NPWittList(wassomethingPynchonrelatedatsomepointmaybe)

[Greg Montalbano]

Soujourner sayeth:

>Yes it does work in principle.  I ate tons and tons of liver for the very
>same reason, which proves my point (below):
>
>Neither I, nor your father, nor most of the people who rely on these
>"scientific" guidelines ever read any of the science!! We get this info
>from non-scientific sources, such as TV and newspapers.  Not to say
>that USA Today and the CBS Evening News makes up their stories
>on how "Science Finds New Ways to Give You Super Sweetness 
>Without Resorting to that Awful and Prodigious Substance Known
>as Sugar So That You Can Live Better (And Of Course, More 
>Cheaply) Through Chemistry".  
>
>Not at all.  
>
>What IS happening is that some science/health/medicine correspondent
>leafs through the well-circulated mainstream journals (Nature and Science
>the two biggest ones quoted in my opinion) on a study which has
>an "angle", people repeat it, you hear it, you consider it "scientific" fact,
>and then you lay off the eggs for 20 years.  Science is only involved
>at the very root, where over several years a few men and/or women
>of science conducted an experiment, otherwise known as the common
>rite of science.
>
>It isn't the science which fails, its the middle man.
>
>If your father, and myself, and others took the time to read these journals
>(available even in small-town libraries) they would be able to make their
>own decisions.  Was it a 20 year study on 2000 people or just 10 fat guys
>who were also being studied for their bone marrow?  See what I mean?
>
>Even NPR, whom I greatly admire and listen to avidly, tends to do this.
>"Researchers find that eating 20 Egg Whites a day reduces ocular 
>pressure" turns into "Egg Whites Linked to Glaucoma Cure".  Etc. Etc..
>
>Science is a wonderful religion but relying only on the priests to find the
>meaning of God is what Luther got so damn angry about in the first place.
>Read your Bible.  Study the meanings.  You don't have to be a theology
>major to get meaning out of scriptures and you don't have to be a biologist
>to read journals like Nature and Science.  For chrissakes, this attitude
>drives
>me INSANE.
>
>Ala independent vs. chain book stores etc.  Jesus... turn off the damn TV
>and read more than one newspaper and start finding out things for yourself.
>If you CARE about an issue, like eating eggs, find out what you can for
>YOURSELF.  I'm not angry at your dad, I mean I ate liver for years for
>the same reason, but no more.  The internet is only one more powerful
>tool to help you help yourself.  
>
>Let's fight this trend of dependence on others for values and morals.


--sorry to quote the whole thing, but you have to admit it DOES bring us
full circle and nicely wraps up the whole "Internet/Vonnegut hoax" thread.
I mean, what is being described above, if not the very state of
instantaneous, sound-bite oriented gullibility that worries so many folks
about the WEB.  It's not new to the net, folks;  it's just more noticable,
and it's OUT OF THE CONTROL of the folks with money (which is why the
"official media" view it with alarm).

Impossible dreamer that I am, I can see the current chaos eventually
resulting in a new social Darwinism, where the cranks and the irresponsible
sink to the bottom of the pool.
Or, if the majority of the web world REALLY wants cheap gossip, kiddie porn
and unsubstantiated sensationalism, we're doomed anyway -- so why worry?

~G~

"Headfirst into the flames!"
           --Kenneth Patchen