HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 8 Nov 1992 23:29:17 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 <1dk75hINNcef@gap.caltech.edu>, kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney) writes:
>Tell me why you can say that YOUR definition of Christianity is better
>than MINE.  Then, I'll try to show you why one interpretation of the Bible
>can be preferable to another.

Custom and usage.  That *IS* what determines the definition of a word.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Measurement & Precision
Date: 11 Nov 1992 19:55:23 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 <1992Nov11.161327.11285@rosevax.rosemount.com>, grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>
>: Are you sure that insulin you are taking isn't affecting
>: your eyesight?
>
>Carl indicates that he is an insulin dependent diabetic.  Loss of
>eyesight is one of the possible results of diabetes, so you start
>making cracks about how well he can see.
>
>Derek, That was in poor taste, even for you.  
>
>I don't even care if Carl wasn't offended, I was.  You owe Carl (and
>everbody else, for that matter) an apology.

Actually, I was rather amused that Derek had shown his colossal ignorance of
yet another field.  Failure to take insulin can lead to degradation of vision.
If the insulin dose had been high enough to affect my vision, I would've been
incapable of typing anything, since I would've been unconscious or dead.  By
the way, I visited an opthalmologist yesterday and there's no evidence of
retinal damage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19033 talk.politics.guns:23550
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:21:46 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA

This really is kind of silly.  Most of this is covered under present
law, and is not controversial.  In general, illegal actions with guns
are not constitutionally protected (nor are illegal actions with
printing presses, or anything else).

In article <1992Nov5.133648.1557@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:

   1)  A 12 year old boy takes his father's pistol to school with him.
       Can school officials take it away?

Minors are not guaranteed constitutional rights in general; witness
searches of school lockers.  Some have been granted in limited
circumstances.  This is not a violation of the constitution.

   2)  A violent criminal is released on bail.  His first stop is
       a gun store - can he be forbidden to buy the gun?

Felons may be denied many constitutional rights, including the right
to vote.  They often have to petition the governor of the state for
the right to vote.  This varies from state to state.

   3)  I rent an apartment overlooking a schoolyard.  Early one morning
       I screw down the tripod of an automatic weapon to the window sill,
       attach the gun so it points down towards the schoolyard,
       and sit there by the gun, smiling, waiting for recess.  Can
       anyone make me not do this?

Directing a weapon toward anyone in a manner that a reasonable person
would consider threatening is assault.  It is illegal, and such laws
are not unconstitutional.  This is not "keeping a bearing" an arm; it
is threatening someone with one.

   4)  You like to ride on public transportation, holding your Magnum
       in your hand.  Is this against any law?  Occasionally you playfully
       point it at an old lady and "Pow!  Pow!".  Is this legal?

Similarly, this is assault (the pointing, not the holding).  Holding
in non-threatening manner would be protected.

I have set follow-ups to talk.politics.guns; it really is not an 
issue for sci.skeptic.  Trying to keep discussions in relevant
newsgroups is a futile process, but I sometimes try anyway.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (David A. Byler)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Questions, old and new
Date: 9 Nov 92 04:56:27 GMT
	<cexJMc_00VpLM3KkV8@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<8exJsJW00VpO82XUUa@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<wexK8Oy00VIKA0rUlW@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<8exL8x200WCq0YVXNt@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<gexMRXW00VIKM0rXMO@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<AexiJvO00VpL06V1Vn@andrew.cmu.ed
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Mr. Hunt writes:

>Well, ask any reputable biologist/paleontologist if evolution is true,
they'll >say
>yas, despite the fact that neither have been "proven".

I think you have hit the nail on the head.  Who determines which
scientist is reputable?  There are plenty of Scientists on both sides of
this issue who are entirely reputable.

Aonsider also, the simple mathematical impossibility of Evolution.  It
is such a wildly improbable thing that this world could have evolved
through genetic mutations (mostly harmful or useless) that it is
ridiculous to consider it.  It is also ridiculous to it is on the order
of improbablility of a torando ripping through a large junkyard and
creating a fully assembled 747 airplane from the piles of junk.

Andy Byler
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Freewill (WAS: Re: Measurement & Precision)
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:09:24 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <6143@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>
>The illusion that I can pretty well do what I damn please, at most
>restricted by mundane matters like the finite size of my wallet, my
>brain, my span of life, my political power. As you see this definition
>says that I'm the only one with a free will, but it so pleases me to
>think that most other people suffer from the same illusion.
>
>JWN

Me thinks you are confusing "freedom of action" and "freedom of will."

They are philosophically different.

Free will means you are free to make any decision you like.

However, it is well known that we all do not have the "freedom of action"
to always act out that decision.
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Legitimate but Trivial Anomalies ?
Date: 8 Nov 92 15:21:45 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Nov5.182940.15877@Princeton.EDU> rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson) writes:
>In article <1da6krINNnbv@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:

This post comments on both Roger's and Carl's contributions.
>>In article <6164@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
>>
>>JW>Many of the data he collected went into tests of this 
>>JW>idea.  So even if the first result was a fluke, the later ones are
>>JW>not flukes.
>>
>CJL>That depends on how many other tests he did where the hypothesis was NOT
>CJL>supported.
>>
>>>Moreover the allegation that he didn't report his failures is rubbish.
>>>If there is one researcher whose extensive reports about failed astrological
>>>relations have sereved to debunk astrology, then it's Gauquelin.
>>
>CJL>Then just how many studies were done to test this hypothesis, how many of them
>CJL>supported it and how many failed to support it?

Maybe it would be a good idea for Carl to not stray down on abbott-road,
asking all kinds of questions without bothering to read the literature.
A good guide to further literature can be found in the articles by
C. de Jager & Rieks Jager, Koppeschaar, Ertel and F. Gauquelin in the 
Proceedings of the 3rd EuroSkeptics Conference 1991.  Old issues of the
Skeptical Inquirer also can give a pretty good idea what the problem
is about (consult the 10 year index to the S.I.).

And then there's the famous Petiot hoax that Gauquelin engineered,
which gave some insight into what motivates people to accept astrological
interpretations of their horoscopes.

>
Roger's answer:
RDN>Your approach is, as Jan indicated, rather too simple, and certainly not
                      ^ Jan Willem if you please.
RDN>likely to get at the "truth" of the matter.  Just for starters, "how
RDN>many" is an inadequate question, since what you are counting may be
RDN>apples and oranges, and furthermore even if all oranges, may be of
RDN>greatly varying quality, not to mention the necessity for weighting to
RDN>accomodate statistical power.
RDN>
RDN>It is ironic that Jan is relegated to what might be perceived as a
RDN>defense of the Mars effect, and I suspect that his regard for Gauquelin
RDN>is well founded, for he evidently has studied the literature and done so
RDN>with a good understanding of the pitfalls.

There's another reason as well.  I've put a lot of effort into trying
to understand the source of Gauquelin's bias, and keeping the discussion
on it going, and I'm still involved.  And not just studying the 
literature but parts of the Gauquelin data base as well.
[warning: flame ahead]   I don't quite like some guy, who
possibly knows more about it but does an excellent job in hiding his
knowledge, to blather about that it is just some silly error that just
about anybody who knows about VAXes can spot with his eyes closed.
[end of flame]

JW
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Audis (was Re: Repressed Memories, Ruined Lives)
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:53:51 GMT

gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes...

> Despite all the talk, I find it hard to believe that the problem was
> solely the fault of the drivers.

Aside from the drivers, there were two problems:

First, it was easy to accidentally knock the automatic transmission in
question into drive.  Maybe it even fell into drive on it's own.  Audi
admitted this and fixed the problem.

Second, the pedal spacing was not well suited for people used to
driving American cars.  I _think_ that Audi changed this also.  (It
took me a while to get used to the pedal spacing in my Alfa Romeo --
the brake and accelerator were much closer together than what I was
accustomed to.)

What Audi denied, and 60 minutes (and others) pursued without evidence
or justification, was the accusation that the engine controls were
faulty and caused them to take on a life of own -- roaring off like
the title character from the movie The Car.

> Even if the pedals were marginally closer than the norm, this can not
> explain why such a disproportionate number of accidents happened with
> Audis but not other cars.

In Audi's case it was pedal spacing combined with the automatic
transmission shift mechanism that accidentally dropped into drive.
The same thing happened in other makes (I remember an article about a
Chevy model).

> I do not believe in conspiracy theories, but I suspect that Audi
> went out of its way to cover up the facts to prevent being sued out
> of business.

No, they admitted that the gear shift mechanism was poorly designed,
and offered to fix it for free in all of the affected models.  They
are responsible for damages caused by the faulty gear shift mechanism,
and a convincing arguement can also be made that they are responsible
for pedal mis-application.  You are responsible for forseeable
accidents and misuse of your products, and they should have known that
Americans were used to greater pedal seperation.

But, the press refused to believe that these two issues were the
causes of the accidents, and crucified them over the non-existant
engine control issue.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I've read SEVEN MILLION
Rosemount Inc.                                |books!!
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: On topic? Right!
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:08:10 GMT

In article <n0df3t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>Intent is the foundation of morality. What are the motives of those
>who give the orders?
> 
>I observe that the rulers and leaders of Christianity have a flawed
>intent, and thus their morality is flawed--- it is the morality that
>is most politically expediant for the times, and not the morality
>that is good for the Commonwealth.
> 
>Is it moral to go on TV and fake hundreds of thousands into believing
>you can heal sick people, with the result that the "healed" died later
>because they did not seek REAL help? How do Christians justify that
>death? Were they doing God's work, thus one or two deaths are
>acceptable? The ring-leaders of Christianity are oh so willing to
>have their followers pay the price, in blood, for the leader's sick,
>flawed brand of morality.
>
>--- Maximus 2.00


If they are causing the death of people who could have sought medical
advice, then it would not seem to me to be moral.  But you talked about
intent.  What would be the intent be of such a preacher?
-- 
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
From: pirtle@sri.com (Dave Pirtle)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: 14 Nov 92 02:03:12 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: sri.com

In article <69096@cup.portal.com>, John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com wrote:
.> 
.> Subject: A Lady Called Viv. 

.> John Wlnston.

She was last seen in Berkeley posing as a homeless person.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: On topic? Right!
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:31:03 GMT

mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.030810.1913@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>> If they are causing the death of people who could have sought medical
>> advice, then it would not seem to me to be moral.  But you talked about
>> intent.  What would be the intent be of such a preacher?

>	Where have you been?  Here's a clue to the answer of your
>question: $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
>Mark Meyer                                              

You have just proven John's point.  Most T.V. evangelists are
charlatans.  They are to Christians as worms are to sheep; except T.V.
parasites prefer the lining of wallets to that of intestines.  When
John discusses Christianity I really doubt he is talking about Bro'
Tilton :-).

T.V. evangelism harms not only persons who find themselves in
circumstances that make them easy to take advantate of, but also
because of the public backlash against a segment of the population who
call themselves Christians, a name that just happens to be used by the
con-men on T.V.  who find it financially rewarding to adopt the 
_Christian_ trade mark  and take advantage of freedom of religion in
this country to make a $ or $ $.  With good tax benefits too >:-(.

Curt Roelle
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:44:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.114347.9302@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>
>Which now have to be operationally defined.  However, let's take one specific
>case.  Without qualifiers.  Love  the Lord God with they whole strength, etc.,
>and Love they neighbor as thyself.  
>
>Based on this, there are very very few followers of Christianity in the world. 
>Note: very rigid definition. No qualifiers, no love some neighbors, no take
>part of what you have and give to the poor, etc.  
>
>Hmm.....if only we could find the six or so people in the world who do  this...

Just think what this world would be like if say 25% of the world population
adhered to that teaching!

>
>GXKambic
>sd
>


-- 
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
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Questions, old and new
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:37:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <2187@snap>, paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes...
>In article <wezSxvy00VID88UqYy@andrew.cmu.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (David A. Byler) writes:
> 
>>I think you have hit the nail on the head.  Who determines which
>>scientist is reputable?  There are plenty of Scientists on both sides of
>>this issue who are entirely reputable.
> 
>I take it that this refers to the Evolution/Creation debate.
> 
>Could you supply us with a list of these reputable creation
>scientists?  Proof by authority is a very poor way of deciding things,
>but I would be interested in a list of people who have done serious,
>reputable scientific work (perhaps in a different field) and then
>produced evidence to support the Creation.

Some creationists who have published in reputable scientific journals
are Robert Gentry (_Science_), Dimitri Kouznetsov (numerous Russian
and English language molecular biology journals), and Kurt Wise (who
did his Ph.D. at Harvard with Stephen Jay Gould as his dissertation
director).  Of these three, Gentry's work has been pretty well
debunked.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 9 Nov 1992 02:01:33 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: itchy.caltech.edu
Originator: magney@itchy

In article <1dkf91INNia8@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl  
J Lydick) writes:
> Now, would you mind answering the points I raised instead of starting  
off on
> yet another irrelevent tangent?
> 
> 	1)  How do you propose to judge anything other than by its  
effects?
> 	2)  What is an operational definition of Christianity that you'd  
be
> 	    willing to use?  Remember, the definition must be one that  
will
> 	    allow anybody to determine whether a particular person is a
> 	    Christian, and must not rely on subjective judgements that  
vary
> 	    from individual to individual.
> 
> If you can't (or won't) answer these questions, then take the thread to  
one of
> the philosophy or religion groups, because it most certainly does NOT  
belong in
> sci.skeptic.

Okay.  Now I have the chance to unequivocally fess up.

Practically speaking, the sort of judgment I was proposing for
Christianity would have little practical value.

I also will admit that it would be difficult or impossible to
unambiguously decide whether a person is or is not a "Christian" (quotes  
will indicate my definition).  In my view, a "Christian" is someone who
honestly desires to follow the Bible, and this sort of definition is not
testable.

I have other arguments I could raise, but I'm tired of trying to make them
rigorous (and beginning to doubt if it can be done), so I'll just have to
concede defeat for now, and come back later.

(I'll also concede the utilitarianism matter for now.)

--
/---------------------------------------------------------\
| 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      |
From: akerson@deimos.af.mil (Pete Akerson - akerson%srg@uunet.uucp)
Subject: Innumeracy, humorous ... maybe.
Organization: Arinc Research Corp.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 20:15:59 GMT



  Sad stories not repeated.

  This thread reminds me of the time 'the computer' broke at the local
hardware store (Hechingers, FYI.) And the clerk, who, from her style
of dress and manner of speach, appeared to be an average white middle-
class teen could not : find the prices for a packet of seeds and a
soldering torch in a catalog. Add those prices, once they were found
for her. Determine which item cost $19, and which $0.79. ( she had
to ask again before writing a reciept.)

  This is the product of a high-priced public education ? I suppose
she would be even less able if she had been schooled in a poor area ...
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Sleep cycles (was Re: Efficacy of Prayer)
Date: 7 Nov 1992 02:46:12 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 <5877@balrog.ctron.com>, smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith) writes:
=Roger, I can well imagine what William of Occum would say about it, but the
=fact is, Rolf is right.  Quite a number of studies have been done on human
=beings living in environments where all time referents have been removed -
=at Antactica, on Navy subs, and in caves and caverns.  One was documented
=just a couple weeks ago on Nova, I think it was, about a woman who stayed
=in a cave for several weeks while her cycles were analysed.  No one has
=put forth any brilliant theories why, but the fact is, most humans _do_ fall
=into a twenty-five hour cycle if they are denied any external time referents.
=Individually, some slightly longer than 25, others slightly less than 25.
=When living together, people seem to "synch up" at something around 25 hours.

As to why, I don't know.  I will point out, however, that if one constructs an
oscillator that's supposed to be synced to a particular signal, the easiest way
to do it is usually to build it so that without synchronization it runs at a
slightly lower frequency than desired.  Whether this is relevent here, I don't
know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.