HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: UFO-skeptical film/tv documentaries ?
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 19:35:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.011010.28699@odin.corp.sgi.com>, rodb@slugo.corp.sgi.com (Rod Beckwith) writes in part:
|> Yet it is still worth viewing.It's a good lesson how
|> debunkers operate.

Uh-oh.  Get his name, guys.  He's seen some of our secrets, now we'll 
have to rub him out! :-)

Just teasing.  You are 1 billion % correct--an important point of the
program was to show EXACTLY this--how to critically examine UFO
stories.  This skill is much more of a secret than some of us might
wish, especially from so-called investigators from the popular media.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14769 talk.origins:9842
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:23:41 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <1992Aug20.170752.175456@zeus.calpoly.edu> skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>reus@klein.euromath.dk (Jens Peter Reus Christensen) writes:
>>Parts of This newsgroup and almost all of Talk.origin exist in order 
>>to educate the public in the IC (Intellectually Correct) way of 
>>thinking on issues of origin of biological and geological origin. 
>>It serves this purpose reasonable well and has no other purpose.
>
>This is a charge you are going to have to back up.

I'm afraid he is right. As has been pointed out before,
evolutionism boils down to belief. There are no
scientific proofs. However anyone who expresses an
opinion contrary to that belief is usually `corrected'.

>>|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>>|  Jens Peter Reus Christensen   |                                         |
>
>|======================================================================|
>| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
>| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
>| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |


--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14817 alt.conspiracy:10208 alt.activism:15262 talk.politics.guns:19850
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Killing bers with handguns  (Was:  Re:  A random thought)
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:24:28 GMT
Distribution: usa

bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
> I must take umbrage at this talk of slaughtering my brothers and sisters!
> 
> Besides, a bear who recently decided a camper would make a handy snack 
> (in Colorado) was fought off by the guy with bare hands.  As I recall he
> did require stitches, but he was able to convince the bear to look elsewhere
> for a meal.

And a good friend of mine recently fought off a bear with his grub hoe.
Unfortunately it had already killed and started to eat his fellow
geologist.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Keywords: evolution, creationism
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 02:23:26 GMT

What a load of crap. I wish there was someway to respond to this so the
people that have been tricked by it could see the response.
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Scary posting (very long)
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:55:31 GMT

I re-posted a muddled rant from:

|>  THE BATTLE FOR YOUR MIND
|>  by Dick Sutphen 
|> 
|>  Persuasion and Brainwashing Techniques Being Used on the Public Today

which contained the following claim:
|> 
|>    A 1984 article in the technical newsletter, "Brain-Mind Bulletin," states
|>that as much as 99 percent of our cognitive activity may be "non-conscious,"
|>according to the director of the Laboratory for Cognitive Psychophysiology at
|>the University of Illinois. The lengthy report ends with the statement, "these
|>findings support the use of subliminal approaches such as taped suggestions
|>for weight loss and the therapeutic use of hypnosis and Neuro-Linguistic
|>Programming."

This statement is badly misleading and I simply MUST defend the honor
of the U of I. :-)

First, the "Brain/Mind Bulletin" is more of a pop-tech newsletter than a 
technical newsletter.  It is extrememly stingy about citations for
the gee-whiz expanding-consciousness research it reports.  It is,
however, actually available in the UIUC library.  (We're marvelously
well stocked, it seems.)

The cited report appears to be a muddle of a (probably muddled) article
in the NY Times (possibly by Daniel Goleman) which I have not had the 
energy to track down.

The part about "99% of cognitive activity" being "non-conscious" is
not controversial, is not actually big news, may actually have
been uttered by E. Donchin (the dir. of LCP mentioned), and certainly
is consistant with his views.

HOWEVER, the research at Illinois (and tons of other labs) definitely
does NOT "support the use of subliminal approaches such as" the ones 
cited.  That conclusion is the inference from the research drawn either 
by the original NYT writer or by the unnamed M/BB writer.  There is, 
in fact, no such support to be found in these studies or any other 
solid research.

Manny Donchin confirms my conclusions in personal communication.  
To preserve his good name, I will not fully quote his comments.  The 
word "balder-dash" appears, however, and some not-at-all open-minded 
comments about this stuff not meriting the use of one's "limited 
processing resources."

-- 
  Robert E. ("Be True to Your School") McGrath
  University of Illinois
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...)
Date: 23 Aug 92 07:32:35 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Aug22.214031.25036@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>
>: "It is as useless to argue with those that have renounced the use
>: and authority of reason as to administer medication to the dead"
>: -Thomas Paine.
>
>But for some reason we keep doing it.  Sort of reminds me of golf.

I think it is worthwile for two reasons.

1. It keeps your mind busy (admittedly, not very much, but still...)
2. There's a slight chance of preventing somebody from succumbing to
   this idiocy.
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   cust_ts@kruuna.helsinki.fi)                  00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Keywords: evolution, creationism
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:52:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.002048.1454@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> 
  dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>In article <1992Aug16.181345.18001@ccu.umanitoba.ca> 
>  vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>>
>>>>   5. PROBABILITY
>>>>
>>>>The probability  of producing one human cell by chance is
>>>>10, to the 119,000 power. [MP]
>>
>>Using this logic, what is the probability of the
>>spontaneous generation of a much more complex being?
>>
>>Such as a God?  10 to the 250,000,000 power?
>>
>
>No problem. He always was :-)

A thoughtful young man of Dumfries
Decided God's that which he is 
For he quickly had learnt
If he were what he weren't
He could not be that which he is.

C "credit to Martin Gardner" Frog
From: jmv@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Jean-Marc Vezien)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Inconsistency in the bible
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:45:42 GMT
Organization: GRASP Lab

In article <1992Aug14.160558.2618@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> In article <1992Aug14.090144.9132@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott) writes:
> }The bible is an historical document, regardless of the existence/non-
> }existence of God.
> 
> Then why are there things mentioned for which there is evidence that it did
> NOT occur as stated?  Wouldn't that case doubt on the things for which there
> is no historical evidence one way or another?  Maybe it is so and maybe it 
> isn't.

James, I think what he meant was that as long as the bible
was written by someone (lots of writers probably) in the past,
it is an historical document. As for the relevance of its content,
I would use it in a profane way, as clues to find out when each
part was written for example, but surely not as historical evidences
per se.


JM.
From: phil@adam.adelaide.edu.au (Phil Kernick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Date: 19 Aug 92 11:02:25 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Adelaide, South Australia

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

>The elitism of Mensa is a big farce, anyway. They don't have the intelligence
>to work out that the concept of IQ is completely flawed and meaningless.

Really?  I'm in Mensa and I know that ability to do IQ tests correllates
well with ability to do IQ tests.  Ie, the more you do the better you get.

Talk to a psychologist (I know several who got their PhDs in this sort of
work) rather than just ranting.

>Mensa is the most useless, aimless, tacky, idiotic  organisation in the world.

I assume from this that you failed the entrance test?  :-)



Phil.

-- 
   _-_|\    Phil Kernick                E-Mail: phil@adam.adelaide.edu.au
  /     \   Departmental Engineer       Phone:  +61 8 228 5914
  \_.-*_/   Dept. of Psychology         Fax:    +61 8 224 0464
       v    University of Adelaide      Mail:   GPO Box 498 Adelaide SA 5001
From: SKH4161@MVS.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:12:00 GMT
Organization: Draper Laboratory

In article <GERRY.92Aug19091341@onion.cmu.edu>,
gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:

>In article <19920818143222SKH4161@MVS.draper.com> SKH4161@MVS.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
>
>   >>>The elitism of Mensa is a big farce, anyway. They don't have the intelligence
>   >>>to work out that the concept of IQ is completely flawed and meaningless.
>
>   Since Mensa also accepts SAT, ACT, GMAT, MAT and GRE scores for
>   admission, do you mean to say the concept of these scholastic aptitude
>   tests is completely flawed and meaningless as well?   Many Mensa
>   members, if not the majority, got in on one of these tests rather than
>   an IQ test.
>
>Actually, these tests DO NOT measure intelligence!  I had occasion to
>speak with an educator who is quite knowledgable about these exams.  I
>was telling him that I think they are a farce (due to my very high
>score and my knowledge of my own abilities... i.e., the test make me
>out to be god, and I am not).  Anyway, his response was that there is
>a strong correlation between GRE score and success in graduate school.
>And that is why its used.  It has nothing to do with intelligence.

I agree, and I suppose you meant to agree with me, since I said these
tests measure scholastic aptitude.  But IQ tests probably don't measure
what you mean by "intelligence" either.  Some IQ tests are quite similar
to the SAT verbal, in that they have a heavy emphasis on vocabulary and
comprehension, so making a distinction between IQ and scholastic
aptitude is a bit of a farce, in my opinion.  In fact, as I understand
it, IQ was originally devised to predict scholastic success.

The scholastic aptitude tests are not a farce - they're an astounding
success in psychometric terms (though that may not say much for
the rest of pscychometrics!).  What's a farce is thinking you're
a god if you get perfect scores.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Mensa party animals
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:19:45 GMT

In article <qt9mysa.sheaffer@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes in part:
|>   Yes, but they sure have some neat parties sometimes!
Are you seriously considering just leaving it at that?  With all of
us "not-good-enoughs" out here wondering just what goes on?

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence!
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mensas farce?
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:22:40 GMT
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <14363@mindlink.bc.ca>, Mischa_Sandberg@mindlink.bc.ca (Mischa Sandberg) writes in part:
|> we have great
|> parties

Extraordinary Claims Require Exatraordianry Evidence.

I'm still waiting for something other than bare assertion of this claim.


|> Idiotic? Set an objective definition of idiotic, and I'd
|> argue it with you any day. 
How about:
  "a bunch of supposedly extra-
  bright people who excluded 98% of the population by definition ---"
From: Ken.Stuckas@iphase.UUCP (Ken Stuckas)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: shroud exposed at ear
Date: 12 Aug 92  17:53:00 EST

-> I suggest you read (or re-read) Heller's book; he claims that many
-> Shroud details were discovered only after modern scientific analysis,
-> details that a medieval forger would not have needed to include.
-> I.e., microscopic particles of dirt on the feet, the abrasion of the
-> tip of the nose, the precise pattern that a Roman flagrum produces in
-> human flesh, the two paths that the blood took in running down the
-> arm during crucifixion, ... why were all these details so carefully
-> included?  A true skeptic does not simply dismiss the details, but
-> rather explains them so the "believer" has no room for belief.  And
-> let me turn

I especially liked the spike marks being in the wrist and not in the palm of the hand which experts claim would have ripped out.  I believe that the shroud is a fake, but I'm sure we foundthings that the forger did not know would be found.  Maybe it was created by a group of people who went to the length of actually putting some human through the whole ritual of crucifixion (a volunteer, of course).  I'm sure there would have been many volunteers in the religious community at that time.

We have a human tendency to disbelieve the science of others.  as a result a number of events just keep on being brought up over and over. Marilyn Monroe, John Kennedy's assasination, UFO's, Darwinism.  There is only one cure that I know of, and that is personal education with an open mind rather than a profit motive.   Say, when is the next Bermuda triangle book coming out?   :)

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Pt 1/3: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:44:59 GMT
	<17AUG199220545017@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.

>>>>> On 18 Aug 92 03:54:00 GMT, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) said:

James> In article <714083685.F00002@csource.oz.au>, joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes...

>It classifies bats as flying things, because it calls a bat an "Oif" (in
>Hebrew). Since we know that that bats aren't birds, an "Oif" must be a flying
>thing, excluding insects.

James> If this is correct, why is it translated as "birds" and not
James> "flying things"?  (I've checked KJV, RSV, NASB.)  Surely all
James> these committees of translators would not have screwed up
James> something so simple?

Did your KJV really have "birds" in Lev. 11:13?  All my copies of the
KJV have "fowls" there (and, interestingly, in 11:20 also).

NIV has "birds".  All the Bibles I've seen include a cautionary
footnote at this point, to the effect that the precise identification
of the animals in this chapter is not at all certain.  I wonder what
the Greek word is in the Septuagint - it may have influenced the KJV
(and possibly other) translators.  Recall also that concordances and
topical indices depend on the translation itself, and *most* of the
animals described in Lev. 11:13-19 are birds - so the translators may
have opted for linguistic simplicity over scientific accuracy.
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "Behold the fowls of the air; for they sow not,
Integrated Measurement Systems |  neither do they reap, nor gather into barns,
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  yet your heavenly Father feedeth them.  Are
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  ye not much better than they?" 
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |  - Matthew 6:26
From: slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 'Creature in Ice/ Minnesota Ice Man
Date: 14 Aug 92 05:03:22 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <19712@plains.NoDak.edu> person@plains.NoDak.edu (Brett G Person ) writes:
>
>In the mid-70's I saw this thing in a shopping mall.  I'd forgotten
>about it till a couple of days ago when a friend and I started talking
>about it.    

I also saw the "bigfoot" supposedly frozen in ice in a glass case.
And I probably saw it the same place you did--at West Acres Mall in
Fargo, North Dakota.

>What the hell was this thing?  It was a subject of great debate when I
>was in the sixth grade manny years ago.  Most of us considered it to
>be a poorly-done mock-up of a pre-historic man.  
>I hadn't thoiught about this in years.  Is it still touring the
>country?

They were probably just trying to increase mall shopping.  They
probably succeeded.  After all, what else is there to do in North
Dakota?  Just kidding.  I would also be interested in knowing
whatever happened to the exhibit and why they didn't tour museums
rather than malls..


-- 
Steve Linke
Salk Institute (Gene Expression Lab)
La Jolla, CA
From: rodb@slugo.corp.sgi.com (Rod Beckwith)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: UFO-skeptical film/tv documentaries ?
Date: 15 Aug 92 01:10:10 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

Otto[you write}

>The Finnish commercial TV has really outdone itself in sillines recently,
>by showing a "documentary" which abandoned all logic and source critisism
>for a blue-eyed acceptance of all possible claims of "UFOlogy" (including
>the all-pervading conspiracy, OOBEs, sexual exploits of aliens etc.)

>I am looking for references to *skeptical* film/tv documentaries which
>the Finnish Skeptics could suggest to them for showing as a rational
>"counterweight" to all this.

>I am aware of one NOVA episode about UFO's.  How good is it ?
>-- 
>   /* * * Otto J. Makela <

Very SKEPTICAL...I saw this a few years ago & it was very opinionated...in
the negative that is. Yet it is still worth viewing.It's a good lesson how
debunkers operate.

Rod




-- 
Rod Beckwith     |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 
Datacom I/S      |"The great obstacle of progress is not ignorance,
rodb@corp.sgi.com|but the illusion of knowledge."
                 |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


			
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims)
Subject: Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it
Organization: RL
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 05:29:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.052212.29571@lonex.rl.af.mil> jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.145724.12468@colorado.edu> gordon@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R) writes:
>>zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>>
>>>I came across the term kinesiology in a Mensa magazine article.  The version 
>>
>I find no reference to kinesiology in any of my books. I do, however, find
>kin(a)esthiology, which seems somewhat like the subject at hand.  I studied
>
Make that kin(a)esthesiology.  Damn that IS hard to spell!
-- 
jft
"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: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 09:24:52 GMT

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

>In article <14AUG199221251122@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>In article <BszE8J.LM@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R James) writes...
>>>lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>>
>>>>For those jilted by Mensa, there's always Densa.  (Anybody have the
>>>>address?)
>>>
>>>Oh _please_ elaborate on this!
>>
>>It's an anti-IQ-elitist organization.  I think I read about it in _Omni_
>>about 8-10 years ago, so I'm afraid I can't give you any other details.
>>
>The elitism of Mensa is a big farce, anyway. They don't have the intelligence
>to work out that the concept of IQ is completely flawed and meaningless.

>Mensa is the most useless, aimless, tacky, idiotic  organisation in the world.

The IQ isn't meaning less, but MENSA is.  That is, the IQ has some merit
for some abilities, but MENSA exists only for self-flattery and egotism.

keith
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: help needed with a thought problem
Summary: Speed of sound less than speed of light
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:20:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: dog.25429
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <392@bsovax.UUCP>, albert@bsovax.UUCP (Albert van der Horst) writes...
> 
>Let us be more specific. Pushing or pulling a rod propagates with the
>speed of sound for that material. For all known materials the speed
>of sound is of the order of Km/s at most. Much less than the speed
>of light. Furthermore, there is theoretical insight in the
>speed of sound, indicating that it must be less than the speed of
>light in vacuum.

I don't agree.  If I take a one kg rod which is one meter long and strike
one end with a 10^6 Kg hammer moving at 99% the speed of light, I suspect
that the far end of the rod will start moving much more quickly than
the speed of sound in that material allows according to your reasoning.

The speed of sound is only a useful concept when discussing small amplitude
disturbances of the medium.  It is not useful when discussing ultimate
limits set by electrodynamics or special relativity.

-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
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14369 talk.origins:9525