Re: Can we please dekookify the list?

Ian Goddard (
Sat, 27 Feb 1999 15:13:03 -0500

At 11:46 PM 2/26/99 -0500, Brian Atkins wrote:

>Fact: This list is getting more attention (for instance, was
>mentioned in the latest issue of MEME).
>Fact: We want to make the best of this attention.
>Theory: If we dekookify the list, more newbies are likely to
>stick around longer- both absorbing our helpful ideas for
>themselves, and at the same time helping to diversify our
>discussions (hopefully in non-kookish ways :-).
>Theory 2: If we dekookify the list, more ExI members would
>renew memberships, and in general ExI would probably get a
>lot more $$$; people would be much more willing to support
>something they could really be 100% proud of. Also they would
>be more likely to show their friends the list, thereby
>increasing the newbies even further.
>Incentive: I'll agree to contribute a minimum of $10,000 per
>year to ExI for at least 5 years if we can make some progress
>on this.

IAN: Hay, just because CIA defenders believe that an aircraft sans forward section can fly better, with all the aerodynamic advantage of an intact plane, contrary to the known laws of physics (expressed both by mathematics and reality: 
and defend those anti-scientific views with false statements doesn't mean they're kooks. Well, then again, maybe it does mean they're kooks. Rejection of physical reality and mathematics in favor of cartoons ( could be a form of psychosis. Authoritarian psychosis?

I can certainly understand why the propagation of such anti-science is a concern to civilized people, particularly considering its use to defend the proven cover up (Navy-vessel identities, the nose section, wings, and tail of the jet, witness reports, and satellite and radar data still classified) of a mass killing. Yet, physics and math work better to dispel false claims than bribery and name calling.

Visit Ian Williams Goddard -------->