HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Date: 5 Oct 1992 17:40 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Oct5.235833.9931@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes...
>In article <BvnHL8.E8u@mach1.wlu.ca> john7552@mach1.wlu.ca (Niall Johnson u) writes:
>>>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
>>
>What surprises me is that nobody seems to have even *noticed* the name of
>the great sage to which this is attributed, Dr. Peter Beter.

What surprises me is that nobody has yet pointed out that if Russia 
really has an operational Star Wars Defense System, then it's the only
thing left from the old Soviet Government which still works!

Are we supposed to believe that the Soviet Gov't, which couldn't organize
the harvest of the crops that it planted, or get bottles to the vodka
factories, did, in spite of its decay, manage to get a Star Wars defense
up and running?  Not very likely.

I used to think that Robert. E. McElwaine, Physicist and Astronomer, was 
just a nut who was convinced of the "Great Physics Conspiracy Theory," which 
argues that scientists are all in a massive conspiracy to save their jobs
by suppressing the fact that the great Larson has already unraveled the 
mysteries of the Universe.  He is clearly much, much, more.

-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
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Skeptic journals
Date: 24 Sep 92 00:37:02 GMT

Reply-To: Rick_Moen@blyth.com
Distribution: ca

In article <4geFRB1w165w@tsoft.sf-bay.org>, bbs.techie@tsoft.sf-bay.org
(Robert McDaniel) wrote as follows:

> ... "skeptic journals" or "debunking" magazines available in the
> continental US? (Specifically, Northern California)
>
> Thanks in advance.

I note that the public-access Unix system's number in your message
header is in Mountain View, CA.  I hope this will not be considered
commercial usage, since it's information in response to an unprompted
question -- and skeptics' journals aren't exactly money-making ventures,
anyway.  I'm also attempting to restrict this posting's distribution,
though I suspect it doesn't work across my gateway.

Well, there's _BASIS_, now edited by some guy named Rick Moen, which is
$18 for twelve monthly issues.  Send to Bay Area Skeptics, 17723 Buti
Park Court, Castro Valley, CA 94546-1413.  Also, sooner or later,
Sacramento Skeptics will likely get more active again.  Contact Terry
Sandbeck, 3838 Watt Avenue C-303, Sacramento, CA 95821.

You should also consider "Skeptic", published quarterly by the Skeptic
Society of Los Angeles, 2761 N. Marengo Ave., Altadena, CA 91001.
Four issues plus lecture and book discounts is $30, and just the
magazine MAY be available for $20.  Check and see.  Lastly, you should
_certainly_ subscribe to CSICOP's quarterly journal, _Skeptical
Inquirer_.  It's $25/year to Box 703, Buffalo, NY 14226-0703.  Among
many other things, _SI_ includes a list of many other such journals
around the world (but does not endorse them by so listing them).

'Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Rick Moen, Director
Bay Area Skeptics
Editor, _BASIS_

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Son of Creationist Crapola.
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:28:41 GMT

In article <1408@tecsun1.etl.army.mil>, riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes in part:
|> 
|> 	5. On the other hand, I predict that we've just scratched the
|> surface. On the road to making Riggs a believer in evolution, I 
|> firmly believe that we'll have virtual nature within 10 years. As 

Not bloody likely!  The efforts to predict something simple like
whether it's going to rain or what the effects of greenhouse gasses
might be is straining both theoretical knowledge and, more significantly,
computational power.  For that matter, the efforts to simulate simple 
moleular processes such as protein building are also straining
computational resources.  (By this I mean that the largest and fastest
existing technology is not even close to fast enough to do these compuations.
Even with projections of 1000-fold or more increases, these problems
will still be too compilcated.)  There's like zero probablility that anything
other than a toy will be available in 10 years.  And, as you note,
toys are already available.

|> It is just a matter of time before science finds more
|> PC (excuse me - politically correct, not personal computer) domains to 
|> demonstrate the "evolution of created objects."

Right.  Sure.  Notice how successful computer simulations have been
in the fields of strategic defense and climate change.  Zilch.  True
believers will never be swayed by a model.  And they can always fiddle
up their own model to show something different.  And anyway, I hadn't 
noticed "science" (whoever that might be) spending a lot of time seeking 
out politically correct (by which you surely mean pinko, anti-christian) 
domains to do anything.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: wjc@guardian.austin.ibm.com (Bill Collum)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Clinton and Creationism
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:29:24 GMT
Organization: CTI, Austin TX

Maybe I missed something, being neither a devout "beliver" nor an
avowed "skeptic" (well, maybe more skeptical than most), but is 
"Scientific Creationism" really taught in public schools? With
tax-payers dollars? Tell me it's not true. It's no wonder we're well
on our way to becoming a third-world nation when children are
taught "beliefs" and "superstitions" rather than "evidence" and 
"facts" in schools that are intended to prepare them for life as
productive citizens. 

A person's "beliefs" are his own business (I choose not to share
mine in the anonymous forum of the net), but regardless of
religous affiliation, children should be taught to be inquisitve, 
curious, and questioning. In short, teach "scientific principle" 
rather than "religous dogma".

(I still can't believe it. Creationsim in school? Really?)

(Serious rebutles are welcome, but please save your "flames". I
will be neither impressed nor swayed by emotional arguments.)

------------
Bill Collum
From: civl097@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
Subject: Re: UN-WISE QUOTES (escape velocity energy)
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:48:15 GMT

In article <2027@snap>, paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.192106.1429@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>          [...]
>>          us critically examine the proposal.  For a projectile 
>>          entirely to escape the gravitation of the earth, it needs a 
>>          velocity of 7 miles a second.  The thermal energy of a gramme 
>>          at this speed is 15,180 calories...  The energy of our most 
>>          violent explosive - nitroglycerine - is less than 1,500 
>>          calories per gramme.  Consequently, even had the explosive 
>>          [...]
                            .....A.W. Bickerton, 1926
> 
> This is based on the fallacy that you need to take all your starting
> fuel into orbit with you, and the fallacy was pointed out by rocket
> scientists at the time.

Forgive me if my high school physics serves me wrong but the above is also
based on a faulty calculation.
Using E=.5*m*v**2 for kinetic energy I calculate that 1 gram at 7 miles per 
second has about 440 joules of KE or about 100 calories.
And was nitroglcerine really the most energetic explosive in 1926?

Brandon Hutchison,University of Canterbury,Christchurch
                  New Zealand
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Soul
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:11:45 EST

In article <1992Oct1.022938.13677@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
> In article <schnitzi.717877881@eola.cs.ucf.edu> schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
>>ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>>>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.
>>How would you explain the fact, then, that medical conditions which
>>affect our brain (accidents, strokes, drugs) also can affect our
>>"intellect and reasoning ability"?  Do these things damage our
>>souls as well?
> No, it is the expression of the soul's effect that is damaged.
> Let me give you an example.  You know that it is the brain which
> is behind the movement of our limbs.  The brain sends a nerual
> message for a muscle to contract and the arm moves up.  Now what
> happens when the nerves which connects the muscle to the arm is
> cut?  No more arm movements.  Does this mean that the brain is
> damaged?  No, the brain is not damaged although the vehicle it
> used to control the body's limbs is.  Therefore, the expression of
> the brain is nullified.  In much the same way, the soul uses the
> brain through the mind as a vehicle by which intellect and
> reasoning ability is expressed.  A stroke or other such illness
> stifles this expression, but the soul has not been damaged by this
> physical failure in any way.

Gee, does this mean that any expression of the human, even brain damaged is an
expression of the god-like soul.  No matter what you are doing, it is what god
would want you to do?

GXKambic
sd

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Subject: Re: Face on Mars An Other(sic) Time
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:57:23 GMT

> From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
> Subject: Re: Face on Mars An Other Time
> Date: 1 Oct 92 16:47:55 GMT
> 
> In article <1992Oct1.060552.5151@rtfm.mlb.fl.us>, joshua@rtfm.mlb.fl.us (Joshua Geller) writes:
> |> Some months ago, someone here gave me odds that the various formations there
> |> were not artificial in nature. In other words, we have a bet going wherein
> |> if the Cydonia formations are *not* artificial, I pay him a certain amount
> |> of money, and if they *are* artificial, he pays me a certain (larger) amount
> |> of money. Judgement (in this case) is to be by mr. tim maroney, of san
> |> francisco (maroney@toad.com).
> 
> Do I have to bet to find out how you are going to decide this question?
> 
> Every legitimate geologists and planetary scientist I know of has said they
> are natural rock formations.  Enthusiasts say otherwise.  The evidence
> is just a pattern of pixels.
> 
> How will you use the new evidence?  Unless there are migs or radio
> dishes or something, just exactly what could be on the photo that 
> would be defined as evidence of 'artificial'?  And what could be on 
> the photo that COULDN'T look artificial to a dedicated wonder-monger?
> And whose opinion will decide?

I agree with Robert. A much more sensible bet would be something like "the
symettry claimed by Carlotto, et al is real." I am told that there is an
unpublished analysis using other, lower res images of the region with
different lighting showing that it isn't. I would think that APPLIED OPTICS
would publish this if the authors would bother to submit it, if only as a
response to the Carlotto paper.

Karl
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: Entropy Limited, Vancouver Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 03:54:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.224930.26733@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <1a4rjkINNf10@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Sep26.145922.22060@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>=>But how does one differentiate "religious beliefs" from "superstition"?
>>=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.
>>
>>Hmmm.  That seems a rather odd definition of superstition.  It means, among
>>other things, that a belief that a rabbit's foot will bring good luck is *NOT*
>>a superstition.  Please let us know what dictionary you use, so that we can
>>avoid repeating your mistake in purchasing it.
>
>I'm afraid I don't follow you.  How does belief in a rabbit's foot tell you
>anything about the cause of the universe?  How does it tell you anything 
>about the nature of the universe (in general now, since any fact tells you
>something about the universe)?  How does it tell you about the purpose
>of the universe? How does it relate to God or gods?

That certainly takes the cake for a non sequitur. He wasn't saying that
belief in a rabbit's foot was any of those things, he was saying that it 
did not fit the given definition of superstition.
    The given definition (see above) was "an irrational belief in the 
ominous significance of a particular thing or circumstance." According to
(Merriam-)Webster's Third New International: "OMINOUS applies to that which
shows a menacing, threatening, and frightful character foreshadowing evil
or tragic developments, sometimes rather vague."
    Pointing out that this is hardly consistent with "a belief that a
rabbit's foot will bring _*good*_ luck [emphasis added]" really does _NOT_
amount to suggesting that "belief in a rabbit's foot tell[s] you anything
about the cause of the universe", nor any of your other claims. Really!

-- 
ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!eslvcr!ted   (Ted Powell)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17132 comp.ai.philosophy:6241
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:19:38 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <1a8plqINN82t@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>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.

Heh. Given my experiences of the last few weeks, you have a point.

Still, we have energy conservation, mass conservation, angular
momentum conservation, entropy, radiation theory, chemistry, and a bunch
of other solid results I won't bore you with, and we do have a real
world that allows us to objectively evaluate our results. "Strong" AI 
has a _hunch_.

While it may be true that our field is reaching a point of diminishing returns
(the evidence is that it hasn't, and won't until computing power stops
increasing at the earliest), the comparison would still not be a good one.
As long as all the definitions of consciousness remain subjective, which
I think they will, and which, btw, the Turing test emphatically is, the
prospect of artificial consciousness isn't even a well-defined goal.

mt
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: dickb@bilver.uucp (Dick Biow)
Subject: Re: Jesus and the Moneychangers (was: What did Judas betray?)
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:19:48 GMT

I don't believe the money-changer incident happened. Nobody was allowed to carry a weapon, like the whips John has Jesus take with him, except for the guards.
Jesus never would have been allowed to approach the money-tables, any more than
a robber would.
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: KOSHER? In a Pig's Eye!
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:27:06 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

In <1a8s8vINN82t@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

    Yet another example of your appalling ignorance of other customs.
    Given what you've told us, I'm pretty certain that there was, indeed
    an indication: It's called a mezuzah, and you would've seen it
    attached to the doorpost of the home, had you had the slightest shred
    of understanding of a culture not your own.

Actually not all houses that have a mezuzah on the doorpost contain
kosher kitchens.  Sometimes the house doesn't even have Jewish
residents, the mezuzah may have been left by a previous occupant.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     My LESLIE GORE record is BROKEN..
 |warren@      
/ nysernet.org 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Focus on Crucifiction (was: Cruxed for Prophecy?)
Keywords: crucifiction prophecy sacrifice hebrew
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:08:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.194050.1425@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <roelle.718068597@uars_mag> roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>>
>This business about "breaking of legs" is CLAIMED to be true 
>in the gospel of John. I am not aware of any independent
>evidence that it in fact IS true; I suspect it's not. The Romans sometimes
>crucified offenders, but they didn't CARE how long it took them to die; in
>fact, the longer, the better. Typically, victim lived for several
>days upon the cross, before dying of thirst and exposure. Jews, on
>the other hand, were careful to never hold executions on the Sabbath
>or on Holy Days, however they never crucified anyone. So this is a
>strange conflation of Roman and Jewish practices. 
>
>As for the unnatural suddenness of Jesus' death, after supposedly
>being on the cross for just a few hours, there is no satisfactory
>explanation. Note that Mark has Pilate express great surprise upon
>learning that Jesus was dead so quickly, and that this verse was
>DELETED from the two later Synoptics, Matthew and Luke. Since so
>very few Marcan passages fail to appear in either one or both of
>the two later Synoptics - only 31 verses out of 661, about 5% -
>each unexplained deletion is worthy of great scrutiny. I maintain
>that  Pilate's claimed surprise at Jesus' supposed untimely demise was deleted
>because it calls unnecessary attention to the implausible time
>frame of the cruci-fiction story. (Another significant deletion is
>that of Mark's youth who fled naked in the garden, for reasons that might
>best be discussed on "soc.motss".)

Surely you are not claiming that to undergo severe stress to the
point of sweating blood, to be brutally scouraged (by Romans),
having a crown of thorns placed on your head, then carrying a
heavy cross for a good long way, and finally being nailed hand and
foot to a cross is a recipe for lengthy survival.  I find it amazing
that He lasted as long as He did.  In fact, I find it quite
amazing that the Person who was nailed to the cross was alive at
the time of the crucifixion! 

>-- 
>  
>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

-- 
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: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Clinton and Creationism
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 20:23:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

Since Arkansas is one of the states which had legislation requiring the
teaching of scientific creationism, does anyone know what Bill Clinton's
position on the matter is?
-- 

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: sci.research
From: sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65)
Subject: Re: Feminism in/and Science and Technology, the e-mail list
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date:  2 Oct 92 13:58:58 GMT

bush@wigner.physics.upenn.edu (Judith Bush) writes:

[deletions]

>   Because of the recent interest generated, a new list has been
>   created.  This list is for discussion of feminism and science and
>   technology...  

[deletions]

>   The idea of this list is to discuss critiques of science and move
>   beyond these critiques into the realm of how do we create a feminist
>   science?  

What is a "feminist science"? 

|_________________________________________________________________|
| martin sulkanen      ][ internet: sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov  |
| es 65                ][ span:     ssl::sulkanen                 |
| nasa/msfc            ][ voice:    205/544-5823     >>,--```;('> |
| huntsville, al 35812 ][ institute for troutphysics              |
|_________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.edu,sci.space,sci.astro,sci.aeronautics,sci.engr
From: M.L.Nelson@LaRC.NASA.GOV (Michael Nelson)
Subject: NASA TMs/TPs:would you like to ftp them?
Followup-To: sci.research
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:22:29 GMT


My question is if NASA-Langley Technical Memorandums
and Technical Papers were available in PostScript form
for anonymous ftp, would you find this desirable?

I am contemplating making them available and would like
to have some feedback to determine if such a service is waranted.

Caveat #1 - The files would be available in directories 
corresponding to the year that they were released.  An ascii
Index of titles and possibly abstracts could be provided.
Thus, searching is limited to perusing the abstract list.

Caveat #2 - Some figures in the documents might not be availiable
in electronic form.  That is, some pictures and such that are
part of the final TM/TP do not exist electronically.  I have no
idea how many papers this affects and to what extent.

If you have feelings about this service, one way or another,
please contact me.  I have set follow-ups to sci.research, but 
email would be the easiest method.  I can post the results of the
inquiry and the status of the project if it is desired.

thank you for your time,

Michael Nelson
NASA-Langley Research Center
M.L.Nelson@LaRC.NASA.GOV