Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!think!nike!oliveb!prs From: prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: none Message-ID: <113@oliveb.UUCP> Date: Tue, 14-Oct-86 16:41:56 EDT Article-I.D.: oliveb.113 Posted: Tue Oct 14 16:41:56 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 08:22:01 EDT References: <217@sri-arpa.ARPA> <3598@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <2530@ihlpg.UUCP> <91@oliveb.UUCP> <2555@ihlpg.UUCP> Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Philip Stephens) Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Lines: 32 [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}