Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!nike!oliveb!prs From: prs@oliveb.UUCP (Phil Stephens) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Mind Reading Message-ID: <149@oliveb.UUCP> Date: Mon, 20-Oct-86 06:05:28 EDT Article-I.D.: oliveb.149 Posted: Mon Oct 20 06:05:28 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 21-Oct-86 22:44:54 EDT References: <217@sri-arpa.ARPA> <3598@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> Reply-To: prs@oliven.UUCP (Philip Stephens) Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Lines: 171 Keywords: Let's see how verbose we can get, Bill. More lines! (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] >< < < ------------------ >< 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.