HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: giskard@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Daneel Olivaw)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: what a joke!
Keywords: not quite
Date: 24 Aug 92 15:07:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.192512.8493@nntp.uoregon.edu> johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu (John Martin) writes:

>OK, I will.  You are an extreme example of the thing that really bugs me about
>so-called skeptics.  Skeptics in general tend to be guilty of the same kind
>of close-minded, emotional, and irrational thinking that they accuse others
>of.

    I sure dont know where you developed this definition.  First of all I am 
not close minded.  I made my decision of being a 'skeptic' after years of 
trying to believe in such nonsense.  I have always wanted to think that some
of the stuff was true, but I definitely know better now.  Thanks to rational
thinking, I can tell the difference between what is real and what
isn't real, unlike a lot of people.
  
>   In your post you have managed to reveal a tremendous amount of idiocy
>in yourself that you really should get under control.

Speaking of idiocy, you aught to read the stuff posted in this group.  Some
people will believe anything!

>
>The problem is this: you are looking at these topics with an opinion already
>formed -- the prospect that any of these things might be true scares you
>so much that you have decided they aren't true, even before you look into
>them.

I think it would be great if some of those concepts were true, it would make
life a lot more interesting.  Obviously your rational thinking isn't very 
rational.  I am by no means scared of any that stuff that I talked about
earlier.  In fact, I would love for something to prove me wrong.  Also, I have
studied; I have read as much literature for and against, and it is obviously
true that there is as much literature promoting the stuff as there is de-
moting the stuff.

>People like you tend to talk and scream a lot about these things, and about
>how stupid anybody who believes in them are, but they have never seriously
>studied these phenomena, and so logically cannot make an argument for or
>against them and back it up in any way. You say you have no proof, and we
>don't either (this is not actually true, but let's grant it for the sake
>of argument), but there is TONS of evidence!!  Study, and speak with
>knowledge!
>
>-- 

I suggest people who contribute to this group (regularly) do the same.  People
are always writing what comes off the top of their heads.  Quit asking 'what if
.....' kind of stuff and start presenting some real proof, quoting legitimate
news sources and not the Enquirer type of stuff.


Brandon
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: tzf@csl.biosci.arizona.edu (Theron Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: Mrs Piper / Martin Gardner
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:07:00 GMT
Reply-To: tzf@csl.biosci.arizona.edu
Organization: U of Arizona, CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Aug26.164445.8888@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:
|> In article <memo.590577@cix.compulink.co.uk>, live_wire@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Clifton) writes in part:
|> |> 
|> |> Many psychic investigators went to enormous efforts to catch Mrs
|> |> Piper out, and prove that she was a fraud.  Without exception, they
|> |> all failed.  But the _possibility_ that she was a charlatan clearly
|> |> occurred to ALL of them.
|> Please substantiate this claim.  How do you know that "ALL of them"
|> considered the possibilitly of fraud?  "This struck me as being typical 
|> of [Clifton's] condescending attitude,
|> and scant attention to the facts when they fail to suit his argument."
|> 

Come on RM, think for a minute. If they are making efforts to catch her out,
they must be looking for fraud, no? Internal logic of the paragraph.
(ok, so you can make the "ALL" ambiguous. Local reference before global
to disambiguate.)
	terry
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: live_wire@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Clifton)
Subject: Mrs Piper / Martin Gardner
Reply-To: live_wire@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 23:37:12 +0000


Robert "Scepticus Maximus" Sheaffer's <sheaffer@netcom.com> sig file, last
time I looked, contained the following quotation:

    "Every psychic investigator of [the medium] Mrs. Piper was impressed
     by her simplicity and honesty. It never occurred to them that no
     charlatan ever achieves greatness by acting like a charlatan. No
     professional spy acts like a spy. No card cheat behaves at the
     table like a card cheat."

            - Martin Gardner  (writing in "Free Inquiry", Spring, 1992)

This struck me as being typical of Gardner's condescending attitude,
and scant attention to the facts when they fail to suit his argument.

How does he *know* that it "never occurred", to any investigator of
Mrs Piper, that "no charlatan achieves greatness by acting like a
charlatan"?  What basis does he have for making such a claim?

Many psychic investigators went to enormous efforts to catch Mrs
Piper out, and prove that she was a fraud.  Without exception, they
all failed.  But the _possibility_ that she was a charlatan clearly
occurred to ALL of them.

Psychic investigators were not impressed merely by Mrs Piper's lack
of interest in money and notoriety, but by the fact that none of them
were able to detect a single instance of fraud.  Piper was one of the
most thoroughly investigated mediums of the 20th century; many of her
investigators had a long and weary history of exposing charlatans and
cheats.  What really impressed them about Mrs Piper was the fact that
they were totally unable to find any possible method of subterfuge by
which she could obtain her information.

So, Robert, I have to say SCEPTICUS MAXIMUS MY FOOT!  You seem to be
gullible enough to swallow any argument which supports your own view
of the world - no matter how weak, or insubstantial it may be.


Andrew Clifton :-)*
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: tom_repasky@mentorg.com
Subject: Re: If....reading minds
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:00:25 GMT
Organization: Information Services

In article <-270892152224@microlab26.med.upenn.edu> (Jesse M. Goldman) writes:
>If you can read minds then what am I thinking?
>
>.....Wrong, it was a giant electric potato.
>
Reading minds is much like listening to music.  Most of it sounds like noise
and gathers few listeners.

Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: jep@phys.uucp (Jason Epel [Computer Consultant])
Subject: Re: UFO's
Organization: University of Central Florida - Physics
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:45:20 GMT

In article <gunnarh.31@dhhalden.no>,
           gunnarh@dhhalden.no (GUNNAR HORRIGMO) writes:

>In article <1992Aug28.081408.16434@hplb.hpl.hp.com>,
>           rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Richard Beckett) writes:
>
>>       How can anyone say UFO's don't exist ?
>
>Easy, UFO means Unidentified Flying Object.
>If you see something flying and you don't know what it is, you say: It's a 
>UFO. Now you *KNOW* what it is, ergo it's not a UFO!

Interesting use of logic, but wrong none the less.  If you know
something is unidentified, it doesn't mean you can IDENTIFY what it is;
for it's STILL an unknown.  You can label it as a UFO, but because
you're calling it a UFO doesn't mean it's identified, it's just
labeled.

Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: jim@apsicc.aps.edu (frost...)
Subject: Re: UFO's
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 23:43:00 GMT
Organization: Albuquerque Public Schools - Career Enrichment Center
Distribution: usa
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <83jn#yg.anson@netcom.com>, anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes...
>stinerkt@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Kevin T Stiner) writes:
> 
>[stuff deleted]
> 
>>Of course, this is all theory.........
>>We had the same feeling about the sound barrier before we broke it.
>>My answer to the question, "Can we travel faster than light?" is....
>>THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE POSSIBILITY OF A DEFINITE MAYBE!!!!!
>>Of course, everything is relative.......
> 
>I often see the "light barrier" compared to the "sound barrier."  The
>problem is, before we "broke" the so-called sound barrier, scientists
>were in agreement that exceeding the speed of sound *was* physically
>possible.  They had plenty of examples, such as bullets and the cracking
>of a whip (I'm not sure when the whip crack was found to be a mini-sonic
>boom, it may have been *after* the flight of the X-1).
> 
>The issue was an engineering one; namely, could an aircraft be built which
>would safely carry a pilot beyond Mach 1?
> 
>The analogy of the "light barrier" to the "sound barrier" is erroneous
>because the speed of light in a vacuum is considered a fundamental limit
>of space-time.  It's *not* an engineering issue; it's a matter of  basic
>physics.
>-- 
> 
>Anson Kennedy                                                   anson@netcom.com
>Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)
> 
>"If you don't watch the violence,    \           "If I had been the Virgin Mary,
>you'll never get desensitized to it."  \                I would have said 'No.'"
>-Bart Simpson                            \  -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)

Mr. Kennedy,
  There is one possibility which has emerged as a theory coming out of theoretical
physics. The concept of Tachyons and Tardyons. I sometimes wonder where these folk
come up with these names. Anyway Tardyons are thought to be 'particles' which can
never equal or exceed the speed of light and Tachyons are thought to be 'particles'
which can never equal or go slower than the speed of light. This is still just a
part of quantum theory and no proof yet but there are researchers working on the
concept which is intriging. What some people speculate is that if a ship or device
could generate a Tachyon bubble around it it would then be carried along at a
velocity apparently greater than light. This is purely speculation and mathematics
at this point but an interesting notion to consider.
								Thanks,
								   Jim

======================================================================
   We are rapidly ascending through prosperity to poverty...  Twain
                    Internet:    jim@apsicc.aps.edu
       Albuquerque Public Schools - Instructional System Manager 
======================================================================
From: rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Richard Beckett)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 08:39:32 GMT
Subject: Re: UFO's
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Labs, Bristol, UK
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com


	In the early 1900's around the time that steam trains were invented
	scientists stated that man would never be able to exceed 20 mph,
	as he would suffocate.

	We proberbly haven't advanced much since then, cosmically speaking.


	Cheers,


		RIK


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rik O'Chet, Bristol, England.		
Email: rik@hplb.hpl.hp.com		One's never alone with a Rubber Duck !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.paranormal:2201 sci.skeptic:15856 alt.astrology:1580
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,alt.astrology
Subject: Re: Did Nostradamus predict the end of communism?
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:28:36 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <3SEP199217201517@vxcrna.cern.ch>, casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes...
>In article <1992Sep3.142519.21745@cs.ucf.edu>, long@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long) writes...
>>When did communism collapse, exactly?
> 
>Last I checked, it was still alive and well in China, Cuba and North Korea.

Alive, yes.  Well?  I think that's open for debate.  Especially in Cuba, where
the time that Communism survives after the death of Castro will probably
be measured in days, not weeks.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Re: UFO's
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 13:38:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

tzf@csl.biosci.arizona.edu (Theron Friedman) writes:

>In article <b4kn25d.anson@netcom.com>, anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>|> hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall) writes:
>..... [ deleted stuff ]
>|> 
>|> What is more likely is that the "light barrier" will be revised to be the
>|> speed of light in a *quantum* vacuum (assuming the experimental results
>|> are verified).

>Doubtful that the change would be as trivial as this. As you point out in
>another post, theories are seldom wholly thrown out; they become special
>cases. The reason for this is often the large mass of data that fit the
>old theory.

You are absolutely correct.  Thanks for clarifying with the following:

>The experiments supporting relativity, and many of the other experiments
>in modern physics, use a certain value of "C". Change that value and you
>have to redo all the computations. That those experiments have worked so far
>basically means that the value of "C" was correct.

This also depends on *how much* the value of C gets changed.  I haven't
seen quantitative results of the "quantum vacuum" measurements, so it
may be a difference of only a fraction of a percent.

>In which case, if the quantum experiment did indeed have light in a quantum
>vacuum moving faster than "C" for an ordinary vacuum, there is going to
>be a discreprancy for the theorists to patch over. And perhaps a
>loophole through which future engineers can slip FTL travel or
>communications.

I can't argue that.  Just so long as we all remember your qualifier "perhaps."

>(This is actually not an earth-shattering revelation. Fitting quantum mechanics
>and relativity into the same theoretical universe has been one of the
>ongoing problems of modern physics. That the new framework turns both of them
>into special cases is just par for the process.)

>Terry Friedman
>- Skeptical of skeptics -
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Does this mean you doubt me? :-)
-- 

Anson Kennedy                                                   anson@netcom.com
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

"If you don't watch the violence,    \           "If I had been the Virgin Mary,
you'll never get desensitized to it."  \                I would have said 'No.'"
-Bart Simpson                            \  -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,alt.astrology
From: long@next1.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long)
Subject: Did Nostradamus predict the end of communism?
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:25:19 GMT

I just came across something very interresting during my lunchtime  
readings.  In the book _The Fate of Nations_ by Arthur Prieditis  
(Llewellyn Publications, 1982), G. Gustafsson, a Nostradamus scholar, is  
quoted on page 343 as saying that Nostradamus' "Seventy-three years and  
seven months" in quatrain B.44 may mean the duration of the communistic  
regime in Russia.  This is taken from Gustafsson's book _Europas framtid  
enligt Nostradamus_ (Ha'rno'sand, 1956 [' means umlaut]).  Taking November  
1917 as the beginning of communism, we have June 1991 as the predicted  
end.  When did communism collapse, exactly?  What does the original  
quatrain say?

--
Richard Long
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5026, FAX: (407)658-5059
long@acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: spice@convex.csd.uwm.edu (James G Spice)
Subject: Re: UFO's
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 05:12:11 GMT

In article <#4knc!d.anson@netcom.com> anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>cherkaue@zomma.cs.wisc.edu (Kevin J. Cherkauer) writes:
>
>
>Without writing a dissertation, I think you may have a bit of a
>misconception about the use of the word "theory" in science.  A theory
>is as close to a "fact" that you can get in science.  Theories are, I
>think, seldom completely overturned.  For example, Newton's theory of
>gravitation was not proven "false" by Einstein.  Rather, it was shown
>to be a special case of relativity.  It is only when a theory shows
an inability to explain certain observed phenomena that it is "revised."
>In the case of Newton, if I remember correctly, it was certain pertubations
>in the motion of the planet Mercury which Newtonian physics couldn't
>explain but which relativity could.
>

There has been much talk about the nature and function of theory in
science, and much of that talk seems a bit off the mark.  First, a
theory is never tested.  A theory is a set of concepts and 
statements which specify relationships between these concepts.  Through
the use of logical deduction, testable hypotheses are produced.  For
example:
Fred is a dog;
All dogs are pink:
therefore, Fred is pink.
Now, the theory as a whole is never tested.  Rather, the hypothesis
is subjected to empiral scrutiny.  Often this is done by stating a null
hypothesis, in this case "Fred is not pink", and setting out to
falsify it.  If evidence arises that supports the null hypothesis,
the hypothesis generated by the theoretical structure must be rejected.
This does not condemn the theoretical structure as a whole.  It simply
means that perhaps one concept or the purported relationship between
any two concepts is flawed.  In the case at hand, perhaps Fred is not
a dog, or maybe all dogs are not pink.  In either case, the structure
may be tinkered with, and new hypotheses deduced which will then be
tested.
Second, no test of any hypothesis can ever *prove*, or *verify* that
hypothesis.  Corroberation is a more appropriate word.  On the other
hand, one test result contrary to the hypothesis falsifies it (if
we assume the testing technique is accurate).  This then is the goal
of science -- to falsify hypotheses produced by the paradigmatic 
theories of our time.  In this way, theories can be readjusted and
fine tuned and progress experienced.

Jim "No matter how many pink dogs you see, someday, under the
right conditions, you might run into a purple one" Spice

-- 
--------------------------------------     Jim Spice
And we're off, like a dirty shirt!         U. of Wisconsin -- Milwaukee
		--Lester Earnest Spice     Dept. of Political Science
======================================     spice@convex.csd.uwm.edu
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: drwho@rajeesh.WPI.EDU (Eric Ant Von Laudermann)
Subject: Re: what a joke!
Keywords: expunge this!n
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:17:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.190301.5111@nntp.uoregon.edu> johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu (John Martin) writes:
>In article <78253@ut-emx.uucp>, giskard@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Daneel Olivaw) writes:
>
>>I was merely trying
>>to get people to answer my questions (as I stated).  I got a few responses
>>from some goons out there who think they are taken part in a cartoon or 
>>something.
>
>No, that's not at all what you were trying to do. Despite what you think, we
>are not stupid. You were trying to incite hostility, and dole out a few
>petty and childish insults to people who do not share your beliefs.
>
>As you say, nobody can prove these things to you. This, of course, does not
>mean that proof doesn't exist, it means that even if you were presented with
>solid, irrefutable evidence for the existance of any of these things, you
>would not be convinced, because your tiny brain simply can't concieve that
>what you have been taught just might be wrong!

Of all the people on the net, you are, of course, the authority on the
subject of Daneel Olivaw's mind.  Thank you *so* much for telling him
exactly what his intentions were.  You know them so much better than
he does.

--E.V.L. (drwho@wpi.wpi.edu)        # Ignorance is evil.
Disclaimer: "It's all absolutely    # Knowledge is good.
devastatingly true, except the bits # But knowledge is not intelligence,
that are lies."  --Douglas Adams    # and ignorance is not stupidity.
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: jep@phys.uucp (Jason Epel [Computer Consultant])
Subject: Re: UFO's
Organization: University of Central Florida - Physics
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:52:05 GMT

In article <83jn#yg.anson@netcom.com> anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>
>The analogy of the "light barrier" to the "sound barrier" is erroneous
>because the speed of light in a vacuum is considered a fundamental limit
>of space-time.  It's *not* an engineering issue; it's a matter of  basic
>physics.

A barrier is something which we make up for the purpose of making
mathematical equations work.  If we didn't have boundaries, we'd have an
infinite continuum where almost anything would be possible.  Logically,
I don't have a hard time comprehending that.  But those of you who do
insist on forcing others in believing that boundaries exist, but they
are only boundaries that have mathmatically been made up to hold up the
'pants of math'..

So you have absolutely no right to tell someone that the speed of light
is an absolute barrier and you shouldn't even think of the possibility
of something penetrating this barrier.  

You can compare the sound barrier in the light barrier, but in my
opinion, in one primary way:  regardless of the examples, which at the
time were PURELY speculative, the sound barrier had people saying "It's
impossible to break the barrier."  Well, likewise people say the same in
regards to the light barrier.  It's a barrier that Einstein and some
others made up.  That's it.  The reason why current theory supports this
is because the current theory is BASED on those assumptions.  

It's hard to argue a point when you're standing on the same foundation,
where the foundation points towards one correct answer before the
question is asked!


Newsgroups: alt.paranormal