HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: BIOLOGICAL ALCHEMY
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:48:13 GMT

In article <1eccvrINNmki@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
> In article <1992Nov17.163444.2391@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>
>>                              BIOLOGICAL ALCHEMY
>>                          
>>                        ( ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION )

> See?  I told you that jackass posts to sci.skeptic, too.

Yeah, I see. I didn't doubt it. I guess there is NOT going to be ANY
sensible REFUTATION of his <opps, I feel an attack of Tourette syndrome
coming on...> COMPLETE and UTTER BULLSHIT. According to the apologea
posted by someone from U of Wis - Mr. (and I use the word loosly) McE
is simply exercising his constitutional rights to free speech. But
there is the "thin end of the wedge" aspect to all this. For example,
while browsing talk.politics.drugs this morning, there was a post from
said asshole, which if it did not come right out and say it, bordered
on anti-semitic holocaust revisionism, or at least seemed to lean that
way. Perhaps it was only Jewish Conspiracy Theory, but anyway...

So while at first, Bobby McE is toying with the seemingly harmless
ideas that he has posted all around the net, he will eventually end up
as the hapless victim of some cult leader like Jimmy Jones and perhaps
cause more harm than we might have thought possible through the simple
exercise of his constitutional rights.

I don't know if it is possible for him to keep up with all the news items
posted in all the groups to which he posts. It seems unlikely. However, he
never responds to anything, so it is as if he never reads anything here.
It is only the pseudo crap that he reads and posts about. Perhaps this
is why we don't bother to flame his articles any more? Or maybe it is that
he gets so much private hate mail that he has to spend the entire day 
cleaning out his mail file?

Just as a matter of interest, how many people have Bobby McE in their
kill files?

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
> 
> Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand ...


|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| If we had an index file, we could   | In fact, except for protecting |
| look it up in the index file under  | individual rights, no valid    |
| "Index File".                       | reason for government exists." |
|           -- Tegan in "Castrovalva" |      ... Dr. Frank Wallace     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Bill Garland = bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca |Commercial : Send me your money.|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Back To the ol' koan pile
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:14:46 GMT

> From: tad@sdf.lonestar.org (Tad Dowe)
> Message-ID: <BxLB3I.J5r@sdf.lonestar.org>
 
> BTW, the term "mu" is a valid word meaning: nothing, or nothingness.
 
Oh dear.  I don't know that you're ever likely to make much of a Zen 
acolyte, at this rate:  I mean, that IS a rather un-Zen outlook.
 
Mumon's poem on Joshu's "Mu":
 
    Has a dog Buddha-nature?
    This is the most serious question of all.
    If you say yes or no,
    You lose your own Buddha-nature.
 
Cheers,
Rick M.
moen@blyth.com

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: On topic? Right!
Date: 21 Nov 92 21:11:47 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1e0q8iINNl8q@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
|> Please note, I said "self-policing."  Perhaps you don't know what that term
|> means.  It means that an organization with whom a person is affiliated makes
|> that affiliation conditional upon behavior of the individual.  E.g., if a
|> televangelist is affiliated with a particular church, and behaves in a way
|> inconsistent with the policies of that church, it's incumbent upon that church
|> (not the government, which is what the guarantee of religious freedom is all
|> about) to sever the association with the individual.

O.K., so now the televangelist simply goes out and starts his own church, and
ordains himself.

And do not think this is all that unusual - many of the televangelists, especially
the most obnoxious of them, *already* have thier own church  (or just what do you
think PTL or the Crystal Cathedral is?).

Given the ease of doing this, there really is *no* *way* to do any 'self-policing'.

|> They purport to represent the churches with which they're affiliated.  If the
|> churches don't publicly disagree with those claims, we must assume that they DO
|> indeed represent those churches.  As I said, self-policing is a must.

If you will check, you will find only a small handfulk of televangelists are
actually affiliated with the mainline denominations.

Oh there are *some*, but they are mostly the less objectionable ones (or even
the occasional good one).

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re:Biblical Inerrancy?
Date: 17 Nov 1992 12:37 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 <1992Nov16.200421.1@cs2.lamar.edu>, carlis_jc@cs2.lamar.edu writes...
>   The Biblical texts were never writen to be Scientific Treasts nor were they
>ment to be taken as eye-wittness accounts capable of standing up in a court of
>law. They were written by belivers of Jesus to and for other belivers of Jesus
>and were ment to relay information of a moral type. To expect the stories to
>try and prove that what is being stated is true is foolish. That would be like
>going to a U.F.O.'s abductie suport group and trying to convince them that
>U.F.O.'s are real.

It sounds like what you are saying is "The Bible is inerrant, because if there
are any errors, they don't matter anyway."  That's a pretty weak argument.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: A Gender neutral pronoun
Date: 22 Nov 92 23:27:23 GMT

> From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
> Message-ID: <1992Nov19.071059.6799@deeptht.armory.com>

> Horseshit, Grant, we use it all the time already. "If anyone knows
> cause why this couple should not be joined in marriage, let them speak
> now, or forever hold their piece." And: "If one has enough money, then
> they can buy themselves some clothes. Then they can put on their
> clothes when they get home and surprise their spouse."
>
> Neither of these examples offer any problem to the conventional
> english speaker. They fit the bill just fine.

I've never heard either formulation before, and they sound illiterate
to me.  "Anyone" and "one" are clearly singular.  "They", "themselves",
"them", and "their" are clearly plural.

It is incorrect (and ad hominem) to allege that people dislike making
a hash of agreement as to number merely because of staunch grammatical
fundamentalism and resistance to change per se.  Rather, many oppose it
on grounds of _taste and a desire for clarity_.

The protestation that permitting change to the language is good merely
begs the self-evident question of _what_ change is good.  It also raises
a second obvious question (if one grants your bandwagon rhetoric about
_this_ change being already underway), of whether the same reasoning
supports a movement to _change it back_, on the aforementioned grounds
of taste and clarity.

If the change _is_ enacted, (1) people who urged it will congratulate
themselves on how progressive they are, (2) there will be widespread
confusion between singular and plural in English-language references,
since the meaning of they/them/their will then be rendered unclear, and
(3) sexism will not, in unvarnished reality, have been impeded one
whit, any more than it is by the gender-neutral pronoun in Turkish.

Cheers,
Rick M.
moen@blyth.com

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of prayer
Date: 17 Nov 1992 20:21:45 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1ebh6bINNsde@gap.caltech.edu>, kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney) writes:
>>>avi@seal.imagen.com (or someone) writes:
>>>>>in common with such a charlatan. Ah well. An idea is not responsible
>>>>>for who believes it.                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>See, Carl?  Christianity is not responsible for those who believe in it!

Christianity is NOT simply an idea.  As I've pointed out in the past, custom
and usage says otherwise.  Even if you don't accept that particular argument,
then WHICH of the several dozen ideas out there is Christianity?
	The Catholic idea of Christianity?
	The Pentecostal idea of Christianity?
	The Mormon idea of Christianity?
	The Jehovah's Witnesses idea of Christianity?

>Sorry, I know, I'm taking it out of context.

>Still, food for thought, isn't it?

I'm still waiting for an operational definition of Christianity that can
somehow separate Christianity from Christian churches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: John Winston and Astral Intelligence
Date: 20 Nov 1992 20:31:28 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <13601@ntdd-1>, meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier) writes:
>In article <stone.722189938@cwis> stone@cwis.unomaha.edu (Travis Stone) writes:
>
>>After all, you can be DAMNED sure he hasn't got any
>>REAL intelligence....
>
>Please do not say these things about him.  You do not know him.
>
>Rolf

OK, then:  Based on the evidence he's presented to those of us who read
sci.skeptic, a reasonable person must conclude that Winston has no REAL
intelligence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Strange Lights in Southwestern Desert ??
Date: 21 Nov 1992 01:39:37 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <12994.2b0cedcd@cpva.saic.com>, save@cpva.saic.com writes:
>Hey, It must have been at least a year ago that I caught a snippet
>on a local eye-witless news program about some strange flickering
>lights in a California, Arizona, or New Mexico desert.  They had
>some actual video footage of the the phenomenon and, to the best
>of my recollection, it looked like explosive flashes happening just
>over the horizon.  The tape was shot at some road-side location
>at night and included a bunch of other cars and people as well as
>the surrounding terrain.  Does anybody else - John Winston not 
>included 8^) - else rememeber hearing about this and, if so, what 
>the resulting explanation was? Just curious.

I may have heard about it.  It's something that's supposed to happen about the
same time every year.  Don't remember any details, though.

Your description, by the way, sounds a lot like heat lightning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Joe.Slater@f351.n632.z3.fidonet.org (Joe Slater)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Biblical Inerrancy?
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:10:00

Monday November 16 1992, Bill Rea writes to All:


GTC>> G T Clark (gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
GTC>> The bible is patently not inerrant.Read Leviticus,chapter 18(or
GTC>> thereabouts) where it fairly clearly states that insects walk "upon
GTC>> all fours... fourfootedly upon the ground".That's quite clearly a
GTC>> mistake, no matter what stage it crept in at.

BR> This isn't a mistake, its an idiom.

It's neither; it's a description. This is where I came in, actually :-)

The mistake here is that G T Clark has misremembered the original. It's
describing the subset of insects that may be eaten, and it gives an identifying
characteristic: they keep four legs on the ground. If this is unusual, all the
better.

It's a poor sort of skepticism that doesn't work both ways. Is it really likely
that people could be paranoid about their food intake, and yet never notice
that these insects don't fit the mandated description? And do this for
centuries?

jds

 * Origin: What horrors wait for me in this, the Phantom's Opera? (3:632/351)
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: AIDS and the CIA (was Question)
Date: 16 Nov 1992 01:54:32 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <92320.194233SCW112@psuvm.psu.edu>, SCW112@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
=In article <97736@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
=Wiener) says:
=>This is unknown.  As a retrovirus, HIV forms DNA instructions for itself
=>in host cells, and they join in with the rest of the chromosomes.  The
=>cell at some point uses the viral DNA as if it were its own, repeatedly.
=>It will do this without any special environmental factor.  Retroviral
=>infection is, in fact, a common technique in the recombinant DNA world.
=>
=
=True, the cell will replicate&all progeny cells will contain the viral genes,
=but just because you have lots of these cells doesn't mean you have AIDS,

Er, I think Matthew meant more than "the viral DNA gets replicated when the
cell undergoes mitosis" when he said "The cell at some point *USES* the viral
DNA as if it were its own" (emphasis mine).

=>>                                          Thing is, because you're
=>>using the virus, there's a chance you might get the disease (a real
=>>small one, but a chance). What experimental human subject is gonna
=>>take that chance?
=>
=>Many have taken the chance, so that's not the issue.
=
=Sorry. I didn't know that there have been people willing to try experimental
=HIV vaccines.

Salk, for one.  It actually got a lot of publicity.  I'm surprised you didn't
hear about it.

=>>       Thing is, our HIV antibodies aren't real good at fighting off
=>>HIV. So even if we had them, it wouldn't much matter.
=>
=>It is unknown why our body's response to HIV is a failure.  This unknown
=>is a major stumbling block in theorizing, let alone designing, an AIDS
=>vaccine.  The models that make the most sense to me say HIV uses judo.
=>The immune system is thrown against the virus, and it misses, badly.
=>If so, tinkering with this will not be easy.
=>
=
=That's why I don't think a vaccine is the way to go. Finding a cure would be
=better, I think.

Certainly it would be quite useful.  In fact, it would be useful to have a cure
for ANY viral disease.  Like, for example, the common cold.  Or influenza.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: jfb@draco.macsch.com (John Baskette)
Subject: Re: The Great Pyramid of Giza
Organization: MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 20:50:24 GMT


In article <BxzKzG.2EI@acsu.buffalo.edu> v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Avatar) writes:
>>	"The natural tendency of a traditionally trained archeologist is to fit
>>his finds into the fashionable preconcieved matrix of ideas regarding the shape
>>of prehistory that it is a long, slow, upward gradient leading inexorably from
>>primitive man to the summit of modern society's achievements.  It is his very
>>ability to do so that has gained him his qualifications as an archeologist. 
>>Consequently, had earlier civilizations left behind aircraft runways, say, then
>>it is likely that they would be classified as 'ritual causeways'; an
>>earth-and-stone-built chamber for screening off radioactive waste or machinery
>>would of course take on an unintended role as a 'tomb'; an astronomical
>>observatory-cum-computer would immediately start a new life as a temple; and
>>skyward-facing navigational markings for airships would become 'magic designs
>>for the appeasement of the gods'." -unknown author
>
>	Still, it seems no one would like to address the above passage.  Does
>anyone have any thoughts about this?

You may have read my earlier post refuting the junk about the sacred cubit
and pi and days-in-a-year in the pyramid.  I will comment on this quote now, but 
I am not a archaeologist.  I would like to hear what archaeologists have to say
also.

It is true that scientists in general interpret data in light of certain ruling
paradigms in a given field.  The error in the Von Daniken like unknown author's 
logic is in the statement, "Consequently, had earlier civilizations left behind 
aircraft runways, say, then it is likely that they would be classified as 'ritual
causeways'; ... ".  

Had earlier civilizations left behind aircraft runways etc. then the ruling
paradigms of the field would have been different.  Scientists hold to certain
paradigms because the evidence in favor of these interpretations is extremely
good.  

The odds of some individuals (aka crackpots) coming from outside the field of 
study without the advantages of years of study and research devoted to the field 
expounding some radical new theory that is amazingly supported by lots of obvious 
facts that somehow got overlooked is somewhere between zero and null.  The odds 
are a little better (but still low) when the "heretic" in question actually knows 
something about the subject.  The odds are much worse when the "heretic" is 
blatantly dishonest with the facts which I believe is the case with pyramidologists.

John
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Mars effect
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:29:55 GMT

In article <168A312235.SERTEL@ibm.gwdg.de>, SERTEL@ibm.gwdg.de writes in part:
|> Hypothesis (7) ....    
Ertel and JWN have succeeded in convincing people that the issues are
deep and technical, and hence idle comments and cheap speculation are
not useful.  In other words, you 2 may have successfully convinced
others that only you guys really understand what is going on.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: byczko@evax.gdc.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Scientific error in bible (was biblical inerrancy)
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:42:58 GMT
Organization: General DataComm, Middlebury CT


	The subject of biblical inerrancy is difficult to evaluate
without a consideration of what inerrant means. If one equates inerrant
with perfection than the written scripture falls short. Scripture does
not teach error, is reliable, and will not fail. This is inerrant
and infallible.

	Some infer that the bible incorrectly states the value of
Pi as exactly three. If the text of 1 Kings 7:23 is examined it says:

" And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to the other:
it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line
of thirty cubits did compass it round about."


	This refers to the dimensions in approximate terms and it
does not give the profile of the vessel or the dimension of the
brim. It is uncertain where the line was placed relative to the brim.

	Another common beleif is that the bible says the earth is flat
based on verses that speak of the four corners of the earth. The words
actually suggest four portions of the earth in the sense of quadrants.
In addition, there is scripture that says the earth is circular that was
written about 700BC; Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the 
circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;".


						Joe Byczko




Disclaimer: Not my employers opinion, the opinion of my boss; a certain
Jewish carpenter who is quite alive.
From: gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:35:31 GMT

gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne) writes:

>In article 5AL@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz, cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea) writes:
>> G T Clark (gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
>> > 
>> > 	The bible is patently not inerrant.Read Leviticus,chapter 18(or
>> > thereabouts) where it fairly clearly states that insects walk "upon all
>> > fours... fourfootedly upon the ground".That's quite clearly a mistake,
>> > no matter what stage it crept in at.
>> 
>> This isn't a mistake, its an idiom.
>> 

>How do you feel about people who refer to software bugs as "undocumented features?"
>Or various flavors of Penagonese re-labelings?

>Why isn't this an example of the same kind of word game?

>---
>1. Bill Gascoyne


	I'd agree entirely that it's an idiom.That's the point.If the
Bible is to be taken literally,then it musn't use idioms.
	I'm told (by Justin,a friend of mine who's read it) that there's
a book which is basically an analysis of the New Testament by a native
Aramaic-speaker. Apparently some of the puzzling passages,and even some
of the miracles,are the result of direct translation of idioms.I.e. ...
(At a party)
	"Jesus,get Your round in."
	"It's not My turn."
(some time later)
	"Come on,Jesus,get Your round in!"
	"It's still not My turn."
(eventually)
	"Jesus,is it Your turn yet?"
	"Yes,it is"
...at which point,Jesus takes cups of water and adds the wine to them...
thus turning the water into wine,in aramaic idiom at least.
Moral: idioms can be dangerous things.

	G.