scoffing this "nonexistant phenomina" if it had not already
been proven.  As the other poster said, the point is not that there are no
rocks in the sky therefore they cannot fall, but that they fall, therefore
there are rocks in the sky.  The parallel to psi phenomina is quite apt.

You indict yourself again.

>< There is a third alternative, besides belief
>< and disbelief: open mindedness.  Try it.  You'll be a better scientist for
>< it.  Or at least a better person.
>------------------
>Unfortunately, Phil, you cannot tell the difference.  Anyone who disbelieves
>you is close-minded.  Anyone who believes you is open-minded.

Wrong.  But you wouldn't know the difference, would you?  It is the closed-
minded way in which you disagree that gives you away, not the fact that you
disagree with me.  But I don't think you're intelligent enough to grasp that,
judging by your recent postings.  (YES I'm just saying that to get your goat.
And dishing back to you what you dish out.  Oh, you didn't know you were?
Case in point.)

>< <[Greg, in response to Mitsu] 
>< <What you really mean is that there is no *known* mechanism for what you
>< <describe.  In that case, the phenomenon you have discovered would be the
>< <biggest enigma in all of physics.  
>------------------
>< It is, actually.  And he didn't "discover" it, wise-ass.
>------------------
>Phil, first you berate Greg undeservedly for bad sportsmanship.  Then, you
>procede to call Greg a wise-ass.  For once, I must admit you are right.

Resorting to name-calling doesn't do much for my point, but it isn't the
same level of bad sportsmanship as what I was criticizing.  So what??
I really felt that Greg was being unsportsmanly earlier, and specious
here.  Is "specious" a more acceptable word than "wise ass"?  Good.
Bill, you also are being specious.

>Greg has more wisdom in his ass than you do in your whole body.

My, how you show your maturity to be SOOOO much greater than mine.  Shall
I worship you?

>And much more civility and manners, and less hypocrisy.

No, he wasn't being civil or mannerly.  If you think so, you are a hypocrite.

>Why should we bother.  You have just said above thas psi exists.  What
>more evidence could we possibly need.-)

Frankly, I'm bored with the topic of "does it exist".  I'm more interested
in "how does it work", which is what really offends you.  You keep insisting
on your own agenda of "it doesn't exist unless you can persuade me, nyah
nyah nyah!", which to me is like saying meteorites don't exist.

>	So, Phil, having come out and said that psi exists, in the absence
>of proof, you show yourself to be the close-minded one. Neither Greg nor

No, but no point talking to you about it.  Defend myself?  Unneccessary.

>I ever said that psi does not exist, only that Mitsu's evidence and yours

No, you only ridiculed anyone who seems to have concluded differently than
you obviously have.  This strongly implies that you believe psi does not
exist.  I am amazed at your hypocracy!

>was woefully inadequate at best, and worthless at worst.

Inadequate to close the issue, certainly.  Worthless?  To you, because it
doesn't fit your agenda.

>	Physicists do not dismiss it all.  They just have more productive
>ways to spend their time.

But not you, you prefer responding to these articles and keeping the topic
heated up.

>< And ridicule does belong?  I think Mitsu wrote rather clearly, and presented
>< useful ideas for further consideration.  Go ahead and criticize, but don't
>< dishonor yourself so with childish taunts.
>----------------
>If you are going to be ridiculous, you must expect ridicule.

That goes for you, too, as I said earlier.  You think we're being ridiculous;
we (or at least I) think you're being ridiculous.  Looks like a standoff.

>Mitsu's "ideas", such as they are, are not physics.  Neither are yours.
>They do not belong in sci.physics.  If you and Mitsu had posted to
>an appropriate newsgroup, nobody would have hassled you.

To mod.psi?  It seems to need repairing.  Perhaps you should be lobbying
for that repair work instead of perpetuating the flamage on sci.physics.

Hassled me?  Think I mind?  Think I'm worried about being hassled?  Nope,
I'm enjoying exposing you this way.  Thanks!!!!

>	Phil, you have shown yourself to be everything that you accused
>Greg of.  What is so sad is that you probably really believe what you say.

No, seems to me that *you* have shown yourself to be everything that I
accused Greg of.  No surprise.  

It's sad that you really believe you are defending the truth by your
antics.  Must be a flimsy truth if it must be defended with intimidation.
(ie, why are you so insecure about it?)

>PLEASE, put your psi discussions in another newsgroup.  PLEASE.

Bug off.  This discussion would have died out two weeks ago w/o the constant
harrassment.  Since this topic has led me to some interesting people, it has
been worthwhile for me.  If it dies out on this group while I'm away for a
few weeks, that's fine with me too.  Remember, I didn't PUT the discussion
here any more than you did.  I just responded to various things.  Difference
is, I have been contributing to a discussion, and you have been prolonging
it by your opposition.  How amusing.  But if this goes on much longer, it
will get very boring!

Further insults by E-mail, please, you're cluttering the net!  Again!!

>Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan

Actually, I would prefer to post to {talk|misc|soc|sci}.psi, but I'll
settle for mod.psi if someone gets it to propagate to this node (assuming
it exists beyond the first 8 messages).  Until then, I will gleefully add
to the discussion in any group where I happen to see psi crop up, to help
encourage repair or creation of a more appropriate newsgroup (aha! my own 
hidden agenda revealed at last!)

Almost gone....

	- Phil		prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens)     {really oliven}
	or, if that fails:	{get to 'nike' somehow, then}!oliveb!prs 

Leaving the net temporarily about Oct 21; back in maybe early-mid November.
Will try to catch up on mail and news when I get back.