HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.war,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Rape and War
Date: 23 Jan 93 18:23:54 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.

In article <1993Jan23.031117.7505@cs.ucla.edu> pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>---------------  FORWARDED POSTING  ----------------------------------
>Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
>From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
>Subject: Rape in war: enforcing power
>Message-ID: <1993Jan22.091510.2377@mont.cs.missouri.edu>
>Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:15:10 GMT
>
>The ACTivist Volume 9 #1, January 1993.
>
   Since talk.rape is not supposed to be crossposted, I'll post my
responce to this article there. People can look in that group if they
want to discuss this topic.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.rape,alt.war,alt.activism.d
From: nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller)
Subject: Re: Secret Societies
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:58:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.150258.2555@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu wr
ites:
>
>I find it unreasonable that anyone would discredit the basic idea of
>"conspiracy theory" although there are obviously those who do it.
>I certainly don't find it unreasonable that one might discredit any
>given conspiracy theory as we all read the data differently.  I ask
>myself:  Why would anyone discredit the basic concept of conspiracy
>theory?

Why would anyone discredit the basic concept of elves and leprechauns?

>Could someone's attack on conspiracy theory
>in general [or against particular important conspiracy theories] be part
>of a conspiracy?  Could they be on the payroll for this?  Could such
>a conspirator be unwitting and not think of themselves as being part
>of a conspiracy but instead accept the myth that they are doing
>mankind a great service by helping to mid-wife a great new age.  Is
>the "New World Order" far enough along where its proponents can
>finance propagandists to tailor articles and rebuttals for specific
>needs or does it have enough volunteers who've bought its line and
>spew forth its dogma.

Shall I be the first to confess?  Very well, I confess.  I've been on
college payrolls for 40 years and I've been teaching students the sub-
versive doctrine that the burden of proof rests with the person who
proposes a theory or proposition.

>
>If there were such a conspiracy by anti-conspiratorialists, how would
>we ever know?  We could only suspect.

No need to suspect.  It's a dead certainty.

>-Joe Gaut

Norman Miller
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,soc.culture.jewish,alt.news-media
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Re: Jewish Bankers
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 18:43:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.134823.790@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Perhaps you should ask yourself why Jews get the publicity.  I guess
>the "Zionist-controlled" media prefers singling out the Jewish bankers.

According to Paul Craig Roberts, "The Crimes of Wall Street", _Reason_,
December 1992, pages 43-45:

   "But the myth of Milken's criminality continues to be perpetuated by
    a media too irresponsible to be informed. Recently, _People_
    magazine listed Milken as a celebrity who was imprisoned for
    insider trading.  His attorney Alan Dershowitz wrote to _People_ to
    correct the mistake.  He reports that he received a reply from the
    magazine's lawyer that he saw no reason to correct the mistake,
    because the magazine was not a publication of record and its
    readers did not expect precision or accuracy. Moreover, since
    Milken had originally been charged with insider trading, it was all
    right for _People_ to list that as his offense."

and

   "[Michael] Thomas, a writer for the _New York Observer_, wanted
    Milken sentenced to Leavenworth, where 'the prospect of having
    one's sphincter enlarged to the circumference of the Holland Tunnel
    by the rigors of the prison social calendar often works wonders
    when it comes to refreshing memories clouded by the Fifth
    Amendment.' Of course, Milken never invoked the Fifth Amendment."

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA (Lucio de Re)
Subject: Re: Freeze Dry
Reply-To: lucio@proxima.Alt.ZA
Organization: MegaByte Digital Communications
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:00:10 GMT

naran@fraser.sfu.ca (Travers Naran) writes:

>dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein) writes:

>>more to the point, how about freeze-dried water!  would certainly make
>>storage and shipping simpler...

>But what would you add to it?

Freshly boiled water, of course.
-- 
Lucio de Re (lucio@phyrql.Alt.ZA)
The supernatural does not exist, but it gives me the creeps...
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Celsius and Farenheit Scale Determination
Date: 22 Jan 1993 09:45:42 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1993Jan21.163140.25647@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:
=In article <1jjnrvINN1tq@nanette.sto.pdb.sni.de>, sav@nanette.sto.pdb.sni.de (Dr.Savory) writes:
=|> In <0iTgXB2w165w@cerianthus.pinetree.org> cowan@cerianthus.pinetree.org (Darin Cowan) writes:
=|> 
=|> >Most thermometers that you would use to measure body temperature are
=|> >accurate to 3 digits anyway.
=|> 
=|> BULLSHIT: 3 digit accuracy implies 1 part per thousand.
=|> 	  You might manage 1 part per 50 (ie 2%).
=|> 	  This implies tenth of a degree over a 5 degree range (37 to 42C).
=
=Err.  Isn't this 3-figure accuracy, in the scale we're using?

If you're scientifically innumerate, yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: jc@optimla.aimla.com (John VanHoozer)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Why is the sky blue?
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:01:42 GMT
Organization: OptImage Interactive Services Co., L.P.

In article <616@highett.mel.dbce.csiro.au>, steveo@mel.dbce.csiro.au (Stephen Oakes) writes:
|> Why does the sky appear blue?  I have heard that it is because water
|> particles (or perhaps "air particles") have a slightly bluish tinge.
|> More importantly, if it were not so, what would we see when we look
|> skywards?
|> 
|> --
|> | Stephen Oakes      CSIRO Division of Building, Construction and Engineering |
|> |                    Post Office Box 56, Highett, Victoria, Australia   3190  |
|> | Internet: steveo@mel.dbce.csiro.au  Tel: +61 3 252 6000 Fax: +61 3 252 6249 |
|> |_____________________________________________________________________________|


Sorry - I can't  help myself.

My favorite explanation came from Judge Harry on NightCourt:

"if the sky was green then you wouldn't be able to tell where the
horizon ended and the sky begins"

		jc

-- 
___________________________________________________________________________
John C. VanHoozer			     |
OptImage Interactive Services Company, L.P.  |  uunet!{optimage,aimla}!jc
11040 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite #300	     |  Fax:  (310)445-5720
Los Angeles, Ca. 90025			     |  Phone:(310) 445-5721
___________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer:
   Opinions expressed are mine alone.

Sign in window:  Counter-help wanted 
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,alt.music.alternative,rec.music.misc,alt.taseless
From: jpoutre@shearson.com (Joe Poutre)
Subject: Re: Creationist Evidence
Followup-To: talk.origins
Reply-To: jpoutre@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:52:01 GMT

First, I must ask that after this reply that we take the discussion
over to talk.origins.

In article 24131@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU, jfe7w@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (John Fletcher Elder) writes:
>I highly recommend the following book for those truly
>interested in the fascinating question of our origins:
>
> "Evolution: a Theory in Crisis"
>  by Michael Denton
>  published in 1986 by Adler & Adler, Maryland.
>
>Professor Denton lucidly and systematically devastates 
>the validity of macro-evolution as a _scientific_ theory, 
>showing how it is essentially an unsubstantiated "leap of faith"
>from the observable process of minor adaptation (micro-evolution).
I have not read the book, so I cannot comment directly. However, the
tactic Denton takes, according to the reviewer, is a common attack
in creationist circles. Actually, there are two common elements.
First, the author uses the "Yes, but what about..." tactic. Here
the author says, "OK, I'll grant you evolution over the short term,
like a new species. BUT we haven't seen big evolution, like the
formation of a new order, in the wild, so it can't be true." With
little effort, this process can be repeated almost indefinately.
The second is to attack the theory without giving a better
alternative theory. In the case of creationists, the argument
goes "Evolution is wrong, therefore God created the universe 
as written in Genesis in the King James Bible."

>This is particularly interesting as he is both an expert
>in the field of cell biology, and does not apparently,
>believe in a Creator.  
I would tend to doubt that. I suggest you ask over in talk.origins.
Someone there should know more about him, including his
qualifications and his beliefs.

>He suggests that the conquest of
>evolution as THE modern explanation for our origins,
>despite its obvious and glaring scientific weaknesses,
>is due to there being no alternative rationalistic
>competing theory.
Then Denton is very wrong, _if_ that is his thesis. Evolution is the
accepted theory because it explains the available evidence, is
falsifiable and is testable. It took years of debate plus new evidence
from astronomy, geology, physics, and biology to prove Darwin's original
hypothesis.
>
>-john elder


---
Joseph Poutre, aka The Mad Mathematician	N2KOW
jpoutre@shearson.com
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human.  At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house.         -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"
From: cannon@scs.unt.edu (Dustin Cannon (Lab 3460))
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: The Tesla Unit
Date: 27 Jan 93 01:32:07 GMT
Organization: School of Community Service, UNT


	Hi everyone,

	I have a question (my normal mental state).  I recently read a 
biography on Nikola Tesla (Man Out of Time, Margret Cheney) and being a 
physics major I know about the unit Tesla.  So here is the question: What 
did Tesla do in magnetism that was so amazing that they named the unit 
after him?
        It was my impression that the units were usually named after the 
scientist who did the pioneering work in the field that the unit arises.  I 
know he made the AC motor that used alternating magnetic fields, but I 
would think of that as more of an application of the principles of 
electromagnetism than a discovery *about* electromagnetism.
        Does anyone know?  SHe didn't mention it in the book and I couldn't 
find it in the library (not suprising)

        BTW, this is NOT a criticism of Tesla.  I thought he was a cool 
guy.

Dustin 
Cannon@scs.unt.edu
From: stirling@ozrout.uucp (Stirling Westrup)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Freeze Dry
Date: 21 Jan 93 10:37:24 GMT
Organization: Andre P. Ozrout

ppxpjr@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (P.J.Rodgers) writes
>I've got a question which is bothering people here - how do you freeze dry
>food?

[...]

>Finally have clean room facility in case of contamination problems.  We want to
>freeze dry Ice cream.

Have you ever *tasted* freeze-dryed ice cream?  I have, and its not a
substance I would ever willingly reproduce.  Yech!


-- 
||    BUNGEE SIDEWAYS!                              o   )))
||                                                 /-- ///
|P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\_  \\\      __ -_
||    stirling@ozrout.uucp                                 ((( (_)T(_)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: polowin@chem.queensu.ca (Joel Polowin)
Subject: Re: Celsius and Farenheit Scale Determination
Organization: Dept. of Chemistry, Queen's University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:23:15 GMT

In article <1jofluINNt5t@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:

>>>>Most thermometers that you would use to measure body temperature are
>>>>accurate to 3 digits anyway.
>>>
>>>BULLSHIT: 3 digit accuracy implies 1 part per thousand.
>>>	  You might manage 1 part per 50 (ie 2%).
>>>	  This implies tenth of a degree over a 5 degree range (37 to 42C).
>>
>>In case you hadn't noticed, a tenth of a degree on a temperature between 10
>>and 99 gives you three digits of accuracy...
>>
>>I seem to recall reading medical thermometers to the nearest 0.1 or 0.2'F;
>>I know that the digital thermometers currently in use can easily read to
>>the nearest 0.1'C.
>
>In case YOU haven't noticed (and obviously you haven't), the person to whom you
>were replying pointed out that, though, within a couple of degrees of normal
>human body temperature, the thermometer has [technically] the accuracy you
>claim, the scientific community has a different definition of "3-digit
>accuracy."  The latter definition means, as you fail to understand, "one part
>in 1000."

Sorry, what definition of "3-digit accuracy" do you use where, say, a
temperature of 37.2 +/- 0.1 degrees doesn't meet the definition?  First
poster said that medical thermometers were accurate to 3 digits; next
poster said "bullshit"; I pointed out that I had SEEN such thermometers.
Is there some distinction between "3 significant figures" and "3 digit
accuracy" that I'm not aware of?  Do you insist that your thermometer
actually HAVE a range of 1000 before you'll allow that its readings are
accurate to within 1 part in 1000?  Carl, you've completely lost me.

Joel Polowin
polowin@silicon.chem.queensu.ca, polowin@chem.queensu.ca,
polowinj@qucdn.queensu.ca
From: anadeem@ampere.alt.folklore.computers (Ahmed Nadeem)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: MRI and CT-SCAN Images For Dogs?
Date: 27 Jan 93 06:50:15 GMT
Distribution: alt.folklore.science
Organization: /home/ampere1/anadeem/.organization

Netters,
      I am currently working on a research project that involves construction 
of realistic, solid or geometric models for dogs.
      Does anyone know where I can get serial section images( MRI, CT-SCAN, 
etc ) for dogs?
                                                       Thanks,
                                                              Ahmed Nadeem
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: baylor@NEBULA.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Blueness
Reply-To: baylor@NEBULA.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 17:40:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.200200.11825@mprgate.mpr.ca>, hobson@mpr.ca (Darryll Hobson) writes:
>We all know that water is blue...  if you look at the ocean, it's clearly
>blue (unless you're looking into one of the multitude of oil-spills now
>polluting the coastlines)...

I don't know this. I used to live on the Florida Gulf coast, where the
sand is perfectly white, and when the water is not full of algae 
and jellyfish it is vivid green, at least at certain depths.
Where else but on a white sand beach could you really see massive
quantities of water without the background of its container?
From my experience, I'll argue that water is green.

> 
>Anyhow...  when you pour yourself a glass of water...  it's clear.
> 
>Keeping in mind that water molecules have a blueness to them, how deep
>would water have to be in order for it to appear 'blue' instead of 'clear' ?
> 
>It's a brutal question, but I remember it from one of my highschool physics
>assignments... (ie:  I got it wrong)
>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein)
Subject: Re: Freeze Dry
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:51:15 GMT

In <1993Jan21.103724.28117@ozrout.uucp> stirling@ozrout.uucp (Stirling Westrup) writes:

>ppxpjr@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (P.J.Rodgers) writes
>>I've got a question which is bothering people here - how do you freeze dry
>>food?

>[...]

>>Finally have clean room facility in case of contamination problems.  We want to
>>freeze dry Ice cream.

>Have you ever *tasted* freeze-dryed ice cream?  I have, and its not a
>substance I would ever willingly reproduce.  Yech!

more to the point, how about freeze-dried water!  would certainly make
storage and shipping simpler...

dannyb@panix.com
From: csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Tapping soft drink cans
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:39:06 GMT
Organization: Keele University, England

From article <mcampbel.727553725@eola.cs.ucf.edu>, by mcampbel@cs.ucf.edu (Mike Campbell ):

> judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson) writes:

>>Does tapping the top of soft drink cans really prevent them from "exploding"
>>when you open them, or is it a UL?
...
> I think the 'tapping' really just wastes time, giving the pop long enough
> to 'unfizz'.  If one simply waits the same amount of time that he would tap,
> the same thing would be accomplished.

Please elaborate on 'unfizz'.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: ccuppern@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Cyndi Cuppernell)
Subject: Re: Freeze Dry
Organization: UIUC Department of Psychology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:55:32 GMT

naran@fraser.sfu.ca (Travers Naran) writes:
>dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein) writes:

>>more to the point, how about freeze-dried water!  would certainly
make
>>storage and shipping simpler...

>But what would you add to it?

The same thing you add to anything else freeze-dried that you want
to reconstitute:

WATER!!!!!-- 
                 
         ________________________________
         |                              |
         |          WARNING             |
         |                              |
         |   .sig UNDER CONSTRUCTION    |
         |                              |
         |         PLEASE USE           |
         |       ALTERNATE ROUTE        |
         |                              |
         | (ccuppern@s.psych.uiuc.edu)  |
         |______________________________|
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: RADAR screens
Date: 22 Jan 1993 10:24:51 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1jkhpeINNi19@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) writes:
=
=Well I haven't seen enough radar screens in TV or movies to know what they
=look like there, but on a real PPI radar screen, old technology, what you see
=is
=    The trace starts in the center of the screen and goes out radially
=    very fast, so it looks like a bright line.  Actually the line should
=    be pretty dim unless there is a radar return, which makes it brighten.
=    So this part of the display means that in the direction the antenna
=    is currently pointed, time zero is at the center of the screen and
=    maximum time or maximum range is at the outer edge of the screen,
=    and a brightened spot means a radar return at the corresponding distance
=    from the radar.
=
=    The angle of that sweep line with the vertical changes between
=    each trace as the antenna rotates, so that in some length of time
=    between less than a second and several seconds the antenna has
=    gone clear around.  So the whole display shows you, relative to
=    the radar itself at the center of the screen, the distance and
=    angular direction to targets.
=
=    The screen is made of a long-persistance phosphor - but this just
=    means that it's initially bright and decays for several seconds until
=    it is too dim to see.  So targets the antenna has just passed are
=    brightest, and those the antenna is about to come to have practically
=    faded out, and those in between are of intermediate brightness.

Sorry, but last time I looked, there's a second grid, right next to the
screen, that controls whether or not the display is persistent.  At least,
that's the way I remember a Textronix storage tube terminal working (the cursor
didn't leave a persistent image, but any character or graphics you displayed
would).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: pgravel@nap.amoco.com (Philip L. Gravel)
Subject: Re: Tapping soft drink cans
Reply-To: pgravel@nap.amoco.com (Philip L. Gravel)
Organization: Amoco Chemical Company
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:18:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.200301.10512@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, 
ceubanks@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles F Eubanks) writes:
 
> In article <mcampbel.727553725@eola.cs.ucf.edu> mcampbel@cs.ucf.edu (Mike 
Campbell ) writes:
> >judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson) writes:
> >
> >>Does tapping the top of soft drink cans really prevent them from 
> >>"exploding" when you open them, or is it a UL?
> >
> >I think this is pure poppycock.

[description of experiment deleted]

> Try the experiment again, but this time, immediately after shaking, grip the
> can firmly and smack the top VERY sharply with your knuckles and open it
> right away.
> 
> I beleive you will see a significant reduction in the amount of spewing and
> foaming compared to an un-smacked can opened at the same time.  One theory
> developed during a fast and loose discussion on the subject is that the
> can top flexes downward, sending a shock wave (of sorts) through the
> excessivly pressurized gas in the can created by bringing CO2 out of
> solution by shaking.  The shock wave temporarily sends the CO2 back into
> solution and thus reducing the total pressure in the gas.
> 
> Inviting all other theories, thoughts, musings, flames..... ;)

OK, you asked.  I think it is legend, but to the extend that it does work, I 
don't think it would be because of CO2 going back into solution.  The time is 
probably too short and the surface area for absorption too small.

Rather, I would expect that a foam would form on top of the liquid in the yet 
unopened can after it is shaken.  A sharp tap would cause the bubbles to 
break or coalesce.  There would be less liquid surrounding these fewer, but 
larger bubbles.  When the can is opened, the rapidly escaping gas would carry 
less liquid along with it and thus reduce the spewing.

Phil

-----
Philip L. Gravel                           Internet: pgravel@nap.amoco.com
Amoco Chemical Company, Chicago, IL        Phone:    (312)856-3553
----------
These opinions aren't worth the paper they're written on and
certainly don't reflect those of my employer.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science