HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: st1xu@elroy.uh.edu (Carr, Emery D.)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: aids and the cia
Date: 17 Nov 1992 16:04 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: elroy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    


read AIDS and the doctors of death. 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: cooper@cadsys.enet.dec.com (Topher Cooper)
Subject: Re: Mars effect
Reply-To: Cooper@cadsys.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Hudson MA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:31:40 GMT


In article <168A312235.SERTEL@ibm.gwdg.de>, SERTEL@ibm.gwdg.de writes:
 
>My Mars effect messages are about to disappear from
>this list. There was no reply. Why?
> 
>Hypothesis (1) The sci.sceptic forum serves to exchange views
>               not research results.

		...

>Hypothesis (6) ....
>Hypothesis (7) ....      (You may continue if you like)

    How about
    
Hypothesis (8) People were interested but you covered the material so
               thoroughly that they didn't have anything to say or ask.
	       
                                      Topher Cooper (Usual disclaimers)

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Pronouns, again
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:59:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.040155.1@stsci.edu>, zellner@stsci.edu writes in part:
|> Of course language changes, but we should welcome only changes that increase 
|> the signal-to-noise ratio, not decrease it.

Language certainly changes.  It changes to meet the needs and desires
of the people who use it.  And the "welcomeness" of usages depends on
the context and purposes--e.g., anything you say about the "welcomeness"
of slang that kids use is irrelevant!

By the way, under your criteria of increasing S/N, some of the criticised
newly coined usages might be "welcome", as they convey meanings not 
easily expressible by old usages.  In some contexts it is preferable to
have a short, clear, new coinage than a long, convoluted, "proper"
phrasing.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: ljmorly@polaris.utu.fi (Laura Johanna Manninen)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: University of Turku
	<1992Nov11.203736.12929@imagen.com> <1992Nov14.201327.14051@netcom.com>
	<1992Nov16.233223.19865@imagen.com>
Date: 20 Nov 92 11:31:14

In article <1992Nov16.233223.19865@imagen.com> avi@seal.imagen.com writes:
>    such as with King Pharo's (sp?) magicians, etc.) They clearly state that
>    this Yeshua was "flying in the air" or "levitating". ("Metzahuhu LeYeshua 
>    sheHaya Poreach BaAvir" from the Talmud) 

Where is this from ? There isn't any person called Yeshua in Talmud.

As to the claim that Brit Chadasha includes antisemitic stuff, as 
mentioned in some other posting -- that's as ridiculous as to say
that some Israeli newspaper is antisemitic if it contains criticism
on Meir Kahane or Shulamit Aloni, for example.

BTW please cut out either of the newsgroups from this thread. (Just my
opinion.) Alt.messianic welcomes new readers !

- Laura 
--
"They will say of me, 'In the LORD alone are righteousness and
strength.' All who have raged against him will come to him and
be put to shame. But in the LORD all the descendants of Israel
will be found righteous and will exult."       Yeshaya 45:24-25

"Achen Ata El mistater Elohei Israel Moshia."  Yeshaya 45:15
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Rant concludes
Date: 20 Nov 1992 19:32:14 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov20.135325.7347@relay.nswc.navy.mil>, snorthc@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Stephen Northcutt) writes:
>|On the other hand, skeptics do indeed confront religious quackery that 
>|involves testable claims on the fringes of science.  Notable examples 
>|are faith-healing and creationism.
>
>My 8 yr old son likes to drive the radio while I drive the car,
>mostly using a combination of the SCAN and SEARCH button.  So I
>don't know the channel, but Monday, he hit on a short 1 minute
>talk clip called: Creation Moments.  A fellow with a British accent
>was interviewing a scientist who said:

>	During the Mount St. Helen eruption, a canyon 1/4 the size
>of the grand canyon was created in a matter of HOURs by a mud flow.
>Also that rock formations with many layers were created in a few
>days.

Hmmm.  That's odd.  No such canyon appears in any of the aerial photos taken
after the eruption.  What happened to it?  Yes, in a lava flow, you can get
many layers of lava within a few days.  Now, let's see you manage the same
thing with sedimentary rock.

>Please understand that this post isn't trying to prove anything!
>But, it had occured the me that "creation scientists" I think that
>was the lable the radio used may be performing a valuable function
>of skepticism as well... I do remember being singularly unimpressed
>with freshman geology and geomorphology "how do they KNOW, that
>hunk of blue quartz is a billion years old?"  Think of it as
>"reverse" skepticism. 

Well, you use a combination of stratigraphy and radioisotope dating.  If you
can get the ages of two layers using radioisotope dating, then you have
boundaries for the age layers between them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Fundamentalist Nightmare
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 19 Nov 92  16:22:04

Who: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
ID: LEET.92Nov12172440@dove.ims.com
And carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
 
Carl> [minor cut] So John, please: GIVE US AN OPERATIONAL DEFINITION
Carl> OF CHRISTIANITY OR TAKE THE THREAD TO A NEWSGROUP THAT DOESN'T
Carl> CARE ABOUT WHETHER WHATEVER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HAS ANY
Carl> CONCRETE REFERENTS.
 
LT> "Although I'm reluctant to respond to someone apoplectic
LT> enough to get their caps-lock stuck on, I'll give it a try
LT> anyway (in an attempt to occupy until He comes again).
 
You have a very long wait, so don't hold your breath. (P.S.,
my God came four times last night!)
 
LT> Operationally, a Christian is one who would not deny [sic]
LT> Christ as Savior and Lord even under the threat of death (I 
LT> could tie in the 2nd Amendment discussion here, but won't)."
 
"Deny?" What an utter innane, mellon-brained, baby-chimp-like
assertion. Here's the deal, Lee--- I tell you here and now
that -I- am the One, True Christ, and since you DENY IT, you
will burn in ever-lasting torment.
 
Now, do you "DENY" that I am Christ, or do you -ASSERT- that I
am not? You're like every other Christofascist who use the
word "Deny" as if their cult was somehow varified and their
occult doctrin were obvious. Your occult nonsense does NOT
lend itself to "Denial," -UNTILL- you prove your assertions.
 
LT> Almost any one of the early creedal statements of the
LT> Church ("I believe in one God, ...") should be adequate
LT> as a litmus test for orthodoxy, when coupled with the
LT> threat of capital punishment."
 
And who the bloody hell are you to dictate who may call oneself
a Christian? Your cult may speak only for itself, not for others.
 
LT> As to officially separating the Christians from the non-
LT> Christians, that won't happen during our lifetimes - so to
LT> speak. Sorry, Carl."
 
Many Christians are already hard at work segregating the cult
members from the non-cult members. School Boards have been
covertly infiltrated by Christian cults all across the nation.
It's only a matter of time before The One True Christians
once again come for those of use who have brains, those
of us who choose to think for ourselves, those who refuse to
conform to your cult's dicta.
 
There are denominations of your cult that are hard at work
making lists of "suspected homosexuals." This includes the
Church of Jesus Christ Christian (Aryan Nations), A.R.M., and
K.K.K. Jews and Blacks are targeted for "special consideration"
(A.R.M.'s very words). These three have electronic bulletin
boards set up, and A.R.M. has a voice-mail system one may
call to "turn in" suspected Jews and homosexuals.
 
So when you say it will not happen during our lifetime, I
tell you it is happening NOW.
 
LT> Lee Thomas, leet@ims.com

--- Maximus 2.00
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Self Defense
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 19 Nov 92  16:23:06

Who: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
ID: 1e193lINN93j@gap.caltech.edu
And: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
 
BR> "Christianity is useful precisely because it is conflict
BR> with basic human nature.
 
CJL> "Well, at least it allows the churches to make a bundle
CJL> by inducing guilt in people then relieving the feelings
CJL> of guilt that they've induced. When a physician does
CJL> something like this, it's called malpractice. When a
CJL> clergyman does it, it's called ministry."
 
Love it!
 
I saw Bill Riggs' article, but just laughed loudly to myself.
It took hundreds of millions of years for "human nature" to
develop, and much of this "nature" is SURVIVAL TRAITS. There
are religions who turn these traits into handles for guilt,
so that they may CONTROL and DOMINATE sick, confused, ignorant,
lonely, hurting people.
 
As Nexus said to Louis Wu, "You NEVER interrupt a self-defence
mechanism!"
 
Any doctrin that is in conflict with basic human nature is an
evil to be destroyed, because it is anti-humanity. That includes
patriotism, nationalism, death cults like Christianity.
Cooperation (which is a survival trait) is one such "basic human
nature" trait, that Christianity co-oped and turned into "God
loves us and hates you / God's on our side and not yours' / We're
Godly, you're Satanic" ditchomies, and it turns thinking into black-
or-white (look how many Christian groups are called Not True
Christians by the other Christian groups).

--- Maximus 2.00
From: Alan.Moorman@f31.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Alan Moorman)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: AIDS as a Weapon.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:33:02 -0600

Subj: AIDS as a Weapon.              Conf: (54) Sci.Skepti
___------------------------------------------------------------------------
BW>  In article <27393@dog.ee.lbl.gov| TWChan@lbl.gov (Terry Chan) writes:
BW>  |
BW>  |I heard that the CIA has planted a drug that will kill Fidel
BW>  |Castro with lung cancer, in, oh, 20-40 yrs.
BW>  |
BW>  It's called tobacco and it wasn't the CIA :-)

Besides which, he already has a condition which will kill him in 20-40
years -- it's called Old Age.

Rocky

 * OLX 2.2 * I admire your problem, but don't what to do about it...

 * Origin: Dark Knight's Table (1:282/31)
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Let's cut to the evolutionary chase
Date: 22 Nov 92 16:59:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: gap.1eoe9vINN866
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov21.092244.462@panix.com>, arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia) writes:
>What are the arguments used by creationists against the theory of evolution?
>What do evolutionists say in return?

First, there's the hoary old "but it's only a theory."  Thus do the
creationists make it quite clear from the outset that they know nothing
whatever about evolutionary theory or science in general.  Armed with this
knowledge, the person to whom they're talking can anticipate the following
assertions:
	1)  "Speciation has never been observed."  This claim is false. 
	    Speciation has been observed in a number of insects and plants;
	2)  "There are no intermediate forms in the fossil record."  This claim
	    is either false (there are LOTS of intermediate forms) or
	    unfalsifiable (suppose you find an "intermediate form";  the
	    creationist will immediately demand another fossil intermediate
	    between this one and one of the first two.  The process will be
	    repeated until you run out of fossils.  When dealing with this
	    claim, you'd do well to get the creationist to define "intermediate
	    form" before you start producing evidence).;
	3)  "Carbon-14 dating has given anomalous ages, including dating
	    material from a living creature at several thousand years old."
	    Such anomalies exist.  They've been adequately explained.  C14
	    dating only works if the organism's source of carbon is from the
	    atmosphere (possibly via short-lived plants, animals that eat such
	    plants, etc.).  Some organisms get some of their carbon from
	    non-atmospheric sources (e.g., carbon from carbonates that get
	    dissolved in seawater), and for these, C14 dating doesn't work. 
	    Remember:  C14 dating is dating the carbon in the critter; not the
	    critter itself.
	4)  "C14 dating assumes that the amount of C14 being produced is
	    constant, but since the sun's output varies, so does the C14
	    production rate."  That's why C14 has been calibrated using
	    dendrochronology.

>Isn't there a file out there containing this info?  If someone has it could 
>s/he mail it to me?

You want the sci.skeptic and talk.origins FAQs.  I think they're both posted
monthly to the respective groups.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Rant concludes
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:33:13 GMT

> From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
> Message-ID: <n0e4dt@ofa123.fidonet.org>
 
> Skeptic groups often fail to confront religious quackery because
> doing so is politically dangerous. I think the failure to do so
> is dangerous.
 
Hi, David, how are you?  Skeptics' groups decline (not fail) to confront
most religious claims on the grounds that they do not involve testable 
claims of fact.  They similarly decline (not fail) to involve themselves 
in a variety of other purely ethical or aesthetic controversies.  To do
otherwise would be to indulge in pursuits where they have no expertise,
to needlessly alienate many natural allies, and to willingly embrace the
traditional smear against skeptics that they are merely apologists for
a belief system.
 
On the other hand, skeptics do indeed confront religious quackery that 
involves testable claims on the fringes of science.  Notable examples 
are faith-healing and creationism.  These are confronted because of the 
quackery aspect, not the religious one.
 
Cheers,
Rick Moen, Director
Bay Area Skeptics
Editor, _BASIS_

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: John Winston and Astral Intelligence
Keywords: His medication should kick in any time now..
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:56:08 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <stone.722189938@cwis> stone@cwis.unomaha.edu (Travis Stone) writes:

>After all, you can be DAMNED sure he hasn't got any
>REAL intelligence....

Please do not say these things about him.  You do not know him.

Rolf

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Subject: Amazing Magnetic Motor
Organization: very little
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 01:57:06 GMT


It seems to me that back in 1980 either Science and Mechanics magazine
or Popular Science ran a cover article on an "amazing" motor that
ran forever without fuel, powered only be permanent magnets.  They
stopped short of calling it perpetual motion.  Don't bother telling
me how bogus it is....I know!  But I am trying to find a copy of
the article for my files.

On Saturday I went to the Seattle Public Library and browsed through
their microfilm and also the Readers Guide to Periodical Literature.
I could NOT find it!  In the readers guide I looked under MAGNETS,
ELECTRICAL MOTORS and ELECTRICAL GENERATORS.  If it was there, I
sure missed it.  I recall clearly the cover article, done in the same
style as Pop Sci or Pop Mech, with a drawing of this motor whirling
away.

Anyone have a copy or a reference for this?


-- 
 Tad Cook     |  Phone:  206-527-4089  (home)     |   MCI Mail: 3288544   
 Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   3288544@mcimail.com 
              |  Internet: tad@ssc.com           or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad   
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.feminism
From: Adam_Burtt@f170.n771.z3.fidonet.org (Adam Burtt)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: the truth, the whole truth, and no
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:45:14 GMT
Reply-To: Adam_Burtt@f410.n771.z3.fidonet.org (Adam Burtt)
Comment-To: James_kibo_Parry@f410.n771.z3.fidonet.org (James kibo Parry)

In a message dated 16-Nov-92 06:40:00, James "kibo" Parry wrote:

J"P> [alt.alien.visitors]
J"P> In article <92320.155010SWK105@psuvm.psu.edu> Stephen Kuhn
J"P> <SWK105@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
J"P> >  The Hurrparansilar, elaphantine creatures, and
J"P> >  The Banarflista, ten-legged mollusks with weapon legs, eating
J"P> >  legs, and walking legs

J"P> The Pianoid Linguiniae, phallic-shaped aerosol beings that
J"P>  smell like rum
J"P> The Floopies, the best creatiures in the Universe at their 
specialized
J"P>  task of shouting "Floop-floop-a-doop!"
J"P> The Zzzzzz, the most boring creatures in our galaxy
J"P> The Aaaaaaaa, who believe in being first in all things, and who
J"P>  often fool people into thinking someone's fallen out a window
J"P> The Schwa, who shrug a lot
J"P> The Fnord, which are completely generic, more so that humans

J"P> 	Gee, I couldn't top the silly names.

Oh I dunno, I got a yuk or two out of them.. :-)))

Cheers
Adam

--- Xenolink 1.0 Z.3, EmacsXL.3
 * Origin: * Frontal Lobe * feeling philosophical? New Plymouth, NZ (3:771/410)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson)
Subject: Re: Help
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:31:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.093102.9305@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>
>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.  

Without going into some detail, my jumping in can only point in a
direction that amounts to suggesting that while Blackmore is a good
researcher in most respects, her real forte is in writing good prose
explaining fringe topics.  The explanations are not necessarily correct,
but are, I think, honest efforts to come up with at least workable and
sometimes testable hyopotheses.  With regard to the psi research she
did, from which she concluded there was "no psi there", a cursory
examination shows that all the studies were small, hence subject to
so-called Beta error, namely the conclusion that no effect exists when
there is a real effect.  This happens at a predictable rate in
experiments that have insufficient statistical power, and in the psi
business, because the putative effects are by any standard very small,
the majority of experiments are too weak to reliably detect effects.  
There are, of course other possible explanations for Blackmore's failure 
to find evidence, including the one she has chosen, namely, no psi.  
She might agree, however, that her own research was not an adequate
basis for drawing that conclusion.

Roger
From: lundstrj@CS.ColoState.EDU (jeffery lundstrom)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Voice Recognition Theory
Date: 19 Nov 92 02:08:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: yuma.Nov19.020821.69051
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department


	Does anyone out there have any information on Computer Voice
  recognition Theory?  I have a friend that is writing a paper on it and she
  needs some info!  Please let me know if you can help!!!

  Thanks in advance!!!
  Jeff Lundstrom

............................................................................
:::::::    Jeff Lundstrom - lundstrj@mozart.cs.colostate.edu     :::::::::::
::::::: =======================================================  :::::::::::
............................................................................
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: Re: Bleak news from the academic job market
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:48:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.002534.5154@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> andersmh@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (ANDERSON  MIKE HOWARD) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.222750.25504@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>>
>>I think that you are wrong on two accounts:
>>
>>(1) I would hate to see univeristies being engaged in "social engineering".
>>    They do exist to educate and do research. If they can get the work
>>    done cheaply, why should they pay more ? Resources are limited,
>>    and the burden will be on the tax-payer. Why should the tax-payer
>>    spend his/her hard earned money to pay more for the same work ?
>>
>What do mean by social engineering?  It sounds like what you are
>saying is that since the university CAN exploit graduate students
>then they SHOULD.

Some people are willing for various reasons to go for a PhD. Assume
they know that the job market today is not good. They say that
nevertheless they are willing to do it. Nobody forces them. It is their
risk. Do you call that exploitation ? 

>The changes I propose would not increase the tax
>burden because I think the amount of basic science done could be
>reduced somewhat.  A lot of garbage work is done just to get
>puplications.	The down side to the present system is that we
>are dumping people out a the age of 30 that have worked very
>hard to a single end and then their chances of a career are
>dashed by the very system that produced them.

If we take today fresh PhDs and give them permanent positions. Do
you think that it is going to reduce the garbage ? Perhaps it is going
to produce even more.

>Instead, we should hire say 3 graduate students for every 10 that
>we do now, and create 3 permanent postions to replace the 7 grad
>students.

If the amount of work done by 3 permanent is less than the
work done by 7 grads, the tax-payer or the tuition paying student
is getting less for his money.

>
>Agreed.  But we all know damn well that the universities are playing
>on the naivety of prospective students to get them in.  While they should
>be informed, I don't think it will make a big difference.
>
>If we're not willing to limit the supply of PHDs then we are not willing
>to solve the problem of employment opportunity.

Who is going to decide how much is enough ? I suggest that the current job
situation should be explained to prospective students. If they decide
they want to go for it, its is their decision and responsibility, like
many other decisions one makes in life.

>Mike

Dov
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers