Verbatim transcript of Phil/Nancy debate is here (whew!) - Page 2

Jigsaw · #31 (**permalink**) 14-May-2003, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by informant

Is this the way it should be?

Quote:

Nancy: Well, when Zetatalk started, on January 19th of 1995, in Michael Lindeman's chat group on America Online (...) Not only did they predict the current weather, and, uh, quake increase, um, increasing illness, slowing rotation where, uh, seconds a day were having to be adjusted by the Navy clock, up until about two weeks ago when they suddenly realized they were showing people what they were doing and reversed that trend, but, um, I have never found them to be accurate, and they place in the sky where they said we would see--when we would see it, how we would see it, and the exact RA and DEC, er, right, right ascension and declination which is the X and Y point in the sky has been so accurate as to be breathtaking (...)

Yes, I had to listen to that particular part about 50 times, and yes, she did say, "I have never found them to be accurate". I figure either she was referring to the folks who run the Navy clock, or else she simply misspoke herself. Given the overall incoherent quality of her side of the "debate", I wouldn't be surprised.

And yes, she did say "trammeled", not "trampled", in case anybody wondered. I had to listen to that about 50 times, too.

Phil, even though in the transcript you show up with a lot of "ums" and "uhs", still, overall, your contribution came across as much more coherent and somehow "adult" than Nancy's. This was because (surprise, surprise!) what you were saying in between the "thinking words" (which is what "um" and "uh" are called, words you say while you're thinking) you were actually retailing some facts--some actual knowledge was coming out, demonstrating a logical thought process--whereas Nancy's stuff--man, that was just gibberish there every so often. She was ranting on how NASA "allows" amateur astronomers to take credit for discovering comets, and how (I guess) the evil Bushistas "commandeered" the White House and are covering up Planet X so as to remove the "underclass of undesireables", and I never did figure out what the Indonesian government had to do with anything. I mean, oy. [clutches head]

For me, the end result of the "debate" is that she stands revealed as nothing more than your standard garden-variety Internet conspiracy theorist. And I sat there thinking, "So, aliens are sending us a message, and the message is, Don't trust the government? Right. Heard that before, actually, but, hey, thanks for the headsup, guys."

Historical note: I distinctly remember reading about "frozen mammoths found with greenery still in their mouths" back in the 1960s as a child, in the Reader's Digest, along with a bit of speculation as to the possibility of some hitherto unsuspected atmospheric event, some kind of huge "frost bubble" landing on them and freezing them so quickly that they didn't even have time to swallow their last meal. Interesting that it has now grown up into a fully mature Urban Legend and that the Twinkie Brigades have glommed onto it to prove their various points.

Correcting typo in OP -- "sci.astro". Thanks, ToSeek.

Upon Preview: Nebularain, I would strongly recommend not attempting to run any of Nancy's side of the "debate" through Babelfish--your head will explode.

[you can take the red pill--or you can take the blue pill...]

informant · #32 (**permalink**) 14-May-2003, 07:32 PM

Another note: The comet with a Japanese name that came before Hale-Bopp was Hyakutake, not Yakataki.

Jigsaw · #33 (**permalink**) 14-May-2003, 07:35 PM

Okay, got it, thanks.
Hyakutake

carolyn · #34 (**permalink**) 14-May-2003, 08:00 PM

Jigsaw YOU ARE A HERO WHAT A LOVELY PERSON

am just in from work, will sit with some coffee and read, and read, and read, (get some more coffee) and read.

jscotti · #35 (**permalink**) 14-May-2003, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jigsaw

Phil: And what happened was, and this was a thing of beauty, um, is that astronomers roundly said that this was completely wrong, that the best thing to always do is to get information out. This is what the astronomers actually said, not, not some guy in a think tank. He was, uh, not every--and of course some people did agree with him, but all the people I talked to, and a lot of people who do asteroid impact research, said "no way". As a matter of fact, um, and this, this is another thing that kills me, because of people who think that astronomers are so secretive, um, ever try to shut an astronomer up? Ever try to shut me up? You know, I love talking about this stuff, and, um, if, if, you know, if somebody discovers an asteroid, and I, and I know several people who do, like Jim Scott, he, and, and, and, you know, Eleanor Hilleen, and some other people like that, they go out and they, they look for asteroids. When they find 'em, and they get a potential one, they look it up against known asteroids, and if it's a new one, hey, they send in a, an e-mail to a, uh, thing called the Minor Planet Center, which records the characteristics of the orbit, and then other people go and discover it. This is--er, excuse me, they observe it--this is what happened in, uh, with 1997 XF11, which was this asteroid which was thought might hit the Earth, it turns out, we were never really in any danger from it.

That should be Jim Scotti and Eleanor Helin.

Nice job on the transcript!

Jim.

Jigsaw · #36 (**permalink**) 14-May-2003, 08:44 PM

Thank you.

Jim Scotti and Eleanor Helin. Got it.

tazmandevil3 · #37 (**permalink**) 14-May-2003, 11:38 PM

I love you Jigsaw!

Well, maybe not. INCREDIBLE job, though. Thanks a ton.

witmol1 · #38 (**permalink**) 14-May-2003, 11:52 PM

Thanks for the transcript

DogB · #39 (**permalink**) 15-May-2003, 12:13 AM

Jigsaw

My thanks also. We Aussies don't often get to hear Phil, this was wonderful.

Dog.

gethen · #40 (**permalink**) 15-May-2003, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer

Holy Hahleekalama! Thanks, Jigsaw! Now I have something to read over lunch today. :-)

Did I really "um" and "er" that much? Yikes. Better work on that. It reads much worse than it sounds.

Phil, Jigsaw's excellent transcript did show all the little hesitations, and ums, etc. that we all use in normal conversation, but when I listened to the actual program on another thread, I did not notice those things. They get magnified by print. You sounded cool, calm, and coherent. The ums and the ers were not even registering.

SarahMc · #41 (**permalink**) 15-May-2003, 12:52 AM

I agree Gethen. When the BA used them, you could tell he was thinking and trying to be precise; when Nancy used them, you could tell she was grasping. :lol:

And thanks Jigsaw, that was a great service for you to provide us all.

WolfKC · #42 (**permalink**) 15-May-2003, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gethen

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer

Holy Hahleekalama! Thanks, Jigsaw! Now I have something to read over lunch today. :-)
Did I really "um" and "er" that much? Yikes. Better work on that. It reads much worse than it sounds.

Phil, Jigsaw's excellent transcript did show all the little hesitations, and ums, etc. that we all use in normal conversation, but when I listened to the actual program on another thread, I did not notice those things. They get magnified by print. You sounded cool, calm, and coherent. The ums and the ers were not even registering.

I agree, I've only listened to less than an hour so far, but you sounded good.

Quote:

GN: Philip Plait, this is a great opportunity for you to talk to an alien. Go ahead and ask a question.
Phil: Um, I'm not really gonna, gonna do that, I think, um, I, I honestly don't think that there are aliens that she's channeling and I'm not terribly interested in, in indulging in this.

Excellent call on not indulging that. I can make fun of her till my eyes buldge out

, but you have to keep professional. That's the cost of being a public figure and representative of science.

Jigsaw, let me add one more thank you to the list

Greenhalgh · #43 (**permalink**) 15-May-2003, 12:53 AM

Aye, couldn't have been easy to translate most of Nancy's ramblings as you have done.

Pinemarten · #44 (**permalink**) 15-May-2003, 01:02 AM

A big thanx from me has well. Our local CHED edited the debate and only aired the last 2hr, so I missed it.
I seem to remember a program called 'Advanced Text To Speech'.
Would it be able to crunch it into an MP3?
If we call it art, it avoids the copyright thing.

WolfKC · #45 (**permalink**) 15-May-2003, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinemarten

MP3?

Try this (save target) if you want mp3

Pinemarten · #46 (**permalink**) 15-May-2003, 01:30 AM

Thanx. You stopped me before I invoked my wrath on my local radio station.

freddo · #47 (**permalink**) 15-May-2003, 06:57 AM

Gawd - Has Anyone else hear the clip where she talks about offing her dog?

Monstrous - but I did enjoy the quote at the end:

Quote:

It's always fun to talk to Crazy People until they turn on you,...

Jigsaw · #48 (**permalink**) 15-May-2003, 01:14 PM

In case anybody's worried about copyright violations, I thought about it for a while, and I believe it would fall under the "fair use exemption for educational purposes".

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

Quote:

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

It's definitely (a) not-for-profit, (b) educational, and (c) only a portion of the relevant work. So I think the BABB is covered.

dgruss23 · #49 (**permalink**) 15-May-2003, 01:30 PM

Great Job Jigsaw!

On some other threads I've suggested that we should avoid labeling people "crackpots" ect. After reading that I'm thinking there is room for some exceptions!

Pinemarten · #50 (**permalink**) 15-May-2003, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jigsaw

In case anybody's worried about copyright violations, I thought about it for a while, and I believe it would fall under the "fair use exemption for educational purposes".

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

Quote:

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

It's definitely (a) not-for-profit, (b) educational, and (c) only a portion of the relevant work. So I think the BABB is covered.

I feel you may be wrong.
That statute refers to the use of legal copies of a work, without paying a royalty. It does not refer to the use of an illegal copy (read pirate) of a protected work.