From: "Sir Charles W. Shults III"
References: <+ee6RoANyc49EwKf@jmwa.demon.co.uk> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4a57g5ASwo49EwLw@jmwa.demon.co.uk> <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Human Experimentation : Civil, Criminal, Constitutional ? : It is still going on.
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 02:35:06 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 21:35:06 EST
Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida
"John Fields" wrote in message
> On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 22:25:30 GMT, "Sir Charles W. Shults III"
> > When a post or series of posts has content that creates an environment of
> >disbelief or the ridiculous, then are we supposed to not post anything at
> Hardly. IMO, when we're confronted with the ridiculous we'd be
> remiss if we _didn't_ confront it and send it to the rubbish bin,
> where it belongs. Even if we were wrong about our consideration
> that a post was ridiculous and we posted an opinion stating that
> belief, we would be set right, eventually, if everyone else (well,
> maybe just the subset of the informed about the topic at hand)
> commented on our ignorance.
> >Even when the whole concept of the newsgroup is to provide help, support,
> >correction, etc?
> Help, support, and correction includes debunking.
> >How about when quoting the original poster simply underlines how ridiculous
> >the posting is?
> It might not be a bad idea to include a note, with the quote,
> stating why it's ridiculous.
> John Fields
> Professional circuit designer
In all three points, John, we are in complete and utter agreement.
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip