Re: Planet X Sighting Efforts 1
In Article <firstname.lastname@example.org> Jeff Root wrote
> "Idon't" wrote:
> >> HUH? *I* think?! Are you daft? I was characterizing a common
> >> "scientific" viewpoint, not stating mine.
> "Stig Bull" replied:
> > Oh man, you're such an idiot. It was *YOUR* viewpoint unless you're
> > referring to a pseudo-scientific viewpoint which has _nothing_ to do
> > with science in general.
> He was responding to what you said, which was the opposite of
> what you obviously meant:
> SB> Wrong. You THINK you know there can be no separate intellect
> SB> speaking through Nancy.
> He quoted it, but you removed the quote in your reply.
> Would you expand on your reply to "Idon't" in the following,
> SB> Anybody with a PC, an internet connection and a decent search
> SB> engine (or an encyclopedia for that sake), can come up with
> SB> such fiction story.
> I> HUH? How could she find her "fiction" in an encyclopedia? By
> I> definition,it does not exist there. You say she plagiarized it
> I> from internet sources? OK, run YOUR search engine and find it.
> I> If she were trying to "pass for someone with knowledge in
> I> science", she would not MAKE claims which differ with accepted
> I> science. That is clearly NOT her goal.
> so that he can understand what role an encylcopedia could play
> in writing science fiction, or this particular fiction?
> Jeff, in Minneapolis
Ummm, sorry Jeff, but you might begin with the assumption that I am
NOT stupid- it might help you here. I am not dense to the role a
factual source might play in writing fiction. That is NOT the point.
The question is not where did she get FILLER of generally accepted
facts or get the stuff that has obviously been written about before. I
am well aware of those elements. The question is: where did all of the
NEW content come from? And where is it coming from as we speak?... and
the organizational intellect which pulls it all together? You think
she is just a master science fiction writer? I don't think so. Stig
thinks she runs off to a secret team of advisors who pull an
all-nighter and concoct her answers for her, or that she gets it from
banks of books or the net. Easy out- TOO easy. I think that, without
certain presuppositions about what is "impossible", those answers are
shallow and not logical. Stig, and perhaps you, envision some vast
network of conspirators or hours of research needed before answering
his "probing" questions. NOT. I have heard her interviewed live and
there is no such delay or backup required. Everyone thinks that if
THEY could just ask her direct questions, that they could GET her
because she is just a stupid, lying old lady. Guess again. Calling her
crazy or devious makes for an easy explanation for those who cannot
entertain broader concepts, or are not capable of objective research
in this matter. I think it is more interesting and deeper than that.
It now seems imperative that I include a standard disclaimer in all of
my attempts to discuss this matter: I AM NOT A FOLLOWER OF NANCY. I DO
NOT ARGUE THAT HER SCIENCE IS CORRECT. OK?