HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lizi@ocf.berkeley.edu (Cosma R. Shalizi)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Date: 10 Oct 1992 00:53:30 GMT
Organization: Vampire Research Group at Berkeley :)
NNTP-Posting-Host: tempest.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct9.134219.3229@spectrum.xerox.com> eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall) writes:
>In article <n0bb5t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Jean-Francois.Beaulieu@f128.n167.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>|> In 1908, a meteorite exploded above the siberian toundra and blasted the
>|> trees below. The way trees were blasted suggest an explosion 100 meters
>|> above the ground. I believe also that their was something strange with
>|> the path of the meteor once it came into the atmosphere. I read few
>|> years ago few different explanations, even including a UFO!, but I don't
>|> know what's the most convincing explanation up to now. Any idea?
   Try looking up "Tunguska" in an encyclopedia or basic (college-level)
astronomy text and hunting down the references. Sagan says in _Cosmos_ that
he thinks it was a comet. Reputable astronomers seem to be divided between
this and an asteroid. Reports of radioactivity have sometimes surfaced in
the UFOlogist literature. These have all the credibility one can reasonably
expect from such sources.
   Thought for the day: A small change in the sucker's momentum and it
could quite well have plowed through Western Europe... perhaps Nostradamus
was talking about this and forgot to take account of significant digits? :)
	Cosma "I never liked the book nohow" Shalizi
	In Real Life: lizi@ocf.berkeley.edu
	larval physicist
THE STARS ARE RIGHT: CTHULHU IN '92! WHY SETTLE FOR THE LESSER EVIL?
-- 
"Apart from hydrogen, the most common thing in the universe is stupidity."
-Harlan Ellison, _An Edge in My Voice_
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.binaries.pictures,talk.origins,rec.arts.comics.strips
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 12 Oct 1992 19:39:27 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct10.175852.4814@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>I have correctly repeated what I have ehard and read, that "every prayer
>>will be answered". Now you change it to "prayer would be granted to that 
>>person" for no reason, and want to argue that. John, you are going non-linear
>>on me. You ignore what I post, and want to argue silly things which I
>>did not post and that do not follow from what I post. And you claim that
>>I claim to know what you mean better than you do, again for no reason.
>
>What *do* you mean by "every prayer will be answered".  Most
>people take that to mean that their request will be granted,
>although I do not subscribe to that definition.  If you mean
>differently, what is your definition? 

>>If god granted 10% of all prayers, than that could still be tested
>>by statistical methods. Not that it matters, if you continue as before,
>>you will ignore what I post, make up something silly and argue that.
>
>Hmmm, aren't you now equating answering prayers with granting prayers?  That
>is why a definition would be in order.

He doesn't appear to be.  If he were so equating the two things, then he'd be
talking about god granting 100% of all prayers, not 10%.  Now, I realize that
"god answers all prayers" allows the possibility that he grants prayers based
solely on the actuarial likelihood of whatever's being asked for happening
anyway, but that seems rather silly, or at best maliciously misleading.  And if
prayers are NOT granted based simply on such an actuarial likelihood, then they
shold produce a measurable effect, which was Rich's point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel)
Subject: Re: Repressed Memories, Ruined Lives
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:13:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.055046.759@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>It wasn't that they were unable to prove themselves innocent.  No one
>proved them guilty but they were still convicted.  They are still in
>jail because they refuse to plea-bargain to a lesser charge.
>
I don't understand something here.  They were convicted - that means a jury
found them guilty.  Plea bargaining is done as a means to avoid a jury
trial.  If they were convicted on the basis of evidence which has been
discredited by means of later evidence, I don't understand why they can't
use that as grounds for a new trial.


>The Swan's have been in prison for 7 years.  Part of the "evidence" used
>to convict this couple was a statement from a male nurse who examined
>the daughter at age 3 1/2.  This male nurse testified that the girl's
>hymen was not intact.  About a year ago the girl was examined by a
>doctor who reported that her hymen was intact.  The hymen tissue doesn't
>regenerate.
>
I may be misreading Aaron's statement, but he appears to believe that the
male nurse was lying.  It's important to note that research on exactly what
constitutes normal genitals has only come out in the past 3 or 4 years and
that a number of cases where child abuse allegations were made by doctors
have been discredited as a result of this work.  It's likely that the
nurse was acting on his training and experience and that the later research
could provide grounds for a new trial.

>Also, the daycare worker who reported this abuse (on her first day on
>the job), had also just been released from a drug abuse clinic before
>she made the allegations (about a month earlier).  This person made
>statements to a reporter from 60 Minutes that she was 19 before she knew
>that not all parents have sex with their children and also stated that
>she had been raped by over 200 different men. (The woman is fat and
>ugly.)

What relevance is the daycare worker's appearance?

I think it is unlikely that someone has been raped by over 200 different
men, but I don't think it is unlikely that she was the victim of incest
and her appearance is irrelevant to either.

>As far as I know, the Swans are still in prison - costing the taxpaying
>community $25k per year each.

It isn't apparent to me what significance the cost of keeping them in prison
has.  If they were guilty,  it would seem a small enough price to pay.

Miriam Nadel
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Orthodox Judaism (was: What did Judas betray?)
Date: 7 Oct 1992 17:58 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1225@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes...
> 
>Hmm, well, I am not a Jew, but it seems to me that this is not all that
>different than preparing the Sabbath meal the day before (a practice long
>approved of).

Jewish law is very practical.  You have to eat on the Sabbath, so it's OK
to prepare a meal the day before.  On a fast day, such as today, it's OK
to take medication with water, or even eat food, if not doing so will injure 
your health.

But watching TV?  The purpose of the restrictions of the Sabbath is supposed
to be, more or less, to force you to reflect on God one day a week.  Just
because you can escape the prohibition on work by turning on your TV remotely
doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't violating the spirit of the law.

I do not know what the widely accepted conventions about these things are.
But I am sure that they are not universally agreed upon by members of all
factions of the orthodoxy.

-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: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: QUIT! (was Re: What did Judas betray?)
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:08:26 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1b0eanINN9be@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>
>I *DO* doubt the certainty.  Have you considered doubting *YOUR* certainty in
>the other direction.

The certainty (?) that it doesn't make too much sense to me?
Let's quit this Carl.  This Judas/Crucifixion bit is getting out of hand.

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17826 alt.binaries.pictures.d:4804 talk.origins:12912 rec.arts.comics.strips:2799
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.binaries.pictures.d,talk.origins,rec.arts.comics.strips
Subject: Re: creationism-explained.gif (part 01/01) [cartoon]
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:55:56 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct12.123958.3168@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
|> In article <1bapegINNdck@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <1992Oct8.153721.14742@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
|> >|> Could someone clever please explain the creationism-explained
|> >past both Mr Bales and Mr Roy have tried to explain it 
|> >to me, and I didn't quite get it either time.
|> >
|> 
|> Well, well. If Mr Bales explained it to you and you still
|> did not get it, I don't stand a chance.

Oh, but I believe in trying again.   Now you say it's easy
to explain, so why don't you go ahead, and I'll tell you
where I start to get into difficulaties in understanding
it.

If I tell you exactly where I start to find it difficult to
understand, you might even be able to improve your explanation.

On the other hand, if you claim it's easy to explain, and 
then you refuse to even try, people might wonder.

jon.
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: Ezekiel Space Ship
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:40:57 GMT

>>>>> On Fri, 09 Oct 92 15:49:46 GMT, jec@pilatus.zurich.ibm.com (Jean Cherbonnier) said:

Jean> Does anybody have some information about this chapter in the
Jean> Old Testament, where Ezekiel describes what sounds like the
Jean> arrival of a space ship on earth, with extra-terrestrial creatures... ?

Does the Bible itself count?  The entire incident is clearly
identified as a manifestation of angels - specifically cherubim.
Furthermore, one would do well to read chapter 2 of Ezekiel, and
follow the references (in a good study Bible) back to other Old
Testament passages.
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "This is the living creature that I saw under
Integrated Measurement Systems |  the God of Israel by the river of Chebar, and
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  I knew that they were the cherubim."
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  - Ezekiel 10:20
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |                                         THUMP!
From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:59:25 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Oct13.042039.5026@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:

>Well, it was the wrong SIZE for a comet.  Cometary impacts are supposed to
>be real end-of-a-geological-epoch type disasters; and if the Tunguska object
>was PART of a comet, then why wasn't the rest of it spotted?  It would have
>been very close to the Earth.  Small volatile objects are kinda rare outside
>of Saturn's rings.

Just what exactly is the RIGHT SIZE for a comet?

It has been proposed that the Tunguska event resulted from a piece of
Comet Encke.  Not large enough to have been detected far from the earth,
but large enough to cause a spectacular explosion on entry.

Most annual meteor showers are the result of cometary debris entering
the atmosphere.   Comet breakup is a well-documented event (I personally
observed the breakup of Comet West in 1976).

Meteor observers keep in mind that further fragments of Comet Encke
could appear near the end of June, and we are especially watchful every
3rd year or so as Encke makes a close approach to the earth.

_______________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier					Mitel Corporaiton





Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.binaries.pictures.d,talk.origins,rec.arts.comics.strips
From: domalley@unix1.tcd.ie (Slartibartfast (alias Daniel O'Malley))
Subject: Re: creationism-explained.gif (part 01/01) [cartoon]
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:49:42 GMT

>|> Well, well. If Mr Bales explained it to you and you still
>|> did not get it, I don't stand a chance.

>Oh, but I believe in trying again.   Now you say it's easy
>to explain, so why don't you go ahead, and I'll tell you
>where I start to get into difficulaties in understanding
>it.
>If I tell you exactly where I start to find it difficult to
>understand, you might even be able to improve your explanation.
>On the other hand, if you claim it's easy to explain, and 
>then you refuse to even try, people might wonder.

Enough already!!!!

The whole point of the cartoon is that it makes no sense - just like
Creationism itself. (Don't flame me for saying this...)
Anyway, trying to analyse Larson's cartoons to death does not work - 
remember 'Cow Tools'?

Enough said.
Daniel.
--
|       //              |------Daniel O'Malley--domalley@unix1.tcd.ie------|
|   ===//  ===    ===   |---"In the beginning, the universe was created.---|
| //  // //  // //  //  |-This has made a lot of people angry and has been-|
|  ==//   ==// //  //   |--widely regarded as a bad move.":Douglas Adams.--|
From: eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com (Erik Radmall)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Satan: Big Business
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:17:44 GMT
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Xerox

In article <n0bb0t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
|> Tag: James J. Lippard (lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu)
|> Re: Lauren Stratford's _Satan's Underground_
|>  
|> Replying to Message-ID: 3OCT199211533698@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu
|>  

[stuff deleted]

|> JLL> "This new edition features cover blurbs from such people
|> JLL> as Hal Lindsey [...]"
|>  
|> Whom I have on audio tape as saying the the Xerox photocopier
|> was invented by Satan, planted in the sleeping mind of the

This should go over well with my buddies at the office!

|> human inventor. His proof is that no one is that smart without
|> infernal help.
|>  

[other stuff deleted]

|> 
|> --- Maximus 2.00

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Erik Radmall                    | Xerox Corp.
eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com    | Knowledge-Based Systems Competency Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis)
Subject: UFOS and BOOMY IN THE NIGHT
Keywords: UFO
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Distribution: World
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:25:54 GMT

  I have always considered myself and open-minded skeptic. For those
who need a closed minded skeptic at least two examples come to mind,
Scientific American's Gardner and the Amazing Randy. These two
indiciduals almost seem to have an ax to grind when it comes to PSI or
UFOs.

However,at least one rather bazzar UFO story was presented about two
or so years ago on PBS's NOVA.
I have forgotten many of the details,but I believe a group of forest
workers spotted a UFO and one was allegedly abducted. The abductee
remained missing for about a week,then after being found wandering on
a back road,related an abduction tale that was cleared through giving
him several polygraph exams.

I wonder if anyone knows where I can find the details? I am not interested
in INQUIRER type journalism. Open-minded analysis is what I'm after,if
that exists.


--
                     Gary E. Davis WQ1F (On AO13)
        University of Vermont  Land Liner's dial 802-656-1916
 References " The Joys of Rumination Without The Cud", Elsie circa 1965
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Clinton and Creationism
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:17:37 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 23559@optima.cs.arizona.edu, kline@cs.arizona.edu (Nick Kline) writes:
> 
> I'm from arkansas (please don't tell anyone :-), so I guess I can
> comment on this. Clinton was not governor during the time this
> bill was passed.  We had this republican loonie (oops, oxymoron)

An oxymoron is two words that contradict each other.  
Did you mean oxymoron or redundancy?

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: plumpton@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (David Plumpton)
Subject: Re: 10k Christians perform miracles ever so quietly
Organization: University Of Wollongong
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 23:02:20 GMT

>> The program was fairly horrific.  The "believers" threw a disabled man
>> out of his wheelchair and were generally maltreating him all because he
>> insisted that he still could not walk and they claimed that if he had
>> faith then he could!  In the end the police had to be called to rescue him.

>I thought that was terrible too.  But to be fair, it did seem to be a
>very small proportion of the audience; for the most part it was
>believers crippling themselves voluntarily by getting up from their
>wheelchairs.

I've always felt that people like this should be offered the chance to
have their necks severed by a chainsaw. As "believers", getting healed would
be a cinch. After all, it's only total unbelievers like me and the guy in
the weelchair that can't see the light...

-- 
/------------------------------\ /-------------------------------\
I       David Plumpton          I     There is a holy trinity:    |
I plumpton@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au I N Tesla, R Feynman and C Sagan  |
\------------------------------/ \-------------------------------/
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17711 alt.sources:2169
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.sources
Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics and Astronomy
Date: 9 Oct 1992 13:40:55 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Oct7.180626.15933@pixel.kodak.com> jeh@raster.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes:
>CAPS lock key worn out FROM OVERUSE?  Are your EARTH-shattering theories TOO
>important for LOWER CASE?  Well, help is on the way.  The following filter
>will give YOUR TEXT THE EMPHASIS it deserves.
>
>/* Usage:					*/
>/* lex cap.l					*/
>/* cc -ocap lex.yy.c -ll			*/
>/* cap < mundane_text > very_IMPORTANT_text 	*/
>etc.etc...

YOU know, I TRULY DON't UNDERSTAND why people use those EVIL UTILITIES like
yacc and lex, WHEN ANY normal HUMAN being COULD write the exact same PIECE
OF software IN LESS time than it TAKES to write the yacc OR lex PROGRAM!

CASE IN POINT: A superior C SOURCE for the excessive capitalization utility
that IS exactly equivalent to the original source POSTED:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <ctype.h>
/* Finite State Automaton derived using proprietary code-mapping technique */
main() {
register Ch;
goto Q7;
Q0: if (Ch == EOF) goto Q6; else goto Q2;
Q1: if (Ch == EOF) goto Q6; else goto Qb;
Q2: if (isalpha(Ch)) goto Q5; else goto Qb;
Q3: if (isalpha(Ch)) goto Qa; else goto Q1;
Q4: if (isalpha(Ch)) goto Qd; else goto Q1;
Q5: if (!((rand() >> 5) % 3)) goto Qa; else goto Qd;
Q6: exit(0);
Q7: Ch = getchar(); goto Q0;
Q8: Ch = getchar(); goto Q3;
Q9: Ch = getchar(); goto Q4;
Qa: Ch = toupper(Ch); goto Qc;
Qb: putchar(Ch); goto Q7;
Qc: putchar(Ch); goto Q8;
Qd: putchar(Ch); goto Q9;
}
From: johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com ("Johnson")
Subject: Re: Fwd: Astrology: Scientific Research (Was Re: Doubters Of Astrology)
Reply-To: johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Wireless Enterprises, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:37:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.153605.12821@rhrk.uni-kl.de>, kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
=)In article <1992Oct9.101430.13334@tfs.com>, ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
=)>kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
=)>>Jan Willem Nienhuys has already corrected the rumors spread by McPherson,
=)>>so this is irrelevant.  Astrology still has neither a theory nor evidence.
=)>
=)>Yeah? So post that here. (proof cited, not offered; case closed, I-have-spoken)
=)...
=)>I say it has a theory, and that you don't know what that is. If you're so
=)>knowledgeable about the subject's failure, then expound upon it - what were
=)>the claims, what was the refutation?
=)
=)I did mention neither claims nor refutation.  I mentioned "no theory", and now
=)please tell me how I am supposed to prove that a thing *doesn't exist*.
=)What is wrong here:
=)
=)Me: There is no theory.
=)You: Show me.
=)
=)>I agree, original-4b is pretty handy. Especially when the information is freely
=)>available to those with the interest to pursue it.
=)>Those who don't, still enjoy the freedom to harrass, but not without being
=)>called down for it, which I have done earlier.
=)
=)Instead you concentrate on thinking of possible reasons for the *FACT* that
=)the skeptic is wrong.  Thank you for the exhibit.  Point confirmed.
=)
=)>Have a nice day.
=)I had.  Shredding your bad logic helped a lot.
=)Have a nice day yourself.
=)
Once again, the thread has degenerated to arguing about who is wrong, not
who is right.  It's like listening to the vice-presidential debates.  Does
anyone out there actually have an argument?  If not, the objective
observer is forced to conclude that, since neither side can present one,
all that is known is that there is no real proof or evidence either way,
and thus that either viewpoint is equally possible--and, further, that the
question of belief or non-belief is based entirely on an emotional
predisposition rather than on any rational thought.  Is this the case?
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Johnson"                              | Don't say words you're gonna regret|
| johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com | Don't let fire rush to your head   |
|                                        |        -- The Alan Parsons Project |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  If I spoke for Motorola, things would be a lot different around here!      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17654 talk.religion.misc:17857