From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Re: Faith and skeptics.
Date: 8 Oct 1992 19:50:59 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <Bvsq35.8K1@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>, fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au
(Mark Fernee) writes:
>|> 
>|> So waht?  The "extreme" skeptic has been discussed here many times.  Why set up
>|> strawmen to shoot at?
>
>Why not, if some of these "strawmen" may exist.

Please, you've now been asked at least three times:  Show us an actual example
of your "extreme skeptic."

>You may ask why study
>schisophrenia when the majority don't seem to suffer from it. Address the
>topic of discussion, not the reason it is being discussed.

Mark, I've known a couple schizophrenics.  I could give you the name of one
(but then, in fairness, I'd have to give him your name and tell him that you'd
been asking about him.  He's a bit paranoid, so I'm not sure that would be a
good idea).  Schizophrenics have been demonstrated to exist.  Please do the
same thing for your strawman.

>Because they're not. I don't have any evidence currently available because
>I can not accurately access every part of my memory inorder to draw forth
>the precise details. I you have never heard far-fetched explanations of,
>so far, unexplained phenomena,

But, you see, the problem is, we *HAVE* heard far-fetched explanations of, so
far, unexplained phenomena.  We've heard people explain UFOs by claiming that
they're actually spacecraft of extraterrestrial origin.  So far, in every case
I've heard of where the UFO was later identified, the ET spacecraft explanation
has been wrong.  Yet people continue to use that explanation.  Now, *THAT'S*
far-fetched.

>|> The evidence is in this posting.  If your own words don't mean what they say,
>|> then please rephrase.  You mention that you have no data then that your view is
>|> established using observational data. Which is it?  We have at least proof by
>|> contradiction  that you are not clear if you have data or do not.
>|> [...]
>
>Unfortunately you comprehension seems to be very low at this point.

I think it's your inability to write coherently that's the problem.

>|> This I believe is the second incidence of the word "extreme."  Please eliminate
>|> the strawman.
>
>Have you checked youself for straw lately? 

AHA!  Now we've got a definition.  According to Mark, GXKambic is his version
of "extreme skeptic."  Now, Mark, please cite the instances in which GXKambic
has engaged in the behavior you attribute to "extreme skeptics."  Please be
specific.  This discussion's only been going on for a few days, so if you try
using your "faulty memory" dodge, we'll have no choice but to assume you're a
liar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17798 rec.org.mensa:7310