🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C0JJ6K.KnJ.1@cs.cmu.edu> PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes:
>In answer to Francois Yergeau (8 Jan 93 04:10:48 GMT):
>>
>> [ false affirmations in a New Scientist article by N.Henbest, and
>>   my rebuttal deleted ]
>
>Rather obvious. I think (at least, I hope) that Nigel Henbest was making
>some kind of journalistic approximation. Most New Scientist's readers
>are not professional scientists, just amateurs.

Right.  And possibly some of the sci.space readership is not well
versed in optics, and thus not in a position to judge the veracity of
Henbest's prose.  I thought it was worth the trouble to debunk his
extravagant claims about laser communications.  And you would be very
generous to qualify his assertion that a laser does not spread out as a
"journalistic approximation", when it is patently false.  The
journalist's role is to inform the reader, not mislead him.

>It seems that you have about the same credentials as Stuart Kingsley:
>
>< [ Kinsgley CV deleted ]
>
>It seems also that you disagree with him (see EJASA, January 1993).

I didn't read much of Mr Kingsley's paper, because I don't have much
interest in SETI.  My disagreement, however, is not so much with the
idea of optical SETI as with the case Henbest made for it, using either
false or misleading statements, or, if you prefer, too much
journalistic approximation.  Optical SETI may be a good idea, but
defending it with bogus arguments implies either ignorance or
dishonesty.

-- 
Francois Yergeau (yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca) |  De gustibus et coloribus
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    |  non disputandum
Departement de Physique                  |          -proverbe scolastique
Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |