> On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:34:21 -0400, mimus hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>

>> On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:14:35 -0700, malenor wrote:
>>

>>> On Aug 18, 11:12 am, mimus hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:38:24 -0500, PV wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> Thomas Lindgren <***********@*****.***> writes:
>>>>>

>>>>>> On the other hand, Big Science isn't just a conspiracy theory but a
>>>>>> social phenomenon quite ripe for a kicking.

>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, what with them being so insufferably *right* all the time. Heavens
>>>>> forbid that science would demand that you can prove your claims. *

>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what exactly "Big Science" is, but there's an awful lot of
>>>> immature sciences floating around out there, viz. neurology, cosmology and
>>>> nuclear physics, with plenty of unproven hypotheses and hypothetical
>>>> models washing around, not to mention some fairly plain frauds, in all
>>>> three (naming no names, since I simply don't feel particularly pugnacious
>>>> at the moment, and have fought some of those fights on Usenet before,
>>>> several more than once), each with their faithful.
>>>>
>>>> And history, human and natural (not that I don't consider humans natural),
>>>> including biography, must be pretty much permanently immature, since
>>>> irreparable lacks of knowledge simply make it a matter of more and more
>>>> refined approximation forever.

>>>
>>> Out of curiosity, and with nothing better to do, I traced this
>>> enormous thread back to its source on rec.arts.sf.written.

>>
>> Was it that hard for you? ah, but wait, you're reading from Google
>> Groups, so I can see the problem there, although there's still a
>> tree-view, in one mode of viewing, usually . . . .

>
> No, it wasn't difficult at all using the post headers.
>

>>> And all I can say is, you people are making much ado over some sci-fi
>>> that was obviously written for 12-year-old nerds who don't have enough
>>> knowledge yet of physics to know better yet have marvelous
>>> imaginations.

>>
>> The (sub-)thread you're following up on is about no such thing.

>
> Obviously. I peeked in on one post here on alt.philosophy and found that
> the thread had nothing to do with either sci-fi or philosophy. That
> makes it difficult to know what a "Souped Up Velikosky" [sic] is
> supposed to be about. So I researched the thread, and thankfully doing
> this wasn't complex and therefore wasted energy. I see that the thread
> didn't require cross-posting at all, it required retitling due to thread
> drift. But why does an (I presume) adult start a thread on a book
> obviously intended for an audience of 12-year-old sci-fi fans?