HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:54:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: engage.1992Oct8.155416.19653
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA

In article <1992Oct8.000347.25928@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <BvrJuG.M61@inews.Intel.COM> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>
>>It helps to keep in mind that the center of Judaism at this time was in
>>Babylon ...
>
>While it is true that Babylon was an extremely important center of Judaism
>during Roman times, The Temple was unique in its significance to Jews,
>before which any other place seems insignificant.

Let me put this into prospective.  Babylon was the *academic center*
of the Rabbinical Judaism at that time.  But the Priestly Judaism
centered around the Temple was the still the "official" center of
Judaism in those days.  Rabbinical Judaism in Judea started out as
a grassroot populist movement, in opposition to the Hellenizing high
priests.  The rabbis viewed the high priests, who were appointed by
the Romans to occupy the official leadership in Judaism, as traitors,
much in the same way that some of today's fundamentalist Christians viewed
the leadership of NCC (National Council of Churches) as traitors to
Christianity.  There is no question that the rabbis in Judea drew much
help from the great rabbinical schools in Babylon, much in the same
way that the Hellenists drew much help from their academic center -
Alexandra of Egypt.  There is also no question that the rabbis in
Judea enjoyed much much more popular support than the high priests,
and in fact, this popular support was the power base of the rabbis
in their struggle against the high priests.

>  ... Most Jews in Judea spoke Aramaic,
>a language related to  Hebrew, and while many of them no doubt also
>spoke Greek, they were NOT all that Hellenic. If the Jews thought
>that creeping Greco-Romanism was just fine, then what was all the
>FIGHTING about?????

When you talk about the Jews in Judea at that time, you have to
make the distinction between the general populace, which were
fiercely anti-Hellenistic, and the Roman-appointed high priests,
who, through their official leadership position in Judaism, tried
to pull Judaism in the direction of Hellenism.

Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Densa
Organization: just me
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 18:21:16 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <zlsiida.202@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>The Densa stuff finally arrived.  I typed in a full description yesterday, 
>but I tried to cross post to 2 groups and that doesn't seem to work from my 
>site at the moment, so I'll try to find time to type it in again later today.
>It was this group that was discussing Densa a while back, wasn't it?

Good joke.  Hope to hear about this group, once you figure out the net and
all :-).

	David Pipes
:-) :-) robear@digex.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Addiction (Was Re: Soul)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:43:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.132912.7126@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:
>
>Your definition leads to the conclusion that anyone who stops is not
>addicted.
>
Yes. And that nobody who has ever been addicted has ever stopped, short of
being physically restrained from getting at the addicting substance.

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Addiction (Was Re: Soul)
Organization: just me
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 17:26:59 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <1992Oct15.050539.29574@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.132912.7126@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct13.181140.8643@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>>I'd like for you to explain your jump from a definition of an addiction
>>>to "I must be extremely unusual". Because it does not follow. I also assume
>>>that you have what you always seem to be asking for. Citations and numbers
>>>to show why you think that you "must be extremely unusual". How about
>>>sharing them with us?
>>
>>Your definition leads to the conclusion that anyone who stops is not
>>addicted.
>
>A better summary was posted earlier by someone else. But are you defining
>a class of addicts who do not need their fix (whatever that may be)?
>
>Because if you are, then I am addicted to cigarettes. I tried them long
>ago, didn't like them, and havent smoked one since. 
>
>You know, I have no clue as to what you are alluding to. How about just
>saying it clearly, or some other surprise tactic?

Okay, you stated that an addicted person is one who cannot stop.  The
logical deduction is that a person who does stop was not addicted, 
because if he was truly addicted, he *could* not have stopped.  Carl
pointed out that he had smoked 2 packs a day for 12 years, but was not
addicted by your definition.  You expressed puzzlement, so I pointed out
the implication of your claim.  That's all.

My point was and is, you need to rephrase your definition.

David Pipes
robear@digex.com
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Re: Faith and skeptics.
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:21:25 EST

In article <1b21i9INNbq3@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
> In article <BvpEsG.8CI@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>, fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
> =In article <1992Oct5.011421.1055@rhrk.uni-kl.de>, kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
> =|> And another one who doesn't know the first thing about skeptics...
> =|> In article <BvLI5u.Brx@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>, fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
> =|> >[..]
> =|> >So too, a sceptic refuses to believe what he reasons can't be true.
> =|> Right.  That's something like the definition of "believe".
> =My approach is to then address what I believe is the biased reasoning of an
> =extreme skeptic.
> Fine.  Please give us at least one *REAL* example of your hypothetical
> "extreme skeptic."  If you can't, then this is just a straw man.

Thank you Carl.  At least one other person is seeing the same things I was.
> 
[...]
> 
Please read the following sentence carefully.  Please explain how this is
prejudice on the part of a skeptic.

> That's why skeptics don't say "this doesn't exist," they say
> "I've got no reason to believe it exists until you provide some evidence."
> 
[...]

GXKambic
standard disclaimer
From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:17:08 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <13271@ntdd-1> meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier) writes:

>In article <1blbhbINNike@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>
>>You seem to be ignoring the fact that the smaller the body, the higher the
>>surface/volume ratio, hence the faster the percentage rate of evaporation of
>
>Is this the new math?

When I read this, it appears that my remark could be taken out of context.
Of course the part about the surface/volume ratio is correct; however, it
ignores the mechanisms which are responsible for breakup, evaporation,
and entry into the solar system.  In other words, comets could be
breaking up into small pieces at a faster rate than the small pieces
are evaporating.  Small cometary fragments could be entering the solar
system from deep space at a  faster rate than the evaporation takes
place (which is accelerated near the sun).

________________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier					Mitel Corporation
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Subject: Re: Out-of-body near-death experiences
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Xerox
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:57:44 GMT

The Tibetan Buddhists have an interesting view regarding the death process.
The "Tibetan Book of the Dead" goes into great detail what one should expect
on the passage through the "Bardos", or levels, of after-death experience. It
is stated very clearly in the text that the experiences are entirely subjective.
The visions of dieties (both good and bad) are the Knower's own thought forms, and
they're called karmic illusions. The twist is that the Tibetans put a great deal of
emphasis on the "reality" of illusion. Apparently if you're really good, you don't
have to suffer these karmic illusions, and instead become one with the void.

There seems to be a lot of commonality between NDE experiences independent of
upbringing, however. The book "Return from Tommorow" (by I forgot his name), is a
personal account by a psychiatrist of his near-death experience. It seems to correlate
very closely with the descriptions in the TBD, and the Buddhist's "Six realms of existence."

One noteworthy item in the psychiatrist's description was coming into an immense void.
The Buddhists believe that the void is the source of all phenomenal arisings, and thus,
the ultimate place to return to. It is interesting then, that this psychiatrist was a
Christian. I wonder, ultimately, how much of the esoteric Buddhist doctrine is based on
individuals' experiences with NDEs. As an aside, the Buddhists don't at all believe in
a soul concept. This paradox of reincarnation/but you ain't got a soul is at the core
of Buddhist doctrine. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) the Buddha's response to
this question was one of his famous "noble silences." Hmmm.

I realize that this issue seems to be more one of psychology than anything, but it's fun
to take a peek at some other views.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Erik Radmall                    | Xerox Corp.
eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com    | Knowledge-Based Systems Competency Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:05:15 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct14.173143.14437@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
=Yes. It's more like: "If a comet is big, then we see it in our telescopes
=as it comes by. But if it's small, we completely fail to notice it, except
=in the rare instance when it happens to collide with earth." There could
=be all kinds of comets out there that are too small to be likely to be
=noticed. And I seem to recall reading that if the Tunguska object WAS a
=comet, its path toward us would have been more or less from the direction
=of the sun, making it nearly impossible to see even as it drew close.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the smaller the body, the higher the
surface/volume ratio, hence the faster the percentage rate of evaporation of
the comet.  I.e., small comets would be expected to have very short lives, so
it would seem unlikely that there would be very many small comets, compared to
large comets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Densa
Date: 8 Oct 92 08:29:54 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

The Densa stuff finally arrived.  I typed in a full description yesterday, 
but I tried to cross post to 2 groups and that doesn't seem to work from my 
site at the moment, so I'll try to find time to type it in again later today.
It was this group that was discussing Densa a while back, wasn't it?


              Have another day    [Armageddon, the musical] 
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis)
Subject: Hill Abduction
Keywords: hill
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:45:29 GMT

 Would anyone care to tell me on what grounds the hill story
has been discredited? Yes,it sounds like some kind of psycho
reaction,but to totally discredit inconsistencies should be
found between the two victim's accounts or problems with their
locations at the time of the alleged incident.
If investigation has proved either fraud intended or not,lets hear
the evidence. (I understand Barney Hill is now deceased,but his
wife has done some "kooky" things since.

--
                     Gary E. Davis WQ1F (On AO13)
        University of Vermont  Land Liner's dial 802-656-1916
 References " The Joys of Rumination Without The Cud", Elsie circa 1965
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics.
Date: 6 Oct 92 10:08:13 GMT

In article <Bvn0CL.9rI@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>, kinsler@newton.physics
.uq.oz.au (Paul Kinsler) wrote as follows:

> I read one in the paper just today. Some Australian doctors
> came up with a new treatment for ulcers, but couldn't convince
> the skeptical Pharm Companies to support them. Now they are
> trying to market this through less skeptical channels. The
> evidence points to a cure that works (although not without
> side effects).
>
> Of course, you will claim the P-Companies were not *real*
> skeptics. You are of course correct in this assertion.
> But it was the skeptical reaction to something against
> conventional wisdom that held up the development of a
> viable product. I think this was more what Mark had in
> mind in his post.

Begs the question of whether the drug companies declined out of
disbelief (which, mind you, does not a skeptic make), or rather
out of wariness of legal liability (you mentioned side-effects), or any
of a huge number of commercial and other reasons having little to do
with their "conventional wisdom" and "skeptical reaction".

Cheers,
Rick M.
(best reached at Rick_Moen@blyth.com)

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Can quantum terminology be flakeproofed?
Date: 14 Oct 92 11:25:58 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Oct13.170626.16504@Princeton.EDU> ydobyns@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (York H. Dobyns) writes:
>                                                       Regardless of the 
>ultimate truth, falsehood, completeness or otherwise of QM, Einstein's view 
>of a universe in which there are locally real events without "spooky 
>actions at a distance" has now been *observed* to be false, for the 
>universe we live in.

This should not be interpreted that there is *spooky action at a distance*.
The consequence of the locality hypothesis is s.a.a.a.d., which is
unacceptable. So QM is a non-local theory, which is what its inventors had
been saying all the time.

For instance, it is rubbish to say that in a two-slit experiment the
electron/photon "goes through two slits simultaneously", because then
you are using "local" language to describe a non-local phenomenon.

JWN

JWN
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: noelie@apollo.hp.com (Noelie Alito)
Subject: Re: The Question of Humanity's First Language
Summary: Oliver Sacks' _Seeing Voices_
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:42:16 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct15.163846.20315@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>Clearly all undamaged humans are born "pre-linguistic" is a very literal
>sense--they are destined to learn a language, but don't have it yet.
>At what point does a kid have "enough" language skills to be "human"?
>And what is the status of the kid before that?  "non-human"? "pre-human"?
>"proto-human"?

For an insightful investigation of language and conceptualizing in
the pre- and post-lingually deaf, read Oliver Sacks' _Seeing Voices_.
He reviews accounts of "animal" children raised without language,
the history and nature of Sign, and the interesting differences
between Speech and Sign.  There are also lots of footnotes, pictures
and references for those of you who thrive on citation.   ;^)

-- 
noelie@apollo.hp.com       Noelie "rhymes with 'goalie'" Alito
Beware of poppy seeds that move.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: 10k Christians perform miracles ever so quietly
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:00:49 GMT



alanrw@cs.man.ac.uk (Alan R Williams) writes:
>The program was fairly horrific.  The "believers" threw a disabled man
>out of his wheelchair and were generally maltreating him all because he
>insisted that he still could not walk and they claimed that if he had
>faith then he could!  In the end the police had to be called to rescue
>him.

And some of us wonder why those who aren't really healed simply keep
mum about it.

Keith
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women
From: buurt1@rulfsw.leidenuniv.nl (Jasper Kips)
Subject: Re: Repressed Memories, Ruined Lives
Organization: Leiden University Faculty of Social Sciences
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:04:33 +0100

In article <1992Oct15.033758.20465@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com
(Robert Sheaffer) writes: 
A long letter on REpressed memories, deleted for the sake of bandwidth

The global stament which R. Sheaffer tries to get across is that 
"remebering" sexual abuse at a relatively late age, does not mean, and 
in most cases this is so, that sexual abuse has actually happened.
I agree, and I don't agree.
First there is some evidence which seems to point in a more general 
sense that repressed memories about sexual abuse does have some 
connectiuon with abuse. (Sorry English is not my mother tongue). I mean 
that persons who claim that they were sexually abused, but repressed the 
experience, probably have an abuse experience in their biographies, 
albeit not nessecarily a sexual or even a physical one.
Memory plays tricks, on each and everyone of us. Before you fall people 
too hard because they might remember things that did not in fact happen, 
do the following experiment (if possible). Try to reconstruct from 
memory an important NEGATIVE experience of some years ago. Then compare 
the reconstruction with actual material from the period concerned, 
diary, letters what ever.
Bassically what happens is that your memories get clogged with new 
experiences, which force new interpretations of events which forces an 
altered memory.
Research in Holland (Musaph) has shown that clinical patients with 
sexual abuse memories, more often than not had a history of abuse, either 
mental or physical. Probably because sexual abuse, especially within the 
family, becomes more and more a subject about which you can talk (AND 
WILL BE LISTENED TO) memories MIGHT be altered towards sexual abuse.
Apart from that there is a free rider effect. Persons who,. just so they 
get attention, will claim they were sexually abused.
And then there is the therapist effect. but that is an altogether 
different story

Jasper Kips
Buurt1@rulfsw.leidenuniv.nl
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: Focus on Crucifiction (was: Cruxed for Prophecy?)
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
	<1992Oct8.024845.20434@hfsi.uucp> <1992Oct9.200258.23886@netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:09:33 GMT

>>>>> On 9 Oct 92 20:02:58 GMT, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) said:

Robert> The Identification of John with "The Disciple Jesus Loved" is
Robert> made ONLY in the final chapter of John, known to scholars as
Robert> "The Epilogue of John."  It was written by a different hand,
Robert> at a later time. It was NOT part of the original manuscript,
Robert> and was probably written to solve one or more difficulties.

How can you be so certain that
 1) a different hand wrote it, (And if it was a different amanuensis,
      so what?)
 2) it was written at a later time, (How much later, anyway?)
 3) it was not part of the original manuscript (The Rylands fragment?
      I'm sorry, that was sarcastic.),
 4) it was written to solve difficulties. (Which ones?)

>Now if someone want to make the perverse case that Jesus's love for his
>disciple and friend was sexual in nature, then it certainly doesn't need
>John and Lazarus to be the same person in order to do this. 

But it does need ignoring the various Greek words for "love", and the
Jewish laws against homosexuality, and the fact that it would be
simple for the Sanhedrin to stone a captured homosexual if there was
any *real* proof.

>Of course Robert, being a Scepticus Maximus (whatever that really is),
>I wouldn't really expect you to fall for such convuluted theories as
>you've espoused above in "The Makings of the Messiah" :)

Robert> Perhaps speculative, but less so than someone "raised from the
Robert> dead," or "conceived without sex."

How much closer to the real events was Yohanan bar Zebedee than Robert
Sheaffer?  How much were John's royalties for each copy of his Gospel?
Given that we have competing interpretations of the events, how do we
decide who to believe - do we rely on our prejudices for/against
religion, or do we let the facts take us where they will?
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "But these are written, that ye might believe
Integrated Measurement Systems |  that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  that believing ye might have life through his
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  name." - John 20:31
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |                                         THUMP!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:29:27 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

We don't have a very good idea of the distribution of sizes of
comets. I note that the Skylab solar telescope and the Solar Max
mission each discovered half a dozen sun-diving comets, none
of which had been seen otherwise from the Earth. The notion
of a fifty-meter-wide snowball colliding with the Earth 
occassionally does not strike me as outlandish.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:18032 alt.paranormal:2385