HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:59:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug28.033804.10671@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes:
>What I fail to understand
>is given your assumptions, just *what* do you find so valuable about life?  
>Why not destroy it unnecessarily?

Could be risky behavior.  Depending on what life you destroy, you
might attract the attention of others who have more power than you do.

This statement should apply regardless of his assumption.

There is also a question of "morality".

His assumption might influence "morality".  If man can create life,
then it isn't so "sacred" any more?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Dans Tops McEnroe Superbrat Status (Re: Derek advocates quality. cough. choke.)
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 10:45:03 GMT


Could you guys remove this from sci.skeptic and move it
to, say, alt.kindergartener.wannabees?

At the least, please stop changing the "Subject" line.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu



Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15606 alt.culture.usenet:757
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Derek Tops Dan!
Date: 1 Sep 92 01:14:51 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <btd.715231685@pv7413.vincent.iastate.edu> btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
>>>Admittedly, this will seldom succeed in convincing
>>>someone else where reason has failed.
>
>>Exactly. Dan did you get that?
>
>       Dan probably well understands this.  While I can't speak for him,
>when someone has already shown themselves PAST reasoning and logic I sometimes
>resort to this to show my frustration in the matter.
>
What he probably doesn't understand is that a situation that has gone PAST
reasoning & logic, can be turned around to become reasonable again.

The way you do it is by being friendly & polite & and to guide the person
by asking a series of questions rather than making hurtful statements. So that
you win their trust and they discover for themselves that they are wrong.

"A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."

I can't remember who said the quote, but it says it all.


>       I use the words I do to try and get a particular message across.
>I will use whatever words I feel necessary to do this.  Words like 'fuck'
>and 'goddamn' and 'shithead' have a highly emotional content.  Thus I
>occaisionally use them when I believe such is called for.  While such
>language may be unnecessary in a rational debate, they are useful in express-
>ing ones feelings about something, or in a debate that has gone past (or never
>was) rational.
>

I have no problem with what you do in private. However, is this the way you
would behave if you were televised on the news? Or reported in the newspapers?
Or before a jury in a court? Or questioning a speaker at a conference?

Of course not. You would be more professional with your people communication
skills, when you are exposed in a professional situation.

And this is my point, if people want sci.skeptic to look professional and to
attract the right kind of people then start by cleaning up the language!!

If you really have to let off steam, then do it in the privacy of email
and call the guy whatever name you like. But if you do it on line for thousands
of readers to see, you are hurting the calibre of the group.

When did you ever see  the "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine publishing some of
the expletives that we see in this group?

Am I making sense or am I from another planet?
From: dtyler%jt_home.uucp@amber.athena.lkg.dec.com (David Tyler)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: The Evolution vrs. creationism debate
Summary: Evolution vrs. creationism
Keywords: The debate
Date: 30 Aug 92 23:29:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Totally Disorganized..

I will be careful on how I word this, although I firmly belive in what I am
saying.

1. Creationism in general: Is their ANY proof that will convince the
overall public?

2. Talk to a scientist, find out what happens when two people with the SAME
gentic-makeup breed and have offspring. If the Adam and Eve theory where
true, we would all be idoits! 

3. Think about it, Cristianity is VERY lucky to survive this long, first the
Romans, then the "light at the end of the tunnel of ignorance and hate"
(i.e. "The Enlightenment" of the 1700's), In the 1800's, Darwin, who had
SCIENTIC PROOF FOR HIS THEORY! Then the revelation about the dinosaurs as
living creatures in the 1900's (When people began to look futher into the
mesizoic age. (Sorry for the spelling) 

4. So many fossils are around that creationism seems to be dim in
comparison.

5. Life is trial and error, so is evolution. Creationism seems to say that
everything was perfect the first time.

6. In ancient times, man needed to explain the unexplainable, so he
invented a set of beliefs and gods that evolved into modern religons.

7. I think that most Pro-evolutionists would have been stuck down by
lightening by now!


Over and out.....DMT.
From: fortuna@cs.man.ac.uk (Armando Fortuna)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Laplace' Quote
Date: 26 Aug 92 10:08:42 GMT
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.

All this argument between evolutionism & creationism reminds me of a history
I read on a book of astrodynamics.

Tha famous french mathematician Simon de Laplace once wrote a very good
 treatise on celestial mechanics, which became famous.
The emperor of France at that time, Napoleon, once met Laplace, and asked
him if it was true that the name of the Creator did not appear anywhere in
his book.

And Laplace replied,
"Yes, it is true. I did not need that hipothesis."

Armando Fortuna
  
 
--
===========================================================================
Armando de Oliveira Fortuna                    E-mail: fortuna@cs.man.ac.uk
Dept. of Computer Science                      Tel.: +44 61 275-6132
University of Manchester                       Fax.: +44 61 275-6204
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL                          "...It works better...
England                                             ...if you plug it in..."
============================================================================
All opinions expressed are mine only! If you think otherwise, think it over!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 10:05:03 GMT

hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>|>Friedrich Nietzche: "He was strongly influenced by Darwin's
>|>theory, especially its racist implications."
>|>
>|>Karl Marx: "...he wanted to dedicate his book DAS KAPITAL to
>|>Charles Darwin, who had given him what he thought was the
>|>scientific foundation for Communism."
>
>There is in fact quite a bit of truth in this part. Nietzche did in fact
>advance a moral theory based on evolution, Marx used evolution as part
...stuff deleted

And its interesting to note that Nietzche was anti-Christian in that
theory (The Anti-Christ) saying that Christianity was making the
species weaker by promoting support of the weak.

-- 
Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)		"int - God's own type"
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Transactional Analysis
Date: 27 Aug 1992 21:24:28 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu
Keywords: Psychology, Transactional Analysis


In article <59927@mimsy.umd.edu> biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes:
>Perhaps the best observation on such therapies, from naive volunteer 
>counselling to the most expensive New York psychoanalysis, is, 
>"All placebos work equally well." Talking-at-the-patient is then
>not a science, and only the least expensive form of such
>therapy should be used. Those therapies which require extensive
>education in an arcane pseudo-science should be rejected out of 
>hand.

I don't think it's quite that simple.  I wouldn't call teaching a placebo,
yet some aspects of therapy are a matter of teaching the patient to look
at things in a new way, or teaching new ways of coping with situations.
If I were looking for a therapist I would hope to find one who is experienced
and successful with problems like those I have.  I believe it's been
shown that the results of therapy depend more on the therapist-patient
relationship than on the theoretical basis used by the therapist; but
then perhaps therapists tend to self-select the kinds of patients and
problems where their theories tend to be successful.
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art."
        Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Dan Tops Himself -- Netiquette & Politeness (Was: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...))
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:48:24 GMT

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

: 
: Breaking that law of etiquette harms the net (and thus yourself
: indirectly) as it puts off most high calibre people from
: participating in net discussions.
:

That's a good one!  Derek, who insists on starting those stupid JFK
threads and posting them to sci.skeptic is criticising somebody else's
nettiquette.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I'm also against
Rosemount Inc.                                |BODY-SURFING!!
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Crop Circles (a different twist)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: Foolhardy experimenters take note...
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 02:38:37 GMT


Hey, anybody ever thought about tornadoes?  They would give the symmetry,
but maybe a little too much destruction.  How 'bout a dust devil?

Big Al.  Out there on the fringe somewhere.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15504 alt.culture.usenet:747
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Dan Tops Himself Again
Date: 31 Aug 92 01:34:23 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Aug28.210138.10640@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.134238.661@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>>>The language you use on the net is an act. You are comparing your acts
>>>>with my veiws. At least compare apples with apples.
>>>When you deliberately ask questions that you know have misleading implications,
>>>you are performing acts too, not expressing opinions.  (Example: asking how
>>>science explains so-and-so; the misleading implication is that you don't
>>>believe science can explain so-and-so.)                        ^^^^^^^^^^
>>                                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>                                                      That is an assumption.
>>Ken, you persist in displaying this tremendous psychic ability of reading
>>my mind and motives. That's pretty bold stuff on sci.skeptic. You've got guts.
>
>I'm not using psychic abilities; I'm using ordinary human judgment.

Well, you judged wrong. I'm too naive to be misleading. Misunderstood maybe.
From: pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Pseudoskepticism
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:34:08 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

Please note the followup line.

In article <715345310.3@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORG> 
Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) writes:
> In the same spirit, my apologies to the net for _this_ imposition,
> which I hope is tolerably short.  (After all, for this group, it's
> practically a haiku.  ;->  )  As I said, this is just to keep the record
> straight.

Jeez, you still just don't get it, do you?  I'm sure you're absolutely 
convinced that you have a mental hammerlock on The Absolutely Accurate 
Skeptically-Approved Straight Record.  What if your opponent posts his 
version of The Absolutely Accurate Skeptically-Approved Straight Record?  
Of course, you wouldn't be able to let it go and would have to correct it, 
all in the interests of The Truth, of course.

Six months later, and we will all be knee deep in fluid from your pissing 
contest.  We will all have had to sit through a lot of stuff that 1) most 
of us don't care about, 2) none of us can verify, and 3) is mostly 
designed to be unverifyable anyway.  In the process, a lot of people will
have gotten disgusted with the newsgroup in general, and the only major 
threads will be spillover from talk.origins and alt.conspiracy.jfk.

Please, Rick.  You're not getting any points.  I am sure that anybody who
really cares can figure out how to send you electronic mail. If you have any 
human decency, don't set the record straight no more.  Don't apologize for 
clarifying.  Don't apologize for apologizing.  Just drop it.

I'll even let you have the last word if it's so important to you, but you have
to promise that there won't be any more last words in sci.skeptic.  Again, 
please note the followup line.

Eric Pepke                                    INTERNET: pepke@scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute MFENET:   pepke@fsu
Florida State University                      SPAN:     scri::pepke
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052                    BITNET:   pepke@fsu

Disclaimer: My employers seldom even LISTEN to my opinions.
Meta-disclaimer: Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,talk.religion.newage
From: jim@apsicc.aps.edu (frost...)
Subject: Re: Saga of the Family of Light I - Pleiadians13
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 19:49:00 GMT
Organization: Albuquerque Public Schools - Career Enrichment Center
Distribution: usa
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <3SEP199213095407@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov>, pease@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Pease) writes...
>In article <=9hn3bp.payner@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes...
>>In article <16854EA1E.CCEN077@USLVM.USL.EDU> CCEN077@USLVM.USL.EDU writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug27.161700.6099@auto-trol.com>
>>>davgot@auto-trol.com (David Gottner) writes:
>>> 
>>>>
>>>>In article <64745@cup.portal.com> Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com writes:
>>>>>RA says
>>>>>
>>>>>...So this means that our DNA is constructed from
>>>>>three sources,  our own past, and our biological parents. The other factor
>>>>>involved in this is that past, unresolved emotions survive death and come
>>>>>in with us to be embedded in our DNA.  So it is possible that some of our
>>>>>biggest emotional problems could have originated in past lives..
>>>>
>>>>Some ET's that I work with told me this also, but I have a hard time
>>>>with this one.
>>>>
>>>>According to what we know about genetics, all of your DNA comes
>>>>from ones parents.  There is no provision for past life memories
>>>>to be recorded in the DNA.
>>>>
>>>>So, how are past memories imprinted on the DNA?
>>>>--
>>>>Amrit Prem                      |
>>> 
>>>The memories of all of each person's ancestors is passed on through the DNA;
>>>not past lives per se, but the complete history of our genes.
>> 
>>It seems that even if this were possible, the memorys could not extend
>>beyond those available during the mating. I would tend to think that this
>>would give mostly the memories from 15-25 year old males, hardly the
>>wisdom of the ages. I assume that female memories would have the same
>>restriction. I guess the brain must be mostly a waste, since it's entire
>>content can easily be encoded in a few strands of DNA. How do the memories
>>get into the DNA?
>>  
>>>                                                             Ellen
>> 
>> 
>>Rich
>> 
>>payner@netcom.com
> 
>Of course this is all just speculation anyway; but one possibility is
>that the DNA serves as a filter (or tuner) and that the complete past
>is stored in the electro-magnetic energy fields that make up everything.
> 
>The DNA then tunes one in to that information which matches ones
>particular tuner (frequency, vibrations).
> 
>Just a possibility of how it could be.
> 
>Phil Pease 

I don't know but this sounds an awful lot like the old theory that any
sound ever made continues to exist forever and to hear it you only re-
quire a receiver that is sensitive enough to pull up the faintest sounds
from the past.
							Jim
======================================================================
   We are rapidly ascending through prosperity to poverty...  Twain
                    Internet:    jim@apsicc.aps.edu
       Albuquerque Public Schools - Instructional System Manager 
======================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 19:46:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.162143.15880@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.164444@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>If you feel creationism is not founded in science, why are you trying to
alter
>>science?  Leave them separate and there is no real problem.
> 
> I am not trying to alter science, as such.
> 
> I got into this discussion trying to make the point that science
> needn't be so hostile toward religion.  That was all.

  Science isn't "hostile" toward religion.  they are independent lines of
inquiry.  I don't think I have ever really considered the Bunya class in India,
but my lack of commenting should not be interpreted as hostility.  If your
definition of hostile is "no comment" then the lurkers are the most hostile
people on the net.  Does this make sense?  No.

> BTW, in that it seems to be another net term of loaded meaning, I am
> not so sure that I believe in "creationism" as you use it.

  Then think up a good name for what you believe.  Never use a term with a
predefined meaning if you are not using it for that meaning (without explicitly
defining it in every post you use the term).

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 14:32:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

jkiley@andy.bgsu.edu (James H. Kiley) writes:

>Ohhhh, posts like this drive me nuts.
>The bible wasn't written in English originally, you fool.  Vowel/consonant
>ratios will *not* be the same in, say, Hebrew.

Yeah, but I thought it was funny enough to save.  When my newsreader asked
for a folder name, I entered "God."  Then nn asked, "Create 'God'?"  So I
pressed "Y" and *poof* God *now* exists.  He's in my directory at netcom.
-- 

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)
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:26:20 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <3671@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.025231.3103@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>
>>The only effective means in the past has been vacines. 
>
>"Isolation" is the only currently effective means.
>
>Therefore, opposition to tracing of contacts translates into opposition
>of identification and isolation.

Bzzzzt.

1) Locking people up who are HIV+ would have virtually no effect on
   the spread of the epidemic, people who know they are HIV+ arn't the
   problem, its people who don't know.

2) Locking people up who are not a hazard is unethical. Unlike TB a
   person who is HIV+ can easily avoid passing the virus onto anyone
   else.

3) Contact tracing will not work, by the time a person comes down with
   AIDS the people they gave it to will have already been HIV+ for
   years. In the case of IV drug users or people who get HIV from anonymous
   sex there is no way that it can be traced since they don't know
   who they shared needles or had anonymous sex with.

Now what would help is locking up all those people with the contagious
mental illness called fundy-mentalism so that something can be done about
AIDS without them fighting it at every step.... 1/2 :-)



-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:56:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.155015.2902@rosevax.rosemount.com>,
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
> I suppose you also ignore the invisible aliens that live under your bed.

Ignore them?  Hell, I bet he talks to them all the time!

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: microevolution
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:50:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <31AUG199216181521@portal.lasc.lockheed.com> le01167@portal.lasc.lockheed.com (Ron Nadel (x2025)) writes:
>In article <94926@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes...

>>Evolution is one of the most powerful theories science has ever known.

>I don't think that evolution is still considered a theory.  I believe
>that the fossil record alone has established it as a fact of science.

Facts and theories are not mutually exclusive. It is a fact that
evolution has happened and is happening -- there is a theory of
evolution to explain this fact. Just like gravity is a fact, but
there are theories of gravitation to explain how it works.

>I believe that Natural Selection is the theory.

The theory of natural selection explains the fact of natural selection.
Selection has been demonstrated numerous times in the lab and in
the wild.

>Ron

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15076 sci.physics:13629 alt.folklore.science:3163