HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:48:59 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

sf = swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
lt = leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:

lt: As I recall, it was (and still is?) lawful to ask a Gentile to
lt: perform a non-lawful act on one's behalf.

sf: This is not what I understood from an Orthodox colleague of mine a
sf: few years back.  He claimed that in visiting a sick relative/friend at
sf: the hospital he had to stand in the elevator until it happened to stop
sf: on the right floor

It's allowed under some circumstances, not under others (but asking a
Gentile to kill someone is certainly not allowed).  Since this isn't
soc.culture.jewish, I don't see any point in elaborating, but if
anyone wants a long explanation feel free to ask.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     A can of ASPARAGUS, 73 pigeons, some LIVE ammo, and a FROZEN
 |warren@      DAQUIRI!!
/ nysernet.org 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: An exercise in brain-d
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
	<1992Sep28.023436.9624@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:40:26 GMT

>>>>> On Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:34:36 GMT, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) said:

Robert> In article <717318277.3@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORG>, Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) writes:
Robert> |> Reply-To: Rick_Moen@blyth.com
Robert> |> 
Robert> |> In article <LEET.92Sep18080414@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Robert> |> wrote as follows:
Robert> [...]
Robert> |> >
Robert> |> > I am almost prepared to unsubscribe from this newsgroup, because it is
Robert> |> > becoming obvious that it is simply a platform for the promulgation of
Robert> |> > ideology, and not a forum for actual skeptical investigation.
Robert> |> 
Robert> |> Lee, I think your complaints are justified, [...]

Robert> I agree with LT and RM, although I assumed that LT was going to Fight-
Robert> On-Forever in the finest tradition of s.s, so I just ignored the rest
Robert> ofthe exchange.

Thanks to both you and Rick for proving that there are *some* reasonable
people in this group.  I've decided to stay, for a while at least.

I would like to see some other traditions of sci.skeptic change, like
the Flame-Before-Musing response.

Robert> I'm hoping LT (or 'leet' as his system seems to call him--I kind
Robert> of like that but he probably hates it) will stick around.

Actually, I like 'leet' - it rhymes with 'sweet'.  :-)  (Will someone
please resuscitate Chapman?)

Robert> I'd be especially interested in seeing his views on stuff other
Robert> than creationism....

Will do - I enjoy debating with Sheaffer and JWN about the Bible,
although it appears that JWN may not be seeing my postings ...
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "He that is slow to wrath is of great
Integrated Measurement Systems |  understanding, but he that is hasty of spirit
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  exalteth folly." - Proverbs 14:29        
Beaverton, Or 97005            |                                
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |                                         THUMP!
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mars Face?
Date: 26 Sep 92 13:27:12 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1a0fj8INNk6@uwm.edu> pape@miller.cs.uwm.edu writes:
#
#I don't read this group much so forgive me if this subject has been beaten
#to death already.

In the name of Diogenes - put the Mars face in the FAQ!

JWN
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics.
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 11:14:04 GMT

	Let us not forget Mark Twain's definition of "faith":

	Faith is when you believe something when you know it isn't true.

	What more can be said?

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kinsler@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Paul Kinsler)
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics.
Organization: Physics Morgue, The University of Queensland
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 07:19:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.030613.7050@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
|> In article <BvLI5u.Brx@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
|> 
|> [all gone...]
|> [
|> >While sceptics retard the advancement of knowledge, let's try not be too 
|> >gullible either.
|> 
|> This caught my eye. Do you know of any cases where a skeptic has retarded
|> the advancement of knowledge? Does anyone? But even if a few cases are
|> brought up, I think that as a generalization, it is wrong. 

I read one in the paper just today. Some Australian doctors
came up with a new treatment for ulcers, but couldn't convince
the skeptical Pharm Companies to support them. Now they are 
trying to market this through less skeptical channels. The
evidence points to a cure that works (although not without
side effects).

Of course, you will claim the P-Companies were not *real*
skeptics. You are of course correct in this assertion. 
But it was the skeptical reaction to something against
conventional wisdom which held up the development of a 
viable product. I think this was more what Mark had in
mind in his post.

PS: I can't believe you bother posting replies to that
    well known looney Mark Fernee's posting. He is a 
    Creationist *and* Scientologist, and believer in
    Dyrting's christian interpretation of Erich von
    Daniken's theories. You guys are just wasting your 
    time trying to convert him. He is also a registered
    crystal healer. He will *never* finish his PhD
    either.
-- 
+soluble fish+
"You people, you do not see the grandeur in the wind and stone and stars,
 in the blood and fire and iron - but paint only the flowers."
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Scud rockets hit Israel
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:04:44 GMT
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden

warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein) writes:

>In <1992Sep29.122245.1552@lin.foa.se> eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:

>No, we were mostly in sealed rooms of our own homes rather than
>shelters, because it was believed that the main threat was chemical
>warheads rather than having the scud land on you, and that there
>wouldn't be enough time to get into the bomb shelter and seal it
>before the chemical agent was dispersed.

Oh, didn't know that.

>The scuds that were fired at US troops were fired at much shorter
>range, and so it's not surprizing that they had greater accuracy.
>This, rather than bomb shelters, is probably the reason for the low
>death toll.

Well, yes and no. The precision should be somewhat better at shorter ranges
but on the other hand there's the problem with the launching procedure. For
full accuracy the launching procdure needs about an hour with the flying of
weather balloons and stuff. In DS the iraqies felt (rightly) that it was too
dangerous to do this, so they just fueled it and fired. The accuracy (if you
can call it that) goes out the window when you do it this way.
--
Erik Svensson			Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division		National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm			Sweden

net.address: 	eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"I've got LOT's of common sense. I just choose to ignore it." -- Calvin
From: ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Skeptic Novels
Date: 30 Sep 92 22:04:53 GMT
Reply-To: ingria@BBN.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com
In-reply-to: revpk@cellar.org's message of 30 Sep 92 02:58:20 GMT

In article <XR9VRB4w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:

	   Sladek then went on to create an astrology hoax book, "The 13th 
   Sign," under the pen name of James Vogh. Sladek says in an interview that he 
   knew "The New Apocrypha" wouldn't do well, so he decided to see what it was 
   like to try believing in a strange claim-- the strangest he could think of 
   was that there was a thirteenth signof the Zodiac, Arachne, the Spider. The 
   book sold better than "Apocrypha" did, of course.

Has anybody out there ever seen this book (called _Arachne Rising_, if
I remember correctly)?  I've been searching for a copy just to see
what Sladek came up with when he set his mind to being a crank.

-30-
Bob
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 03:44:47 GMT

In article <lc62fkINNajq@news.bbn.com> ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.122743.10247@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>Read an article in the Post yesterday which talked about a study
>>showing that the average human temperature is 98.2 degrees, not
>>98.6 degrees as everyone had thought.  The only explanation they
>>had was the thermometers have gotten more accurate lately...sounds
>>kind of far reaching to me seeing we've had thermometers capable
>>of registering .1 degree variation for quite a long time now.
>
>Doctors or anyone else dealing regularly with health care have _always_
>known that 98.6 is only the crudest rule of thumb for average human body

Sorry, *average* body temperature is a single number.  The claim was never
that everyone had a body temperature of 98.2.  Please see previous posting
on details of the article for more information.

>>Question: if scientists can't get a mundane fact correct such as
>>the average human temperature for over 100 years (the study that
>>established the average temperature was done over a century ago
>>with I believe quite a large sample rate), what makes them think
>>that any of their other more complex "facts" are accurate?  Please,
>>this is only a genuine query.
>
>The "Everyone" who "knew" this fact means only the general public.  And if
>there is any factor at work here, it is only the need of the general public
>(and the popular media which distibute "facts" to the general public) to
>reduce any scientific datum or fact to a single, unequivocal "yes/no"
>answer, with no margin for error --as if such answers existed anywhere in
>the real world.

Sorry again, according to the article, 98.6 was taken as the
*average* body temperature in medical texts.  Average does not
imply constant as I'm sure you know (I don't have any information
on the standard deviation, though).

>



-- 
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: rmg3@grebyn.com (Robert Grumbine)
Subject: Science practice (Was Re: faith and skeptics
Organization: seldom
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:51:56 GMT

  Today I had a conversation which is quite relevant to the whole
business of how science is conducted and what the role of skepticism is.

  As usual (given my field) we were talking about climate and things 
that affect it.  We got to talking about all the sunspot correlations
that people have, through time, proposed.  We agreed that many of them
appeared to have statistical significance.  But, since nobody has yet
demonstrated _how_ such an effect (only order 0.1% of solar output,
which preferentially affects the atmosphere at great elevation (over
20 km)) can translate in to surface weather (droughts for example), 
we weren't going to be worrying much about the spots while we build
our climate and weather models.

  And this is about the way proper skepticism works.  (the capitalized
version, I don't have much experience with).  The bare minimum is to 
show that you _have_ a correlation.  Correlation is not enough, though,
for more than a head nod that you _might_ have something.  To gain 
agreement, you also have to show how is works.

  This is also the history of the Continental Drift hypothesis.  Wegener
was far from the first person to make a case for it.  He was (one of) 
the first to propose a mechanism.  The mechanism he proposed was
ludicrously insufficient, and was promptly recognized as such.  The
hypothesis sat on the shelf (still being mentioned) for a few decades 
until (in practice) a mechanism that could work was proposed.  Many of
the observations that are now pointed to in elementary textbooks as
supporting continental drift were used by Wegener.

  Sunspot-climate links may be in a similar position.  Or perhaps
they're going to turn out to be inadequate data analysis.  That too has
happened. 

Bob Grumbine
rmg3@grebyn.com
From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: just me
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 19:16:09 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <1992Sep30.152426.10798@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <1a97ciINN82t@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.010216.27146@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>In article <1a4mvtINNf10@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>>>Well, before we can answer your question about scientifically demonstrating the
>>>>existence of a soul, how about you give us a definition of soul that you're
>>>>willing to stick to throughout the rest of the discussion.
>>>
>>>I would define soul as that spiritual part of us humans that
>>>defines us in God's image.

     This assumes that humans have a spiritual part.  Can you demonstrate
this scientifically?  Can you demonstrate through science that we are created
in God's image?  Can you demonstrate that there is a God for us to be created
in the image of - using *any* current scientific means?

>>>It is infused into 
>>>the body before birth,

How?  When?  Into all of it, or only one part?  How do we know this, in terms
of modern science?  At what stage of development does this typically occur,
and how was that determined, observationally?

>>> and leaves the body at death.

How?  When?  Why is it not detectable?  What about people who die and 
recover, as in an open-heart operation (in other words, what constitutes
being dead enough for the soul to leave?)

>>>  Because it
>>>is the part of us that is like God, it is intrinsically and
>>>naturally immortal.

Please give us a method of verifying this.

>>>  Furthermore, it is the principle behind our
>>>intellect and reasoning ability.

You can of course show this scientifically.

>>
>>Hmm.  No well-defined properties.  Just a bunch of metaphysical hogwash.
>>Not a very useful definition, I'm afraid.
>
>TRANSLATION:  Well you gave me a definition, but I really don't know what
>to do with it.  Yeah!, I'll attack the definition, that's what I'll do!

More like, what you said has *nothing* to do with science.  Pretty useless
as a basis for scientific inquiry.  Might do pretty well with 2000 year old
myth cycles, though.  Try giving a scientifically useful definition, so 
it can be properly looked into, if that is indeed your intent.

>>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com

David Pipes
robear@digex.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:29:38 GMT

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.

>
>Mark Schnitzius


-- 
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: msavasti@telesciences.com (Michael Savastio)
Subject: Dangerous Bigot Logic (Was: Re: What did Judas Betray?)
Summary: Bigotry has various forms, but is bigotry nonetheless
Organization: TeleSciences CO Systems, Inc.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:57:55 GMT


In article <GERRY.92Sep24103141@onion.cmu.edu>, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>In article <LEET.92Sep23080525@dove.ims.com> leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>
>   (N.B.: This does not imply that Jews as a race are to blame for Jesus'
>   death, but only that *some* of the leaders at *that* time were.)
>
>Does this line imply that christian morons, like the shit head Lee
>Thomas, are a race also?  It is people like Lee, who make statements 
>like this, that cuase occurances like the Nazi genocide of the Jewish
>people.  Heck, they're a different race, therefore non-human, therefor
>killing them is okay.
>
>Fuck off and die you anti-semitic, slime, asshole.

Yes, bigot logic is truly tragic.  gerry@cmu.edu provides this example:

* Jews are a different race ==> Jews are non-human ==> killing them is okay.

Which resulted in the death of millions of humans.  Let's look of some
more examples of dangerous bigot logic:

* Christian morons ==> Christians are sub-human ==> killing them is okay.

* Lee Thomas is a shit-head ==> Lee Thomas is mentally inferior ==>
                                                    killing him is okay.

* Fuck off and die ==> I want you dead ==> killing you is okay.

* Lee Thomas is slime ==> Lee Thomas is non-human ==> killing him is okay.

* Lee Thomas is an asshole ==> Lee Thomas is just a body part ==>
                                                    killing him is okay.

Let me suggest an alternative:

* Lee, I disagree with you, and here's a rational, level-headed reason
  why you shouldn't believe what you do:  Jews didn't kill Jesus; human
  beings killed Jesus.  If Jesus were born in white, middle-class America,
  you and I would be strapping him to an electric chair right now.  The
  only way to defeat bigotry is to look at people as people, and not to
  divide them up into artificial categories ==>
  Hmm, I never looked at it that way before.  I'm sorry if I offended you.
  I promise to choose my words carefully, so as to avoid such animosity
  between human beings in the future ==>
  Nobody gets killed.

It's a long shot, but it's worth a shot.
--
                          The above opinions are mine and cannot be held
  _____                   by anyone else without prior written consent.
 /o\   \________________________________________________________________
 8 8    ===o=xoo=x=o=xo=ox=== Michael Savastio (m.savastio@telesci.uucp)
 \_/___/   *******^*******^   351 New Albany Road, Moorestown  NJ  08057
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:25:15 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 28SEP199212340962@csa1.lbl.gov, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> In article <1992Sep25.142701.6786@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes...
> 
> It is no accident that human body temperature is close to 100 on the Farenheit
> scale.  Mr. Farenheit designed his scale so that it would be exactly 100.
> But for reasons that I do not remember, he was a little off.
>

BZZZZZZZ!!!!  Thank you for playing!

If you theory is correct, what did Mr. Farenheit use for the '0' end of his scale?

No, Mr. Farenheit kept track of the maximum and minimum readings on his thermometer
for some period of time (a few years, I think) and then labeled them 0 and 100.
Later, of course, he found readings outside this range.

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:34:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep25.142701.6786@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes...
> 
>But in a New Age spirit, I like to use units that give the 'coolest' numbers,
>and having "a temperature over 100" sounds a lot neater than than having
>"a temperature over 39" or whatever.  (I should note that as my 39th and
>39 + 1 th birhday are closing rapidly, these particular numbers are
>even LESS attractive.)

It is no accident that human body temperature is close to 100 on the Farenheit
scale.  Mr. Farenheit designed his scale so that it would be exactly 100.
But for reasons that I do not remember, he was a little off.

-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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:34:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.170314.8950@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.122743.10247@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>[...]
>> Question: if scientists can't get a mundane fact correct such as
>> the average human temperature for over 100 years (the study that
>> established the average temperature was done over a century ago
							~~~~~~
>> with I believe quite a large sample rate), what makes them think
>> that any of their other more complex "facts" are accurate?  Please,
>> this is only a genuine query.
>
>Silliness, silliness.  This is not a genuine query.  This is a ("name to be
>filled in by the user" ism).  It clearly establishes that you do not understand
>science.  Since you only "believe" that the study was done over a year ago, I
>suggest that you first research body temperature, its natural variations,
>methods of measurement, plus the history of the noted items, and then discuss
>getting facts straight.

Sigh, clearly *you* do not understand how knowledge is exchanged
at all with a response like this.  In the first place, reread my
post.  The original study was done over 100 years ago (actually
over 150 years ago).  Reread my earlier post for more details
especially about the sample rate.  And keep in mind what the word
*average* means.  Then stop taking everything as a personal attack
and respond if you have something to contribute.

>
>BTW, I surmise that you do not understand "facts", "hypotheses", "theories".
>Please refer to multiple discussions on this newsgroup for the past two years,
>or any good fifth grade science book.

Now I'm curious, what would *you* call the *average* human temperature?  

>GXKambic


-- 
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