HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Saga of the Family of Light I - Pleiadians13
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:26:24 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. @ NU

In article <64365@cup.portal.com> Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com writes:
[...]
>                                But did build the first AC power plant at
>Niagra Falls seven years later.  He also invented radio and remote control,
>a saucer engine, etc.  
   ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
I know Tesla designed a lot of useful things, and a lot of strange & 
controversial things.  Are the plans for the saucer engine available?

>                       So I would say AC, radio, and his other 700 patents
>are a little more complex than the wheel.  

Yes, but _Tesla_ invented them - not the aliens.  He may have credited them,
but he was by no means unskilled or lacking in knowledge.  I can easily 
believe him capable of designing everything he did on his own.

>He also had a way to end war for which he was killed.  

So he's dead, and can't tell us what it is?

>                       Now the thing that is really a joke is Tesla is
>hanging around wanting to share stuff,  but all our er, scientist, don't
>believe they can contact him so he comes through old ladies who don't even
>know what rf means.

Have these little old ladies come up with any remarkable inventions?  And
what about the 'way to end war'?  Or has the afterlife given poor Nick a
mental block?  If _I_ was gonna bother being hauled out of Limbo or Heaven
or whatever to answer some questions, I'd make damn sure I told everybody
the way to end war.  But I bet all Nick ever talks about is 'light' and 
'love' and how neat things are on his side of the barrier.

>
>DS
>
>It sounds to me like you belong to that cult that believes the speed of
>light is constant.  

For any particular medium it is.  Do you have evidence it isn't?  Want a 
Nobel Prize?  There's only one person I know of that ever seriously considered 
turning one of these down - Richard Feynman.  And even he ended up accepting 
it.

>Is this post short enough for you?

Just fine, thanks.

	RA
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson)
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Keywords: evolution, creationism
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 18:13:45 GMT


>>   5. PROBABILITY
>>
>>The probability  of producing one human cell by chance is
>>10, to the 119,000 power. [MP]

Using this logic, what is the probability of the
spontaneous generation of a much more complex being?

Such as a God?  10 to the 250,000,000 power?


Vern Nelson
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: origin of life articl
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 03:23:10 GMT

In article <714034965.1@iphase.FidoNet.Org> Ken.Stuckas@iphase.UUCP (Ken Stuckas) writes:
>-> >   Just to nit pick, but given a fair coin, the previous 1,000,000 >
>->   tosses have absolutely no bearing on the next.  The odds of the >
>-> next toss being tails are still 50-50.  I understand your point, >
>-> but your analogy is flawed.
>
>IMHO it depends on the question you ask in advance of flipping any coin.
>
>Q#1: If I flip this coin, what are the odds that it will come up heads?
>     (Obvious answer: 50/50)
>
>Q#2: If I flip this coin, what are the odds that it will come up heads
>      1,000,000 times in a row?
>
>Once the coin has been flipped, you can't go back and ask the question in retrospect, because the question has no relevance.  Or does it?
>
> * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
>20 
>20 
>


IMHO, if someone tosses a coin 1e6 times and gets heads then for someone
to expect honestly that the next toss is a 50-50 chance reminds me of a
certain gentleman who was convinced that motion was impossible because
he had mathematically proved it.  As the lion charged forward, he closed
his eyes and repeated to himself: "This is an illusion, the lion can't move
and I'm safe"  I leave it to your imaginations to guess what his fate may
have been and to wonder about the usefulness of theories that directly 
contradict empirical data.
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     hfsi!ata@UUNET.UU.NET
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet.uu.net!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
From: michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Pt 1/3: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:35:07 GMT
Reply-To: michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <713649613.F00002@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:
>>> The bat is not a bird.
>
>We classify bats as mammals which fly. The Bible classifies them as flying
>things which are mammals. See the difference?

No, it classifies them as birds, not "flying things."  Aside from that,
your argument still fails; not all flying things are mammals.  Birds are
_not_ mammals, and are actually closer in family to reptiles than to
mammals.

Strike two, and a foul (_not_ a fowl).

>>> Rabbits do not chew their cud.
>
>Depends what you call chewing cuds. They do something similar enough for it to
>be called that. All animals which eat vegetation of low nutritional value need
>to masticate it to get as much out of it as possible.

Ah.  When your argument is shown to be wrong, redefine words so they mean
something else.  Chewing cud does not mean to eat one's own feces.  If
someone said they saw a person driving away in a car, would that be
"similar enough" to the truth if the person had actually driven away on
a motorcycle?

Strike three, you're out.

>>> Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt.
>
>I bet they swallow a lot of it. Ever seen a snake tasting (smelling) things?

I can't speak to this, but I'm guessing this is wrong as well.


michael@cs.umass.edu
Organisation: European Space Operation Centre (E.S.O.C)
Date: Sunday, 16 Aug 1992 11:46:48 CET
From: <TELEX@ESOC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
 <1992Aug15.203419.9214@rhrk.uni-kl.de>
 <1992Aug15.204009.14771@husc3.harvard.edu>


QUIT
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14454 alt.magick:3858 alt.pagan:7932
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.magick,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Book Review 'Persuasions of the Witch's Craft' (longish)
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:37:52 GMT
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <ya9mm+f.payner@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes in part:
|> In article <1992Aug16.015808.16448@peponi.wcc.govt.nz> hobbs_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:
|> 
|> >         As for the SI interview, that sounds to me too much like the kind of
|> >intellectual arrogance that the author warns against. The reviewer sounds like
|> >a conversionary skeptic, a type I dislike almost as much as conversionary
|> >atheists...
|> 
|> I am rather perturbed by the concept that one must have all the answers to 
|> absolutley everything in order to be properly skeptical.
[...]
|> 
|> Rich
|> 
|> payner@netcom.com
I am far less perturbed that R.P. is by this comment because I know 
that this article was posted simultaneously to alt.magick and alt.pagan 
as well as sci.skeptic (a tactic that may be subject to criticism!).  
I expect this comment came from a different news group milieux, and in 
that light is much less problematic.  If I wanted to avoid such criticism, 
I certainly would have restricted my postings to sci.skeptic!

A.H.'s comments are well received by me, although I naturally squirm
under such terrible labels!

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.magick,alt.pagan
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Book Review 'Persuasions of the Witch's Craft' (longish)
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 18:37:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.222113.4031@PA.dec.com>, dantonio@magick.enet.dec.com (David D'Antonio) writes in part:
|> 
|> It was this review in _Skeptical Inquirer_ that prompted me to buy
|> this book and, while I think the reviewer was generally fair, they
|> missed some key points. First off, T. M. Luhrmann is a woman. In the
|> SI version, she was refered to as 'he'. 
Deepest and sincerest regrets.  The original MS carefully avoided any
indication of the gender of the author, and a copy editor made careless 
"improvements" in the text.  A published correction will follow.  I have 
apologized to Luhrmann personally, and she seemed to think it was funny 
and a bit "kinky" to magically change sex.

|> More substantially, at the end
|> of the book she talks about belief, and says that choosing to
|> (publicly) believe in magic often has social/professional costs and
|> for this reason, she wasn't going to say she believes magic works. She
|> says that there would be (paraphrased) "loss of credibility and
|> professional stature" to admit to believing in magic. Yet this wasn't
|> mentioned in the review.
Yes, and I left out a gazillion other interesting points.  I hope
lots of folks will read the book and find out the other things that
wouldn't fit in a short review.

|> DDA
Thanks for the comments.

REMcG
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14728 talk.origins:9802
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...)
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:14:30 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug20.090429@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes...
> 
>   (I) who maintains the IC standard?

IEEE?

>   (II)  what is the IC standard?

Check out the TTL Data Book.

-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
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14821 alt.culture.usenet:687
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...)
Date: 22 Aug 92 07:40:40 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Aug21.203410.24227@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.110814@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>>What does being polite to a known net.scoundrel gain me?  What is the
>>philosophical basis for being polite no matter how many times one has been
>>bloodied?
>
>[Bet you weren't expecting an answer to this one!]
>
>The philosophical basis is much the same as the philosophical basis for
>letting even Nazis and Communists speak freely.  We let them speak, not because
>we think their views are valid, but because if we don't let them speak we have
>to draw a line which leaves them out--and _you_ are not the only person who's
>going to get to draw lines.
>
>You can't say "Well, if I think he deserves it, I'll insult him, but he must
>be polite to me whether he thinks I deserve nastiness or not."  It's all or
>nothing.

The issue here is not quite the same. Everybody might have freedom of
speech, but respect must be gained. I firmly believe that if one thinks,
acts and talks like a total jerk, he must  expect to be treated as one.
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   cust_ts@kruuna.helsinki.fi)                  00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gordon@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R)
Subject: Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:29:09 GMT

lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:


>What schools teach AK?  What medical or scientific research journals have
>published articles demonstrating the reliability and validity of AK?

Lay classes can be found through the Touch for Health Foundation in Pasadena
or St Louis.  

Your latter question is irrelevant.
-- 
Allen Gordon 		         *If the folly of but one of us was changed to*
Research Associate         	 *intelligence, and divided amongst a thousand*
gordon@tramp.colorado.edu   	 *toads, each would be more intelligent than  *
				 *Aristotle				      *
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:01:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: anasazi.1992Aug19.160124.22231
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <494@audfax.audiofax.com> brian@audiofax.com (Brian Troxell) writes:
]In article <1992Aug17.144159.12775@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
]>In article <1992Aug17.092452.27338@cco.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
]>]The IQ isn't meaning less, but MENSA is.  That is, the IQ has some merit
]>]for some abilities, but MENSA exists only for self-flattery and egotism.
]>
]>Hmm... when I was a member, I found very little of that going on. It was
]>a social club, and a way to find those of similar intellectual
]>interests (not easy otherwise in a place like Phoenix, AZ).
]            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
]
]Did someone say "self-flattery and egotism?"
]
]Way to prove the point of the previous post, Keith.

Errr. I'm not Keith.

And, if you consider what I wrote, you might come to a different conclusion.
Phoenix is not noted for intellectual (you note I did not say high IQ)
gathering holes (unlike some other cities). It is not a small university
town (like Lawrence, Kansas where I used to live) where people interested
in intellectual subects were a dime a dozen (note, I did NOT say "smart
people" - I said people interested in intellectual subjects). Mensa has
a number of special interest groups, and a lot of them are on intellectual
things. If you go to THOSE Mensa gatherings, you do have a way of finding
people interested in those things. If you go to Mensa SEXSYG, you can just
find people interested in sex, which most do not consider an intellectual
pursuits.

Please note the difference between intellectual interests (what I said)
and intellectual capability (which you implied). If it is self-flattery
and egotism to be interested in subjects other than who won the last
baseball game, and you want to find others of similar interests,
then so be it.

PS, I am not a current member of Mensa. Too many of the meetings
were more in the flavor of a singles club. However, none of the meetings
that I attended were for the purpose of, or occupied by, self-flattery
and egotism, or crowing about high IQ.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14762 talk.origins:9830
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...)
Date: 21 Aug 92 06:36:15 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Aug20.090429@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
#
#> Parts of This newsgroup and almost all of Talk.origin exist in order 
#> to educate the public in the IC (Intellectually Correct) way of 
#
#   That, you weasle worded bastard, is a damn lie.  There is no "IC" standard
#at all, no one maintains such a standard, no one tries to enforce it.  Everyone
#is free to bring in evidence and be heard.  Your scurrilous lie, above, is very
#
#Dan Ashlock

Please, Dan, keep the exchange kind of polite.  I know that the C-word
("Correct") can provoke rage, but arguments don't gain force by calling
your esteemed opponent "bastard" and "scurrilous" and also not by inferring
that his utterances are a "lie" (and a "damn" lie too).

We all know that you meant: "This is at variance with the situation as seen
by most people. Your way of inventing politically loaded terms is not
very conducive to a rational discourse. There is no IC standard [etc.]. 
Your suggestion, above, [etc.] ... "
The why not write what you mean?

JWN

>Department of Mathematics
>Iowa State University 
>Ames, Iowa 50011
>Danwell@IASTATE.EDU


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:39:40 GMT

In article <74uq03T562o200@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim
Loucks) writes:
> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> >  For trying to confound us He sure managed to get the evidence to fall in a
> >very consistent pattern. 
> 
> I think this is where you go wrong, in my opinion. God is not trying
> to confound us.

  Didn't you say "The Bible states that God will frustrate the intelligence of
the intelligent, and just maybe this origins debate is one of the
frustrations."?  (Rhetorical question, this is pasted directly from one of your
earlier posts)

  It seems to me that you are saying God is trying to confound the intelligent.

> > If God's intention was to confuse us wouldn't he have
> >made the tree rings, ice cores, lake bottoms, and coral reefs all disagree
to
> >some extent as a hint?
> 
> His intention was not to confuse us.

  Then what did you mean by the above quote?

>>  I have to agree with Dan, you a presenting God as a liar, purposefully
doing
>>His best to trick people into believing something false. 
> 
> I don't think this was or is, God's plan.

  Then again, I must ask what you meant by the above, or by "But man with all
his pride must know, and for this pride, God frustrates those minds."

> > I don't know about
> >you, but that isn't the God I worship.
> 
> Me either. Guess we're kinda stuck now?

  Guess we are.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | O |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14486 rec.org.mensa:6265
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:47:49 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: world,local

In article <qt9mysa.sheaffer@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug17.002420.5887@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> >>
> >>
> >The elitism of Mensa is a big farce, anyway. They don't have the intelligence
> >to work out that the concept of IQ is completely flawed and meaningless.
> >
> >Mensa is the most useless, aimless, tacky, idiotic  organisation in the world.
> 
>   Yes, but they sure have some neat parties sometimes!

Apparently, the original poster has never seen a political party.
From: Ken.Stuckas@iphase.UUCP (Ken Stuckas)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: shroud exposed at ear
Date: 12 Aug 92  17:53:00 EST

-> I suggest you read (or re-read) Heller's book; he claims that many
-> Shroud details were discovered only after modern scientific analysis,
-> details that a medieval forger would not have needed to include.
-> I.e., microscopic particles of dirt on the feet, the abrasion of the
-> tip of the nose, the precise pattern that a Roman flagrum produces in
-> human flesh, the two paths that the blood took in running down the
-> arm during crucifixion, ... why were all these details so carefully
-> included?  A true skeptic does not simply dismiss the details, but
-> rather explains them so the "believer" has no room for belief.  And
-> let me turn

I especially liked the spike marks being in the wrist and not in the palm of the hand which experts claim would have ripped out.  I believe that the shroud is a fake, but I'm sure we foundthings that the forger did not know would be found.  Maybe it was created by a group of people who went to the length of actually putting some human through the whole ritual of crucifixion (a volunteer, of course).  I'm sure there would have been many volunteers in the religious community at that time.

We have a human tendency to disbelieve the science of others.  as a result a number of events just keep on being brought up over and over. Marilyn Monroe, John Kennedy's assasination, UFO's, Darwinism.  There is only one cure that I know of, and that is personal education with an open mind rather than a profit motive.   Say, when is the next Bermuda triangle book coming out?   :)

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14673 talk.origins:9754
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:06:57 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Aug19.150014.15370@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
|In article <903@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
|>
|>Exactly.  Given the clear evidence for *irregular*, *unique*, *historical*
|>events at ages far exceeding any Creationist's timetable, the God they
|>worship *must* be considered a deciever.
|>
|>Luckily I don't worship him. I worship the God revealed by Jesus in the
|>Gospels.  He is a much more reasonable, less deceptive God.
|
|
|Funny.  That is the same New Testament which refer to Noah as a
|historical person (see 1 Peter 3:20).  You can't have it both ways.
|
There is only a problem if I insist that the Bible is literally inerrent
in all details because it was effectively dictated verbatim by God.

I believe that God gave a message to his disciples, who then expressed it
to the best of thier ability according to their understanding of the world.

Naturally, writing prior to the scientific revolution, they did not have
access to much current knowledge, and tended to accept cultural myths rather
uncritically.

Now, unless you can show that the moral/spriritual principles being expounded
in 1 Peter *depend* on a literal Noah, the fact that he didn't exist is of
little theological significance.  (That is, does Noah being a myth necessarily
imply that the *intended* *message* of the passage is also incorrect - I don't
think so, so I attach no importance to such minor, irrelevant idiosyncracies
of the individual authors).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14568 talk.origins:9683