link to Home Page

Re: N**** then and Now


Article: <5fsp1a$b9e@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: N**** then and Now
Date: 8 Mar 1997 22:25:46 GMT

In article <01bc2713$d20a8d20$0100007f@enigma> Bazzer writes
> David W. Knisely <dk84538@navix.net> wrote in article
> <33198082.7A76@navix.net>...
>> She merely seeks ATTENTION,
>
> The best way to dispel attention seeking is to ignore it (which
> would include avoiding postings like the above). If what
> Nancy is saying is complete trash, then why respond to it?
> Or maybe it's not complete trash. Is that what the problem is?
> Is this why the defenders/supporters of the established
> position appear to get jittery (from a laypersons point of view,
> with no axe to grind either way, this is what it seems to come
> across as)? BTW, for what it's worth (and it may be worth
> nothing) after a few weeks observing 'back seat' the Hale-Bopp
> /12th Planet discussions, the case for either side still remains
> largely open. Indeed, initial conclusions (so far) suggest that
> there's something going on which doesn't add up. What is that
> saying about there being "no smoke without fire"?
> "Bazzer" <bazzer@pavilion.co.uk>

THIS one is no Sheep of sci.astro :-) The Shepherds will be leaping to their posts. Bazzer will be flooded with personal e-mail to straighten him out. 300 sci.astro posting stating the opinion that Nancy is just

1. crazy,
2. out to sell a book,
3. seeking attention,
4. a poor befuddled woman who can't comprehend the issues,
5. insulting the holy as is anyone reading her posts,
6. should be ignored and whatever the reader does, they should not read the posts, repeat not read her posts but just kill them.

CODE RED, CODE RED, BACK-TALKING TO THE SHEPHERDS IN PROGRESS ON SCI.ASTRO.