HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Oct 28, 1992 - A very special day?????
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:30:24 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <NEWMAN.92Nov4092349@astro.schbbs| alan@geg.mot.com (Alan Newman) writes:
|In article <30070@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:
|>
|>   James Randi has written a book about the (seemly endless)
|>   fascination with predicting the end-of-the-world. I guess to keep
|>   the book relatively brief his list of end-of-the-world dates
|>   go back to only about the year 1200 AD.
|>
|
|Many years ago I read a book I beleive was titled "A History of the End
|of the World".  The book described hundreds of End-of-the-World Predictions,
|some from a few thousand years BC.  Only about a third of the book, as I
|recall, dealt with xian EWP of the last two thousand years.  I don't remember
|the author, and I understand the book went out of print in the seventies.
|The book was scattered with "comic strips" making fun of some of the more
|outrageous EWPs.
|
|I would very much like to have a copy of the book.  If anyone can help me
|find one at a reasonable price, I would be most appreciative.  I have
|tried numerous book search businesses and old book stores, but have not
|been able to find any copies.
|
|Thanks,
|Alan Newman (alan@geg.mot.com)

Such a list would make a great addition to the FAQ. I'll contribute
the appendix from Randi's book.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.  
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:32:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.033644.21745@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>>    1)  A 12 year old boy takes his father's pistol to school with him.
>>        Can school officials take it away?
>So the RKBA is above all laws, except for minors.  Just what I said,
>it's modifiable under the law.

Not, as was pointed out, unless you want to likewise say the right to vote is
modifiable under the law....  (The same applies to convicted felons.)
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: On topic? Right!
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:09:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.030810.1913@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
> If they are causing the death of people who could have sought medical
> advice, then it would not seem to me to be moral.  But you talked about
> intent.  What would be the intent be of such a preacher?

	Where have you been?  Here's a clue to the answer of your
question: $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.                                  +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
                 "When Hell freezes over and I'm invited to the skating party."
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Does matter exist?
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:25:52 GMT

In article <96292@netnews.upenn.edu> rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff) writes:
>
>Well, if matter doesn't exist, then what *does* it do?
>
It SUBsists, of course.

A. Meinong :-)


-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:02:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: onion.GERRY.92Nov5100220
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

I was going to respond to this, but:
1- It is from that lunatic in Eau Claire
2- I am laughing so hard, I am having a hard time controlling my
fingers.


--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | Because experience witnesseth that eccle-
Field Robotics Center,          | siastical establishments, instead of main-
Carnegie Mellon University      | taining the purity and efficacy of Religion,
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | have had a contrary operation.  During almost
(412) 268-3856                  | fifteen centuries has the legal establishment
                                | of Christianity been on trial.  What have been
The opinions expressed are mine | its fruits?  More or less in all places, pride
and do not reflect the official | and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | servility in the laity, in both, superstition,
or any other organization.      | bigotry and persecution.  James Madison
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: stovall@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Steven Stovall)
Subject: Re: AIDS and the CIA (was Question)
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:18:31 GMT

weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

>So far, one teaspoonful of original vaccine has been found.  The review
>board did not study the material, but went over the chain of cause and
>effect very carefully, and decided it was a very long shot.  (That's
>what our people said at first, but under the circumstances, it was not
>clear whether that was calm analysis or mere defensiveness.  The review
>board has presumably engaged in the former.)  When the story first broke,
>there was an internal memo setting up an extra layer of bureaucracy for
>the removal of biological samples, just to be more certain that nothing
>old is disposed of thoughtlessly.  I don't recall seeing the rescinding
>memo.

Thanks for the hard information. But I dont understand why they didnt do
a PCR on the material in parallel with their "causal analysis" (whatever
that means). Also, are they absolutely sure this material is from the
vaccine stock in question?
_______________________________________________________________________________

steven stovall
stovall@exeter.cs.ucla.edu
(310) 825-7307
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: When will K2 grow up?
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 14:59:17 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   7 Nov 92 02:31:47 GMT
>FROM:   Carl J Lydick <carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU>
>
>In article <2930020228.3.p00168@psilink.com>, "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>>Did I hear correctly?  Has the Vatican now officially recognized the
>>!!!SUN as the center of the universe?  Surely not.
>
>Actually, it's officially acknowledged the Big Bang.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>

I saw the same news blurb again on CNN.  I did misunderstand it -- they
said the Pope has acknowledged that the sun doesn't orbit the earth.  

Speaking of CNN, has anybody predicted a date when their science news
staff will discover that Mt. Everest isn't the highest mountain on Earth?
I have actually sent them two letters, referring them to the _Information
Please Almanac_ and to the _World Almanac_, but I heard about a week
ago that Mt. Everest still takes the cake at CNN.  I have even tried
calling their news hotline.  No doubt they thought it was a
crank call.  I give up.



-- 
jim tims 
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mgmam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mark A. Morrell)
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:30:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.095943.1@fnala.fnal.gov> rhatcher@fnala.fnal.gov writes:
>In article <Bx9nst.Jux@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, mgmam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mark A. Morrell) writes:
>> In article <Bwv9tx.Aut@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>>Interestingly, you still feel that homosexuals shouldn't
>>>teach in the schools.
>> 
>> It's easy to take that meaning from what I said, but that isn't the
>> meaning that I intended.  If the mannerisms are not there, then there is
>> no problem with homosexual teachers.  The children are not going to be
>> able to learn those behaviours from them.
>
>> Mark A. Morrell     Disclaimer:  _I_ probably don't even believe it.
>
>The "problem" lies in the fact that there are a number of people who say
>the same things you originally did, but don't believe in this clarified
>version.  The truely do believe that it is okay to discriminate against
>people based not on their performance in a job (mannerisms IN the classroom
>could be argued to affect performance), but on what they do OUTSIDE that
>setting (homosexual behaviour) NO MATTER how they came to determine it.
>The classic senario:  Wonderful teacher liked by students and collegues
>alike; seen entering a gay bar (or whatever); fired for being gay.
>This IS what people here have been railing against.  Performance on the
>job is the key.  If you had just said that in the beginning this discussion
>probably wouldn't have gone on so long.
>
>-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)
>
>

Sorry for the confusion.

By the way.  It is legal to discriminate against anyone who isn't
specifically spelled out that you can't discriminate against.  I don't
support this..
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Morrell     Disclaimer:  _I_ probably don't even believe it.
Literary Reference:  The introduction to Cervantes' Don Quixote.

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Measurement & Precision
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:13:27 GMT

dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

: Are you sure that insulin you are taking isn't affecting
: your eyesight?

Carl indicates that he is an insulin dependent diabetic.  Loss of
eyesight is one of the possible results of diabetes, so you start
making cracks about how well he can see.

Derek, That was in poor taste, even for you.  

I don't even care if Carl wasn't offended, I was.  You owe Carl (and
everbody else, for that matter) an apology.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Like I always say --
Rosemount Inc.                                |nothing can beat the
                                              |BRATWURST here in
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |DUSSELDORF!!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Keywords: None
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:46:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.034351.21934@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
|> > [...]
|> I've seen it said on the net that they can pass laws on driving 
|> because there is nothing in teh Constitution about it - but since
|> the Constitution mentions the RKBA so no laws can be made to limit
|> it.  Does the 2nd amendment say "all adults" or only on private property,
|> and since we are citizens, how can they ban anything on "government"
|> property?

The constitution explicitly grants the federal government the right
to regulate and control activities on all military reservarions and
posts, etc.  Further, the famous word "militia" is legally *defined*
to mean "all adults" - so yes, the second ammendment *does* say that.

|> > [...]
|> Nice picture - kids cowering in the building day after day - all the
|> shades drawn in case I get impatient.  As for if I fire the weapon,
|> its' gonna be a little late for the kids - one shot should kill one
|> kid I think, and if history is any indication, I'll have shot myself
|> long before the police do.  No, doesn't work for me.

Thank goodness.  Since it doesn't work for you, it is not likely you'll
do it.  Actually, if it were a chronic occurrence, I suspect they'd have
you committed before "day after day" went by.  In fact, if you actually
*pointed* the weapon at anyone this constitutes assault (as others have
mentioned) - so they'd have you on a crime.  At which point they'd have
all the time they needed to discover you despondent mental state, etc..

And if history is any indication, the people who do this sort of thing
*don't* just hang around waiting to get caught.  They get their weapons 
long before their despondency is a visible symptom (often they are people
with *illegal* means of obtaining weapons anyway - whether the *actual*
weapon used was legally obtained or not).  In short, your scenario
has *NO* bearing on the second ammendment question since such deranged
people can cause harm whether you outlaw guns or not.

|> > [...]
|> > Not in most places.  Public transportation vehicles can prohibit
|> > toxic substances, weapons, etc. if the controlling authority desires.
|> > I don't know whether threatening anyone is an actionable offense in 
|> > most places, but I suspect it is in many.
|> 
|> If I dont' shoot - can they still sue?  Of course - after I shoot
|> they can't.  

I stand corrected (not by Colten, but by others who've answered
this thread).  Pointing the gun at the old woman is assault and 
is a criminal offense nearly everywhere.

|> 
|> Still the same argument.  The RKBA is complete, inviolable and
|> above human law to regulate, except for:
|> 1) minors (a legal fiction in any case)
|> 2) convicted felons
|> 3) some places - butnot many according to you.

Same with the right to vote.  Any limitiation you place on the 
right to bear arms, I'll point out that *your* justifications
are equally applicable to other rights which you presumably
prefer *not* to have limited. 

-- 
J. Giles
From: lippard@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: CSICOP Announcement
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:45:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov10.224722.11417@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat) writes...
>In article <1992Nov5.100623.9263@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>  
>kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)  
>writes:
>> In article <40544@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, dnoelle@cs.ucsd.edu (David Noelle)  
>writes:
>[...] 
>> [...]
>> I believe that this campaign overlaps two groups, not only CSICOP, but  
>also the
>> Center for Free Inquiry, or something like that, a group I personally  
>like
>> somewhat less than CSICOP.  IS this a combined campaign or not?  I want  
>to know
>> where my money would be going.
>> 
>> GXKambic
>> sd
>They are the people who put out _Free Inquiry_.  Something like _The  
>Humanist_ only with a libertarian bent.  I wondered if it was a mistake  
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>myself as plenty of skeptics are not into it but, of course, they need the  
>money.

Although _Free Inquiry_ did a special issue a few years ago on
"Socialism versus Libertarianism," the magazine does not have a
"libertarian bent."  Several of its editors, in fact, seemed to lean
in favor of socialism in that particular debate.  (Though I wouldn't
characterize the magazine as having a "socialist bent," either.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Harmony Of The Gospels?
Date: 11 Nov 1992 19:47:08 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 <roelle.721501117@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) 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?

Well, then, if we're going to take the gospels as mere "eyewitness accounts,"
then we should treat them the same as *ANY* eyewitness testimony elicited from
the witness and recorded some decades after the event.  I.e., assign little or
no credibility to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 2nd ammendment
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:27:43 GMT

> From: tcarter@seismo.CSS.GOV (Thomas Carter)
> Message-ID: <51419@seismo.CSS.GOV>

> In every Supreme Court case related directly to the 2nd (precious
> few), and in every case even marginally connected, the Court has ruled
> that either:
> 1)  The 2nd protects the right of the individual citizen to keep
> keep and bear arms.
> 2)  The militia is composed of all able-bodied citizens.

Well, this sure as hell isn't what I read in the case law, in law class.
In addition, it absolutely contradicts what my lawyer friends tell me.
I thank you for the citations, but strongly suspect that you are
unintentionally misrepresenting the holdings in them.  I've seen enough 
of the NRA party line to recognise its sound, even second-hand.  Let me 
see if my lawyer friends have time and patience enough to look up those 
references and check.
 
Cheers,
Rick M.

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:31:07 GMT


	The bible is patently not inerrant.Read Leviticus,chapter 18(or
thereabouts) where it fairly clearly states that insects walk "upon all
fours... fourfootedly upon the ground".That's quite clearly a mistake,
no matter what stage it crept in at.

	G.

p.s. that's from the King James VI (authorised) translation.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: fuller@athena.cs.uga.edu (James P. H. Fuller)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 21:42:58 GMT

billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes:

>If I ever run into Pontious Pilot I'll ask him about any repercussions.

     Catch him at the airport, he's out flying his Cessna....

                                                 -- jf
 

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Biblical Inerrancy?
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:10:33 GMT

A question (hopefully to be answer by Dr Jim :-) and John Ata):

Biblical inerranists claim that the original, written bible was
completely inerrant, in terms of facts presented, etc.  Okay, let's
accept this.  They then claim that these original bibles no longer
exist.  [I know that bible is not the correct word here, it should
probably be manuscripts, but you get the idea.]  It also seems that
these BI claim that the original translations were also inerrant, and
this way they know the original sources were also.  Everything is
still fine.  But, what claim do they make about modern translations?
Here enlies the problem:

Premis: The original biblical sources are the inspired word of god and
are inerrant.  [We will accept this as a fact.]
Premis: The original translations (i.e., the ones that exist to this
day) were also inspired by god, and are therefor also inerrant.
Fact: There exists today numerous translations of the bible that
differ from each other.
Conclusion (from fact): The current translations could not have been
divinely inspired or they would all be the exact same.
Problem: Thus, how do we know that the original translations were
divinely inspired?  And since we no longer know this, what proof is
there that the bible is inerrant?

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | It would be almost unbelievable, if history
Field Robotics Center,          | did not record the tragic fact, that men have
Carnegie Mellon University      | gone to war and cut each other's throats
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | because they could not agree as to what was to
(412) 268-3856                  | become of them after their throats were cut...
                                | For some reason, too deep to fathom, men
The opinions expressed are mine | contend more furiously over the road to
and do not reflect the official | heaven, which they cannot see, than over their
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | visible walks on earth.  Walter Stacey
or any other organization.      |
From: avi@hawk.imagen.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:19:01 GMT
Reply-To: avi@hawk.imagen.com
Organization: none

>>1) The term "round number" is foreign to Hebrew, or the ancient Jewish culture.
>>   When the Talmud says "70 years" them mean "70 years".
>
>Gee.  It's pretty amazing then just how many things happened that took exactly
>40 days and 40 nights.

Yes, how many things took EXACTLY 40 days and 40 nights ?