HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: War!
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:54:33 GMT

In article <C183E1.Jnr@unx.sas.com>, sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) w

>
>In article <1993Jan21.203652.27457@ulrik.uio.no>, solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:
>|> In article <C17xzE.BIq@unx.sas.com>, sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary
>|> Merrill) writes:
>|> |> 
>|> |> In article <C17rAJ.HFL@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen
>|> Grossman) writes:
>|> |> |> 
>|> |> |> 	It would be nice if my intellect were necessary to deal with others' 
>|> |> |> posts but the level of "argument" and even insult is, for the most
>|> part, so low 
>|> |> |> that I can let my subconscious do the work.
>|> |> |> 
>|> |> 
>|> |> I swear I've heard this before.  Do we know that Grossman is *not*
>|> |> Rush Limbaugh?  Has anyone every seen both at the same time?
>|> 
>|> There are basically two ways to interact socially:
>|> War and trade.
>|> 
>|> When exchanging ideas, we are trying to do trade. It
>|> is a shame that what goes on in netland is still mostly
>|> wars. Wars of the worst kind, often - trenchwars.
>|> 
>|> So, trying to keep the right spirit: Grossman is true enough
>|> conceited in his response above, but he is also at constant
>|> war with everyone else. This time, he fired BACK.
>|> 
>|> Give peace a chance, guys. That goes not only for Merrill, but
>|> for Grossman, too.
>|> 
>|> Solan
>
>I think you need to look back over prior postings concerning the
>comic genius hypothesis.  I have become convinced of the truth of
>this hypothesis.  The hypothesis is the only one currently under
>consideration that explains (and in fact quite accurately predicts)
>all of the Grossman phenomena.  Thus we are compelled by rationality
>(the very rationality appealed to in Grossman's own postings) to
>accept this hypothesis.  That being so, your interpretation of
>my (and other's) postings re Grossman is incorrect.  These are
>intended in a cooperative fashion to provide fodder for the comic
>genius.  Without such raw material even the most genius of comics
>ultimately will wither.
>
>Your current problem is that you (like many of us) have initially
>been taken in by the cleverness of Grossman.  But look at the
>evidence.  Grossman is a truly funny guy.  I would compare most
>of his postings to some of the best Monty Python skits concerning
>philosophy.  This isn't war.  It's entertainment!

SG	May i buy you a beer?
________________________________________________________________________________
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: smaill@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Alan Smaill)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Stephen Grossman
Date: 23 Jan 93 03:51:51 GMT
	<C17rAJ.HFL@umassd.edu> <1993Jan21.183010.22929@ulrik.uio.no>
	<TORKEL.93Jan21205323@bast.sics.se>
Organization: DAI, University of Edinburgh

In article <TORKEL.93Jan21205323@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:

   In article <1993Jan21.183010.22929@ulrik.uio.no> solan@smaug.uio.no 
   (Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:

      >and will like Voltaire defend even his right to be met by proper
      >argument, and not simply abusive language.

     I haven't noticed Voltaire saying anything about Grossman. But you are
   a bit hasty, surely, in speaking of his "right to be met by proper
   argument". Why do suppose that we have a right to be met by "proper
   argument" (whatever this term may mean to you), whatever abusive twaddle
   we spout on the net ourselves?

Hmm, how does this go:

it is right that I am met with abusive twaddle:
therefore I have a right to be met with abusive twaddle.

(Did I get that right?)

--
Alan Smaill,                       JANET: A.Smaill@uk.ac.ed             
Department of Artificial           ARPA:  A.Smaill%uk.ac.ed@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
       Intelligence,               UUCP:  ...!uknet!ed.ac.uk!A.Smaill
Edinburgh University. 
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: War!
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:08:51 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <C1F5Mx.I6H@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:
|> 
|> SG	May i buy you a beer?

Certainly.  However, in light of your prior confession of identity, simply
buying one for myself should accomplish this.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Subject: Re: QM
Reply-To: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:54:55 GMT

In article <C17sFv.L03@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen
Grossman) writes:
|> Quantum mechanics-the mechanics of quanta
|> Quanta-Nietzsche's active centers of energy, randomly combining into
temporary 
|> 	entities
|> mechanics-study of energy and entities
|> 
|> QM-the probability of random energy 
|> 
|> When QM "scientists" stop sneakin' bits of reality and reason into their 
|> "science" they will light some incense, mumble the appropriate chant, and 
|> prostrate themselves before the ineffable. Ommmmmmmm.........

As I wrote to Betsy, it is better to meet you with decent argument.
I think the above is an example of a nonsensical letter. There is no
argument, no support of any assertions, and even barely a statement.
The only thing that is happening is that you are talking unsubstantiated
nonsense about "scientists". I _might_ even agree to the sentiment
behind what you have written, but what you have written is worthless.
Objectively.

Solan
From: gt9270b@prism.gatech.EDU (David Ashley Rountree)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: re: QM reading list
Date: 21 Jan 93 04:31:53 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


Jimbo, 

You might consider, after reading about philosophical implications of QM,
reading about philosophical implications of non-linear dynamic theory ("chaos").
A relatively new branch of physics (and other disciplines), it allows 
quantum-level uncertainty variations to have macroscopic effects.  Another
interesting feature from the philosophical standpoint is that some features of
a dynamic system cannot be deduced from the properties of the parts - these 
features arise in the interactions between parts.  I don't know if 
philosophical works have been written on non-linear dynamic theory, but
if not, you could just explore the subject itself -- it was much 
easier for me to understand than quantum.

                                  
                                   
                                   Dave

-- 
David Ashley Rountree
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt9270b
Internet: gt9270b@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Stephen Grossman
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:58:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.215519.9818@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Charlie.Creegan@launchpad.unc.edu (Charlie Creegan) writes:

>Is discussion of SG really within the charter of sci.philosophy.tech? 
>Unless somebody thinks we're participants in a Turing test here, I doubt
>it.  Put him in your kill file or respond to his posts, but talk *about* him??

SG	Better watch it, Charlie. Your common sense might turn people against 
YOU!
________________________________________________________________________________
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Searle on animal consciousness
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:47:33 GMT

In article <1k1mj7INN8cu@shelley.u.washington.edu>  
forbis@stein.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis) writes:
> In article <1k0r1tINN5fn@cannelloni.cis.ohio-state.edu>  
chandra@cis.ohio-state.edu (B Chandrasekaran) writes:
> >Would you say that a patient under anesthesia is in pain, he just
> >doesn't feel it? I think that would be an odd use of the term.
>  
> I think that if the anesthetic prevents signals from entering the brain then
> no pain is felt but am less willing to claim a general anesthetic blocks pain
> when it might be the case that it merely blocks the ability to report pain.

The drug scopolamine is often given to women in labor since it
doesn't really make them unconscious so they can cooperate at
least a bit: "push" and all that.  The benefit is that the women
don't remember the experience/pain afterward.

I can't speak from experience (my wife had "natural" with a touch
of demerol), but I understand that women under scopolamine are 
quite verbal, cursing the men who did this to them etc. etc.

Corollary question.  If you don't remember, in what sense
are you conscious?

--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Schools, philosophy of science, epistemology
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:26:01 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <C17rAJ.HFL@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:
|> 
|> 	It would be nice if my intellect were necessary to deal with others' 
|> posts but the level of "argument" and even insult is, for the most part, so low 
|> that I can let my subconscious do the work.
|> 

I swear I've heard this before.  Do we know that Grossman is *not*
Rush Limbaugh?  Has anyone every seen both at the same time?
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: Charlie.Creegan@launchpad.unc.edu (Charlie Creegan)
Subject: Re: Logic (WAS Re: War!)
Organization: UNC EBBS (NOT)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:08:27 GMT

In article <C183E1.Jnr@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>
>
>I think you need to look back over prior postings concerning the
>comic genius hypothesis.  I have become convinced of the truth of
>this hypothesis.  The hypothesis is the only one currently under
>consideration that explains (and in fact quite accurately predicts)
>all of the Grossman phenomena.  Thus we are compelled by rationality
>(the very rationality appealed to in Grossman's own postings) to
>accept this hypothesis.  That being so, your interpretation of
>my (and other's) postings re Grossman is incorrect.  These are
>intended in a cooperative fashion to provide fodder for the comic
>genius.  Without such raw material even the most genius of comics
>ultimately will wither.

Um, not to quibble with such a learned philosopher, but there's a fallacy
in here.  If SG is a comic, then he is *not* appealing to rationality in
his posts, since they are jokes.  Better figure out *which* theory you
hold, before making observations!

Charles Creegan   NC Wesleyan College


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Searle on animal consciousness
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:25:26 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1993Jan27.193658.12593@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

|> >                                      Suppose someone offered you
|> >[insert absurd sum of money or some other desideratum] to be
|> >tortured painfully and at length under the conditions that (a) no
|> >permanent harm or disfigurement would result, and (b) that you
|> >would be given a drug so that although the torture would be felt,
|> >you would have no memory of it after it was over.  Would you take
|> >the job?
|> 
|> I certainly wouldn't.
|> 
|> >          If not, why not?
|> 
|> I don't like the idea of people monkeying around with my mind, and I
|> would not trust their assurances anyway.
|> 

I think I generally wouldn't either.  (Circumstances could alter this,
of course.  If I knew I was going to die soon and that the financial security
of my family could be established in this way, I think things would be
different, though that is perhaps a bit extreme.)  One thing that
always bothered me about this situation is that it seemed too much
like being paid for someone else to feel my pain.  Sure, *I* wouldn't
remember it.  In fact *no one* would remember feeling the pain.  But
certainly someone *would* feel the pain.  (Now *who* would that be?
Perhaps some interesting questions of personal identity arise here.)
Somehow it seemed to me that if I wouldn't take the deal in the
absence of the memory suppressing drug, I shouldn't take the deal
with that as part of it.  I am not sure that this is an entirely
consistent position.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: solan@smaug.uio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Subject: Re: Stephen Grossman
Reply-To: solan@smaug.uio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:32:02 GMT

In article <TORKEL.93Jan21223152@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan21.202625.27001@ulrik.uio.no> solan@smauguio.no 
|> (Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:
|> 
|>    >I think it is important first to show that the guy is spreading
|>    >"abusive twaddle" on the net, however obvious it may seem to one-
|>    >self, regardless of person, for two reasons:
|> 
|>   You are of course free to try to correct Grossman. But your comments don't
|> touch on the matter of his having a "right" to this.

My conception of "right" is a much more pragmatic one than you believe,
Torkel. I admit "rights" for another person only so far as I consider
it to be in my own interest, with qualifiers "in the long run" and
"totally". I believe my pragmatic evaluation was well supported by
what I had to say.

|>   As for the pragmatic issue, it has long been clear that there is no point
|> in trying to argue with Grossman.

But then it is even less point in wasting your time just stating
in non-nice words that you don't like him, as that just lowers the
level of the list + consumes everybody's time + give people a lower
opinion of you as a shit-thrower.

At my program, "Author kill" is an option. Very useful.


Solan
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Logic (WAS Re: War!)
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:10:57 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <C1F6En.JKs@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan22.160827.15320@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Charlie.Creegan@launchpad.unc.edu (Charlie Creegan) writes:
|> >In article <C183E1.Jnr@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
|> 
|> >Um, not to quibble with such a learned philosopher, but there's a fallacy
|> >in here.  If SG is a comic, then he is *not* appealing to rationality in
|> >his posts, since they are jokes.  Better figure out *which* theory you
|> >hold, before making observations!
|> 
|> SG	Hold on there, big guy. What's this reason/joke split? You're not 
|> claiming its metaphysical, are you? Aristotle joked about those who claim 
|> reality is contradictory in the otherwise ultra-serious and awesome 
|> _Metaphysics_. And where would Nietzsche be without his _Why I Am So Clever?"

In additon, all of Rand's writings are best regarded as a joke (not to
imply any component of reason in them).

-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Scientist skeptical about their own discovery.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:45:52 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <C165r8.Kt1@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
|> In article <C15vK7.B0p@unx.sas.com>, sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) 
|> writes:
|> 
|> [...]
|> |> If I show you the photo and say "do you see *that*", *then* if you say "No"
|> |> it is proper to say it isn't there for you.  If you say "Yes", it certainly
|> |> *is* there for you! I can *then* ask you, "What do you see this *as*?" or
|> |> "What do you think this *is*?" or "Don't you think this is significant?".
|> |> There is still a difference among all of "reporting as significant",
|> |> "not reporting as significant", "not reporting at all", and "not seeing".
|> |> The last is something for which one might seek medical treatment.  If
|> |> I see the duck instead of the rabbit, or the rabbit instead of the duck,
|> |> my "perception" might be said to be skewed or deficient in some manner,
|> |> but if I don't see *anything* (no lines, no shades of light and dark)
|> |> I have another kind of problem altogether.
|> 
|> The question is, what is his state before the line on the photo is pointed out 
|> to him?  Sure, he is capable of seeing the line, but if he wasn't looking for 
|> it and therefore didn't notice it, did he see it?  

But a hypothesis concerning how perception is theory-laden seems rather
empty here.  There are *many* things that we don't see in this sense
every day -- or that we see and forget we have seen.  In addition, we
all have had the experience of explicitly looking for something, the
thing is where we are looking, and we *still* don't see it.  (This
happens all the time with my tools.  I have the hypothesis that they
actually *aren't* there until someone else looks for them, but my
wife dismisses this as absurd.)  I don't think these phenomena are
addressed by appeal to theories that we may or may not hold.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
From: e343mh@tamuts.tamu.edu (Michael Hand)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: QM reading list?
Date: 21 Jan 1993 19:33:37 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: tamuts.tamu.edu

I'm certainly no one to judge, but a friend of mine who's an
expert in phil of QM says that the best thing for somebody like
me (so presumably like you too) is the new book by David Albert
(Alpert?) from Harvard U.P.  He compared it favorably to the
books by Redhead and by van Fraasen.
B-o} Michael
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hand                       (409)845-5660, fax (409)845-0458
Philosophy Dept, Texas A&M Univ, College Station TX 77843-4237, USA
mhand@tamu.edu                               e343mh@tamuts.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.skeptic
From: pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN)
Subject: Re: Mysticism and Provability (Was: Re: MINDWALK)
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:08:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.163049.23614@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.050642.4355@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>If you try to tell me that there is something that is real, cannot be
>>perceived, _and_ has no physical effects, direct or indirect, then logic would
>>indeed tell us to forget it.  But I agree with logic here.
>
>	I know an example of what you want: other people's
>consciousness. When you get right down to it, all we have is induction
>to verify they exist. Another's consciousness can't be perceived
>directly. As for indirect, that calls for drawing conclusions. We may
>believe that sentience is a prerequisite for human-type behavior, but
>who knows? Maybe a mindless automaton of sufficient complexity could act
>the same.
>
>	Even your _own_ consciousness isn't provable by others.
>Sentience has all the characteristics of a mystical notion, _is_ a
>mystical notion, but pure materialists always seem to overlook it.
>
>						Kayembee

  So?

-- 
	               / )/ )/ )        /    /
			/  /  /      --/----/--
                       /  /  /  / \   /    /
		      /  /  /   \_/\ /    /  
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: War!
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:49:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.203652.27457@ulrik.uio.no>, solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:
>In article <C17xzE.BIq@unx.sas.com>, sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary
>Merrill) writes:
>|> 
>|> In article <C17rAJ.HFL@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen
>Grossman) writes:
>|> |> 
>|> |> 	It would be nice if my intellect were necessary to deal with others' 
>|> |> posts but the level of "argument" and even insult is, for the most
>part, so low 
>|> |> that I can let my subconscious do the work.
>|> |> 
>|> 
>|> I swear I've heard this before.  Do we know that Grossman is *not*
>|> Rush Limbaugh?  Has anyone every seen both at the same time?
>
>There are basically two ways to interact socially:
>War and trade.
>
>When exchanging ideas, we are trying to do trade. It
>is a shame that what goes on in netland is still mostly
>wars. Wars of the worst kind, often - trenchwars.
>
>So, trying to keep the right spirit: Grossman is true enough
>conceited in his response above, but he is also at constant
>war with everyone else. This time, he fired BACK.

SG	Give it rest, Svein. Can't i use humor? I started here months ago with 
serious philsophy, only to be met by flames. Now, when it is apparent that my 
experience in waterfront bars can be transferred to the net, some are upset 
that I can satirize their foolishness. Besides, there's plenty of serious 
philsophy here. An occasional flame is trivial and provides relief from 
difficult intellectual work. Ask any professional lecturer.
________________________________________________________________________________
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.skeptic