Subject: RE: [lojban] Whorf Hypothesis in Scientific American

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 15:54:16 +0100

charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 28 March 2002 02:24
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lojban] Whorf Hypothesis in Scientific American

In a message dated 3/27/2002 3:23:55 PM Central Standard Time,
[email-masked] writes:

By 'loony' you mean 'clinically insane'?

At a (reasonable) guess, something more like "harboring a belief web
featuring a number of claims very different from the ones I accept and that
I think are not amenable to scientific verification, but that strongly
affect his behavior and methodolgy and subsequent beliefs" E.g. most
crack-pots.

Just so. Note too that a loony is relatively harmless. The worst a
religious loony would do
would be to ring your doorbell & like double glazing salespersons badger
you to have your soul
saved, whereas a religious maniac or a religious nutter might try to kill
you or suchlike.

--And.