Xref: utzoo sci.skeptic:1236 news.groups:13118
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!eutrc3!wsdwgk
From: wsdwgk@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (g.v.rooij)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic? talk.skeptic!
Message-ID: <964@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl>
Date: 11 Oct 89 11:00:35 GMT
References: <4287@sugar.hackercorp.com> <4184@yunexus.UUCP> <1989Oct7.100321.5027@agate.berkeley.edu> <4204@yunexus.UUCP> <4319@sugar.hackercorp.com> <19920@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Lines: 12

In article <19920@unix.cis.pitt.edu> bamst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Brian A. Mermon) writes:
->In article <4204@yunexus.UUCP> gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman R. Gall) writes:
->>that will post the sorts of things that I proposed.  Talk.sckeptic
->>would have been all crap rather than the 80% figure I calculate now.
->
->One man's Crap is another man's goldmine.  Talk."sckeptic" is full of "gold".
->
->Brian
-
I agree. I like to read it, so hands off please...

Guido