HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: Entropy Limited, Vancouver Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 04:14:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.011018.27240@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <1a4qjnINNf10@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.164716.17410@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>=[...]
>>=There are plenty of people who are in the Peace Corps or army, have hobbies
>>=or families and still have their spiritual needs met by religion.  I think
>>=you are confusing social needs with spiritual needs.  
>>
>>Perhaps because we haven't seen a definition of "spiritual needs"?  He *DID*
>>ask you for a definition.  Is this another of those things like a "soul" that
>>can't be defined, but it exists because you want it to exist?
>
>I didn't perceive his question as being any more than rhetorical.

Well, while I still have Webster's boatanchor edition out (carrying it over
to the console is no light matter :-) 
    rhetorical question _n_ : a question not intended to elicit an answer
	but asked for rhetorical effect often with an assumption that only
	one answer is possible (as in "Who does not love his country?").

Sooo... if the answer to the question is so obvious and clear-cut that 
you sincerely did not believe that he was hoping for an answer, perhaps 
it is sufficiently obvious and clear-cut that you can state it here.
    If you're going to write things like "I think you are confusing social 
needs with spiritual needs" it's only fair that you make some effort
towards characterizing your perception of the distinction. 

-- 
ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!eslvcr!ted   (Ted Powell)
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Herbalife ?
Date: 29 Sep 1992 05:06:43 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep23.180905.836@mala.bc.ca>, epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp) writes:
>Anyway, there were people in the video
>claiming that after they started using Herbalife products their
>cancer went away, diabetes cleared up, etc.
>
>When the video was over the Herbalife rep asked me what I thought
>of it.  I told him that the video seemed to be claiming that
>the stuff cured cancer and diabetes.  He pointed out that they
>do not exactly make that claim, but that some people have
>recovered from those diseases after using Herbalife products.
>
>It seemed to me that Herbalife was trying to create the impression
>that their products cure diabetes and cancer, while being careful
>not to make that claim explicitly.  Probably, this technically
>isn't outright fraud, but it seemed pretty shady to me.

That would seem to be the case.  However, please DO bear in mind that
spontaneous remissions of cancer DO occur, and that it's not at all uncommon
for a type-II diabetic to get the diabetes under control via diet and exercise,
at least for awhile.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:25:29 EST
 <1992Sep20.193653.19374@rosevax.rosemount.com>,<1992Sep21.170238.25151@hfsi.uucp> <1a4q2lINNf10@gap.caltech.edu>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1a4q2lINNf10@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
> In article <1992Sep21.170238.25151@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>Carrying any position to logical extremes can produce
>>unsatisfactory results.  For example, believing that this is the
>>one and only life might tend to make me more selfish of myself
>>having no care or consideration for anyone else.  I might even
>>have fun breaking every social law in the book.  
> 
> Ah, yes.  This illustrates the underlying moral bankruptcy of so many of the
> religious (not that I'm claiming that John belongs to this class):  It's only
> fear of god that keeps them acting nicely.  Hence their frequent perception of
> atheists as inherently immoral.

Yes, I've heard this argument many times from fundmentalists.  They claim that
Only God saved them from a life of sin, that he retrieved them from a sordid
existance as a (insert one) alcoholic, wife beater, druggie, adulterer, child
abuser, etc.  Obviously they would never have gotten any better on their own!

Sarcasm meant.

Sue

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:21:15 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Sep27.202643.2012@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>ak104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert Clark) writes:
>:
>: HOWEVER, the recent autumnal equinox has given me pause. I was looking
>: at a picture of an egg balanced on its end and reading the caption to
>: the picture which stated that only during the vernal or autumnal equinox
>: may a fresh egg be balanced on its end, when I started wondering
>: how such a small amount of mass can detect this effect.
>:
>
>You can balance a fresh egg on its end (either one) at any time during
>the year.  It's not even that difficult, I've done it many times.
>

So have I.  My dad did it for the little physics study group he was leading.

Big Al.  The secret is to hard-boil the eggs.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.urban
From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Organization: just me
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 17:04:20 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <26538@dog.ee.lbl.gov> TWChan@lbl.gov (Terry Chan) writes:
>JRowe@cen.ex.ac.uk (John Rowe) writes:
>  +
>  +	I thought the secret of balancing eggs upright was to use a
>  +little slight of hand to put down a small pile of salt or similar
>  +and balance the egg on that. Another UL?
>
>No, actually, that's what they invented superglue for.
>
>Terry "Mr. Wizard" Chan

     Well, so much for Mr. Wizard.  A reasonable skeptical search of the
available video materials (mostly commercials from shortly after the
introduction of mass-produced cyano-acrylate adhesives) shows conclusively
that SuperGlue (tm) was invented to suspend construction workers from American
Football goalposts by their construction helmets.  

     I have never seen a reasonable explanation of why construction workers
were singled out, however.  The twin miracles of politics and economics, I
suspect.  A sticky issue indeed.

David "Read My Smileys" Pipes
:-) :-)
robear@digex.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
From: john7552@mach1.wlu.ca (Niall Johnson u)
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:31:56 GMT

>In article <1992Sep29.191436.1427@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>
>> 
>>           
>> 
>>                  RUSSIA'S OPERATIONAL STAR WARS DEFENSE SYSTEM
>>          
 
masses of purile drivel deleted

>>                                    Robert E. McElwaine
>>                                    B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC

Jesus f***ing Christ! What is with this guy! Every newsgroup and listserv
I'm attached to seems to be attracting this man's drivel.

The guy is definitely unhinged and has a CAPS LOCK fixation. What, doesn't
he think people can read and understand unless he emphasises things with the
caps lock?

Buddy, get a life... better still get a brain!

Gee, I feel sorry for people who have an affiliation with UW-EC when they
see what one of their own is doing.


Ciao

Niall Johnson,
Dept. of Geography,
Wilfrid Laurier University.
     john7552@mach1.wlu.ca
From: ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Chimp ``Language'' (Was: Re: Chimpanzee vs Human DNA)
Date: 30 Sep 1992 21:59:56 GMT
 <92272.225700RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <1992Sep29.130725.6525@hsr.no>
 <lchlb0INN6tq@news.bbn.com> <92273.183239RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Reply-To: ingria@BBN.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com
In-reply-to: 's message of Tuesday, 29 Sep 1992 18:32:39 EST

In article <92273.183239RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:

   there was a question about chimp syntax.  the sagan/lady article also
   mentioned a chimp who developed his own syntax, which the authors considered
   very much harder than being taught syntax.  this chimp would, for example,
   say (well, hit the keys for, whatever) "tomato bite" and then bite a tomato.
   he wouldn't say "bite tomato."  "noun verb", never "verb noun".

This sounds like the Yerkish experiments.  My impression was that in
the Yerkish studies, a syntax was forced on the chimp subject.

So where/when did the Sagan et al article appear, so I can track
things down for myself?

-30-
Bob
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind (was: Logic and God)
Date: 29 Sep 1992 05:30:34 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep28.164828.2122@meteor.wisc.edu>, tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>Well, if you want to devote yourself to something that may turn out to
>be futile, go ahead.

Odd.  That's exactly what some people say about meteorology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:24:26 GMT

In article <1a97ciINN82t@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.010216.27146@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>In article <1a4mvtINNf10@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>>Well, before we can answer your question about scientifically demonstrating the
>>>existence of a soul, how about you give us a definition of soul that you're
>>>willing to stick to throughout the rest of the discussion.
>>
>>I would define soul as that spiritual part of us humans that
>>defines us in God's image. It is a separate entity, infused into
>>the body before birth, and leaves the body at death.  Because it
>>is the part of us that is like God, it is intrinsically and
>>naturally immortal.  Furthermore, it is the principle behind our
>>intellect and reasoning ability.
>
>Hmm.  No well-defined properties.  Just a bunch of metaphysical hogwash.
>Not a very useful definition, I'm afraid.

TRANSLATION:  Well you gave me a definition, but I really don't know what
to do with it.  Yeah!, I'll attack the definition, that's what I'll do!

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL



-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: UN-WISE QUOTES
Date: 4 Oct 92 02:43:19 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <2027@snap>, paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>>	   Natural Anti-cancer Remedies,
>
>Again, for any given remedy, scientists do not deny the possibility
>that it works, they only ask for evidence.  So far non has been
>forthcoming.

Aren't you forgetting taxol, a chemical occurring naturally in the Pacific yew?
Taxol itself has a number of deleterious side effects, but derivatives look
promising.  Of course, it's not a panacea, but does appear effective in SOME
cases of SOME types of cancer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 14:59:22 GMT

In article <c#!p3ta.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.164716.17410@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>
>[...]
> 
>>I never said that anything should or should not be defended, only
>>what *I* choose to defend.  Your bias is really showing in your
>>posting!  Only *you* can determine which religious beliefs *you*
>>should agree with.  Because you can't make up your mind, doesn't
>>mean that everyone elses religious beliefs are bogus or
>>necessarily superstition.
>
>Without getting involved in the previous discussin, this brought a 
>question to mind. Beliefs are real, whether or not whatever is belived
>in is real or bogus.
>
>But how does one differentiate "religious beliefs" from "superstition"?
> 

>Rich
>
>payner@netcom.com

Rich, the dictionary defines religious beliefs as those beliefs
concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe
especially belief or worship in God or gods.  Superstition, on the
other hand is defined as an irrational belief in the ominous
significance of a particular thing or circumstance. Therfore, in
my mind, if somone has a set of beliefs that deal basically with
the first definition, then even if the set of beliefs consist of
something which we may think as irrational doom & gloom, I would
put it in the first category.  If however, I have an isolated
belief e.g. if I knock on wood three times, I am averting
disaster, this would be a superstition since it does not tie in
any way with the first definition.  Does this make sense to you?

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Dream analysis therapy
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 16:42:24 GMT

In article <60846@mimsy.umd.edu> biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes:

   Does anyone know of good sources debunking the use of 
   dream analysis for psychotherapy? Has there been anything
   that would imply such therapy could actually be harmful?
   I'm not looking for sources that debunk psychotherapy
   in general. The more recent, the better.

   A friend of my roomate is spending big $$$ for such
   "professional" therapy.

Most "talk" psychotherapies spend at least some time on dreams.
Psychoanalysis, and its variants, spend a LOT of time on it.  It is
probably pretty useless to try and "debunk" dream analysis in
psychotherapy in general.

The best way to help you friend (if he needs it) is to get him to
spend a bit more money on one visit to a professional therapist
(assuming the guy he is seeing is a quack).  The absence of a well
formed outcome of the therapy is a good clue.  If he is not a quack,
then you may be out of luck.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Soul
Date: 27 Sep 92 16:10:18 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep20.170657.20792@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes:
>>The claim is "Because the spirit is nonphysical, we cannot observe it
>>scientifically."  This claim is false; it's conceivable that the spirit
>>produces a physical change which lets us observe it scientifically.
>
>Interjecting here...You observe the change, not the non-physical
>entity.

Fine.  When's the last time you observed an atomic nucleus, rather than some
effect caused by an atomic nucleus?

>I think the claim was that the spirit itself cannot be
>scientifically observed *directly*.  Because of this, no amount of
>scientific explanation will *prove* it's existence.

By the same argument, we can't *prove* the existence of atoms.  The evidence is
overwhelming, but it doesn't constitute *proof*.

>>Consider another analogy.  The balls move in certain patterns.  For instance,
>>when a ball bounces, the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of
>>reflection.  However, you know nothing about physics.  You decide there must
>>be "something" causing the balls to move in straight lines, and bounce off the
>>walls without changing speed.  You deduce there is a pool shark who rearranges
>>and pushes the balls around each time you look at them.  I tell you "no, it's
>>explainable by physical laws", and you reply "I refuse to believe that the
>>laws of physics can result in such complicated behavior as straight line
>>motion or reflection without change of speed.  It's gotta be a pool shark."

>That's a nice analogy by is orthogonal to the first analogy.

True.  However, it certainly does seem to be a better analogy to the claims
made by those who insist that a soul *MUST* exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: echyatt@eos.ncsu.edu (EDWARD CRAIG HYATT)
Subject: Re: Skeptic Novels
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:15:31 GMT

In article <Bv74Eq.M3t@visix.com> chris@visix.com (Chris Cole) writes:
>
>Actually, I've found Umberto Eco's "Name of the Rose" to be much more 
>entertaining.  In short, it's a medieval "detective" story
>(well, of course it is much more than that...) that takes place in a 
>monastery, with two skeptical monks playing the parts of Holmes/Watson, while
>the rest of the monks are running around predicting Armageddon.  Well
>written, intelligent, and absorbing.  Two thumbs up.
>
>chris
>
>"The Hell Law says that Hell is reserved exclusively for them that believe 
>  in it.  Further, the lowest Rung in Hell is reserved for them that 
>  believe in it on the supposition that they'll go there if they don't."
>   The Honest Book of Truth; The Gospel According to Fred, 3:1

I liked this book very much, too.  I particularly enjoyed the story
thread that followed the evolution of magic into science.  For example,
the story talks about the development of eye-glasses, which are thought
to be mystical because the underlying principles are not understood
(at least in europe at the time).  I did have a lot of trouble with
some of the long religious/philosophical discussions because I didn't
have the background, but I just skipped over them with no ill effect.
I definitely agree with the "thumbs up" rating!

-Craig

 
-- 
--------------------
Craig Hyatt
NCSU@Raleigh, NC USA
echyatt@eos.ncsu.edu
--------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 20:26:43 GMT

ak104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert Clark) writes:
:
: HOWEVER, the recent autumnal equinox has given me pause. I was looking
: at a picture of an egg balanced on its end and reading the caption to
: the picture which stated that only during the vernal or autumnal equinox
: may a fresh egg be balanced on its end, when I started wondering
: how such a small amount of mass can detect this effect.
:

You can balance a fresh egg on its end (either one) at any time during
the year.  It's not even that difficult, I've done it many times.

Did YOU try before asking????

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Somewhere in DOWNTOWN
Rosemount Inc.                                |BURBANK a prostitute is
                                              |OVERCOOKING a LAMB CHOP!!
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic