HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:22:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: newshost.1992Nov5.202255.1145
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <921105#119#022531_nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu>, nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl) writes:
|> [...]
|> >Now, do I have any rights to go back to the empoyer and yell descrimiation for
|> >hiring a black or homosexual with less experience than I?  You bet your sweet
|> >ass, NOT!!
|> 
|> Excuse me, but have you listened to any of the Supreme Court rulings for
|> the past five years?  You *DO* have the right to sue for discrimination
|> if an obviously underqualified person is hired over you.

The "rights" are different and unequal.  A member of a non-minority
group has the right to sue if blatant discrimination is practiced
by the employer.  A member of a designated minority group has the
right to sue (at the employer's expense) if the hiring/promotion
policies of the employer *result* in a deficiency of minority
employees/promotions relative to a number specified by a government
bureau (this is the explicit result of the new civil rights law
that everone celebrated as *not* being a quota bill).  The 
criterion of proof of discrimination, in the case of the minority,
is not based on an examination of the hiring/promotion practices
of the employer, but merely the numerical results of following
those practices.  This puts the employer in a rather bad bind: 
if he hires the most qualified people, but not enough minorities,
he gets sued; if he hires enough minorities to satisfy the non-quota 
bill,  he gets sued by the non-minority applicant who was more 
qualified.  Oh well.

In any case, this disparity between the legal options and standards
of proof for minority members and those of non-minorities is a blatant
violation of the 14th ammendment which guarantees equal right under 
the law to everyone.

-- 
J. Giles
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple)
Subject: Psychic Prediction
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:04:04 GMT

What happened to that list of psychic predictions posted to the net
about a year ago predicting that the Supreme Court would have a 9-0
decision on abortion that would unite the country this year?  Anyone
keep up with that?
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: AIDS and the CIA (was Question)
Date: 12 Nov 92 09:57:57 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK


On the Strecker CIA AIDS Conspiracy Theory.

This is dealt with in the sci.skeptic FAQ, which will be reposted in a
few days time (the 17th).  We don't get alt.folklore.urban or 
soc.culture.african.american, so could someone please mention this on
those groups.

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
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19144 alt.paranormal:2457
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: Psychic Prediction
Date: 7 Nov 1992 02:26:13 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 <1992Nov6.030404.19836@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple) writes:
>What happened to that list of psychic predictions posted to the net
>about a year ago predicting that the Supreme Court would have a 9-0
>decision on abortion that would unite the country this year?  Anyone
>keep up with that?

I just checked my prediction registry, and the only reference to the Supreme
Court I could find was the following.  Of the items listed, the only one that's
yet decidable was the predicted Supreme Court ruling.  Unless I've missed
hearing about a ruling, or unless the Supreme Court has made but not announced
such a ruling, then that prediction was in error.
================================================================================
Xref: nntp-server.caltech.edu sci.skeptic:23742 alt.paranormal:5106 alt.alien.visitors:6446
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Skeptics' Predictions (was: Sylvia Brown Fraud)
Date: 17 Jun 92 16:27:47 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee

In article <z-jln5k.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>If you think that there are some 'great' predictions that were A) very
>specific, B) unlikely to come true, and C) (the most important) DID come
>true, then please inform us what they are.

...

You haven't been listening, have you.

Well, once again (yet again), here's a series of blatant predictions along with
the dates they were first made public over the net:

(1) [1989] First irrefutable contact with extra-terrestial life in 1995.
(2) [1989] The Second Constitutional Convention in the United States in 1995.
           Constitutional crises in the 2-3 years preceding evolving into a
           full-scale convention by late 1995.
(3) [1989] Successful harnessing of controlled fusion and commercial
           application by 1997.
(4) [1990] The Budget Crunch of 1993.  A complete deadlock in the operation of
           the American government that was one of the major factors in
           precipitating the constitutional crisis.
(5) [1991] The Solomon Ruling, October 1992.  A landmark Supreme Court decision
           that laid the groundwork for a successful resolution of the
           abortion debate to the satisfaction of both sides.
           (There were 12 points to the ruling, all listed)
(6) [1991] A sudden and complete inversion in the relative power of the genders
           leading to the take over of the world by women in 2015. 
           (What the hell, it's a fun prediction anyway)
(7) [1991] The economic collapse of California by the late 1990's.
(8) [1991] An in-city air transit network in the Milwaukee Metro area by
           2000 with VTOL air vehicles to be known as Skyhoppers.
(9) [1991] The first Star Wars prequel: the Bane of the Jedi, to be released in
           1997 on the 20th Anniversary of the first Star Wars release.

The collapse of the Soviet Government, the Wall, Hussein in Kuwait was nothing.
Any fool with half a brain and a decent sense of political geography and
demographics could have (and did) see that more than 5 years in advance.
The Isreali-Palestinian peace process, the events in South Africa, the
dissolution of Canada ... same thing: those were all widely expected far in
advance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: rjh2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (RONALD J. HARTRANFT)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Gender neutral pronouns
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:02:33 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Nov4.221306.2854@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, pepke@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pe
pke) writes:
>Which of the following two statements is correct?
>
>A) If a person wishes to discuss gender-neutral pronouns, he should do it
>somewhere other than sci.skeptic.
>
>B) If a person wishes to discuss gender-neutral pronouns, they should do
>it somewhere other than sci.skeptic.
>

C) Any one who wishes to discuss gender-neutral pronouns should do it
   somewhere other than sci.skeptic.
-- 

Prof. Ronald J. Hartranft           Phone: 215-758-4109
Dept. of Mech. Engr. & Mechanics    Email: rjh2@Lehigh.edu
Lehigh University
19 Memorial Drive West
Bethlehem, Penn. 18015-3085
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:50:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.114347.9302@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.022121.25879@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>[...]
>  Be open.  I have every confidence that you
>> will come up with a clear working definition of what Christianity
>> stands for (Christianity: Someone who follows the teachings of
>> Jesus Christ). 
>
>Which now have to be operationally defined.  However, let's take one specific
>case.  Without qualifiers.  Love  the Lord God with they whole strength, etc.,
>and Love they neighbor as thyself.  
>
>Based on this, there are very very few followers of Christianity in the world. 
>Note: very rigid definition. No qualifiers, no love some neighbors, no take
>part of what you have and give to the poor, etc.  
>
>Hmm.....if only we could find the six or so people in the world who do  this...

Yes, you are probably right, but that doesn't make Christianity useless or
invalid. It is a lofty goal that can improve men/women who strive to
achieve it.

By the way, I am not a Christian.


---------------------------------------------------
Dave.Kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM                       |
(619) 485-2504                                    |
---------------------------------------------------
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: When will K2 grow up?
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:48:29 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <1992Nov10.170536.3921@linus.mitre.org| m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
|In article <7788@lib.tmc.edu> draper@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu (E.J. Draper) writes:
|}
|}What this about K2 being taller?
|
|"taller" or "higher"?  What is being compared?  For instance, I thought that
|the mountain with the greatest elevation difference between the base and the
|peak was in the US...

...That is correct. Mauna Kea on the big island of Hawaii.


-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.  
....alien language from an SF short story on a 78-RPM record I had as a kid.
From: brown@NCoast.ORG (Stan Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The guns of roston (wa
Date: 5 Nov 92 00:03:08 GMT
Organization: Oak Road Systems, Cleveland Ohio USA

In article <1d46l4INNnhg@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <720698804.0@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORG>, Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) writes:
>>fact.  The U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment guarantees that 
>>_well-regulated state militias_ shall have the right to keep and bear 
>>arms.
>
>Rick, where do you see the word "state" in the second amendment?  

Right between "free" and "the":  "A well regulated militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  (I think the first and
third commas are superfluous, but they're in "The Constitution of the
United States, with Case Summaries," edited by Edward Conrad Smith
[1972; SBN (sic) 06-080316-9].)

I suppose it's asking too much to expect y'all actually to _read_ the
amendment before posting arguments about it.


-- 
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems                      brown@Ncoast.ORG
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
"What's a question that contains the word 'cantaloupe' for no apparent reason?"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: brown@NCoast.ORG (Stan Brown)
Subject: Re: Capitalist rapture on the 28th :)
Organization: Oak Road Systems, Cleveland Ohio USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:13:12 GMT

In article <49282@shamash.cdc.com> dternes@duke.cdc.com (David Ternes) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.142811@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>>
>>   According to the paper this morning the guy running the Korean church
>>that predicted the Rapture for Oct. 28th of this year has investments 
>>that matured in May...   ...just like another case Jim Lippard mentioned.
>>This fact will be introduced as evedince in his frauf trial.
>>
>A good lawyer will argue that, while his client believed that the faithful
>were going to taken to heaven October 28th, his client didn't believe himself
>to be of strong enough faith to be one of the faithful.

Or she could get him off on the grounds that most states have never
enforced the laws against frauf.
-- 
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems                      brown@Ncoast.ORG
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
"Only the futility of the first flood prevents God from unleashing another."
            --Chamfort, as quoted in Claude Arnaud's {Chamfort: A Biography}
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Genetic Sexuality
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992
Date: 05 Nov 92  15:09:14

Tag: dprjdg@inetg1.ARCO.COM (John Grasham)
ID: 1992Oct28.172712.3905@arco.com
 
[stuff]
 
JG> "My question is this: How can gay tendencies be genetic?
JG> Individuals that are strictly gay cannot reproduce since
JG> they will not have sexual relationships with an opposite-
JG> sex individual."
 
Not true. The women I live with are homosexual. One wants
a child. Suppose many lesbians want children? Not all sexual
encounters are designed to fun alone. Also many lesbians are
married to men, for many, many reasons.
 
There is also rape and incest.
 
[stuff]
 
I find the suggestion that homosexuality is due to "brain size"
rather far-fetched, at best. Though I have heard most homosexuals
say that they are born homosexual, I guess that some other genetic
source is causal, not brain size.
 
I'd also venture a guess that homosexuality is a plus in regards
to a populations' survival. When a population is very large,
non-reproducers are a great benifit to that population.
 
> John G.

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Questions, old and new
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:33:36 GMT

In article <wezSxvy00VID88UqYy@andrew.cmu.edu> 
  db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (David A. Byler) writes:
>Mr. Hunt writes:
>
>>Well, ask any reputable biologist/paleontologist if evolution is true,
>>they'll say yes, despite the fact that neither have been "proven".
>
>I think you have hit the nail on the head.  Who determines which
>scientist is reputable?  There are plenty of Scientists on both sides of
>this issue who are entirely reputable.

Oh really?  Most of the ones that I know of are with the ICR which has
an abysmal track record in this regard and has a slew of "scientists"
with degrees from degree mills and no scientific qualifications whatsoever.

>Aonsider also, the simple mathematical impossibility of Evolution.  It
>is such a wildly improbable thing that this world could have evolved
>through genetic mutations (mostly harmful or useless) that it is
>ridiculous to consider it.  It is also ridiculous to it is on the order
>of improbablility of a torando ripping through a large junkyard and
>creating a fully assembled 747 airplane from the piles of junk.

Proving that you don't have the vaguest clue what the hell evolution
is about.  This is not meant to be a flame, it is a statement of fact.
Please do us the favor of learning something about a subject before
you post on it.  You might be interested in knowing that, by my count,
the paragraph you posted above does not contain a *single* true statement.
As a matter of fact, I don't think your entire posting contains a statement
that I would consider correct.  

Would you like the talk.origins FAQ?

>Andy Byler
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Harmony Of The Gospels?
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:58:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: uars_mag.roelle.721501117
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:36:08 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Harmony Of The Gospels?

carlis_jc@cs2.lamar.edu writes:

>   In reguard to the $1,000 contest to find a totaly consistent account of the
>"Gospel" storys it would seem that the orginazation that offered said prize is
>requireing one to win the "no win scenario".

Yes, I must agree.  On the one hand, suppoose all four gospels were
identical.  They all include the same events, describe them similarly,
and none include "side bars" not found in the other three.  The only
noticeable differences might be grammatical.  With four accounts all
in unison, wouldn't the argument for their authenticity be cinched?
Hardly.  For then those who currently criticize the gospels for being
different would cry, "Collusion!  Without any differences in the
accounts given by independant individuals, how can one rule out
deceit?"

As we know the four gospels have their differences.  Some highlight
events not included by the others, while identical events are
described differently by different persons.  Differences will occur in
eyewitness accounts.  Witness A saw the airplane going down in flames
while witness B saw no fire until impact.  Obviously both witnesses
are deliberatly trying to deceive us because their accounts are
different.  Or is one wrong and the other right?  Are more witnesses
needed so a majority determination can be made?  How many are needed
for a majority?  Three?  No?  O.K. then, how about Four?  Well then,
how many would it take?

Curt roelle@sigi.jhuapl.edu
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 2 vs 14, P vs J, etc. [was: Would "Noah's Ark" have been large enough?]
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:23:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: onion.GERRY.92Nov9122337
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

Why is it that all biblical scholars, i.e., those with formal
training, those who speak Hebrew and Greek, etc, support the JEPD
theory of biblical authorship; while it is the fundementalists who
don't?  Don't these fundies ever feel like they're pissing into the
wind? 

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The settled opinion here is that religion is
Field Robotics Center,          | essentially distinct from Civil Govt and
Carnegie Mellon University      | exempt from its cognizance; that a connexion
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | between them is injurious to both; ...that a
(412) 268-3856                  | legal establishment of religion without
                                | toleration could not be thought of, and with a
The opinions expressed are mine | toleration, is no security for public quiet &
and do not reflect the official | harmony, but rather a source itself of discord
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | & animosity; finally that these opinions are
or any other organization.      | supported by experience...  James Madison
From: Joe.Slater@f351.n632.z3.fidonet.org (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1992 00:10:08

Tuesday November 03 1992, Jeffrey Clark writes to (crosspost 1) All:

JC> An interesting little factual historical note on rings. During Roman
JC> times (i.e up to 4th century A.D.), slaves were identified by rings
JC> with certain designs (each design unique to their owner). The early
JC> Christian church adopted this practice by enforcing the wife-to-be to
JC> accept the symbol of slavery to emphasise her monogamous devotion to
JC> her husband. The idea that the man also weara ring is a reasonably
JC> modern innovation, and not practiced all the time even now.

In Talmudic times the husband customarily gave his wife a ring as part of the
marriage service. Technically speaking, it could have been any portable good of
easily assessable value, but rings were what was used, apparently.

In light of the above, I would venture that the Christian custom is derived from
the Jewish one. Of course, both the Jewish and Roman customs may have been
responsible.

jds


 * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)
From: mac@abacus.concordia.ca ( JOHN MCKAY )
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mercury in Tooth Fillings
Date: 7 Nov 92 11:03:08 GMT
Organization: Cicma, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
Originator: mac@abacus


Recently there has been concern expressed that cremation may be
releasing amounts of mercury from tooth fillings into the 
environment which are dangerous to health. I believe this has
been reported in Nature and some work has been done in U.K. on
this issue.

-- 
Thought for the day: Odd order groups are even.

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mccoy@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Don McCoy)
Subject: Re: Questions, old and new
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 07:27:31 GMT

In article <wezSxvy00VID88UqYy@andrew.cmu.edu> 
db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (David A. Byler) writes:
  [a few irrelvant lines deleted]
>Aonsider also, the simple mathematical impossibility of Evolution.  It
>is such a wildly improbable thing that this world could have evolved
>through genetic mutations (mostly harmful or useless) that it is
>ridiculous to consider it.  It is also ridiculous to it is on the order
>of improbablility of a torando ripping through a large junkyard and
>creating a fully assembled 747 airplane from the piles of junk.
>
>Andy Byler

Whoaa!  Where'd that come from?  You state this as if it were obvious,
but it's far from obvious to me.  Why is evolution so improbable?
The research I've done seems to suggest the exact opposite. It is not
because _all_ mutations are helpful, but because _some_ are, that
evolution works.  Over long periods of time, it is inevitable that
species change as these helpful mutations accumulate.

Now, I've grossly oversimplified a complex theory, but that's ok. I'm
just trying to show you that it's not a "mathematical impossibility."
I would say that the present day (as opposed to Darwinian) theory
of evolution has too many good points going for it to outright
deny its viability as a theory.  At this point people are just
"filling in the details," as Kuhn might have put it.

..don... 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic