HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: snorthc@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Stephen Northcutt - K31)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Religion is great!
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:01:46 GMT
Reply-To: snorthc@relay.nswc.navy.mil
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center

>Don't get me wrong. Religion is GREAT. I can't think of any better
>way to control the ignorant, hungry masses. Use religion to keep
>them stupid, ignorant, and in poverty,

Might I suggest television... especially cable TV and pay per
view.  There was a very instructive article in the Sun Wash Post
talking about how the big three networks said negative things
about a Mr. Bush much more than a Mr. Clinton.  Surely this
could not have effected the outcome of the election.

It has been observed that even the poorest homes in the USA
you can always find a color TV and VCR.  Does anyone know of
stats that back this up?

Even of the "religious".  Say they go to church 3 out of 4 Sundays
for two hours a pop, that is 6 hours a month and I would be willing
to bet the national average for TV watching exceeds 6 hours per
week (heck I can top that watching football in one day).

And of the "religious" unless we assume that they are watching
"religious" programming (and I'll bet against it for the majority)
they they are clearly receiving far more input from the TV
than from any church.

While TV is certainly able to add to stupidity and ignorance
you really need to add in cable, pay per view and video tape
rentals to put a dint in poverty.

Now the interesting question to me, is there a population segment,
a group of any size that can be defined in some way, that does
not watch television at all? 

Please don't get me wrong, I like TV!  I like movies.  I haven't
ever watched pay per view, but I am sure that I would like that
too.  I am just observing that it seems to be a great way to
control the masses (of which I are one) and probably reaches a
heck of a lot more people than religion.

Stephen
From: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: American Humanistic Association
Date: 20 Nov 1992 15:09:05 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Reply-To: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: b1230bmac9.larc.nasa.gov

Recently, I got hold of some publications by American Humanist 
Association, AHA, and I noticed many parallels between its ideas and 
the skeptics ideas. So, I would like to know if anyone in the net 
knows about a Newsgroup like this one for the AHA. Would be glad 
if you could either post this information or e-mail me to: 
           claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov

Thanks in advance.

Claudio Egalon


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: matth@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Matthew Hannigan)
Subject: Re: Skeptical Scope
Organization: AODC, though I don't speak for them.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 10:56:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.121116.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:
>How does one cope with the volume in this group? I mean, I read 
>alt.paranormal occassionally for amusement, and usually do not believe 
>anything posted there, so you could call me a skeptic. But I started
>to read this group the other day, and zapped all the unread messages.
>The next day, the unread count was up to 300 messages!

It's weird isn't it.  Note that most of the posts aren't related
to skepticism, however.  The rate on sci.skeptic was about 20 per
week about a year ago.  Then we got crossposts from the newly created
alt.alien.visitors and alt.astrology and alt.dreams.  Since then
it has just mushroomed.  They're not the ones I mind particularly,
though.  It's the long running threads on topics that have
perfectly appropriate newsgroups already.  Like:
	guns (talk.politics.guns)
	abortion (talk.abortion)
	rape (talk.rape)
	atheism/theism (alt.atheism/talk.religion.misc)
	law (misc.legal)
--
	-Matt <matt@aodc20.aodc.gov.au>
From: save@cpva.saic.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Space Craft Without Pants
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:48:27 GMT
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego

In article <1992Nov15.220130.10777@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
> In article <2B0683A6.7DE2@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>According to John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com:
>>>...and say goodbye and may God be with you. Adona Vasu Baragus.
>>
>>Klaatu Barada Nicto!
> 
> Eeeeeeeeeeee-yakaboo
> 
> What I think is amazing is that the alien language can be written in
> English text without any diacriticals or anything fancy.  For BEMs I would
> expect at least something along the lines of:
> 
> 	A!%lo^a pBxt ZZy`vit fmN!g
> 
> C Frog

  Hey!!!  Watch your language buddy.  And by the way, the Greys never
fmN!g with a pBxt.

CEW
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: someone@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt)
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Organization: Texaco
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:44:49 GMT

In article <1ebi8eINNhc@gap.caltech.edu>, kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney) writes:
|> 
|> Yeah, but I'm sure someone can come up with an error so great that
|> claiming it's an idiom would be ridiculous.  Carl?

Excuse me for butting in.  Look at the two chronicles about the lost tribes,
each story tells exactly how many persons of each family were wandering in the
desert.  I don't remember the chapers and verses off hand, and seem to have 
forgotten to bring my bible today, ;^)  but anyway,
the numbers do not match.  That is an error which is not attributable
to idiom.

You may also note that there are two totally separate and inconsistent
stories of the birth of Christ.  Either one is true or the other is true,
or neither is true, but they cannot _both_ be true.  You may try to claim
that the error is an idiom, but I am not willing to twist my mind that
much.

I can come up with several more gross errors, if anyone is interested.

-- 
Larry D. Pyeatt                 The views expressed here are not
Internet : pyeatt@texaco.com    those of my employer or of anyone
Voice    : (713) 975-4056       that I know of with the possible
                                exception of myself.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:04:23 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
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.

In article <1992Nov21.061549.983@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>Well, if you think that a "crucified Messiah" is a problem, a "Messiah
>hanged on a tree" is a complete impossibility. 
>
>      "for anyone hung on a tree is under God's curse"
>                                    -Deut. 21:23
>
>How can somebody possibly be the Messiah if they are under God's curse?
>But change the story a bit, blame it on the Romans, and THIS problem
>nicely goes away!

The cross is explicitely interpreted as a tree in the New Testament,
and Messiah's hanging on the tree is shown to be redemptive and
substitutionary - he became acursed for our sakes, that we might be
redeemed from the curse which we were under (Galatians 3:13).

No attempt is made to dodge this issue in the scriptures.  You are
barking up the wrong tree.   ;^)

-- 
            _.
--Steve   ._||__    Welcome to the World's First GaAs Supercomputer
  Warren   v\ *|    -----------------------------------------------
             V
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19657 alt.folklore.urban:28694 soc.culture.african.american:11148
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.urban,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: AIDS and the CIA (was Question)
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:36:15 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: pmmst8+@pitt.edu (Paul M Mweene)

In article <9706@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, pmmst8+@pitt (Paul M Mweene) writes:
>Your story is half true. Infact the Soviets picked this story from two French
>scientists who did studies on the virus. They showed that there was no way 
>the Simian (green monkey) virus could ever evolve into HIV. They felt that a
>more likely source was combination of the luekemia causative agent and the
>visna virus found in sheep. I happened to read this report way back in '87
>or '86.

And it's gibberish.  Look at the sequences.  It's not difficult.

>Similarly, German researchers debunked the monkey virus myth in 1988 (I will
>bring the date of the New Africa magazine which has the story).

Can you give me references more scientific than New Africa?

>								 Further more
>an high powered group of German scientists undertook a trip to the Ituri rain
>forest where models had 'shown' the aids virus to have originated. 

So what?  There are lots of models out there.  Most of them are wrong,
but we don't know which.

>Having nailed the source of the virus to village in Zaire where the virus had
>to have begun, they proceede to test all 15000 pygmies they found there for
>the virus. They zero (0) infected with it.

Yawn.  I'm happy for them.

>According to Frenc hypothesis. AIDS was created at Ft. Detrick Maryland. The
>powers that be elected to conduct tests on long term prisoners at a nearby
>prison. They promised them freedom if they survived the test. 

When was this done?  How was it created?

>The dates all reconciled and this story seem to be true.

I repeat.  When?  How?

The dates do not reconcile.  The earliest AIDS cases are from the 50s.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:05:36 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Emmaus Office
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com


In article <1992Nov16.233223.19865@imagen.com>, avi@seal.imagen.com writes:
=   ... (for example the scroll of the Book of Issiah which is the best
=   preserved and thus easier to read and decipher) it checks out a 100% match
=   in every word !!!  Now that's an UN-revisable, One version Only, as it was
=   written, authentic document !!!

It's also not true.

Sigh... why do people keep repeating this story.  It's trivial to check and
five minutes browsing of any modern published account of the Dead Sea
Scrolls will show that this claim simply isn't true.

Now, it _is_ true that the main Isaiah Scroll from Q`mran is in pretty good
agreement with the modern text, but hardly a "100% match".

On the other hand, the other Isaiah Scroll from Q'mran differs considerably
from out modern text.

N
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: stark@dwovax.enet.dec.com (Todd I. Stark)
Subject: Re: Genetic transmission of habits ? Nah...
Summary: Trick is to separate learning from inherited tendencies
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 20 NOV 92 14:13:51    


re: 
 fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) 
 quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz 
 hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld) 

>>>>How can you pick up a mannerism genetically?  

It appears to me that there's different specific questions 
implied :

1) What specific behavioral tendencies can be passed on through
	purely hereditary mechanisms, and how might they be related
	to specific mannerisms ?

	For example, is it possible to have a genetic pattern
	that results in a neurochemical pattern during development
	that causes certain neuromuscular responses to be more likely
	than others ?  A subtle structural imbalance in a muscle group
	for example, making a facial tic more likely than otherwise.

	This also related to the dog breeding example.  Dogs don't,
	as far as I know, inherit chracteristics learned by their
	sires, they both pick up elements from the same 'gene pool.'

2) Can a mannerism LEARNED in one's lifetime be inherited by offspring
   through a purely genetic mechanism ?

	In other words, do we really want to ressurect Lamarckian
	theory in some form ?    There was some talk of this in 
	popular literature a while back, but I don't know if anything
	ever came of it ?   Some weird experiments with molds 
	learning from being poisoned, and supposedly passing on that 
	learning to subsequent generations of mold.  I don't recall
	it being very persuasive, though.

	So far, the consensus seems to be that learned things are
	not inherited (though determining exactly what is learned
	and what is genetically influenced tendency is often very
	tricky).

						kind regards,

						todd
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Todd I. Stark				  stark@dwovax.enet.dec.com |
| Digital Equipment Corporation		             (215) 354-1273 |
| Philadelphia, Pa. USA                                             |
|    'Reason is no substitute for Passion, nor Passion for Reason.' |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:20150 alt.sex:37428
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Genetic transmission of habits ? Nah...
From: quirke_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Date: 24 Nov 92 17:21:20 NZST
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Welligton City Council, Public Access.
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
> quirke_a@kosmos writes:

>>   Note 1: We really need studys showing correlations between parents and
>>children seperated at or near birth. Interesting to say, some of the "twins"
>>articles suggested twins developed similar habits. I don't think they're
>>particularly accurate tho.
> 
> Why not?  Your belief is more important than observational evidence?
> 
> The twin separation studies have been done repeatedly, and they have
> repeatedly found a remarkably high correlation between twins' behaviors.

   I read an article describing just this in the latest Omni.
   BUT habits ain't behaviour. If both me and my seperated-at-birth twin
brother vote Labour (Democrat to Americans), that's interesting (and an
example of shared behaviour). If we both do it always with a single small 
cross in the top left corner of the box, thats astounding (and a habit.)
   I'll take discretion as the better part of valour here, and quietly attempt
to bow out of the arguement. Let's let it die.

Tony Q.
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Help
Date: 19 Nov 92 09:31:02 EST

In article <1992Nov19.003834.19231@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> In article <1992Nov18.170630.9301@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>>I am presuming everyone has read Susan Blackmore's studies on OOB's.  I will
>>get the reference tomorrow.  
> I haven't. Can you summarize before I rush out to look them up?
Damn.  Wasn't able to get them last night.  Maybe Lippard or McGrath will
assist in clarification if I make any mistakes.

Susan Blackmore worked in England in the early 80's to develop an operational
definition of OOB's so  that they could be tested.  She started working on
standard psi type issues, but for each model proposed, was able to measure any
effect.  All of the results of her statistical tests indicated that psi effects
were not operating.  (Maybe Roger Nelson can jump in here also.)  BTW, she was
at that time, according to her articles, a strong believer in psi related
effects.  She began to study OOB's in detail.  After a number of experimental
studies, she again came to the same conclusion.  According to her experiments,
there is no statistical evidence that supports the content that OOB's happen. 
The modle of something actually leaving the body is not supported by
experiment.  

She has gone beyond the psi model now, as well as turning into a skeptic about
psi.  I am not confident that I can properly represent these new models here. 
The articles are in (gasp!) SI, and I believe that she has written at least one
book related to here experiences in the trip from believer to skeptic.

GXKambic
sd
From: agrino@enkidu.mic.cl (Andres Grino Brandt)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: What did Judas betray?
Distribution: world
Organization: Orden del Lobo Estepario
Reply-To: agrino@enkidu.mic.cl
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:14:15 CST


In article <1992Nov16.233223.19865@imagen.com> avi@seal.imagen.com writes:
 >    Just for comparison sake, the Jewish Bible, even though written MANY 
 >    centuries
 >    before, and going through many hardships was NEVER revised. The proof is
 >    (Gerry Roston, are you listening ?) in the Dead Sea Scrolls:
 >    A document discovered about 30+ years ago, in the Dead Sea, Judea desert
                                  ^^ 40+, has they were found in 1947
 >    in Southern Israel. These scrolls were written AT LEAST 2,000 years ago, and 
 >    that's acceptable BY ALL archeologists and historians who worked with it.
 >    And yet, when compared WORD FOR WORD with the same documents Modern Jews 
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 >    have
 >    today (for example the scroll of the Book of Issiah which is the best
 >    preserved and thus easier to read and decipher) it checks out a 100% match
                                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^    
 >    in every word !!!  Now that's an UN-revisable, One version Only, as it was
 >    written, authentic document !!! 
 > 
 
NO, NO, NO!!!
Please, read THE DEAD SEA SCROLL by John Marco Allegro (1957 in the Spanish
edition I have).
John Marco Allegro worked directly with the scroll in Jerusalem, restoring and
editing it, so he write first hand. See chapter IV, The Biblical Text (may be
I miss the exact original title, as I re-translated from spanish to english).

He describe in great detail the differences between Qumran and LXX versions
in I Samuel i,22-ii,6 and Deuteronomio xxxii, 41-43 (giving the texts in full, 
side by side), plus a lot of minor differences (texts deleted or added) 
in others places. Even he compares Qumram against Samaritan version, finding
that the later can be much older than previous estimates.

He stated about Samuel: "Qumram is coincident with LXX against Masoretic 
Version in 13 places, and with Masoretic against LXX in 4 places". Latter he
added: "... this old text has an high proportions of original verses 
("lecciones") that don't coincided with LXX neither with Masoretic Version".

He write about Issiah too. Some differences he write about:
1) In ii, 3, "to the Lord's Mountain" is ommited. 
2) In vi,3, the "Saint" by the serafin is said twice only. 
3) In vii, 2, "is heart" is missing. 
4) In xiv, 2 "to his place" is added in front of "and to his land". 
5) In i, 15, "and his fingers with iniquity" is added in front of
   "his hands with blood".

Giving the evidence, you can hardly say there is a 100% match.  

Yours in Colleen

Andres Grino Brandt               Casilla 14801 - Santiago 21
agrino@enkidu.mic.cl                        Chile

No hay mas realidad que la realidad, y la razon es su profeta
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: david.scarlett@freddy.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (David Scarlett) 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pron
Date: 21 Nov 92 14:49:00 GMT
Reply-To: david.scarlett@freddy.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (David Scarlett) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Freddy's Place BBS - Edmonton, AB - 403-456-4241


TO: cant@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (fitzgerald clara n)
   > Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.censorship,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
   > Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare

   >    Real prose is tougher than technical writing.  Inclusify this:

FCN>    We saw the shadowy stranger again.  His collar was folded tall against 
   > cold drizzle, and the brow of his hat was pulled low.  We could barely see
   > the glitter of his eyes as he glanced at us, before he and his dog 
   > disappeared into the dark mist.


        Why on earth would you want to "inclusify" this paragraph? There is
no ambiguity to be resolved as the subject is obviously male. In fact almost
everyone I know is either male or female so when a specific person is
referred to, there should be no problem. The example of the engineer given
a short while ago was easily resolved. Do you have an example in which the sex
of the speaker is unknown? If so I would welcome the challenge. The whole
notion of gender specificity is counter-productive. It makes far more sense to
create new attitudes rather than new words.
                                           D.S.

 -- SPEED 1.20 [NR]: Is that Ipsomobile or autokinetikon ?
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: AIDS and the CIA (was Question)
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:03:23 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)

In article <1992Nov20.122123.26115@news.columbia.edu>, lasner@watsun (Charles Lasner) writes:
>Isn't HTLV I or II (forget which) related to something called CJD,
>and also the animal disease "scabies" and something to do with
>misdiagnosed Alzheimer's disease?

I think you're thinking of prions, a separate controversial question.
By CJD I assume you mean Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease, and by "scabies"
you mean the sheep disease scrapie.  As for misdiagnozed Alzheimer's,
prion diseases do affect the brain, slowly.  There is, for example,
an epidemic in England of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, better
known as mad cow disease.  And you may have heard of kuru, the mad
cannibal disease, passed on by eating victims' brains.

Anyway, prions are mere proteins, not viruses, which is why they've
been so controversial.  Proteins aren't supposed to be able to reproduce.
So no, HTLV-I/II are not related to prions.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Innumeracy, humorous ... maybe.
Date: 16 Nov 1992 05:51:33 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: hijack.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov16.045407.29782@udel.edu> mccoy@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Don McCoy) writes:
>>In his example he used the 6/49 lottery.
>>
>Uh, I could be wrong here, but I believe 10 billion to 1 is right.
>How did you arrive at the 14 million to 1 figure???

As a quick exercise in numeracy, estimate how many lottery tickets are sold
each draw and how often someone wins the jackpot.  This should tell you
which odds are more likely to be correct.  As another exercise, estimate
the size of the jackpot and the fraction of the sales they are likely to
give back in the jackpot.  Use this information to figure out the
approximate odds.

Ken Shirriff			shirriff@sprite.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: nkjrm@taxus.uib.no (Rolf Manne)
Subject: Re: blindfolded trick
Organization: University of Bergen
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 10:36:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.231544.15567@fwi.uva.nl> delft@fwi.uva.nl (Andre van Delft) writes:

>For a burning question, I quote & translate from the dutch newspaper
>NRC Handelsblad, November 20:

>  ROTTERDAM - Although the police forbad it, hypnotizer and illusionist
>  Rasti Rostelli secretly performed yersterday his yearly 'birthday stunt': 
>  blindfolded and with coins (dutch 'rijksdaalders', diameter about 1 inch)
>  taped on his eyelids, driving by car in Rotterdam during the busy hour.

stuff deleted

>I am still puzzled. Can anyone explain me how Rostelli does the trick?

>Andre van Delft

I raised the question of blind-folding with James Randi at a skeptics
conference in Finland a few years ago. Randi told that he used to do
a similar stunt "without having many accidents." He also said that it is 
very easy to make fake blind-folds. You need a very small hole in order to 
see well. This answer is well covered in the skeptical literature although
I cannot quote chapter and verse. 

Rolf Manne
Department of Chemistry, University of Bergen, Norway
e-mail Rolf.Manne@uib.no