Hypersonic effect -- prize money offered
charlie_wilkes at easynews.com
Mon Jun 23 03:56:26 EST 2003
This was posted in rec.pets.dogs.behavior. The thread is called
"Where's the harm in Usenet Foolishness."
My biggest complaint with Usenet foolishness is that it obscures what
is important, and, in this case, what is important is whether this
"Doggy Do-Right" hypersonic device actually works.
I appeal to scientists to validate or debunk this device. If you are
a qualified neurological research scientist, I have a prestigious
prize to offer you. It is called "The Holy Grail of Neurological
It consists of a free Doggy Do-Right device, which I personally will
purchase assuming the guy will sell me one, and send to you for
testing. You must then design and conduct a controlled experiment to
see whether it really works.
Upon successfully completing the experiment and publishing the results
in rec.pets.dogs.behavior, I will award you the "Holy Grail" referred
to above along with a $20 honorium and a can of dogfood.
Email me if interested in more information.
charlie_wilkes at easynews.com
On 22 Jun 2003 20:59:38 -0700, javagsd at yahoo.com (Lynn K.) wrote:
>Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes at easynews.com> wrote in message news:
>> When it leaves the group and goes directly to employers etc., then
>> that is very much a problem, and the people who choose to take it
>> outside the forum are responsible,
>You're absolutely right and I don't know anyone
>who would condone anyone taking virtual acrimony
>into people's real lives. But libel and slander
>are a little more difficult issues, particularly
>in this information-rich environment. Like most
>people, I don't give significant donations to
>someone without doing due diligence and I
>wouldn't expect anyone else to. The time and
>effort of that due diligence expands greatly
>when there are false accusations to be answered.
>There was a case several years ago when someone
>took an online feud to an extreme and tied up a
>national breed club and the AKC by charging a
>breeder and judge with bestiality. It took months and the efforts of
>many people to clear
>that mess up. In cases like these, the innocent
>victims are not only the people falsely accused,
>they are the organizations and the animals &
>people they serve. It's naive to think that
>what is said here is somehow isolated from all
>of the rest of the world or that some person with
>evil intent is needed to carry it beyond a
>newsgroup and into that world. That's why the
>standards for slander and libel damages are
>based on the harm done, not on the intentions of
>the reader or listener.
I question whether much harm gets done as long as certain basic limits
are respected. Meanwhile, I want as many perspectives on everything
as possible. I mean, we all know what we think of Jerry, but what do
we think about the truth? Do we care about the truth? What about
that DDR box, eh? Is it quackery? Is it bad, cargo-cult science?
OR -- is it a device that, in fact, exerts a calming influence on
animals because of a neurological phenomenon that researchers call the
Would you like to know the answer to that question, Lynn? Would it
enrich your mind and improve your understanding of the world to know
the answer to that question??? I would certainly like to know.
>Somewhat related, it would be easy to say that
>anyone who acts on bad advice given in a Usenet
>forum deserves the consequences because he or
>she didn't do due diligence. But the victim is
>the animal, not the reader who made that bad
>decision. See my point?
More information about the Neur-sci