Re: Labels and Obfuscations

From: Perplexed in Peoria (jimmenegay_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 02/22/05 

Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:27:22 -0500 (EST)

"Larry Moran" <lamoran@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message news:cvd3en$1eqi$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> Unfortunately Dana Kossy doesn't discuss the kook-enablers - those
> people who continue to respond to kooks long after everyone else has
> given up. Jim, do you think we have some of those people on this news
> group?

That is a rather curious question to ask, after I embraced the
"kook-enabler" label and offered a defense of the practice.
Perhaps you missed it. It was titled "A kook-enabler's apology".

I'm probably the number-one responder to kooks in this NG, now
that O'Hara is in "retirement". But it might be interesting to list
the top five. Hoelzer and Felsenstein might make that list. I
notice that their kook-engagement is mostly constructive. Tim
Tyler has a very interesting kook-engagement style. His kookier-
than-thou policy of throwing out future human and A-life bio-
engineered sci-fi scenarios must give even the wildest kooks some
pause.

But there are a few kook-responders who pursue a mostly
non-constructive approach. Including one fellow who just had
to slap down our most inoffensive kook for the crime of sharing
a link to his sci-fi story idea. I wonder what "apologia" HE
would give for this kook-engagement style. Perhaps it makes him
feel better. Well, whatever works.