Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
Barry Merriman
(Frank Manning) writes:
> In 1847, Ignaz Semmelweis got the idea that the washing of hands in a
> solution of chlorinated lime would cut down on diseases spread by medical
> teachers and students in hospitals. After the change in procedure,
> fatalities from puerperal fever in one Vienna hospital fell from 12% to 1%.
> Even so, his theory aroused fierce opposition from entrenched authority,
> and his career suffered badly.
>
> -- Frank Manning
>
..for awhile. As I recall, it caught on quite soon enough---because
it was so easy to demonstrate the effectiveness---and he lived to be
a recognized hero.
--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmer...@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
Mitchell Jones
Merriman) wrote:
Wrong again. Semmelweis developed his theory from observing the different
fatality rates when babies were delivered by doctors, who in those days
were in the habit of moving back and forth between the delivery room and
the autopsy room without washing their hands, as compared to midwives, who
obviously performed no autopsies. The "puerperal fever" was simply an
infection (staph, I think) transmitted from cadavers to a woman's vagina
during delivery. Thus Semmelweis' campaign for the routine washing of
hands involved an explicit claim that doctors in hospitals were mass
killers, and that their birthing services were inferior to those of
midwives (a statement that remains true today, incidentally). Result:
Semmelweis' professional colleagues hated him and hounded him without
mercy. As a consequence, he began to exhibit bizarre, paranoic behavior
(who wouldn't: his colleagues were, in fact, out to get him!), and they
seized upon that behavior as an excuse to have him confined, under
restraints (he was strapped to his bed), in a lunatic asylum. And, when he
wore his skin raw by tugging at his restraints, one of the physicians who
hated him was called straight from the autopsy room to dress his wounds.
Semmelweis begged the man to wash his hands before dressing the wounds,
but his lunatic ravings were ignored, and so Semmelweis died of the
affliction he had tried to cure.
--Mitchell Jones
===========================================================
Barry Merriman
> In article <DAp7z...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>,
aroy...@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Artur Roytburg) says:
> >
> >Just a small point. Despite very limitted acceptance presently,
> >I would suggest that Causal Theory of Quantum Mechanics
> >(developed by Broglie and Bohm) may be just the theory
> >that takes a long time to come through.
> >Can this theory bring a new light if it is accepted widely? Only
> >time will tell. Bohm published his first articles on this subject in
> >1953 and since then many problems in his theory has been overcome.
>
> The thought occurs to me:
> how long would it take for a completely valid theory of everything,
> to be validated and accepted,
> if the theory was the work of a Mayan or Black?
>
These days? No longer than if the progenitor were white. A hundred years
ago, there would have been a slowdown, mainly due to the difficulty
the progentor would have had in obtaining a suitable position at a
lab or university. In this era of affirmative action, that would no
longer be a problem, as minority staus would be seen as an added
benefit in hiring, rather than a detriment.
Barry Merriman
<sing...@teleport.com> writes:
> You are a true expert at missing the point. Stick to the point.
>
> Charles Cagle
> Chief Technical Officer
> Singularity Technologies, Inc,
What is the point? The only relevant point in regards to
you is that which you do know something about, namely your
work on fusion, etc.
You claim to have some technical references that show our
present theory of the coulomb barrier is wrong. I'd love to look
up some of those, but you are not forthcoming with the information.
Dieter Britz
RE the question whether any real scientific discoveries were initially
ridiculed: Let us, here in this group, now drop the subject. We now know
enough, I think, about Semmelweiss and Wegener. Remember fusion?
Note that again I have removed groups other than this one from the header.
I did it without sending any cancelbots this time, Mitch, and without
getting muddled in the middle of a sentence {:]
-- Dieter Britz alias br...@kemi.aau.dk
mitchell swartz
In Message-ID: <3t14nu$4...@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
sch...@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz),
e-Philosopher of the Dangerous Definitely, continues
his unique, incoherent and puerile remarks.
=rpes "Given that, here is an abnormal response: bub,
=rpes [zip] .... Richard Schultz"
Based upon his posts, illogical, unresearched,
nonresponsive, and often saliently depraved (vide infra),
Schultz's behavior remains insulting to many people.
A few cognitive tests might determine the etiology of his
comments, focus, and thinking. Then again, maybe
a radiological approach ought be considered.
Until then we can only imagine why any woman or anyone
in Wyoming would want to support his funding, or those of
his sponsors.
========================================
"Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing
out swords. . .that's no basis for a system of government."
[Richard Schultz, unattributed, plagarized, or original?]
<3ssbnj$m...@agate.berkeley.edu>
"I think you're thinking of Wyoming, where the men are men,
the women are men, and the sheep are scared."
[Richard Schultz, 22 Jun 1995;
<3scoir$m...@agate.berkeley.edu>]
Thomas S. Zemanian
swartz) wrote:
> ========================================
> "Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing
> out swords. . .that's no basis for a system of government."
> [Richard Schultz, unattributed, plagarized, or original?]
> <3ssbnj$m...@agate.berkeley.edu>
>
It's a quote from the film _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_. Arthur is
explaining to an argumentative subject his divine right to the throne:
************************************
Arthur:
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering Samite, held
aloft from the bosom of the water Excalibur, signifying by divine right
that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king!
Peasant:
Listen: strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for
a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate
from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony! You can't
expect to wield supreme executive power because some watery tart threw a
sword at you! If I went round claiming I was emperor because some
moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
*********************************
It's quite a humorous scene. I recommend you rent the movie and enjoy it.
I don't think, however, that this quote demonstrates unbalance on the part
of Dr. Schultz.
--Tom
--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. Keep your filthy hands off 'em!
Ben Newsam
> Arthur:
>
> The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering Samite, held
> aloft from the bosom of the water Excalibur, signifying by divine right
> that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king!
>
> Peasant:
>
> Listen: strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for
> a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate
> from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony! You can't
> expect to wield supreme executive power because some watery tart threw a
> sword at you! If I went round claiming I was emperor because some
> moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Long live the Anarcho-Syndicalist Peasants!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Newsam Micro Services -- b...@microser.demon.co.uk
Tel & Fax: -- +44 (114) 285 2727
Programming, Documentation, Consultancy -- Windows, SDK, MFC, C++ etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan M. Dunsmuir
> If I went round claiming I was emperor because some
> moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
I think you'll find that ought to be 'bint'. This is English slang
(derived from army usage) which in turn arises from the time spent
by the British Army in arabic-speaking climes.
--
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end] (Can't even quote poetry right)
I am his Highness' dog at Kew
Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
[Alexander Pope]
PGP Public Key available on request.
Richard H. Schultz
In article <DAzvy...@world.std.com> mi...@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
> In Message-ID: <3t14nu$4...@agate.berkeley.edu>
> Until then we can only imagine why any woman or anyone
>in Wyoming would want to support his funding, or those of
>his sponsors.
Speaking of non-responsive, are you ever going to answer my request that
you tell me just who you think my employer(s), sponsor(s), or funder(s)
are? This is yet another area about which I am guessing you have a
minimal clue -- even though I once gave you a truly massive hint in
email. From your decision to cease quoting my quotation of Kay
Thompson (i.e. "French Bread makes good skis", which is from _Eloise
in Paris_), I take it that you received my email on the subject.
Care to tell the readers of s.p.f. the name of the newsgroup and the
context in which you found my Wyoming quote? (BTW, your constant
harping on that quotation indicates to me that you've never lived in
that part of the country. If you had, you'd realize that it's nothing
more than a simple statement of truth.)
> ========================================
>"Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing
> out swords. . .that's no basis for a system of government."
> [Richard Schultz, unattributed, plagarized, or original?]
I vote for "saliently depraved." Plagarized [sic] is a second
choice.
(Here's another clue for you: if I put it in quotation marks, the odds
are that I'm quoting someone. Doubtless they forgot to tell you about
that at MIT.)
--
Richard Schultz
"Life is a blur of Republicans and meat." -- Zippy
james dolan
- In Message-ID: <ts_zemanian-3006951210570001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>
-Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
-ts_ze...@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) wrote to excuse
-Richard Schultz e-fixations.
-
- > "Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing
- > out swords. . .that's no basis for a system of government."
- > [Richard Schultz, unattributed, plagarized, or original?]
- > <3ssbnj$m...@agate.berkeley.edu>
- >
- "It's a quote from the film _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_. Arthur is
- explaining to an argumentative subject his divine right to the throne:
- [zip (excuse please)] "
- "It's quite a humorous scene. I recommend you rent the movie and enjoy it.
- I don't think, however, that this quote demonstrates unbalance on the part
- of Dr. Schultz. --Tom"
-
-Does it matter?
- In Avon Mass, two captured and accused murderers this month quoted
-"Natural Born Killers" [on their way back to purportedly cleanup the crime
-scene according to the DA].
-
- If they claim it was a "humorous movie" or "scene", should that
-exculpate their action? Does "Dr". Schultz's attendance at a similar movie or
-focusing upon a [possibly] sick scene -- or excising his choice of parts --
-explain his actions?
-
-Perhaps not.
anyone up for a realistic re-enactment of the "black knight" scene?
Richard Schultz
mitchell swartz <mi...@world.std.com> wrote:
> In Message-ID: <ts_zemanian-3006951210570001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>
>Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
>ts_ze...@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) wrote to excuse
>Richard Schultz e-fixations.
>
> > "Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing
> > out swords. . .that's no basis for a system of government."
> > [Richard Schultz, unattributed, plagarized, or original?]
> > <3ssbnj$m...@agate.berkeley.edu>
> >
> "It's a quote from the film _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_. Arthur is
> explaining to an argumentative subject his divine right to the throne:
> [zip (excuse please)] "
> "It's quite a humorous scene. I recommend you rent the movie and enjoy it.
> I don't think, however, that this quote demonstrates unbalance on the part
> of Dr. Schultz. --Tom"
>
>Does it matter?
> In Avon Mass, two captured and accused murderers this month quoted
>"Natural Born Killers" [on their way back to purportedly cleanup the crime
>scene according to the DA].
>
> If they claim it was a "humorous movie" or "scene", should that
>exculpate their action? Does "Dr". Schultz's attendance at a similar movie or
>focusing upon a [possibly] sick scene -- or excising his choice of parts --
>explain his actions?
>
>Perhaps not.
I'm not sure what I could possibly add to the above classic post. Your
obsession with the random collection of quotes I put in my .sig file is
puzzling enough; your repeated insistence on making an ass of yourself
by trying to link them to anything beyond a possibly odd sense of humor
is strange, but hardly unusual for you. I don't recall that I have
used any quotes from MPATHG to "excuplate" any murders, at least not lately.
Monty Python fans out there will no doubt be interested to note, however,
that Movie Expert Swartz has declared "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"
to be similar to "Natural Born Killers" -- a similarity that probably
escaped you less astute types.
I note that you put the title "Dr." in quotation marks. Do you have some
basis for doubting that I am entitled to it? And do you have any plans
for the near future either to explain your references to my employer(s),
funding sponsor(s), and project(s), or to shut up about them?
Or am I upsetting your plans shortly to foam at the mouth and fall over
backwards?
--
Richard Schultz
"Look out! There are llamas!"
Ben Newsam
> In Avon Mass, two captured and accused murderers this month quoted
> "Natural Born Killers" [on their way back to purportedly cleanup the crime
> scene according to the DA].
>
> If they claim it was a "humorous movie" or "scene", should that
> exculpate their action? Does "Dr". Schultz's attendance at a similar movie or
> focusing upon a [possibly] sick scene -- or excising his choice of parts --
> explain his actions?
Have you *seen* "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"? No, I didn't think so!
Just an aside... I went to the World Premiere of the film. A friend and I
were wandering through Soho and thought we would like to see a movie. We
came to the Casino cinema and bought a ticket. Just like that. All the stars
were there, as well as many others, including the Goodies *and* the
Pantomime Princess Margaret (who occupied the Royal Box, and waved a lot).
Before the film started, a string quartet of old men appeared on the stage
and played the Liberty Bell March *very* slowly!
Ben Newsam
> Although continental drift is now accepted as "true," at the time it
> was _wrong_.
<....>
> Well, it's the same story. Wegener didn't deserve to be ridiculed,
> but basically he was ahead of his time, which is a polite way of
> saying that in his time, he wasn't right.
There is a story that, during WW2, a particularly good invention from a
civilian government scientist was rejected by a military research
establishment. It was sent back with the curt note "No good, not invented
here".
mitchell swartz
In Message-ID: <ts_zemanian-3006951210570001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
ts_ze...@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) wrote to excuse
Richard Schultz e-fixations.
> "Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing
> out swords. . .that's no basis for a system of government."
> [Richard Schultz, unattributed, plagarized, or original?]
> <3ssbnj$m...@agate.berkeley.edu>
>
"It's a quote from the film _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_. Arthur is
explaining to an argumentative subject his divine right to the throne:
[zip (excuse please)] "
"It's quite a humorous scene. I recommend you rent the movie and enjoy it.
I don't think, however, that this quote demonstrates unbalance on the part
of Dr. Schultz. --Tom"
Does it matter?
In Avon Mass, two captured and accused murderers this month quoted
"Natural Born Killers" [on their way back to purportedly cleanup the crime
scene according to the DA].
If they claim it was a "humorous movie" or "scene", should that
exculpate their action? Does "Dr". Schultz's attendance at a similar movie or
focusing upon a [possibly] sick scene -- or excising his choice of parts --
explain his actions?
Perhaps not.
mitchell swartz
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
rsch...@phoenix.princeton.edu (Richard H. Schultz) writes
regarding his statement/allegation/claim/whatever:
"I think you're thinking of Wyoming, where the men are men,
the women are men, and the sheep are scared."
[Richard Schultz, 22 Jun 1995;
<3scoir$m...@agate.berkeley.edu>]
-rpes "BTW, your constant
-rpes harping on that quotation indicates to me
-rpes that you've never lived in
-rpes that part of the country.
-rpes If you had, you'd realize
-rpes that it's nothing
-rpes more than a simple statement of truth."
-rpes Richard Schultz"
Incredible.
To Tom Potter,
>"I was unfortunate, in that I was never around
> "the terminally clueless"
>until I incountered you, so I am just developing the talent for
>recognizing them. Perhaps some day, I might have
> the opportunity of meeting
>your family and friends so that I can hone my ability."
[t...@ix.netcom.com (Tom Potter )]
eloquent Schultz wrote,
- rpes "No need for you to go to so much trouble:
-rpes just look in a mirror.
-rpes Richard Schultz"
[2 Jul 1995 12:40:27 GMT
Message-ID: <3t643r$d...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>]
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Wonder what Schultz sees in HIS mirror?
;-)X
Richard H. Schultz
>anyone up for a realistic re-enactment of the "black knight" scene?
Well, some of Swartz's postings sound a lot like "I'll bite your
kneecaps off" already. . .
--
Richard Schultz
"I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."
Mick_...@fmi.com
> > ========================================
> > out swords. . .that's no basis for a system of government."
> > [Richard Schultz, unattributed, plagarized, or original?]
Wasn't this little gem a line from That Monty python gem, "The Holy Grail"??
Mick Muller
PT Freeport Indonesia
These are my opinions only, not those of my employer.
Anyone silly enough to believe that my employer is
as warped as myself has big problems.
"Gaze outwards to the stars, not inwards to your navel" (Bill Borthwick)
Matej Pav{i~
> In article <3sqe60$7...@electron.rutgers.edu>, bwe...@electron.rutgers.edu (Ben Weiner) writes:
>>t...@id.net (Tom Potter) writes:
>
> Uh, I would say yes/no/maybe on the last one. When you submit a paper, to
> Phys. Rev. for example, nobody asks for your credentials and degrees. So in
> this sense it doesn't matter. There is some built in bias in the system in the
> sence that the editors may view a paper which arrives from a residential adress
> (as opposed to institutional one) with some suspicion and subject it to a
> closer scrutiny. However, no paper will be rejected solely on the grounds that
> the author is not a member of the academia.
>
Closer scrutinity for a "non academic paper"? Just the contrary.
An author from a less known institution or a country usually receives his
paper (submitted to Phys.Rev.D) back, without being sent to a referee
at all, with the editor explanation that the paper is not
interesting enough. So it happened to a friend of mine. It is amusing
in this story that the same person, while working at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, had no problems with publishing his papers
in Physical Review. Does it mean that the quality of his papers on
theoretical physics has so drastically reduced after leaving Massachusetts
that they do not even deserve to be sent to a referee? Also other persons
told me similar stories about Phys.Rev. Therefore I do not even try to waste
my time and nerves, and I have never sent a paper to Phys.Rev. The latter
is apparently so anxious about its short term reputation such as
the rank on citation index, and the impact parameter index, etc.,
that works of less known scientists are not interesting for it, and do
not merit a closer scrutinity (and are not sent to referees).
However, in the long term it may turn out that some other journal will
rank much higher than Physical Review D.
Frank Pitt
>anyone up for a realistic re-enactment of the "black knight" scene?
I thought that was what this whole thread was.
Frankie
ma...@godzilla.eecs.berkeley.edu
> >"Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing
> > out swords. . .that's no basis for a system of government."
> > [Richard Schultz, unattributed, plagarized, or original?]
>
> I vote for "saliently depraved." Plagarized [sic] is a second
> choice.
>
> (Here's another clue for you: if I put it in quotation marks, the odds
> are that I'm quoting someone. Doubtless they forgot to tell you about
> that at MIT.)
Please! I graduated from MIT too, and I can attest that quotation
marks are part of the curriculum. The school does have a writing
requirement. (Not that all MIT graduates are literate, mind you,
or graduates of any other school I know of.)
If someone graduated from MIT and still doesn't realize that words
within quotation marks are quotations, that's no reason to blame the
school. Following Bob Dole, I would tend to blame the influence of
the mass media. Newspaper reporters sometimes seem to have only a
sketchy idea of just what quotation marks mean.
--
Matt Austern ma...@physics.berkeley.edu
http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt
Thomas S. Zemanian
swartz) wrote:
> In Message-ID: <ts_zemanian-3006951210570001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>
> Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
> ts_ze...@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) wrote to excuse
> Richard Schultz e-fixations.
>
> > "Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing
> > out swords. . .that's no basis for a system of government."
> > [Richard Schultz, unattributed, plagarized, or original?]
> > <3ssbnj$m...@agate.berkeley.edu>
> >
> "It's a quote from the film _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_. Arthur is
> explaining to an argumentative subject his divine right to the throne:
> [zip (excuse please)] "
> "It's quite a humorous scene. I recommend you rent the movie and enjoy it.
> I don't think, however, that this quote demonstrates unbalance on the part
> of Dr. Schultz. --Tom"
>
> Does it matter?
> In Avon Mass, two captured and accused murderers this month quoted
> "Natural Born Killers" [on their way back to purportedly cleanup the crime
> scene according to the DA].
>
> If they claim it was a "humorous movie" or "scene", should that
> exculpate their action? Does "Dr". Schultz's attendance at a similar movie or
> focusing upon a [possibly] sick scene -- or excising his choice of parts --
> explain his actions?
>
> Perhaps not.
Oh, for crying out loud, Mitch. I don't see any evidence that Schultz
(Dr., Mr., or His Lordship; I don't care) has ever employed women to
distribute swords from a supine position in ponds, or that he advocates
anyone doing it.
Are we that silly a society that mentioning an activity is tantqamount to
engaging in it? He was quoting a sendup of the vastly distorted Arthurian
legend.
Or do you think that since the two folks you mention above cited a movie
as their inspiration, we should excoriate or imprison any who might also
quote that or similar movies?
I see no slur in the Monty Python quote. If I am in error in this, please
point it out to me.
Richard Schultz
Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_ze...@pnl.gov> wrote:
>Oh, for crying out loud, Mitch. I don't see any evidence that Schultz
>(Dr., Mr., or His Lordship; I don't care) has ever employed women to
>distribute swords from a supine position in ponds, or that he advocates
>anyone doing it.
Don't forget: the quotation I supplied specifically *objects* to
using sword-wielding aquatic tarts as a basis for executive authority,
and goes on to say (as I believe someone else posted) that governmental
authority has to derive from the will of the people. So my guess is
that by objecting to my use of the quote, Swartz is revealing his own
preference for the days when rulers were picked by supernatural means.
--
Richard Schultz
"It would have been like discussing sundials with a bat."
mitchell swartz
In Message-ID: <ts_zemanian-0507950842050001@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Has anyone convinced a crackpot?
- "I don't see any evidence that Schultz
-(Dr., Mr., or His Lordship; I don't care) has ever [zip] ---Tom"
OK. Good Point, Thomas.
Given your expertise would you care to explain,
either what is your or what you think the
gov's position is on
"I think you're thinking of Wyoming, where the
men are men, the women
are men, and the sheep are scared."
[Richard Schultz, 22 Jun 1995;
<3scoir$m...@agate.berkeley.edu>]
-rs ".. you've never lived in
-rs that part of the country.
-rs If you had, you'd realize
-rs that it's nothing
-rs more than a simple statement of truth."
[Richard Schultz]
since that is actually began some of this, before Schultz's
MontyPython two-step.
Thomas S. Zemanian
swartz) wrote:
I do not speak for the government, and I try to ignore off color jokes.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <DAy7q...@midway.uchicago.edu>, me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>> In article <3sqe60$7...@electron.rutgers.edu>, bwe...@electron.rutgers.edu (Ben Weiner) writes:
>>>t...@id.net (Tom Potter) writes:
>>
>> Uh, I would say yes/no/maybe on the last one. When you submit a paper, to
>> Phys. Rev. for example, nobody asks for your credentials and degrees. So in
>> this sense it doesn't matter. There is some built in bias in the system in the
>> sence that the editors may view a paper which arrives from a residential adress
>> (as opposed to institutional one) with some suspicion and subject it to a
>> closer scrutiny. However, no paper will be rejected solely on the grounds that
>> the author is not a member of the academia.
>>
>
>Closer scrutinity for a "non academic paper"? Just the contrary.
>An author from a less known institution or a country usually receives his
>paper (submitted to Phys.Rev.D) back, without being sent to a referee
>at all, with the editor explanation that the paper is not
>interesting enough.
Nice story, and it even may be true in some instances. However, I do know from
my personal experience as a referee that things usually don't work this way.
As a rule, the judgment of whether the paper is interesting or not is the
referees business, not the editor's. The role of the editor is to direct the
manuscripts to the appropriate referees and/or screen away the stuff that seems
obviously "crackpotty". Since this last function involves judgement calls,
obviously mistakes do happen, but they are far less common than anecdotal
evidence would imply.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"