HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek Bell)
Subject: Re: When will K2 grow up?
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:21:44 GMT

p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) writes:
>Speaking of CNN, has anybody predicted a date when their science news
>staff will discover that Mt. Everest isn't the highest mountain on Earth?
>I have actually sent them two letters, referring them to the _Information
>Please Almanac_ and to the _World Almanac_, but I heard about a week
>ago that Mt. Everest still takes the cake at CNN.  I have even tried
>calling their news hotline.  No doubt they thought it was a
>crank call.  I give up.

		I'd heard that there were errors in the measurements that
showed K2 as the highest mountain on Earth; when corrected for Everest was
reinstated as the title holder. It made the (end of) tv news shows for a
short while on BBC & ITV a while ago. (Sorry, I don't have any references,
alas!)
-- 
Derek Bell {dbell%maths.tcd.ie,belld%{unix1,vax1}.tcd.ie}@cunyvm.cuny.edu
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 11 Nov 92 12:57:02 EST

In article <1992Nov11.024428.1534@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
[...]
> Just think what this world would be like if say 25% of the world population
> adhered to that teaching!

That's one of the points.  25% or so think that they already do by their own
internal standards.  Who are you (or who am I ) to judge if that is so, unless
we agree on an operational definition of the teaching that they are to adhere
to.

GXKambic
sd
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Measurement & Precision
Date: 6 Nov 92 08:46:21 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Nov4.174337.15525@lsil.com> gascan@dcst16.dc writes:
>
>At this point, I would invoke Hanlon's Razor:
>
>"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
>

And Einstein's Calculus:

"There are two infinite things: The Universe and Human Stupidity. But
the former is not certain."

JWN
From: rhatcher@fnala.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 6 Nov 92 03:59:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: fnala.1992Nov6.095943.1
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnala.fnal.gov

In article <Bx9nst.Jux@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, mgmam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mark A. Morrell) writes:
> In article <Bwv9tx.Aut@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>Interestingly, you still feel that homosexuals shouldn't
>>teach in the schools.
> 
> It's easy to take that meaning from what I said, but that isn't the
> meaning that I intended.  If the mannerisms are not there, then there is
> no problem with homosexual teachers.  The children are not going to be
> able to learn those behaviours from them.

> Mark A. Morrell     Disclaimer:  _I_ probably don't even believe it.

The "problem" lies in the fact that there are a number of people who say
the same things you originally did, but don't believe in this clarified
version.  The truely do believe that it is okay to discriminate against
people based not on their performance in a job (mannerisms IN the classroom
could be argued to affect performance), but on what they do OUTSIDE that
setting (homosexual behaviour) NO MATTER how they came to determine it.
The classic senario:  Wonderful teacher liked by students and collegues
alike; seen entering a gay bar (or whatever); fired for being gay.
This IS what people here have been railing against.  Performance on the
job is the key.  If you had just said that in the beginning this discussion
probably wouldn't have gone on so long.

-robert (hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu)
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Challenge to Astrologers
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:45:35 GMT
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.

In article <1992Nov5.114252.997@altair.selu.edu> tmis1692@altair.selu.edu writes:
> OK. I was born 03/28/56 around 5:00am.

	I think some astrologers also need the place of birth.  I was
born February 10, 1963, at 9:47 AM, in Galesburg IL.  (St. Mary's
Hospital, if y'all must know.)  Okay, now tell me something about
myself that one couldn't guess from the fact that I posted here.
	(I'm just having fun too!)

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.                                  +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
                                          Who says I should question authority?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mdkline@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Mark D. Kline)
Subject: Re: Effects of the Full Moon
Organization: SUNY Health Science Center, Syracuse 
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 19:49:45 EST

In article <1d9sm9INNsqf@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.113533.8927@edinboro.edu>, j724664s@edinboro.edu writes:
>>My stepfather is a policeman in Washington Twp. NJ. From his experience there
>>is usually an increase in "radical" behavior during a full moon. i.e.
>>domestic disputes, fights, abnormal behavior, etc.

I once worked in the emergency admission area of a state mental 
hospital, where the staff swore there was an increase in psychiatric
emergencies and admissions at the time of the full moon.  We went back
and looked at statistics over the preceeding couple of years.  There
was something of a trend toward higher numbers of people seen toward
the end of the month (out of money) but  there was no relation to  
lunar phase.  Two years after doing that little bit of retrospection,
one of the fellows who followed in my footsteps told me that the
staff at the admission unit SWORE they saw more people at the 
time of the full moon...
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 1950's Darryle, damnit.
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:09:45 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)

In article <1992Nov13.025940.7170@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, billn@hpcvaac (bill nelson) writes:
>: : The London Times, May 11, 1987 ("Smallpox vaccine triggered Aids virus in
>: : Africa and Haiti") tells how the World Health Organization [vaccinated]
>: : 100 million Africans (plus 14,000 Haitians working in Zaire) [...]

>: >Heh, heh! 100 million people. Yup - good factual reporting. I doubt
>: >if they could find 100 million people to vaccinate - much less
>: >accomplish the task.

>: Shut up Bill.  Yes, 100 million people.

>You are modifying the quote to which I was objecting. It stated that the
>WHO injected 100 million Africans with the AIDS virus.  

Indeed it did.  I simply did not think there was any necessity of repeating
the false summary of the newspaper article.  While I'm certain you object
to this nonsense, that is not the grounds you used when criticizing the
newspaper.

>I have no doubts that they might have innoculated 100 million people.

That's not what you wrote: "I doubt if they could find 100 million
people to vaccinate".  WHO could and did.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 10 Nov 92 06:31:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: gap.1dnl02INNo0c
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov10.022121.25879@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
=But you are not judging the overall results, are you.  You are
=specifically targeting the negative to the exclusion of everything
=else.

I thought some comments were in order to balance the unfounded claims of
Bible-thumpers like yourself that Christianity is good.  You somehow don't
mention the negative incidents.  And when they *ARE* mentioned by someone else,
you immediately start whining "But *THEY* weren't *REAL* Christians,"
apparently oblivious to the fact that "they" would've said the same of you.

=>My second paragraph said that defining Christianity in some way that has no
=>corresponding operational definition is bogus.  What your, Ata's, and Leet's
=>definitions work out to be is "Someone is a Christian if and only if Agney (or
=>Ata or Leet) says he is, and then only for as long as they continue to say he
=>is."  That is NOT a very useful definition.  Unless you use a definition that
=>allows anyone else to figure out whether, according to your criteria, a
=>particular person is a Christian, then your definition is bogus.
=
=This is pure nonsense Carl.  If you really want to do something
=positve, go to the library and do some research on "The principals
=and teachings of Christ".  Pretend that you've never heard of
=Christianity before.  Be open.  I have every confidence that you
=will come up with a clear working definition of what Christianity
=stands for (Christianity: Someone who follows the teachings of
=Jesus Christ). 

John, don't you realize that most of the schisms in the various Christian
churches have been over arguments as to who was "following the teachings of
Jesus Christ"? So I ask again, John, in hopes that just once one of you
Bible-thumpers might answer:  WHO DECIDES WHETHER SOMEONE IS "FOLLOWING THE
TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST"?  You?  Lee Thomas?  The Pope?  A Jehovah's Witness? 
I rather doubt that the four of you could reach any substantial agreement.  So
John, please: GIVE US AN OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF CHRISTIANITY OR TAKE THE
THREAD TO A NEWSGROUP THAT DOESN'T CARE ABOUT WHETHER WHATEVER YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT HAS ANY CONCRETE REFERENTS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: Harmony Of The Gospels?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:27:05 GMT

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

>Well, then, if we're going to take the gospels as mere "eyewitness accounts,"
>then we should treat them the same as *ANY* eyewitness testimony elicited from
>the witness and recorded some decades after the event.  I.e., assign little or
>no credibility to them.

Eyewitness accounts against Nazi collaborators during the occupation
of France and officials of concentration camps, events that occurred
some decades ago, are regarded as credible evidence in criminal trials.  
However there is a growing right-wing minority in Germany who claim that 
the Holocost is fiction.

Curt Roelle

>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
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 11 Nov 1992 22:27:47 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov11.182546.23008@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>>>Yes, you are probably right, but that doesn't make Christianity useless or
>>>invalid. It is a lofty goal that can improve men/women who strive to
>>>achieve it.
>>
>>And in the process cripples with guilt many who have been told they're supposed
>>to achieve it and that it's possible to at least come very close to achieving
>>it.  Of course, the Church also gives you a way to get rid of the guilt they've
>>just induced.  Actually, the fact that this particular religion gets rid of the
>>guilt is one of its big selling points.
>>
>>Hmmm.  What happens to a physician who's found to be inducing spurious symptoms
>>in his patients and then "curing" them.  Interesting double standard, isn't it.
>
>Sounds pretty bleak Carl. Don't confuse the Church with real spiritual
>pursuit. I doubt if even Jesus Christ would like the way organized religion
>has gone in many places on earth.

As I've said before, if you're talking about something that exists only in the
imaginations of Christian apologists, the thread doesn't belong in sci.skeptic.
If you want to discuss it in sci.skeptic, you're going to have to do better
than "well, the implementations aren't very good."  If a good implementation IS
feasible, why doesn't it predominate?  All the evidence indicates that
Christianity has rather fundamental problems.  I've said it before and I'll
repeat it since apparently you've missed it in the past:
	A PHILOSOPHY OR RELIGION THAT CHOOSES TO IGNORE HUMAN NATURE AND THAT
	IS BASED ON A DENIAL OF COMMON HUMAN BEHAVIOR IS USELESS, BECAUSE IT
	CAN'T LEAD TO THE OUTCOMES IT PROPOSES.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:25:46 GMT

In article <1dq7jfINNnhs@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.005001.8143@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>>Yes, you are probably right, but that doesn't make Christianity useless or
>>invalid. It is a lofty goal that can improve men/women who strive to
>>achieve it.
>
>And in the process cripples with guilt many who have been told they're supposed
>to achieve it and that it's possible to at least come very close to achieving
>it.  Of course, the Church also gives you a way to get rid of the guilt they've
>just induced.  Actually, the fact that this particular religion gets rid of the
>guilt is one of its big selling points.
>
>Hmmm.  What happens to a physician who's found to be inducing spurious symptoms
>in his patients and then "curing" them.  Interesting double standard, isn't it.

Sounds pretty bleak Carl. Don't confuse the Church with real spiritual
pursuit. I doubt if even Jesus Christ would like the way organized religion
has gone in many places on earth.

I don't think you're going to convince many people that having lofty goals
like LOVE THY NEIGHBOR, etc. are useless because it makes people feel
guilty. In general the message of Christianity is good. I grant you 
that the Church may misuse its power.

---------------------------------------------------
Dave.Kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM                       |
(619) 485-2504                                    |
---------------------------------------------------
From: kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 7 Nov 1992 19:59:19 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: scratchy.caltech.edu
Originator: magney@scratchy

In article <13097@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)  
writes:
> In article <1992Oct31.184056.4944@cs.yale.edu>,  
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> # You imply here that gays promote child molestation. While I am sure
> # that there are gays who do promote child molestation, I see no
> # reason to believe that there is any sort of causal link, or even
> # that promoting child molestation is more common among gays than
> # among straights. Can you show this to be the case?
> # Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)               
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
> 
> Already posted a detailed article.  I received a few intelligent
> arguments, but mostly, homosexuals knew they were licked, and
> engaged in constant character assassination.
> 

Could you reference the article, or statistics on which it is based?  I
really would like to settle my mind on this.  I will look up the ref-
erence if I can, and decide for myself.

I am not homosexual, and my parents believe that homosexuality is a
disease to be cured, and I had a Christian upbringing, but I wouldn't
want to believe something that was wrong (i.e. "homosexuality is bad").

--
/---------------------------------------------------------\
| Michael Agney          | "Well, if we were to build a   |
|                        |           giant badger..."     |
|                        |    - Monty Python and the      |
| magney@cco.caltech.edu |      search for the Holy Grail |
\---------------------------------------------------------/
-- 
/---------------------------------------------------------\
| Michael Agney          | "Well, if we were to build a   |
|                        |           giant badger..."     |
|                        |    - Monty Python and the      |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mccoy@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Don McCoy)
Subject: Re: ALTERNATIVE Comet Rendezvous Mission
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:09:55 GMT

mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>
>               [I KNOW that we are all supposed to LAUGH at the word 
>          "conspiracy".  That is what the various government, military, 
>          political, media, banking, and corporate CONSPIRATORS have 
>          successfully PROGRAMMED most of us to do. ] 
>          
This, friends, is the sign of a highly developed conspriacy theorist.
Are universities now offering PhD's in this once disruputable field?

   :)      ..don...  

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: Harmony Of The Gospels?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Distribution: world,local
Date: 13 Nov 92 22:16:10 GMT

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

>In article <roelle.721608957@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes...
>>lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>> 
>>>Eyewitnesses don't get everything right (unless, of course, they are
>>>being divinely guided so that their every word is accurate).  But when
>>>there are conflicts between eyewitnesses, it is clear that *at least
>>>one of them is wrong*.  This conclusion is not one which a biblical
>>>literalist is willing to draw.
>> 
>>But for non-literalists four gospels are better than two.  

>But not much better, since three of them (the synoptics) are not independent
>sources.

>>>   Also, if one witness says an airplane's engine fell off while another
>>>says the plane was shot down by an alien spacecraft, there is reason to
>>>believe that more is going on than the typical errors of perception and
>>>memory that plague eyewitness accounts.

>>It seems that four gospels is as good as the 1st century can pass on.
>>There were no videotapes, movies, or even (as far as I know) paintings 
>>made live on the scence of the crucifiction.  1st century evidence on 
>>its surface seems silly by 20th century standards.  The point is that
>>discounting the gospels just because they are in harmony instead of in
>>unison is not a good enough reason to reject all four as fiction.

>But when one gospel (Matthew) inserts stories like the resurrection of
>the saints at the time of the crucifixion, who traveled to the cities
>and made their presence known, this does seem to be analogous to alien
>spacecraft.  (Especially since this not only is unreported by any other
>account, it doesn't seem to fit in well with what Matthew himself says.
>If all these resurrected people were walking around prior to Jesus'
>resurrection, why the surprise when Jesus himself showed up?)

>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
>Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721

In this case we might discount Matthew's account of the saints, as the other
gospels do not support it.  If the gospels are severable, Matthew can still
be used to corroborate the other three gospels.    

Curt
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
Subject: Re: The guns of roston (wa
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:32:44 GMT

In article <721037102.2@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORG>, Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) writes:
|>  [...]
|> Now, you would seem to be asserting (in an notably roundabout fashion)
|> that since the word "state" is not present in the U.S. Constitution's
|> Second Amendment, then it cannot be referring to state militias.  In
|> light of the fact that this is the ONLY sort of militia extant when 
|> the law was written, I find this belief charmingly quaint.

On the contrary!  There were quite a large variety of militias
in existence at the time.  The term `militia' was widely regarded
as meaning `*any* voluntary organization of citizens for the purpose
of defense.'  And there were bunches of them.  Private militias, 
regional militias, state militias, militias organized around 
business interests, etc..

In the interim, what *is* your fascination with trying to delete
a basic right of this country.  Given the clearly observable
fact that controlling guns does *not* control crime, exactly
what are you trying to accomplish?

-- 
J. Giles