Well... I've re-subscribed to this list. to see what's going on here.
>From what I'm seeing, it is still floundering with no real subject mater
that actually means anything to keep it going. I think it's up to you
guyz... Dan, Chip, John and some others to give a kick-start in the right
direction, and give it some sort of real direction. We on the SETI list
need to quit talking about that old CRAP, and need to NOT concentrate on
all the X-File BS stuff. We need to concentrate on SETI stuff instead of
all that UFO crap, and discuss real stuff.
Check you later...
At 08:57 PM 11/16/98 -0500, you wrote:
>In a message dated 11/16/98 5:00:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>> These statements are asserted and not shown, and do not indicate any
>> of physics. They are just ideas, and bad ones. Why should one 'gravitate to
>> what one feels most drawn to' when its wrong? Can you understand what this
>> like? For example; when I ask my students to solve some simultaneous
>> and they get 4 different answers for 'x', do I say;'hey, that's cool.'.
>> They try again and correct their mistakes.
> Don't bother Chip. This guy clearly has no clue about the science that we
>are trying to pursue. Nothing he is talking about makes any sense, just a
>bunch of high sounding words, that most of seti scientists realize makes no
>sense. I suggest that we use the delete button this thread. You clearly have
>more important things to do than to respond to this obvious troll.
> For all the nonscientists on this list: The scientific quality of this list
>has become inconstant. Please read most of this stuff with a critical eye. If
>you choose to participate in nonscientific threads, then please take your
>posts to a nonscientific listserver. This list has a history of being
>associated with the Seti League, which is dedicated to the scientific pursuit,
>however unlikely and Quixotic, of Radio seti. Any posts about nonscientific
>interpretations of data will be unappreciated.
> It is not that most of us have a negative position on UFO's, alien
>visitation, etc., it is just that we try to keep the discussion scientific.
>This means logical, provable, statements of fact. Not fancy.
Ray Shank - firstname.lastname@example.org
Argus Observatory EM26eh