To explain, for those who don't know how to retrace a thread in their
newsreader:

On alt.conspiracy and many other groups, a new conspiracy theory is being
born that claims there was a second bomb in OKC, based mostly on early
media coverage of a seismogram that seems to show a second explosion
ten seconds after the first.

Ted Frank, in his Ted-like way, leapt in without knowing what he was
talking about and suggested that the difference was due to different
shock-wave speeds thru different sorts of ground.  He was corrected
by someone better informed, but then there was this reply from
rn...@metronet.com:
=>>Thanks also to Ted - who may not have been accurate as to details, but
=>>certainly accurate as to import.

I found this to be a particularly vivid example of what I've begun to
term "Skeptical Correctness" (SkC) after the metaphor of PC/Political-
Correctness.

All to often in skeptics debate, there's a clearcut pattern of the
skeptics coming to a conclusion *beforehand* about what the 'skeptically
correct' answer needs to be, and running roughshod over good scientific
practice to make sure that conclusion comes out the victor...

What good are skeptics who don't have any detached standards of argument???