--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ...and I have never > > > > > > > been nominated for Usenet Kook of the Year. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > By Sherilyn, one of her more desperate moves. > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't worry about it that much. You only > > > > > got about 40 votes, mainly from your "fans" on > > > > > alt.meditation.transcendental and sci.skeptic. > > > > > > > > Um, I never worried about it at all. But > > > > apparently it was a big enough deal for you > > > > that you actually had to go count the votes. > > > > > > Nope. Someone on sci.skeptic kept track. They were > > > quite amused by you. > > > > > > I presume they were all "angry and usually dishonest > > > critics of TM," too? :-) > > > > In general, yeah. Non-angry and usually honest critics of > > anything don't indulge in ad hoc web-sites, ad hominem > > attacks, etc., on proponents of what they are critical of. > > I think he was referring here to the denizens of > sci.skeptic generally, not the Web-site owners > (although like two of the latter, the sci.skeptic > folks had no firsthand knowledge of TM, and were > even less well informed second-hand). >
sci.skeptic denizens either engage in reasoned arguments when presented with reasoned arguments, or they don't. Those that do, are reasonable people, by definition. Those that don't, fall into the angry, usually [intellectually] dishonest category, by definition.
