| |
|
Article: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected](Nancy )
Subject: Re: N**** then and Now
Date: 8 Mar 1997 22:25:46 GMT
In article <01bc2713$d20a8d20$0100007f@enigma> Bazzer
writes
> David W. Knisely <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>...
>> She merely seeks ATTENTION,
>
> The best way to dispel attention seeking is to ignore it
(which
> would include avoiding postings like the above). If what
> Nancy is saying is complete trash, then why respond to it?
> Or maybe it's not complete trash. Is that what the problem
is?
> Is this why the defenders/supporters of the established
> position appear to get jittery (from a laypersons point of
view,
> with no axe to grind either way, this is what it seems to
come
> across as)? BTW, for what it's worth (and it may be worth
> nothing) after a few weeks observing 'back seat' the
Hale-Bopp
> /12th Planet discussions, the case for either side still
remains
> largely open. Indeed, initial conclusions (so far) suggest
that
> there's something going on which doesn't add up. What is
that
> saying about there being "no smoke without fire"?
> "Bazzer" <[email protected]>
THIS one is no Sheep of sci.astro :-) The Shepherds will be leaping to their posts. Bazzer will be flooded with personal e-mail to straighten him out. 300 sci.astro posting stating the opinion that Nancy is just
| 1. | crazy, |
| 2. | out to sell a book, |
| 3. | seeking attention, |
| 4. | a poor befuddled woman who can't comprehend the issues, |
| 5. | insulting the holy as is anyone reading her posts, |
| 6. | should be ignored and whatever the reader does, they should not read the posts, repeat not read her posts but just kill them. |
CODE RED, CODE RED, BACK-TALKING TO THE SHEPHERDS IN PROGRESS ON SCI.ASTRO.