HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nkjrm@taxus.uib.no (Rolf Manne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Matthew Manning's psychokinetic achievements
Date: 28 Jan 93 09:36:25 GMT
Organization: University of Bergen

In article <1k68p9INN2ei@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

>In article <nkjrm.109@taxus.uib.no>, nkjrm@taxus.uib.no (Rolf Manne) writes:
>>What I want to know, however, is if there exist investigations of scientific 
>>merit of the claimed achievements of Matthew Manning.
>>

>You'd do better to ask whether Manning's achievements have been investigated by
>a stage magician.  Since many of his "achievements" sound quite reminiscent of
>well-known conjuring effects, any team attempting to test Manning's claims
>would do well to have an expert in that field as a member.

To my knowledge spoon-bending and poltergeist production are only possible 
through conjuring. If an investigation of such phenomena has to have 
scientific merit it has to consider the conjuring issue properly. For this
reason non-scientist James Randi's investigations of spoon-bending have
scientific merit while physicist John Hasted's lack it completely. 

I am thus still interested in the following questions:

1. Are there any proper investigations of Manning's claimed achievements.

2. Have the people I mentioned in my previous made any investigations at
all, and if they did any did they do them right?

3. Are Manning's claims unknown to British skepticists?

Rolf Manne
Department of Chemistry, University of Bergen
e-mail Rolf.Manne@uib.no
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic: The Frequently Questioned Answers
Date: 24 Jan 93 18:04:45 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)

In article <2430@snap>, paj@uk (Paul Johnson) writes:
>>Good grief.  I posted a range of detailed corrections and clarifications
>>and references--I received confirmation that they had been received, and
>>now where are they?  My memory may be off, but have we changed FAQmeisters?

>No, I still maintain the FAQ.

I figured it out.  The confirmations were a thank you from someone else,
whom I ignorantly assumed was the FAQmeister.  I'll be e-mailing to you
directly later this week, and my apologies for whatever insinuations were
behind my posting.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Krishnas, Vedas, and all that (was: TM debunking needed)
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:22:38 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <TBiqXB3w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us> system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:

>In truth, the Vedas contain numerous accounts of "space flight" (i.e.
>interplanetary travel by means of mechanical vehicles). Satsvarupa was
>well aware of this fact when he wrote the article, and he never said
>otherwise.

	Like what accounts of spaceflights?

	And do the Vedas also describe the Moon's craters?
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
From: clw@merit.edu (Chris Weider)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Jeremy Rifkin's affiliations
Date: 26 Jan 1993 17:06:13 GMT
Organization: Merit Network, Inc.  Ann Arbor, MI
NNTP-Posting-Host: merit.edu


Does anyone here know if Jeremy Rifkin, of anti-genetic-engineering fame,
has a religious motivation for his opposition? Thanks!
Chris Weider
Merit Network
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: "dan mckinnon" <dan.mckinnon@canrem.com>
Subject: tv & science education
Reply-To: "dan mckinnon" <dan.mckinnon@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: sci
Date: 23 Jan 93 23:13:04 EST

JWN>Only with a very liberal definition of "average" and "about 50%", or
JWN>in case the quantity that's being averaged is symmetrically distributed
JWN>around some value.  It certainly is not *by definition* that 50% is
JWN>less than average.  By definition 50% is less than the median. This is
JWN>not some theoretical point.  The distribution of many important things
JWN>is very skewed.

JWN>Maybe newspapers should have a section in which concepts like "average",
JWN>"mean", "modus",  "standard deviation" and so on are explained every
JWN>day.  Just for the benefit of Mensa members that don't know their statistics

        I keep forgetting I am talking to very pedantic individuals who
don't understand, or have the flexibility of mind, to use
colloquialisms. Excuse me all to hell. ANd thank YOU for also proving my
main point - mention something  exceptionally in your favour that also
causes problems, and people will attack you as if you have no right to
complain. I hesitated about using "average" in that way, but thought
people would understand the point I was trying to make without getting
picky. I forgot that being picky is the whole raison d'etre of some
people here.

        Everyone has their area of expertise , people, you should
realize that, and be accommodating. I admit I don't know everything,
that seems to put me in a minority here. Dry mathematics doesn't
interest me, fractals do. Wasn't a hanging offence last time I checked.

       I thought we were concerned with the gist of arguments first.
Ah, well, silly me.
---
  OLX 2.1 TD  I'm not a complete idiot - several parts are missing.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: "dan mckinnon" <dan.mckinnon@canrem.com>
Subject: tv & science education
Reply-To: "dan mckinnon" <dan.mckinnon@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: sci
Date: 23 Jan 93 23:13:04 EST

JWN>>How can you possibly complain about "unprovoked attacks" when you tell some
JWN>>that you are a member of Mensa? Would you still find it odd if you replaced
JWN>>that declaration with the equivalent statement "I'm smarter than you, and I
JWN>>can prove it!"? That, sir, is arrogance, and I am proud not to be associate
JWN>>with it.

JWN>Seth has a point there.  But on the other hand, why is it that such a
JWN>statement is felt to be more arrogant than:
JWN>I'm taller [heavier, stronger, paler, blacker, fatter, thinner, mory hairy,
JWN>richer, a better painter, quicker, from an older family etc. ] than you and
JWN>I can prove it?

     Thank you, I didn't think I was so inarticulate. My point
precisely. Like a lot of things in life, it simply isn't fair, that's
all.
---
  OLX 2.1 TD  "Chance favors the trained mind."  Louis Pasteur
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Krishnas, Vedas, and Flames.
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:22:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: IASTATE.1993Jan24.092253
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <qViqXB4w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us>,
system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 
>> 	Well, I guess it's safe to say that the Hare Krishnas are
>> essentially Veda-thumping Hindu fundamentalists. It is not for nothing
>> that _Back to Godhead_ is sometimes nicknamed _Back to Blockhead_.
> 
> You heap derision on the Hare Krishnas, but you have not addressed any
> issue. Is this not the trademark of a real blockhead?

   Nope, it is the trademark of an exaperated skeptic.  Besides Loren is simply
reporting accurately the observations of Hare Krishnas derived from your
behavior.  Sure, the sample size is a bit small but _boy golly_ did we get
data of our sample.
 
> Sincerely,

   Bullshit.  You are as "Sincere" as a plugged wooden nickel with dry rot.
Documentation of this assertion follows.

> Kalki Dasa

#1   Okay, jerkface, I'll "address an issue".  Where in hell is the retraction
of that article you uploaded from Back to Blockhead that completely
misrepresented the Third Conference on Artificial Life?

#2   Here's another issue.  Why have the articles I've seen (you're my sole
source) from Back to Blockhead always been of the form:

   Inaccurate Report

      followed by 

   Vedic or other Hindu 
   gibberish trying to
   cash in on the reputation
   of the event misreported
   to support itself.

   Here's another issue:

#3   Where in the !@#$!@#$ ^#$%^!#$  is your proof that evolution is impossible
on probabalistic grounds?  So far all we've seen on talk.origins is 5-6
MEGA-FUCKING-BYTES of bandwith wasting claims followed by "the guy who did the 
proof won't let me type in his book".


>        ---------------------------------------------------------
>       |                Don't forget to chant:                   |
>       |                                                         |
>       |  Ignore Inconvienient Facts Ignore Inconvienient Facts  |
>       |       Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie       |
>       |                                                         |
>       |         Obiously it's what God(s) want us to do         |
>       |           (kalki@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)           |
>        ---------------------------------------------------------

   Disclaimer:  the above signature was vandalized in a fit of pique and the
level of honesty should _not_ be taken as representative of Kalki's own 
honesty.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: kent_f1@verifone.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Daniken Summary
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:49:23 -1000
Distribution: sci
Organization: VeriFone Inc., Honolulu HI

Another book to demolish Erich von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods?" theories
is:
    "Frauds, Myths and Mysteries" 
            by Feder

Good book.  Often used as a school text.  Debunks may pseudo-scientific
claims such as Atlantis, UFOs, Moundbuilders in the US, and of course
the Ancient Astronaut claim which is a particularly easy one to destroy.
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: tv & science education
Date: 26 Jan 1993 22:00:53 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <7112@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:

[in response to somebody who said that 50% of the population are 
 "below average, by definition]

>Only with a very liberal definition of "average" and "about 50%", or
>in case the quantity that's being averaged is symmetrically distributed
>around some value.  It certainly is not *by definition* that 50% is
>less than average.  By definition 50% is less than the median. This is
>not some theoretical point.  The distribution of many important things
>is very skewed.

absolutely correct, though i wouldn't bet that the "average" person 
would understand your argument.  however, general intelligence is one
of those things that is supposed to be symmetrically distributed, and
so the other guy was probably right even though he didn't understand
what he was talking about as well as you did... ;)

- d boucher, mensa dropout
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic: The Frequently Questioned Answers
Date: 22 Jan 93 13:08:44 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <105676@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <skeptic-faq_727362589@gec-mrc.co.uk>, paj@uk (Paul Johnson) writes:
>>AIDS
>>====
>
>Good grief.  I posted a range of detailed corrections and clarifications
>and references--I received confirmation that they had been received, and
>now where are they?  My memory may be off, but have we changed FAQmeisters?
>-- 
>-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)


No, I still maintain the FAQ.

I haven't had a lot of time recently, so please excuse the fact that
the FAQ has not changed since the last posting (and shut off the
flamethrower as well).

Also, I cannot find occurance of the string "weemba" in my mail or
news files.  Maybe it got deleted by mistake.  Could you email it
again please?

Thanks.

Paul.

-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN)
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:40:12 GMT

In article <C1J9wq.CGC@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
>In article <93026.32477.L629159@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> L629159@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>>  Their doing so is evidently evil.  So why won't god stop them?
>>Is he not all powerful and all knowing?  Maybe he doesn't care? In
>>which case, what makes you think that sacrifice is, in fact, evil?
>
>*sigh*  I mistakenly assumed you were a believer, and responded to you
>as a believer.  You plainly don't understand even the kindergarten-level
>basics.  You must have gone to a public school, or perhaps you went to a
>Christian school but played hooky on the day they taught the other
>children about free will.
>
>I'm surprised that only scoffers, unbelievers, and vermin like that have
>responded to me.  (One person went so far as to *defend* Satanists.  And
>he had the gall to call himself a "reverend"!)  Perhaps sci.skeptic was
>the wrong place for my message, even though I would still expect true
>believers to be reading it to keep an eye on the enemy.  Guess I should
>move on...
>-- 
>David Canzi

  Boy...  Am I the only one who feels really bad now?  I hardly even
realized what "vermin" I am.  You people are so mean -- disagreeing with
David rather than giving him the support and confirmation he sought.
I hope you feel sorry now.


-- 
					-- Matt

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:24:11 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1993Jan27.191925.13007@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.071539.12522@timesink.chi.il.us>, mikebo@timesink.chi.il.us (Michael Borowiec) writes:
>|> In article <1993Jan20.231528.25880@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@sahara.lanl.gov (J. Giles) writes:

>|> PS> By the way... you really backpedaled on the issue "people who view
>|> Star Trek regularly are intellectually inferior to my well-read self".
>
>Because I didn't take such a position, I didn't backpedal.  You should
>learn to read the attribution line on news articles and not lump all
>people on roughly the same side of an issue into *one* person.


   I'm probably the one mikebo@timesink.chi.il.us is thinking 
   about.  But my position is probably more accurately characterized
   as "people who think Star Trek has anything profound to say 
   are wrong and may also be intellectually inferior to me".   

   I admit I'm a culture snob.


---peter
From: dayton@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Michael A Dayton)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Krishnas, Vedas, and all that (was: TM debunking needed)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 21:14:29 -0500
Organization: Homewood Academic Computing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
Keywords: sun, moon, Krishna



In article <1993Jan22.014554.7281@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	As to Vedic astronomy, I wouldn't be very surprised if it
>wasn't very sophisticated; apparently the Vedas teach explicitly that
>the Earth is flat, which may give pause to Hindu fundamentalists like
>the Hare Krishnas.
>

I had a (rather weird) friend who was a Krishna for a short time, and
he mentioned this to me as well.  While I don't remember the entire
argument, a major part was the relative temperatures of the bodies
involved.   Basically, the sun and the moon are both made of some 
kind of celestial fire, the sun feels hotter therefore must be closer.

He claimed the moon landings were fake because
1) the moon is too far away
2) it is made of fire anyway and would incinerate any moon walkers

Don't remember how he accounted for craters, ...and, of course, the 
eclipse question is compelling.

see ya 
mike

************************************************************************
**                              **  "I know that I am solid           **
**  Michael Dayton              **  and I am my own bad luck."        **
**  dayton@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu   **            Peter Gabriel           **
**                              ** __The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway__ **
************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Krishnas, Vedas, and all that (was: TM debunking needed)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:39:45 GMT

In article <H6gVXB4w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us> system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>
: In article <TBiqXB3w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us> system@kalki33.lakes.tr
: >What he said was that the astronauts never went to the moon, and his
: >reason was that the moon is impossible to reach by mankind's present
: >technology,
: 
: Well, was he right?
>
>The astronauts certainly never went to the planet Chandraloka as it is
>described in the Vedas. This planet, whose name is commonly translated
>as "the Moon," is populated by intelligent living beings in an advanced
>state of civilization, and is not reachable by ordinary mechanical
>means.

	If there is this planet Chandraloka, then it sure isn't the
Moon that one can see in the sky, for _that_ object has a barren,
mountainous surface with no bodies of water or clouds or changing
vegetation, let along the night lights of this civilization.

	And why Chandraloka == Moon, anyway?
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Krishnas, Vedas, and all that (was: TM debunking needed)
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 06:12:06 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <TBiqXB3w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us> system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:


>What [the Vedic commentator] said was that the astronauts never went 
>to the moon, and his
>reason was that the moon is impossible to reach by mankind's present
>technology [because the Moon is 800,000 miles more distant than the Sun],
>not that it is impossible to reach by space flight.


Now you've done it. Now you've said something so obviously and 
imponderably foolish that all but the
most desperately deluded readers of this group will reject you and
anything else you might say. I won't even bother to ask how the
Vedas explain eclipses. They're all crap. I might as well ask my
dog to explain relativity. Good bye, Kalki.
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Krishnas, Vedas, and all that (was: TM debunking needed)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 11:15:58 EST
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

wright@duca.hi.com (David Wright) writes:

> >   The Vedic account of our planetary system is already researched,
> >   concluded, and perfect. The _Vedas_ state that the moon is 800,000
> >   miles _farther_ from earth than the sun. 

Actually, the Vedas state that the Moon is 800,000 miles HIGHER than the
Sun, in the plane of the Bhu-mandala system, not that it is farther away
in terms of linear distance.

> This is just too beautiful.  One wonders just how the Vedas account
> for solar eclipses.

Eclipses are explained as the result of the planet Rahu passing
between the sun and the earth, or the moon and the earth. In modern
astronomy, the planet Rahu is identified as the moon's ascending node,
which is indeed in line with the sun-moon-earth system during an
eclipse.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       ---------------------------------------------------------
      |                Don't forget to chant:                   |
      |                                                         |
      |  Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |       Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare          |
      |                                                         |
      |    Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA      |
      |           (kalki@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)           |
       ---------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ashall@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew S Hall)
Subject: Re: THE DIVINE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE
Summary: THE whole truth AND nothing BUT the truth
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:30:26 GMT

It IS a well known FACT that any statement THAT is made with randomly
CAPITALIZED words must CONTAIN more truth than ONE that is made with
NO capitalized words.


Andrew HALL
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Krishnas, Vedas, and all that (was: TM debunking needed)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 03:30:31 EST
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

> 	Yes, I know it was snide. And you may believe that I am a
> blockhead if you wish. But if _Back to Godhead_ contains lots of
> things that seem silly, then one might be tempted to come up with some
> unflattering nicknames for the publication.

True, but "seeming silly" is not really a very reliable criterion for
making a final conclusion. One has to realize that the ancient world
culture was full of people no stupider than those of today. Their
science was expressed differently, but they were not fools. To
understand what they wrote, one must accept that it does make sense.

> 	But try looking at the Moon through a small telescope sometime
> and see if it looks like "cosmic fire".

In truth, I must say yes, the Moon does look like cosmic fire to me. So
does the earth, for that matter.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       ---------------------------------------------------------
      |                Don't forget to chant:                   |
      |                                                         |
      |  Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |       Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare          |
      |                                                         |
      |    Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA      |
      |           (kalki@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)           |
       ---------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Global warming, ozone depletion NOT!
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:16:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.151649.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu>, chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
|> I really believe that the chemistry and physics behind the theories of global
|> warming and ozone layer depletion are spurious, and are used by political
|> pressure groups to further their own ends. What do you say.
|> 
|> DNC

Would you mind being a bit more specific?  Which chemistry and physics 
do you think are spurious?

As to the politcs of these issues, the broad claim that it is all a
bunch of politically motivated nonsense is very definitely the party 
line of right-wing political pressure groups to further their own
ends.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu