HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Autistic children and Prime Time live
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:14:05 GMT


I caught the tail end of a segment on Prime Time (ABC) last week
on communicating with autistic children.  The researchers would
hold the hands of the children while they would hunt & peck at
a keyboard.  It occured to me that they may be acting as human
quija (sp?) boards and was even more convinced when I saw one
story being written by a five year old girl.  It seemed way beyond
anything a healthy five years old could do, let alone one who
was cut off from normal means of communication all of her life.


Has anyone else heard of this?  How do they know the parents weren't
pushing the children's hands to where they want them to go?


--
McCreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com     Computers are like Old Testament gods;
Me? Speak for Compaq?  Yeah, right.   lots of rules and no mercy.
"By this time my lungs were aching for air..."               Joseph Campbell
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Belief in God  (Re: "Out-Of-Body")
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:52:54 GMT

In article <GERRY.92Jul27122917@onion.cmu.edu>, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes in part:
|> I strongly suspect that if a survey were done, one would find a strong
|> correlation between those who believe/experience OOB and a belief in a
|> god.  
I FIRMLY object to this sloppy phrasing!  There is massive difference
between "believe" and "experience", and I simply won't let you
sleeze by with that "/"! :-)

I think that the OB EXPERIENCE may well have a strong physiological
basis, and DEFINITELY occurs regardless of preparation or prior
"belief" in it.

The OBE usually has a profound effect on the person who has it.
(This makes sense, as you'd have to be pretty disconnected from
ordinary reality to not be impressed by the spectacular experience
of an OBE!)  What direction this profound experience might lead
them in is likely to depend on the individual.

|> If someone has a strong belief about OOB, they will probably not
|> change that belief because it would require a change in their entire
|> perspective on life.
Actually, OBE's are so compelling that they DO change some people's
perspectives.  That's one reason why people are so interested in them in
these discussions.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Garlic - the wonder herb ??
Keywords: garlic
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 01:08:38 GMT

lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:

>In article <9220123.25217@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON) writes:
>>Is there any evidence that garlic has any beneficial effects other than the
>>placebo effect?
>Well, it does gave beneficial effect on pizza. ;-)

While living in New York, I learned that a pizza topped with fresh minced
garlic (none of this powdered ersatz, mind you) would ease many of the
symptoms of a head cold, but I suppose that is just the placebo effect.

--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: A prediction
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:26:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.145908.12382@srg.srg.af.mil>, dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.190755.296@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>I predict that next Tuesday, most major newspapers in the United States of
>>America will carry stories about a gruesome double murder at 92 Second Street
>>in Fall River, Massachusetts.  The prime suspect will never be convicted of
>>murder, and the murder weapon will never be found.
>
>Good point, Carl.  The first rule of trickery; know more than those around
>you.
>
>Good old Lizzie, eh? :-)

Got it in one.  It seems pretty likely that most major newspapers will carry
some story about the murders on the 100th anniversary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: sci.skeptic
From: rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski)
Subject: Re: Bouncing uk-mail (was Re: skeptic-faq V 0.1)
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:26:57 GMT

In <4913@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:

>In article <1992Jul30.211658.18401@ccu.umanitoba.ca> rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) writes:
>>Since e-mail to Paul Johnson has been bouncing every time I tried, I am
>>posting these corrections/suggestions directly to this group. 

>The bouncing is caused by the fact that the domain "uk" actually is on 
>another planet, where things are done in reverse order (cropcircles over 
>there are naturally made by ET's) :-).
>Try reversing the part after @, so "paj@gec-mrc.co.uk"  rather than
>"paj@uk.co.gec-mrc" . This worked for me every time when I got bouncing
>mail back from "uk".

I still had the mail bounce after I reversed the address.  The UK is
not on another planet, but obviously in another dimension. This is
evident because of the unusual speech patterns of the inhabitants, and
their affliction with a disease known as VAT.

-- 
Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics
From: gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca (Gary Katch)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:47:16 GMT
  "boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken)
  29 Jul 92 13:59:20 GMT
  sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal"
  <1992Jul29.135920.27176@news.uiowa.edu>
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Concordia University
X-Mailing-Address: Computing Services C-1012
  1455 De Maisonneuve West
  Montreal (Quebec) H3G 1M8
X-Phone-Numbers: voice (514) 848-7632
  fax (514) 848-7622
Originator: gpkatch@alcor

Karl Boyken writes [*]: 
>This is the point of view of a skeptic--that the theory with the most votes 
>wins? ...  
> ...  If the entire population of the world were to 
>vote on what's real and what isn't, I'm pretty sure you'd be in the
>minority on quite a few issues.

That's exactly right.  What science attempts to do is describe
the world with theories that work for everyone's common
experience.  It provides you with a method to test your own
theories, and then have other people try them out too.  What
we percieve to be "reality" is that which is generally agreed
upon.  If someone claims that little green devils fly about
his head, will you assume their existence and then try to
figure out why the rest of humanity is unaware of them?  Or
will you assume that it's all in his head?  After all, it is
"real" to him!

If you claim the existence of any paranormal ("outside the
common experience") phenomenon, naturally you find yourself
in the minority.  Why?  Because you have not found any way to
demonstrate the existence of the phenomenon to the rest of
the world.

I have no doubt that people who experience OBEs and such
consider them "real".  But that is a personal reality.  Then,
if they find out that other people experience the same things,
they start to postulate such explanations as "higher
frequencies", "thought forces", other "dimensions".  In other
words, they look for some connection, some explanation which
would explain the _common experience_, i.e. what we call,
ironically enough, a "scientific theory".

None of us wants to be alone in this world.  We are desperate
to find others who share our own views, beliefs and experiences.
Personally, I like the scientific method because I have a way
to test my own reality, to compare it with the common reality.
How else do you know you're not crazy?  

I too have had several interesting, seemingly inexplicable
events in my life, but I have never had reason to think there
was anything more to them than my own mind, coincidence or
simply some manifestation of the "real" world which I didn't
understand.  That others may have similar experiences doesn't
suprise me -- after all, we live in the same world, we are
made of the same stuff, and our bodies and minds are strikingly
similar in function.  Is it any mystery that we both in similar
ways think, forget, remember, imagine, and dream?

-- gk
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:20:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.210619.23842@news.uiowa.edu>, boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken) writes in part:
|> >
|> >I repeat my questions and challenge you to give me a straight answer.
|> >I emphasize that I am asking for the benefit of your own personal
|> >experience, which we BOTH agree is important, and we BOTH agree is
|> >valid.
|> >
|> |>> What I really wnat to know is:  What happens while you are (or feel
|> |>> you are) out of your body?  What is the "you" that is outside?
|> |>> How can it "see" light (photons) without any of the ususal retina
|> |>> and neural apparatus?
|> |>> And most of all, "What, if anything, leaves the body during your OBE?"
|> >
|> >-- 
|> >  Robert E. McGrath
|> >  Urbana Illinois
|> >  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
|> 
|> My response was not irrelevant to your questions.  I simply need to 
|> determine what kind of answer you want.  

OK, I'll be even more clear.  Answer the questions in ANY WAY you want,
so long as you state your opinion.  I want you to appeal to whatever
experience and authority YOU think is relevant.

If you can't answer the questions in their present form just say so.

|> Your questions imply that you
|> believe that perception depends upon material interactions, that
|> photons "really" exist, etc., etc.  

If you think I am mistaken in these apparent assumptions, then
just say so.  To be fair, you should indicate what you think
would be better assumptions.  

To give you a possible sample answer:
|> |>> How can it "see" light (photons) without any of the ususal retina
|> |>> and neural apparatus?
  Possible response:  Perception does not actually depend on the retina 
  and neural apparatus.

Was that difficult?

Now you try it:

|> >I repeat my questions and challenge you to give me a straight answer.
|> >I emphasize that I am asking for the benefit of your own personal
|> >experience, which we BOTH agree is important, and we BOTH agree is
|> >valid.
|> >
|> |>> What I really wnat to know is:  What happens while you are (or feel
|> |>> you are) out of your body?  What is the "you" that is outside?
|> |>> How can it "see" light (photons) without any of the ususal retina
|> |>> and neural apparatus?
|> |>> And most of all, "What, if anything, leaves the body during your OBE?"
|> >

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
From: neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Subject: Re: There are no atoms!
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 07:44:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.200230.28917@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <BrKIIz.M5q@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld) writes:
>}In article <1992Jul17.183649.3509@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>}>
>}>OK.  Are there quarks?  Or maybe I should say "is there _A_ quark?"
>}>
>}   Deep inelastic scattering of electrons from protons shows that a
>}proton scatters high energy electrons sometimes as if it has a charge of
>}+-1/3 and sometimes as if it has a charge of +-2/3. High energy
>}proton-proton or proton-antiproton collisions allow people to map the
>}energy fraction per parton inside a nucleus. They find that the energy is
>}roughly divided among the three 'valence quarks' and an effective three
>}virtual quarks and gluons.
>
>Not "quarks".  "quark".  Singular.
>
   Yes, quark in the singular. The scattering is from a single entity,
you don't have multiple centre scattering in these experiments at any
signal level whatsoever.
   I suppose what you're driving at is the question of whether any single
quark has ever been detected unconfined, far from any other quarks. As
far as anyone knows this has never been seen, but that's not really
relevant. Is it your contention that a quark cannot exist if it cannot be
isolated from other quarks?

-- 
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Talk sense to a fool
 neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra  | and he calls you
 cneufeld@terranet.cts.com                       | foolish.
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |       - Euripides
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Radio transmission ESP test?
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:24:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.135947.661@Princeton.EDU>, rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Jul28.013844.15736@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
> >In article <j.newman.103@qmcc.curtin.edu.au>, j.newman@qmcc.curtin.edu.au (John Newman) writes:
> >
> >> Just last week the Chanel 9 network, "A Current Affair" ran a
> >> copycat segment.
> >> The ESP test was designed by Ken White, a psychologist
> >> from Queensland Uni. Others on the TV panel were Simon Turnbull,
> >> president of the Aust. Psychics Association, Nigell Lovell,
> >> and Barry Williams from the Aust. Skeptics Association.
> >
> >> I'll post Ch9s results if I get to see them.
> >
> >No sign of results yet. I was chatting to Barry Williams the other
> >day, and he said that they stopped reading the responses after three
> >days, and they had *thousands* of them. Since the Science Show took
> >about three weeks to process their much smaller response, I think
> >it will be a while before we hear from a Current Affair.
> >Tim O'Neill
> 
> Thanks for keeping us informed, even though there appears to be little
> information.  I couldn't help noticing the phrase "they stopped reading
> the responses ..."  Perhaps this is an unwarranted interpretation on my
> part, but that sounds as if there was no well formed procedure for
> handling and analysing the results.  When you chat with Barry Williams
> again, perhaps you could at least ask for some description of the
> planned analyses (if any :-), and perhaps you could also get some
> rationale for the design in the first place.  In particular, there seems
> to have been no attention given to control comparisons, nor even to the
> establishment of expected performance.  It would be worthwhile, given
> your opportunity, to pin down some of the details of this "experiment",
> now repeated twice.  Is the protocol worth our attention at all?
> 
> Roger N

Both experiments have been run by the University of Queensland, and not the
Aussie Skeptics, Barry was simply there as an obsever,but I'm sure there'll be
a write-up on it in the next issue of 'The Skeptic', so I'll try to post 
details then. 
'A Current Affair' is not exactly a high brow show, and I don't think the 
producers wanted to tax the audience with too much information, so the 
details of the procedures and the controls were pretty sketchy. I'll see what 
I can come up with.
Tim O'Neill
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Testing for "Auras"
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:02:55 GMT
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA

In article <1992Jul20.203459.1603@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) writes:

   A person who claims to have been abducted also claims to be able to
   see auras.  The person is willing to be tested under stringent
   conditions.  We are considering devising trials to test this claim.
   We have a number of ideas already, but we'd be interested in
   hearing about any methodology readers of this newsgroup can
   recommend.  Thx.

A recent TV special used the method of placing people behind opaque
barriers at a given distance from the top (the theory being that the
aura extends a certain distance from the person involved).  Some
positions were occupied, some not.  The only thing the "aura reader"
had to do was to say which positions were occupied.  She failed
miserably.

Mind you, this is not "stringent conditions".  This doesn't come close
to a scientifically valid experiment (in the sense that other means of
detecting the people have not been conclusively eliminated).  It is
probably a good start.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: boosman@adobe.com (Frank Boosman)
Subject: "Sonic Pest Controllers" question
Organization: Adobe Systems Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:28:16 GMT

Has anyone reputable done a study of these so-called "sonic pest
controllers," for which their manufacturers claim the ability to
repel rodents, insects, and who-knows-what from a given area? We
have a spider problem around my house, but don't want to use
chemicals to deal with it. My wife saw an ad for one of these
devices, but since (1) I don't know anything about them, and (2)
I'm skeptical, I thought I would check it out here first...

-- Frank Boosman
   Adobe Systems Inc.
   Mountain View, CA
   boosman@adobe.com
From: bourd@indian.cps.msu.edu (Robert Bourdeau)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The EVE theory
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:24:43 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University, CPS Department


In article <1992Jul20.180307.2456@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, bourd@indian.cps.msu.edu (Robert Bourdeau) writes:
|> It has been sometime since I have heard much about the
|> Eve theory (that all humans share a single female
|> ancestor from Africa).  I don't recall any articles in the
|> Skeptical Inquirer recently, or any other sources.
|> 
|> Does anyone have pointers to sources of information?
|> 
|> I am highly skeptical about this theory, and without knowing
|> too much about it, would initially assume that the researchers
|> have a personal agenda guiding their discoveries.
|> 
|> I am however open-minded and would appreciate any additional
|> information on the "discovery" and on any skeptical analyses of
|> this "discovery".
|> 
|> 
|> Thanks in advance!
|> --- Robert Bourdeau (bourd@cps.msu.edu)
|> --- Department of Computer Science
|> --- Michigan State University
|> --- East Lansing, Michigan



I see now that the thread on Mitochondrial DNA has been a discussion
about the EVE theory. However, I have only two articles from this thread available
to me, and I would like to recover more of this discussion. Has anyone 
kept these postings?  


--- Robert Bourdeau (bourd@cps.msu.edu)
--- Department of Computer Science
--- Michigan State University
--- East Lansing, Michigan
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
From: boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken)
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:36:24 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., U. of Iowa

In article <4649@daily-planet.concordia.ca>, gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca
(Gary Katch) writes:

> 
> Karl Boyken writes [*]:
> >In article <1992Jul29.204138.3043@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
> >arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> >> Every culture probably knows some "paranormal
> >> phenomena", but not every culture knows the concept of scientific proof.
> >
> >Which proves that people can get along fine without the concept of scientific
> >proof.
>  
> Sure they'll get along.  But will they progress?  Will their
> knowledge increase?  Will their "belief systems" (as Karl is
> fond of saying) describe how our world works?
> 
> If you are happy merely to get along, then choose any belief
> system you like which doesn't suddenly end your life.  If you
> want to know more about everything, try science.
> 
> -- gk

So, no other system of belief allows the accumulation of knowledge?  Then,
of course, it follows that all knowledge that _has_ been accumulated by the
human race must have come from the application of the scientific method.  But
science is a relatively young belief system.  So, then, ancient cultures
could not have been able to accumulate knowledge, since they did not know of
the scientific model of the world.  They could not have learned how to smelt
bronze or iron, for example.  And the Chinese certainly could not have
invented gunpowder, since the scientific method was unknown to them at the
time.

And science will let me know more about _everything_?  I await with eager
anticipation the first scientific study of justice.  I look forward to the
first novel produced by science.  I can't wait to hear what science has to
say about ethics.  Science has certainly helped the human race "progress" in
these areas.

*****        _My_ views, no one else's--except those I plagiarize         *****
Karl Boyken, system programmer | Distant cousins, there's a limited supply, and
Department of Computer Science | we're down to the dozens, and this is why:
The University of Iowa         | big-eyed beans from Venus--oh my, oh my!
boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu      |                           -- Captain Beefheart
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: test that proves obes
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:43:42 GMT
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Distribution: sci
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <1992Jul24.885.18006@dosgate>, "ted trost" <ted.trost@canrem.com> writes in part:
|> 
|> RM>Out of Body EXPERIENCES clearly EXIST, just as dreams EXIST.  The question
|> RM>is how to explain them.
|> 
|> How do we know OBE's  *aren't* dreams?

Phew!  A question I can answer!

Everyone that has ever reported an OBE also has had dreams.  Most say 
the two are completely different experiences.  The reports of OBEs
also differ from reports of dreams in many ways.

The *primary* difference is that an OBE "feels real" and is remembered
just like waking experience.  Dreams (including, I think, lucid dreams)
do not "feel real", they feel, well, dreamy.

There is a real possibility that some or even many "OBE's" may be
unusually vivid "dreams".  And it wouldn't be too surprizing to find
that OBE's are eventually seen to be related to or to be in some sense
a special kind of "dream".  Since dreams are pretty interesting in
their own right, this would hardly be a demotion!

EEG studies may be able to distinguish between (one or more types of?)
OBE's and "normal" dreaming. 

OBE's seem rare and unpredictable, so I expect it is difficult to get 
people to have OBE's while wearing sensors.  The unpredictability of 
inducing OBE's is a definite problem here!

(If any of you can get out of your body any time you want, get in contact
with me.  There are some really interesting experiments we could do.)

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic