Re: CORRUPT Theory of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design.
- From: "Barry" <barry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Jun 2005 16:21:19 -0700
G2 news reader is apparently what Google Groups calls its web-based
news reader. I didn't want my mailbox filled up, so I'm viewing and
responding from
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.med/browse_frm/thread/63d8ffc58e81d447/1ab5afb576778710#1ab5afb576778710
.. I'm still able to select which groups to reply to, so I'll have to do
that when my reply is meant just for one group. Google provides a
Report This Post link, so I figured the web based version I'm using is
moderated.
Aidan Karley wrote:
> In article <1120158105.449443.304300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Barry
> wrote:
> > Someone needs to be more strict about keeping these posts on-topic and
> > deleting off-topic posts.
> >
> It's USENET. There is no (exactly zero, not approximately zero)
> content regulation.
>
> > This group is about medical issues,
> >
> No it's not. You posted this message to all of the following
> groups : >
> sci.anthropology,sci.geo.geology,sci.astro,sci.med,sci.geo.earthquakes
> This is probably because the original message you were replying to
> was cross-posted to all of these groups to try to get a bigger audience
> and to create more disturbance. If you examine this message carefully
> you'll see that I've only sent it to sci.med, not to the other groups
> whose membership are probably more familiar with Ed Conrad's lunacy than
> the medics are. Your news-reading program should allow you to select
> which groups a message is sent to, a configuration tool you should become
> familiar with. ("G2" news reader? Not heard of that one.) By the way,
> should you choose to reply you'll need to manually add
> sci.geo.earthquakes back into the list because I don't read sci.med
> myself. (Also, I go out to sea tomorrow morning where I won't have any
> internet access. I'll be there for days to weeks.)
>
> > and even
> > if it were about evolution, there should be some substance to the
> > posts. They don't have to be proven true, but they should show an
> > attempt to contribute something that's either generally accepted or for
> > which some half way decent argument is made or references are provided.
> >
> Ed Conrad (who I *think* is the original poster who's annoying
> you, judging from the style and content of the subject line) is a
> well-known internet kook. In medical terminology, he's delusional and
> paranoid, but apparently sub-clinical. I've not heard of anyone who's
> successfully had him confined to a mental institution, but he certainly
> needs professional assistance (probably in chemical form). But since he's
> not going to go away, the simplest thing to do is to kill-file him. Your
> news reader should have the facility to do that, but I've no idea how. My
> killfile has had Ed as a resident for years, which is why I don't see his
> posts. (I occasionally disable that rule, and Ed's messages pop back in
> to view. Which is amusing. Briefly. Then Ed goes back into the
> kill-file.)
>
> Welcome to USENET. It's a jungle in here.
>
> --
> Aidan Karley, FGS
> Aberdeen, Scotland,
> Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
.
- References:
- Re: CORRUPT Theory of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design.
- From: Aidan Karley
- Re: CORRUPT Theory of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design.
- Prev by Date: Re: My Experience with Hypogonadism (Low Testosterone Production)
- Next by Date: Re: CORRUPT Theory of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design.
- Previous by thread: Re: CORRUPT Theory of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design.
- Next by thread: Re: CORRUPT Theory of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
