> I don't really know enough about the whole Mars face thing to comment on
> Anton's questions (other than that it looks a lot like Elvis). But I
> would like to ask whether list members think it merits closer
> inspection, and if not, why?
What I meant, and this may not have been entirely clear, was whether
list members thought another fly-by of the Mars-face area was a good
idea; and this barring any of the preconceived, Hoagland-based
pseudo-science that might be floating around. I tend to think that
another fly-by would either prove them right or shut them up. If right,
well, a long shot; but if wrong, shut them up and at least preserve some
bandwith. This topic is a Metacrawler goldmine.
If you give a shit, see:
http://www.metacrawler.com/crawler?general=Hoagland+mars+face&method=0®ion=0&rpp=30&timeout=30&hpe=30&format=2
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> Now that I think about it, the scale would make an interesting essay.
> I can imagine some standards for some points of the scale, but I'd
> like to hear nominations for some others:
>
> 10.0 Richard Feynman, Niels Bohr: The standards.
> 9.0 Albert Einstein, Steven Hawking: No experiments, no 10.
> 8.0 ?
> 7.0 Carl Sagan: Some political influences, but does his homework
> and maintains his integrity.
> 6.0 ?
> 5.0 Andrew Weil: One can be /too/ open-minded. A bit too
> theatrical and rhetorical, too.
> 4.0 Hal Puthoff, Fleischman & Pons: Might be on to something,
> but tend to announce results before verifying them.
> 3.0 ?
> 2.0 John Gray (Mars/Venus): Interesting ideas, thin on facts.
So John Gray is better than Hoagland? At least Hoagland gave us links to
his ideas. Well, I guess when we get to the bottom of the scale the
differences are negligible, but I must say, if I have to buy it, it
better be more than "thin on facts." Any gender stereotype is worthless
in my book, and stereotyping without facts is more than worthless, it's
the memetic equivalent of entropy. And some guy is making beaucoup
d'argent off of it?
John Gray is definitely worse than an astrologer. He's predicting the
future of your relationship based upon not the heavens, but some
primordial fact sheet that only he has a copy of. No man is alike, no
woman is alike. And I leave it at that.
> 1.0 ?
> 0.0 L. Ron Hubbard, Creationists, Astrologers.
I would add racists, misogynists, and relationahip experts to this as
well.
For the love of Pete,
Hagbard