Why do these sci.space.* groups attract the kooks?

I've been reading usenet for years now, and these groups definitely
have a much higher kook ratio. Any theories on why this is so?


Byeeeee.
--
Gadzooks - here comes the Harbourmaster!
http://www.geocities.com/brettocallaghan - Newsgroup Stats for Agent

Joann Evans wrote in message ...
Brett O'Callaghan wrote:

I've been reading usenet for years now, and these groups definitely
have a much higher kook ratio. Any theories on why this is so?

Byeeeee.

Because most of the 'kookier' assertions are space (and/or physics)
related....

Indeed. Try to read sci.astro some time. It's almost as unusable as
a *.politics.* newsgroup.

--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Biology
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore MD 21218
USA
Earth

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:57:55 +1000, Brett O'Callaghan
wrote:

I've been reading usenet for years now, and these groups definitely
have a much higher kook ratio. Any theories on why this is so?

....It's not so much that the kook ratio is higher, but that the kooks
employ either hoze accounts, sock puppets, or in the case of the major
source of troll infection, their own inbred offspring. Eliminating
just three Maxsons would remove ~80% of the troll trash from the
entire sci.space hierarchy.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

Brett O'Callaghan writes:

I've been reading usenet for years now, and these groups definitely
have a much higher kook ratio. Any theories on why this is so?

Well, the groups have a 'sci' in the name, and they also have
a 'space' in the name. All you need to add is 'politics' and maybe a
'relativity' or 'talk' to the title and you'll draw every kook in the
world to it.

This is why talk.sci.space.relativity.politics is so hard to
read.

Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"John Ladasky" wrote:
Joann Evans wrote in message
...
Because most of the 'kookier' assertions are space (and/or physics)
related....

Indeed. Try to read sci.astro some time. It's almost as unusable as
a *.politics.* newsgroup.

I used to read sci.astro on a regular basis. I stopped
doing so many years ago, and even then I thought I
probably should have done so sooner. It had some
decent stuff from time to time but the S/N made it feel
like dumpster diving more often than not.

If I ever doubt my wisdom I just have to think of the
Photon Belt and SLO circuses, among so many others.

"Brett O'Callaghan" wrote in message
...
I've been reading usenet for years now, and these groups definitely
have a much higher kook ratio. Any theories on why this is so?


Just because you're not a space afficionado and are unable to understand
some of the discussions here doesn't mean we're 'kooks'.

"Ultimate Buu" wrote in message
...

"Brett O'Callaghan" wrote in message
...
I've been reading usenet for years now, and these groups definitely
have a much higher kook ratio. Any theories on why this is so?


Just because you're not a space afficionado and are unable to understand
some of the discussions here doesn't mean we're 'kooks'.



Ummmm, noooo.. Brett was referring to people like the Maxson clan and
those cowards who use anonymous remailers, not the rest of 'us' (normal?)
people. That's how I interpreted what Brett stated and didn't think it was
related to the majority of the group.

--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
"This is a time to try men of force
and vision, and not be confined
exclusively to those who are judged
thoroughly safe by conventional standards."
Winston Churchill, October 19, 1940

(John Ladasky) :

Joann Evans wrote in message
...
Brett O'Callaghan wrote:

I've been reading usenet for years now, and these groups definitely
have a much higher kook ratio. Any theories on why this is so?

Byeeeee.

Because most of the 'kookier' assertions are space (and/or physics)
related....

Indeed. Try to read sci.astro some time. It's almost as unusable as
a *.politics.* newsgroup.

--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Biology
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore MD 21218
USA
Earth

Infact it has gotten a lot better lately since Nancy's claims have ran smack
into reality. While the other kooks remain they don't have any followers to
act as extra noise generators. So they can be filtered out.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
. ..
"Ultimate Buu" wrote in message
...

"Brett O'Callaghan" wrote in message
...
I've been reading usenet for years now, and these groups definitely
have a much higher kook ratio. Any theories on why this is so?


Just because you're not a space afficionado and are unable to understand
some of the discussions here doesn't mean we're 'kooks'.



Ummmm, noooo.. Brett was referring to people like the Maxson clan and
those cowards who use anonymous remailers, not the rest of 'us' (normal?)
people. That's how I interpreted what Brett stated and didn't think it
was
related to the majority of the group.


I just ignore them.