HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ogorman@unix1.tcd.ie (Lucifuge)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:22:33 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

In <7APR199209183545@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

>A couple of comments:

>(1) A reversed piece of tape is not the only kind of backwards message.
>In fact, this is NOT the case with "Stairway to Heaven."  Fundamentalists
>claim to find messages in the ordinary, forward-recorded vocal tracks,
>when played backwards.  They claim to hear these messages in reversed
>human speech.  These sorts of messages have been found to be greatly
>enhanced by the power of suggestion.  When fundamentalists give lectures
>on rock music, they tell you what to listen for before they play these
>messages.  When people aren't told what to listen for, they rarely hear
>the same message.  (I've successfully "found" Satanic and bizarre
>messages in Christian music by listening to records backwards and looking
>for the same.)

Ok. This is true. I gave the generic definition of a backmask. It's just
as easy to do the other. Get a tape. Record your message (say "Jesus
Saves" - it's been done though with heavy sarcasm). Play backwards. Work
out from the phonetics off the phrase (it will sound nothing like sevas
susej BTW) some words that approximate that sound. Record this forwards.
Listen backwards and you'll hear a muddy version of the original
message. No technical difficulty. For the record, I've never been able
to hear anything in 'Stairway...'.

>(2) There is also a third kind of backwards message, and this is represented
>by Kate Bush's backwards message on the song "Leave It Open" on her
>_The Dreaming_ album.  This is where a vocal track has been electronically
>processed so that one and the same track contains one message when played
>forwards and a different message when played backwards.  The technology
>for *this* probably didn't exist when "Stairway to Heaven" was recorded,
>yet it is sometimes implied by fundamentalists that this is what Led
>Zeppelin did.  (More frequently, however, the claim is made that what
>Led Zeppelin did was not humanly possible and is thus evidence of
>demonic influence.)

'we let the wierdness in'? I asked about this on rec.music.gaffa awhile
ago and was told that it was done by saying the wordS phonetically
backwards and the reversing the audio and recording to obtain a forward
message that sounds like a backmask. 

Again no problem with technology. Nowadays with computers and sampling
technology all this is no problem and virtually anything can be done for
a forward recording....



--------------------------what you letting in?----------------I---------
                     tell me what you're letting in        ___I___     
                      say  what we're gonna let in           \I/ 
                                                              /  
 ogorman@unix1.tcd.ie                                        /I\ 
                                                              I
-------------------------ew tel eht ssendriew ni--------------I---------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:11:49 GMT

(Mark Steph) writes:
[on Rush]
>Actually, I believe they are closer to Objectivism (of Ayn Rand fame). >Their earlier albums contained very explicit Objectivist philosophy and
> one album was "dedicated to the genius of Ayn Rand".
>
>They are, however, most certainly atheist, not satanic.  (See .sig for
> example.)

Damn, and I thought atheism and satanism were one and the same :-)

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:49:26 GMT

In article <72907@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.154934.24621@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>You know what counts as proof. Why are you trying to get off on
>>a lesser standard?
>
>I saw what happened.  I know what worked with my students.
Are you familiar with the term "placebo effect?"

>You weren't there, and simply do not know what you are speaking about.
You're right. I just know what counts as proof, and that you have
not even come close to meeting the standard.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.satanism
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 05:52:02 GMT

In article <263-JNEWS-1.2@smylex.UUCP> jlee@smylex.UUCP (Jeff Lee) writes:
>
>I've often toyed with the idea of writing lyrics with the *intention* of 
>creating a secondary message (heard only if played backwards) without the
>need for backwards recording or electronic processing.  (Of course, the
>"normal" lyrics would make about as much sense as a song by "They Might
>Be Giants"...)

If you do this be sure that the record played forwards says

  "Kill you mother, kill your father, rape everything that moves, turn
   yourself over to Satan"

and reversed says

  "Read your Bible.  Give money to the Church.  Jesus is lord"

That way you will be able to keep the fundies off your back when they
claim your record has satanic messages in it.

>       Jeff Lee - jlee@smylex.uucp - jlee%smylex.uucp@uhasun.hartford.edu

Who was it who said something like "There are no backward masked Satanic
messages in here.  All invocations to the Dark Lord are plainly heard
forwards"

C Frog
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:46:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr6.184627.26979
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <72904@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.155108.24690@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>Yes.  I'm responding to some very unpleasant people.  You don't notice,
>>>since you've apparently decided that any unpleasant remarks that attack
>>>the "right" group are not really unpleasant after all.  I don't think so.
>
>>Normal response or paranoia? You be the judge.
>
>Does Eric suffer from dementia or just likes to lie a lot?  You be the judge.
Now, now, Matthew.....
Let's examine what happened. Someone suggested that you were paranoid
and overreacting. You write:
"I'm responding to some very unpleasant people. You don't notice
since you've apparently decided that any unpleasant remarks that
attack the right group are not really unpleasant after all," which
is a remark which certainly could be interpreted as a mite paranoid.
Don't you see a certain irony in that? Now, your response is
kind of unrelated and a weak insult besides, so it lacks snap. Surely
you can do better.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh? 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: WEEMBA and DABROSKI Angst (Was: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 03:36:32 GMT

Matthew Wiener:
>>>Since he hasn't told me what "God" means, and I am clueless--Jewish
>>>tradition doesn't help me here, since it teaches that God is totally
>>>unknowable--I really don't know how to answer his question.
>>>[What] do you mean by "God" that he deduced I believed in?

Me:
>>Easy, God = any of the Gods mentioned by any known religion.

Matthew Wiener:
>Well, yes, that much I figured.  But the fact that the mention them
>frequently doesn't mean that they define or explain them very well.

Go read any of the standard texts. eg: you seem to know a lot about
the Jewish concept of God so start from there. Use that as your model
and answer John's question with respect to the Jewish model of God.

graham

--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:30:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: netnews.72935
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)

In article <1992Apr6.184926.27099@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>I saw what happened.  I know what worked with my students.

>Are you familiar with the term "placebo effect?"

Now that you mention it, I remember giving half my students one M&M
each before exams, and telling them they were special calculus pills,
to see if I personally was having any effect on them, or was it all
in their minds.

>>You weren't there, and simply do not know what you are speaking about.

>You're right. I just know what counts as proof, and that you have
>not even come close to meeting the standard.

I presume you're still confused that I'm claiming my methods work with all
teachers.  No such luck.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Subject: A letter for serious atheists
Date: 14 Apr 92 10:29:22 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: alt

Here are some ideas you may wish to consider:

1) Cryonics.  There is a possibility that you could come "back to life" 
  through the technological advances of the future.  This will not be
  possible unless you preserve your chemical/physical structures as much
  as possible.  There are two cryonic organizations in the US:
  Alcor (in Riverside, CA) and Trans-Time (in Chicago).  Call information
  in these cities to obtain their phone numbers, or contact me.

2) Life.  In our universe, their exists informational structures which
  multiply, speciate, and creatively explore things.  Humans do this as
  well with their mind.  Consider using your life to serve this phenomena.

3) Non existence.  It seems readily apparent that our "identity" is a 
  fabrication of delusion.  We are only temporary and composed of pieces
  which are constantly under change.  There is no actual "self".  We are
  part of nature.

4) If you are harrassed by "religious people" consider this outlook.  Our
  universe exists.  Whatever causes this, (even if it is self necessary)
  could be labled as "God".  This god may have no relationship to other 
  gods (the one of prophets, blah, blah).  So why would you lable existence
  as "God"?  Truthfully, I believe that this is the correct way to 
  understand our universe.  Note that denying the existence of self (3)
  does not preclude existence of being of the universe..


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bunker@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca (Alex Bunker)
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Organization: Dept. of Physics, McMaster Univ., Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:46:10 GMT



>
>  Just one last question I've often pondered:  Who has copyrights to the Holy
>Bible and who gets royalties?
>
>Geoff Fritz

Ask the publishing company who publishes the bible. their answer maybe

Oh yes here it is in the files the royalties go to

   GOD The father
   17 Cloud nine court
   Upper paradise, heaven
   90425

ALEX BUNKER :)
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Myth of "No Sin"
Date: 6 Apr 92 05:49:41 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <9203280337.AA20394@CSUFresno.EDU>, davidch@ZIMMER.CSUFRESNO.EDU
(David Choweller) writes:
> If your God were just, he wouldn't be judging the sentient beings he created.
> Instead, he'd be begging their forgiveness for creating such a screwed-up
> world and inflicting it on them. 
> 
> Take one example:  why did your God make it necessary that to survive, many
> sentient beings have to extinguish life in other sentient beings?  Why
> does the lion have to kill the sheep?

Eh, the lion has a free will to either kill or to starve :-).

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 23:09:49 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <7BPBJB6w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk writes:
|> strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> > In article <ekTyiB2w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) wri
|> > |> I know all that.  Nevertheless, it remains true that lying in general isn'
|> > |> prohibited in the commandments, nor is it particularly well-defined.  I kn
|> > |> that various other bits of text say that it's not a good thing, but that's
|> > |> not the same as having a commandment against it.
|> >  
|> > It's not at all clear that lying is wrong in *every* situation.
|> > For example:  military secrecy during wartime, telling someone
|> > they have a terminal disease --- these situations call for
|> > particular discretion and a blanket rule against deception may
|> > not be correct.
|> 
|> It's just as unclear that killing is wrong in *every* situation.  Yet we
|> still have "Thou shalt not kill,"
|> 
Actually the commandment is more like "Thou shalt not murder".
When you study the law in detail, there are all kinds of
exceptions, just as for lying.

|> > Would you like to give an example of a form of lying which
|> > you believe (a) should be prohibited (b) is not prohibited
|> > by Jewish law (c) is prohibited by some other code which
|> > you believe to be more comprehensive.
|> 
|> I could give examples of (a) indefinitely, I don't know enough about Jewish
|> law to talk about (b), and (c) is also easy.  It would be a fairly off-topic
|> discussion for alt.atheism, also.

Well I meant to ask for one example meeting all of (a), (b), and
(c).  I don't understand why it's off-topic, since you were the
one who introduced the subject of lying not being prohibited
by the Bible.

|> 
|> > I'm not quite sure how you expected anyone to respond to your
|> > post on the Bible's moral code without introducing the commentaries
|> > and scholarly legal opinions of what the Bible's moral code means.
|> 
|> I expected talk about the Christian bible.
|> 

What???  You wrote:
|> The interesting thing about the Bible isn't what its moral code prohibits,
|> but what its moral code fails to prohibit...

You just said "the Bible" --- and all of a sudden responses
about the Jewish Bible aren't relevant because to you
"the Bible" means "the Christian Bible"????

Why should an atheist apply Christian defaults? 
-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: zeisset@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Stephan Zeisset)
Subject: Re: The "God Does Not Exist" Proof
Keywords: God
Originator: zeisset@hphalle7g.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
Organization: TU M"unchen (FRG)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:55:53 GMT


In article <willimsa.703288878@unix1.tcd.ie>, willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams) writes:
|> Why do a lot of theists try to explain things by resorting to
|> the old, "human perception is limited", or 'god is unknowable and 
|> therefore beyond our capabilities to comprehend, much less judge'?

Why do a lot of atheists think if there is a god, he must fit
into their view of the world ?
Why do you think you can apply the laws of nature to the one who
created them ?
In fact, human perception IS limited.
If I throw a dice - can you predict if it will be 1,2,3,4,5,6 ?
If the outcome is 2 - can you tell me why ?

Stephan.

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 10 Apr 1992 10:19:21 CDT
From: <U30471@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Distribution: world,local
 <ogorman.702753753@unix1.tcd.ie> <8APR199215152365@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
 <ROLFL.92Apr9072117@karl.uio.no> <92100.114848J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>

In article <92100.114848J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>, John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
says:
>
>In article <ROLFL.92Apr9072117@karl.uio.no>, rolfl@karl.uio.no (Rolf Lindgren)
>says:
>>
>>So far as backward masking goes: There's still the problem: Does it work?
>>Is it possible to _change_people's_minds_ using BM?
>>
>
>But, for goodness sake, one doesn't need to do experiments to see how
>a priori absurd it is to assume that backwards masking could have any
>kind of effect on people.  To assume this would be to assume that
>(a) the backwards message would be registered somewhere in the mind, and
>(b) the mind could play this message backwards to decode it.  While
>I can imagine that (a) is possible, I think that assuming point (b) is
>assinine.

  Yes, i think this is quite to the point.  And if i may inject my own
thoughts, there is another question.  If the mind can intercept the
message, and decode it, and comprehend this message, will it cause
you to become disposed to do things that you previously would not have
done?  Would it have more of an effect than a message played forwards?
I would have to have all three points proved to me before i would
think about backwards masking seriously.
>
>Of course, this is not to say that Christian fundamentalists are
>incapable of holding assinine beliefs.

  Haha, too true, too true.

 --DAVE!!
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:58:35 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)

In article <1992Apr6.154934.24621@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>You know what counts as proof. Why are you trying to get off on
>a lesser standard?

I saw what happened.  I know what worked with my students.

You weren't there, and simply do not know what you are speaking about.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: andersom@spot.Colorado.EDU (Marc Anderson)
Subject: Re: Backward Masking
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:43:15 GMT

>>In article <1992Mar31.235053.489@miavx2.ham.muohio.edu>, bstadnik@miavx2.ham.
>>muohio.edu writes:
>>> 
>>>   I was recently talking to a fundamentalist who gave this argument concerning
>>> the rock group Led Zepplin and Satan:
>>> 
>>>        " If you play 'Stairway to Heaven' backwards it says, "Hail Satan" over
>>>        and over again.  The technology is(or was) not available to place this
>>>        there on purpose.  And the voice patterns speaking it frontwards would
>>>        never be able to match anything that closely backwards.  It was put 
>>>        there by Satan.  Since Satan exists, God must also exist. "

If you play the theme to Mr. Ed backwords, it says "we sing this song for
Satan" over and over....  

backmasking is a load of shit.  music is meant to be listened to forward.

-marc
andersom@spot.colorado.edu


Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Matthew P Wiener -- why is he so paranoid?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:17:30 GMT

In article <73034@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.004642.553@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>		 Whether or not we have been misrepresenting Judaism
>>is irrelevant to whether we are unpleasant or not.
>
>No, quite often that is the precise unpleasantness.  When people who
>really don't know Judaism start trying to insist in the face of a short
>and simple correction that religion has to be defined by an abstraction
>of Christianity, that is both a misrepresentation and unpleasant to boot.
No, Matthew, it is simply ill informed. Merely because ignorance
and rudeness are correlated in your case doesn't mean it's generally
true.

>To consider an extreme case: do you believe that the holocaust revisionists
>are merely engaged in an intellectual disagreement?
I have yet to see one that is, but I don't think it's in principle impossible
that one could be.

-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?
From: ags@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Question about modern manners
Date: 12 Apr 92 06:39:59 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Apr11.194811.26945@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Apr11.172232.23004@maths.tcd.ie> dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek) writes:
>>>Since it is alergy season, people are often sneezing.  In fact, it seems that
>>>I sneeze every five minutes.  which brings me to my question.  I am a "devout"
>>>atheist, and I don't know what the polite thing to say is when someone blesses
>>>me after I sneeze.  It is offensive that someone would think that I need saving
>>>and need the blessings of a person or a non-existant god.
>>>So what would be the polite response to tell someone?
>>	"Gesundheit" comes to mind.
>
>This means "God bless you", as far as I know.

"Gesundheit" is the German noun for "health". It is derived from "Gesund",
meaning "sound" (robust), plus the suffix "-heit", which is equivalent to the
English suffix "-hood".

I remember seeing a Bob & Ray routine in which one played a news announcer
named Walter Gesundheit. Did the sketch have something to do with sneezing?
No...

You see, the German word for "sick" is "krank" (pronounced "cronk").
Therefore the antonym of "Gesundheit" is ... "Krankheit"!

-- 
Dave Seaman
ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:27:09 GMT

In article <73277@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.154626.24424@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>No, Matthew. I'm the one who's demanding evidence for a claim that you
>>made--one that had a non-historical component to it. You are the
>>one who is refusing to provide it.
>
>What non-historical claim am I making?  I'm not saying method A is
>superior to method B: I'm saying that I had success with method A at
>times but not always with method B.  That is an historical claim.
I'll take it that you are then retracting the claim that you originally
made that it was NECESSARY for you to do so.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431, Honda CM400 rider          rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Yale University Department of Chemistry            We hack anything.
My mind is now for rent: C/Unix,Vacuum Tech,Machining,P-Chemist. Hire me, eh?