HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Barefoot in the park, or anywhere else...
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:14:00 GMT

Chris.Alexander@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chris Alexander) writes:

>>
>>In science classes across the U.S. (perhaps abroad as well), teachers are
>>teaching something along the lines that if one goes barefoot, some tiny worm
>>will shoot up you heel into your stomach and probably kill you. (Ok, so I'm
>>paraphrasing)
>>
>Yeah, I heard this too. Wasn't it some kind of roundworm? Trichina? No,
>that's in red meat, isn't it. Hmmmmmm. I certainly don't know anyone with
>this problem. 

Hookworm, perhaps?  It doesn't kill you, it just makes you lethargic
for a while.  My mother claims that her brother John used to get
it fairly often from running around barefoot in his days of youth. 

-- 
Matt McIrvin  mcirvin@husc.harvard.edu
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Neighbor's rabbit
Summary: The first one was right...
Date: 21 Jul 92 10:01:51 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK

In article <Brp16v.49K@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jvmg9796@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Doc) writes:
>derek@fivegl.co.nz (Derek Tearne) writes:
>
>>Is it not the case that rigor mortis only lasts for a day at most.  After
>>that the muscles begin to break down and no longer hold the body in a stiff
>>state.
>
>No, it last "forever" or at least until the body decays.  It is not a
>muscular action.  Ever seen a cadaver?  They dont call them stiffs for
>nothing. :)
>
>Another error in the original reasoning of the UL which hadnt occurred to
>me before (and I feel kind of stupid for not realizing it instantly) is that
>the dog supposedly walked up with this bloody dead rabbit in its mouth.
>Well, if the rabbit was already dead before the dog got to it, there wouldnt
>be any blood.  Dead rabbits dont bleed.

No, Derek was right. Rigor mortis only lasts for 12-24 hours at room
temperature. Put the body in a fridge or freezer, and it lasts much longer, of
course. On the subject of 'stiffs' that's why - bodies kept in a morgue are at
+4 degrees or less (probably much less). Cadavers used in medical school
for dissection are steeped in formalin, and thoroughly embalmed, which not
surprisingly greatly reduces the flexibility and elasticity of muscles etc. -
it's got nothing to do with rigor mortis. That's a transient phenomenon,
and stops as biochemical decay takes over. (i.e. entropy rather than bacterial
action).

As for dead rabbits don't bleed - you don't take your steaks rare, do you? ;-)

Later,

The Wisp.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
From: cah@cs.bham.ac.uk (Ceri Hopkins)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: that'd be in the butt, bob
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:17:00 GMT
	<1992Jul23.183408.1027@bert.eecs.uic.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, UK

>>>>> On 23 Jul 92 18:34:08 GMT, artn@bert.eecs.uic.edu (Ellyn Sandor) said:

> OK, cutting through the noise of what constitutes "proof" or not,
> A friend of mine whose truth and memory I trust claim to have seen the
> episode.  He estimates the date between 1986 and 1988, not a rerun, and
> the wording was a little different from what has transpired in this
> discussion: (I just spoke to him about this last night, but I am not sure
> of the wording)

> Where is your favorite place to make whoopie?

> That'd be in the butt, bob.

> Some people have been arguing that censors would never have let
> that go by.  Why?  There are no dirty words, and the content is such that
> one would already have to know about how that sort of thing works 
> in order to understand:  in other words, a child young enough to require
> protection from such a statement would not understand it in the first place.
> I, too, would like to see a tape, but I think the numbers of
> direct witnesses in this case leads me to believe it really happened.

> Stephan Meyers

Your dating of these events confuse me since I heard this reported to
me as having happened on some "US game show" before 1983. Of course
the language was different after being spread round the UK, but it's
exactly the same joke turned folklore. The level of belief that this
UL is true is similar to the Captain Pugwash UL (see FAQ) in the UK
which had many former viewers remembering [sic] the character names
(Seaman Staines, Master Bates etc.).

Ceri
--
Ceri Hopkins                                    
School of Computer Science                        C.A.Hopkins@Cs.Bham.Ac.Uk
University of Birmingham			  Tel. +44-21-414-4766
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:42:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.033449.11766@walter.cray.com> matt@cray.com (Matthew Marchese) writes:
>Somebody, a few posts back in this thread asked for the name of the wife
>quoted in the piece. It was Elaine. In the interest of completeness here
>is the whole quote from "Stooge Women":
>
>	"He was insecure because of his weight. I think he compensated
>	 because of that. He was very loving in the bedroom. The only
>	 odd thing was--at the moment of climax, he'd throw his head
>	 back and go "Woo! Woo! Woo!" I think that's where he got it
>	 for the act. He was real good in the garden, too."

But did he say "Woo! Woo! Woo!" in the garden?
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Subject: Re: Revenge of the Choking Doberman
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:15:03 GMT

In article <6074@otc.otca.oz> wayner@otc.otca.oz.au (Wayne Robinson) writes:

>The type of dog seems to be a regional variation. Every account I have heard
>comming from Australia involves a Rotweiler. These dogs have been involved
>in quite a few attacks on kids,in recent years and so is
>"more believable" to Australians than a German Shepherd. Does anyone know
>what the most popular dogs are in different areas for this story? Perhaps
>it really is dobermans (dobermen?) doing the amputation and they are 
>feindishly framing the rotweillers...


Dobermans (dobermen?) were the "in" killer dog of the 70s, roughly when
this story started.  These days, I would heve expected to hear versions
with pit bull terriers.

[Are pit bull terriers simply K-9 "Terry"s with attitude?]

I'm not surprised by the rotweiller stories.  They've been involved
with some child maulings in the US, as well.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.humor
From: prock@morayeel.micro.umn.edu (Andrew Prock)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Organization: University of Minnesota CIS
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:50:39 GMT

In article <CB.92Jul23171934@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
>Brad Templeton writes:
>
>   I think people put too fine a point on this.   Agnostics proudly stand up
>   and say that there is no way one can know for sure, but the fact is
>   that the vast bulk of them do not believe there is a god, and thus
>   in my book they are athiests, (literally non-theist.)
>  ...
>   Most athiests and agnostics are the same.  They think there is no god,
>   they admit it is possible but unlikely and that nobody knows for certain.
>   There's no difference between them.
>
>This is confused.  You're muddling the difference between "I don't believe
>in God" and "I believe there is no God".  One position states the question
>is indeterminate, the other states a position on one side.  Remember,
>"don't believe" doesn't mean "disbelieve".
>
>
>Agnostic position:
>
>  "...there is no way one can know for sure..."
>
>  "...do not believe there is a god..." 
>
>  "...it is possible but unlikely and that nobody knows for certain."
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                     This "leaning" isn't particularly in either camp,
>                     atheistic or agnostic.
>
>Atheistic position: 
>
>  "They think there is no god..."
>
>
>Agnostics, logically, are no closer to atheists than they are to believers.
>Your point seems to be that agnostics lean toward atheism, but this is only
>from the standpoint of believers.  I'm an agnostic and I don't lean toward
>either atheism or belief in a god.
>
>Chris Brewster

Well it just seems to me, from reading these posts and reviewing the 
dictionary that atheism implies a more stubborn pigheaded view of 
the non-existance of god i.e. one who denies the existance of god
(whether or not proof is offered.  While agnosticism iplies a more open
levelheaded view of god i.e. one who holds the view that any ultimate reality
is unknown and unknowabe.  

Both my definitions come from websters (online) and it seems that this 
def. of agnostic leaves the actual question of belief open ended.
An agnostic could believe in god or not and still hold that the definite
knowledge is unknowable but that faith suffices.  Or could disbelive
god for that very reason.

It seems to me that the definite standpoint of the atheist is a relic
of times when the church was much more powerful.  But then that assumes
that proof can be found, which I  don't believe can be.  So the whole
concept of challenging an atheist is metaphysical because it won't happen.

So in conclustion (really I'm trying not to lose myself here),
it seems that someone who belives in god but does not accept any proof
offered by the church as sufficient should be labeled an agnostic while
one who disbelives god for lack of proof should be labeled atheist.
(with the note that if given proof most atheists will believe, but may 
not like it).

well thats my 2 cents worth (BTW why is there no cent sign on my keyboard?)

Andrew Prock
From: scm@harvee.billerica.ma.us (S. Mudgett aka little gator)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: generic drugs
Date: 29 Jul 92 07:00:40 GMT
Organization: gators 'r us
X-Version: Rodney's UUCP modules 02/11/90 V1.18


> > I've often wondered about the difference between "prescription" strength and
> > over-the-counter versions of the same drug. For example, after a recent
> > unanticipated dismount from an unruly steed, I was sent home from the hospital
> > with a butt full of Toridol, and prescriptions for Tylenol/codeine (unavailable
> 
> Here's a good one: a study about a decade ago found no advantage to combining
> drugs like codeine or oxycodone with aspirin or acetominophen.  Why take two
> drugs when you only need one?

after surgery i was given an rx for tylenol and codeine.  i took it once, found
that it didn't work as well as a small dose of ibuprofen(advil, nuprin, etc),
and took advil instead.  when i told my doctor this he was appalled, though he
didn't say why. i suspect he just wanted me do do it his way instead of mine.


> > over the counter) and 600 mg ibuprofen (1 tablet several times a day>) The
> > 600 mg ibuprofen requires a prescription ... 200 mg ibuprofen is available
> > over the counter (Advil, Motrin, and lots of generic brands). Considering
> > the inflated prices on prescriptions, it probably would have been cheaper
> > to buy generic 200 mg ibuprofen and take 3 times as much. Is there any real
> > reason for taking one strong pill instead of 3 weak ones?

not at all.  the same doctor gave me an rx for 800 mg ibuprofen tabs for severe
menstrual cramps.  i found it cheaper and easier to just take 4 at a time of
otc advil.  plus, if the pain was minor i could take less without splitting
pills.(regardless of pill size, the reccomended maximum is 2400 mg per day).
800 mg every 8 hours works less well than 400 mg every 4 hours.  he didn't like
that either and insisted on writing me the prescription anyway.
--
-- little gator aka s. mudgett     email: scm@harvee.billerica.ma.us
-- friend of a gator is a friend of mine
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Re: numbers in commercials
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 03:33:03 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Jul30.230620.26493@news.columbia.edu> lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>>
>Wrong, some have 4 valves/cylinder so they have as much as 24 valves, but
>aren't 12 cylinder engines.  Yes, you are correct that all numbers are

Yeah, and most American, Japanese, and European V-8's have 32 Valves.  And
the V-12's and flat-12's have 48 valves.  the smaller engines found in the
mid-sized sedans have v-6's with 4 valves.  So, 24 is not the max.

>inflated, but sometimes there is some information there.  I think some 
>designs have 3 valves/cylinder also.
>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:13:32 -0400 
From: "Jonathan R. Ferro" <jf41+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Craig, let's just give up..
	<1992Jul22.173120.17759@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
Distribution: alt

Here is my proposal for the net-propagated UL: You can be prosecuted
under chain letter/abuse of mails/illegal advertising laws for the
passing along of any Craig Shergold related letter.

Actually, this is probably a bad suggestion, as so many of us have a
vested interest in seeing any deterrent get started that it will make a
poor test case for finding out how they actually do start.  In fact, I
am willing to go out of my way to _create_ FOAF stories by calling
people up and claiming to be a postal inspector letting them off with a
warning instead of a $300 fine.

Comments/suggestions?

Jon "putting something between your names is another 50 bucks" Ferro

--
Jon Ferro		MIT Transportation Modelling Research Center (TMRC)
jf41+@andrew.cmu.edu	"We can hack it!"
SGNTR VRS VRSN 3.1B: Strppd nd cmprssd fr qckr trnsmssn! nfct yrs tdy!
From: bhendrix@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Brian Hendrix)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Bear eats child's face
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 08:49:29 MDT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #3, Edmonton, AB, Canada

jeffa@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jeff Alley) writes:

> Supposedly there was a family that was traveling through Yellowstone park
> and they had a young child with them.  Several people were stopped feeding
> the bears along a road. The father of the child wanted to get a picture
> of his kid with a bear. He wanted a special picture so he got the brilliant
> idea that if he smeared honey on the kid's cheek, the bear would come up
> and lick it off and he'd get a great picture of a bear licking his son's
> face. The bear had other idea though, and bit instead of licked and the
> child lost a good portion of the side of his face.
> 
> This sounds plausible, although exceedingly STUPID!  Anyone else hear
> this or did I start an UL?
 
It's certainly plausible.  People do really stupid things around bears.  
Last year a fellow near Jasper was mauled when he walked up to a bear and 
put his arm around it.  Just a few months back some idiot wound up in the 
hospital when he walked right up to a bison, which was obviously very 
agitated, and started to pet it.  
 
I don't know if the bear and honey story is an UL or not, but it 
certainly falls withing the realm of what often happens when 
inexperienced people encounter large, wild animalsl.

Brian Hendrix  bhendrix@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca  "Il faut etre de son temps"
Dod #754             '76 CB750-Four          
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
From: mikkelson@breakr.enet.dec.com (snopes)
Subject: Re: Banks + Short Term Car Loans = Scam?
Organization: Salivation Army
Date: 23 JUL 92 08:36:38    


>Conjecture: A bank follows the legal minimums in terms of advertising
>the vehicle, and *suprise* they are the only bidder at the legally
>required public auction.  They bid what you owe on the car and thus
>they are now the legal owner of the car, and owe you no money.  Now
>they own the car free and clear, and can sell it through normal
>channels and make a profit on it.

 By the time the bank repossesses the car, fills out the paperwork, advertises
 the sale, purchases the car from themselves at auction, and then re-sells it 
 (don't forget, this is a *used* car), just how much profit do you think 
 they're going to make?

 - snopes

+--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                                |                                            |
| David P. Mikkelson             |  Just when my ant farm started showing a   |
| Digital Equipment Corporation  |  profit, an ant bank foreclosed on it.     |
| Culver City, CA  USA           |                                            |
|                                |                                            |
+--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
From: mikkelson@breakr.enet.dec.com (snopes)
Subject: Re: that'd be in the butt, bob
Organization: Salivation Army
Date: 21 JUL 92 09:42:55    


In article <03cm6=b.anson@netcom.com>, 
  anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes...

>Has anyone contacted the producers of the show to settle this one way or
>the other

 Yes.  Try reading some of the standard AFU reference books (Adams, Brunvand,
 et al).  Not surprisingly, no one connected with "The Newlywed Game" knows
 (or will admit to knowing) about this incident, nor has anyone come forward
 with a tape of the alleged incident, despite the best efforts of some
 formidable professional folklorists.

>or is the argument "none of this would have survived the tape
>delay" sufficient for everyone here?

 It's the "I saw it, so it happened" argument that's insufficient.  It's up
 to someone to demonstrate that it happened, not for us to demonstrate that
 it didn't.  The fact that it stretches credulity to the extreme to believe
 that such an exchange would not have been censored in a taped show just
 makes the possibility that someone will demonstrate it that much less likely.

 - snopes

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "The genetic testing [to verify Josef Mengele's death] might have happened  |
| sooner, but [Mengele's son] refused to cooperate until a German prosecutor  |
| threatened to dig up other deceased Mengeles for tissue samples."           |
|                                                     -- Time  20 April 1992  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  David P. Mikkelson   Digital Equipment Corporation   Culver City, CA  USA  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: sbarnhar@MAILBOX.MAIL.UMN.EDU (Dr. Barnhart)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: "Eat the rich"
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:39:13 GMT
Organization: U of Mn Propoganda Ministry

In article <3560@keele.keele.ac.uk>, cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
wrote:
> 
> I have this T-shirt.  It's solid black, and on the front there is a skull and
> crossbones (done in flat white).  Except where the bones should be, there is 
> a knife and fork instead.  Underneath is the phrase "Eat the rich".
> 
> My question (if you haven't guessed yet) is where did this originate?  
> 

Motorhead had a single with the title "Eat the rich"  (c'mon baby eat the
rich, bite down on the son of a bitc....you get the idea).  As I recall it
was on the
soundtrack to a movie that wasn't too successful. Coulda been Decline of
Western Civilization, Part II.

Shawn Barnhart ! sbarnhar@mailbox.mail.umn.edu
Phenylketonurics:  This product contains phenylalanine.
From: brnt@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: out of 5 doctors
Date: 28 Jul 92 11:45:06 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Jul26.190539.18026@news.columbia.edu>, lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
> With all of this 4 out of 5 doctors recently, remember those important
> facts:
>
	(other good, but non-relevant stuff deleted)
> 
> How about 99 and 44/one-hundredths out of one hundred doctors recommend
> our product.

Actually, this brings up some questions I always had that Ivory soap 99 44/100%
pure claim:

	1. Pure what?  Pure acid?  Pure dog snot?  Hardly enticing claims.

	2. How can anything be 99 44/100 % pure?  Either it's pure or its not,
right?  Sounds sort of like a doctor saying "Ma'am, your husband is 99 and
44/100% dead.

	3. Why should soap be pure anything?  It seems to me that soap is a
combination of many ingredients and not "pure" anything.

Brent "or maybe its all just a statement about moral character" Dyer
-- 
       .    _  .     _____________ 
       |\_|/__/|    /             \ 
      / / \/ \  \  / Happy! Happy! \      
     /__|O||O|__ \ \   Joy! Joy!   / 
    |/_ \_/\_/ _\ | \  ___________/      
    | | (____) | ||  |/                       
    \/\___/\__/  // _/
    (_/         ||   
     |          ||\   
      \        //_/   Brent E. Dyer
       \______//      Administrative Assistant
      __|| __||       University of Kansas Computing Services
     (____(____)      BRNT@UKANVAX		BRNT@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU
From: uspam@mcl.ucsb.edu (Tom Maynard)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Generic Drugs Cure Generic Disease (was: H2O2 cures cancer
Date: 19 Jul 92 09:06:21 GMT

In <1992Jul15.155126.10425@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:

>Charles Lasner writes:

>>When will this form of quackery end?  We need a form of disclaimer for 
>>products which are chemically indistinguishable from others that masquerade 
>>as "better" products.

>All drugs are not created equal. Believe it or not: generics are often
>noticeably different from their high-priced brethern. I take a drug
>for arthritis and demand the higher priced "real" one since the generic
>has a different "inactive" ingredient or impurity or ignites a 
>whackball placebo reaction in me or whatever.       

As was repeatedly mentioned in my only pharm class, the "presentation"
of a drug can be quite important.  If one drug dissolves differently,
or some other factors in its ingestion are present, it could conceivably
enter the blood at a different rate.

I'll have to put "whackball placebo reaction" into my notesfile for future
reference...  

--Tom (Terry in a former Life) Maynard 
uspam@mcl.ucsb.edu

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
From: jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost)
Subject: Re: Mis-applied physics in advertising
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:45:27 GMT

glitto@iastate.edu (Scott M Klabacha) writes:
>Mother Nature <gaea@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>So tell me, what *IS* wrong with the Ginsu knives? I've never bought one but
>>I've always wanted to know.

>Apparently, nothing, really.
>My aunt had one. Her comment on the knife:
>   "It was the sharpest knife I ever cut myself with!"

Ginsu knives, and most cheap "stay sharp forever" knives, are stamped
from sheets of stainless steel and then two or more levels of
serrations added.  Even if you really dull the first serration level
you still have at least one more -- so the knife stays "sharp"
indefinitely.

In reality the knife isn't particularly sharp to start with (stainless
doesn't keep an edge very well) -- it cuts by tearing (the same as any
saw).  This makes the knife wonderful for cutting through anything
tough where you'll use a sawing motion.

Unfortunately a lot of cooking requires chopping rather than sawing
(ever try to saw parsley?) and you need a flat sharp edge for that.
In these operations the Ginsu-type knives are terrible.

jim frost
jimf@centerline.com