From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Crackpot update, New Scientist
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:06:21 GMT

In article <Dec.14.18.39.47.1992.8473@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>I tracked down the New Scientist squib on sci.physics, T**E H*S I*****A,
>and the crackpot index ... it's in "Feedback," a gossipy page at the 
>back of the magazine (p.80, 5 Dec 1992).  Reprinted without
>permission ... all errors are theirs and theirs alone.
>
>from the "New Scientist," 5 Dec 1992:
>--------
>   All editors know that when they receive a letter written in green ink 
>   and capital letters, it's likely that the writer will turn out to be
>   persecuted by microwaves from the Russian Embassy.  The world of
>   electronic communications has its equivalent: the message on your
>   screen liberally sprinkled with capitals.
>   
>   For some reason the physicists' area of the academic network Internet
>   attracts more than its share of this.  Prompted by an especially
>   striking outburst from a retired mathematician insisting that TIME has
>   INERTIA, users have developed a Crackpot Index.  Forewarned is
>   fore-trashed. 
>   
>   You get 40 points for claiming a revolutionary theory that gives no
>   concrete, testable predictions; 10 for comparing yourself favourably
>   to Einstein or Darwin (but 20 for Newton); 10 for claiming that
>   special or general relativity, quantum mechanics or the theory of
>   evolution are fundamentally misguided; 5 for each word in caps and for
>   each string of exclamation points; 10 points for pointing out that you
>   have been to college, as if this was evidence of sanity; 30 for
>   claiming that the scientific establishment is engaged in a conspiracy
>   to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved recognition; 20
>   for stating that you deserve a Nobel prize; and so forth.
>   
>   Naturally, someone took the time to write a program to mark messages
>   automatically.  Due to the difficulty of getting a computer to
>   understand the concept of "favourably", the programme gives you points
>   just for mentioning Newton, Darwin, Velikovsky, or the Bermuda
>   Triangle.
>   
>   The result?  A bundle of spoof messages aiming for maximum score.
>   And the index's author himself ranked number 6 in the crackpot league
>   table.
>
>--------
>Well, John Baez may be thankful his name wasn't mentioned, anyway.
>It's too bad that Ab**n gets all the credit for prompting the
>crackpot index, I'm sure mc*lwre, H*nnu, et al. had something to
>do with it.  And does anyone know why New Scientist use both "program"
>and "programme"?

     You know it's funny.  They seem to have gotten the difference
     between the programme and the program right, as in the programme
     of Baez's that constitutes the crackpot index vs. the program
     someone wrote (I have forgotten who, apologies) to perform 
     an indexing based on lexical analysis.

     I wonder if the use of the two words was intentional?

                               dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics