HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: KOSHER? In a Pig's Eye!
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:35:53 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)

In article <roelle.717686439@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>The host I were strangers until that morning.  I hadn't the slightest
>notion he kept Kosher.  As someone pointed out this is a situation of
>culture clash.  [...]

I don't think we should be criticizing your behavior under the circum-
stances.  It's your unfriendly response to what you've correctly iden-
tified as partly a cultural clash that I find bothersome.  You got into
a somewhat silly situation, and have been lashing out a bit two much
over it.  Rightly or wrongly, you blew it, no big deal.

Perhaps somebody should write a Miss Manners Guide for dealing with the
oddballs of America.  What do you do after asking for coffee, and you
then discover that your host is a Mormon?  I sure don't know.

>The china service was foam cups.  Surely this made for easier clean up
>-- especially if trayf'd.

Again.  It is not for you to tell your host how *he* keeps kosher in his
house.  All sorts of problems can come up, the knowledge is not trivial
or obvious, and even with Orthodoxy, there are subtle variants.

>                The following question remains to be answered: "Is
>there a secular basis for the practice of keeping Kosher?"  That is,
>what reasons are there other than "Because the Torah tells me so"?

Who cares?  Why does any of this need a reason?

Anyway, to name just a few of the obvious: maybe because your mother
would plotz if you didn't?  Maybe because your mother would plotz if
you did?  Maybe because it's "Jewish"?

The psychology of religion, and Judaism in particular, is extremely
varied, and there are no simple answers.  None are needed beyond what
the individual needs to convince himself.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: echyatt@eos.ncsu.edu (EDWARD CRAIG HYATT)
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:44:49 GMT

In article <1a0jrsINNqp7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ak104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert Clark) writes:
>
>
>the picture which stated that only during the vernal or autumnal equinox
>may a fresh egg be balanced on its end, when I started wondering
>							-Bob
>
>
>P.S.
>     
>     A true skeptic never stops wondering and questioning.

(Above edited)

This may or may not be relevant to the post, but I have seen the "balancing
egg" in a joke or magic book.  You set the egg down hard enough to dent the
end slightly so that the egg can stand on its own.  The "victim" is
then given an egg and told to balance it...
-- 
--------------------
Craig Hyatt
NCSU@Raleigh, NC USA
echyatt@eos.ncsu.edu
--------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics.
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Xerox
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:00:18 GMT

In article <1anatpINN8tj@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
|> In article <BvLI5u.Brx@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>, fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:
|> 
|> >While the preceeding arguement is somewhat extreme, I feel that it does
|> >illustrate the problem with extreme scepticism.
|> 
|> No, it illustrates the fact that you religious types can't see outside your own
|> paradigm of revealed truth, written in stone, forever and ever, amen.
|> 

The pot calling the kettle black?

|> 
|> >Science has never claimed to have all the answers. It merely models
|> >what we observe. It holds no proof of some objective truth. Science
|> >is simply a useful tool for making certain predictions. There is
|> >not one part of physics that explains what anything *is*. There
|> >is no accessible fundamental(any physical fundamental can inturn 
|> >describled in terms of some other fundamental, it doesn't end, 
|> >except in certain axioms. Nowhere is there to be found, *truth*.)
|> 
|> Never claimed there was.  Your religious attitude is showing again.

Whose religious attitude?

|> 
|> >I believe that there is no accessible objective truth. Thus, there can
|> >be no absolute certainty as to how things behave. Physics works, but it
|> >isn't all there is.
|> 
|> Evidence, please?  We're supposed to believe this just because YOU believe it? 
|> Why shouldn't it work the other way around?  Why shouldn't YOU believe
|> something because I believe it?

You just supported his argument.

Your responses are far more religious than Mark Fernee's. It's just what you choose
to call religion. You do have a VERY strong FAITH in your beliefs. In fact, more so
than any other poster in this group. It would not surprise me when you get out of
your academic dream world and face reality that you will wind up becoming a Pentecostal
minister. Drive On! Oh, and lighten up. Feel free to flame away!

|> 
|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> *Identified Flying Objects
|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> 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.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Erik Radmall                    | Xerox Corp.
eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com    | Knowledge-Based Systems Competency Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Clinton and Creationism
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:31:49 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1992Oct2.023912.959@netcom.com> anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>
> Arkansas *had* a law requiring the teaching of Scientific Creationism in
> public schools, but it was struck down.
>
> My original question arose from a conversation I had with a friend. Neither
> of us knew the date the law was signed, so I mmade a fairly general query.
> I've since been informed that the was passed under a previous (Republican)
> administration in the state.

I seem faintly to recall a poster some time ago on talk.origins investigating
this issue, the conclusion being that the entire Arkansas equal-time fiasco
occurred during a one-year interlude in Clinton's governorship, and that no
pertinent quotes from Clinton appeared to exist to indicate what his opinion
on the whole thing was or is.

> At least one other state had a similar law, but I can't remember which
> one right now.

That'll be Louisiana.

As to the dates, for some reason 1981 (Arkansas?) and 1986 (Louisiana?)
seem to stick out above the horrendous levels of noise in my brain, but
please don't attach much credence to these: they could very well be wrong.

> Anson Kennedy                                           anson@netcom.com

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 5 Oct 92 11:18:33 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1anbnqINN8tj@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>=about a possible miscarriage of justice.  The story of the Gospels do
>=not support that. 
>
>No, I'm merely assuming that they don't want to have a botched arrest attempt.
>
>=They know him by sight, don't they?  Get some of those moneychangers to 
>=assist you.
>
>DO they know him by sight well enough to identify him at night, or were they
>simply relying on the fact that he seemed to be the center of attention
>wherever he went to aid them in following him?  Might as well take someone
>along whom you're SURE can identify him.

I think that Carl and I have a difference of opinion.  My thesis is that
we only have the Gospel's word for it that Judas earned his fee (not enough
to retire on, but still a substantial amount) for identifying.  I doubt that.
Carl adduces *confirmatory* evidence: namely this would increase 
certainty for the authorities.  Now we all are familiar with the fact that
*any* statement no matter how bizarre can be supported by selected facts;
if need be, a suitable metaphysic is chosen.
Carl's position is unassailable: even if the whole arresting party would
have known Jesus by sight, then Judas would provide additional security.
In a sense Carl is acting as if it is *certain* that Judas did the 
identification and as if this *fact* can be explained somehow or other.
Now I'm willing to believe that this is the Sunday school approach, but
once you doubt the certainty the arguments seem less convincing.

My position consists of pointing out disconfirming evidence: 
(1) there were enough people knowing Jesus, at least this is what the
Gospels suggest (2) Why should the authorities
rely on a single man who is supposed to be a trustee of the man to be
arrested (3) They can't have been very concerned about making false 
arrests; they could have arrested everybody present, and later at ease
find out their target (4) There's an other explanation for Judas'
behavior, namely that he wanted to be there when his master revealed
his power (If you doubt more about the Gospels, ther are other 
explanations as well).

I think I've said all I can think of, and Carl too.  Let's call it
quits. Other people have enough to make up their mind.  Let's
avoid an SS-debate (= Siano-Sheaffer style).  The guy in Cape Town
is getting nervous already.

JWN
Jesus was very well known 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: Gerry Roston, I'm sorry.
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
	<5770@tuegate.tue.nl>,<LEET.92Oct2101243@dove.ims.com>
	<1al720INNk87@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:21:32 GMT

>>>>> On 3 Oct 1992 22:32:32 GMT, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) said:

Carl> In article <LEET.92Oct2101243@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>If (since) He is good, He would provide it (the meaning) for us,
>written down, and we could then look it up as needed.  This dovetails
>us nicely back into our other ongoing debate. :-)

Carl> Then why the hell did he have so many different versions, most of them
Carl> conflictind deeply with each other, written down?

Hell is only one reason for the differing versions - some authors like
Matthew were captivated by Jesus's images of Gehenna, some like John
had other captivating images to record for posterity.  (I can't bring
myself to add a smiley.)

Answering the "most of them conflicting deeply with each other" clause
will start up the call for "sci.skeptic.biblical" again, so I won't.

Matthew's Gospel has helped many Jews to accept Christ, whereas John
has been better for Gentile philosophers like me.  Luke answers the
careful historian/skeptic, while Mark is for those in a hurry.

--
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;
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  and that believing ye might have life
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  through his name." - John 20:31
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |                                         THUMP!
From: fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics.
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:25:01 GMT
Organization: Physics Dept. The University of Queensland

AAAAAAAAAAArrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!


I think I spelt skeptic wrong.

Shit!

Mark.
From: obrien@netcom.com (Robert O'Brien)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Edward Cayce [sic]   tee hee hee!!
Summary: a 900-number psychic line TV ad
Date: 4 Oct 92 21:21:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

Excuse me if this is the wrong group (and let me know the right one)

But I just had to mention what a laugh I get each and every time I leave
the television on late enough at night to hear the pretty actress obviously
reading a prepared bit about how famous psychics correctly predicted the future.

Edward Cayce  indeed.  I may not spell it correctly myself, but I'd
bet even odds the script said "Edward Casey"

Just in case they *read* usenet, I'm not going to mention the correct name;-)

	Bob

I'm not limiting this to North America, so a quick note to mention for our
overseas friends that may not know: 900- numbers are pay-per-call where
the caller is billed whatever the folks who set up the number choose, and
they can raise tremendous $$$ just by having a few delays in answering and
playing recordings.  Often these charge as much as $10.00 per minute and
even more.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientific facts
Date: 29 Sep 1992 08:20:20 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep26.042421.3276@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>I'll give you my informal and unofficial definition of fever.  (No, I do
>not have any medical qualifications).

Nor, apparently, any background in physics.

>A fever is when the oral temperature registers 99.5 or above within 20
>seconds of inserting the thermometer in the mouth.  The rapidity with
>which the thermometer reaches the temperature is probably more important
>than the temperature itself.  There are doubtless exceptions to this
>test too.  [Now why can't the manufacturers of digital thermometers
>design them to test how rapidly the thermometer reaches equilibrium?]

Now, please take a physics course that teaches you what the heat equation is,
then report back to us on why your paragraph above is pure nonsense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Meteorites & l'academie
Date: 4 Oct 1992 03:43:24 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <718012061.2@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORG>, Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) writes:
>Hardly a month passes in which I don't hear some fatuous assertion that
>the French Academy's dismissal of meteorite reports shows that
>scientists are pig-headed, closed-minded, etc., usually proceeding
>audaciously to the conclusion that x self-contradictory and/or
>unsupported claim made by the speaker therefore has merit.
>
>As long as I'm going to have to hear this old chestnut ad infinitum,
>I though it might be nice to find out how much of the story is true, and
>how much is New Age folklore.  Have any historical studies been done of
>this incident, that I might conceivably look up?   It seemed prudent to
>ask _before_ exercising my rusty French.

Would this in any way be related to Thomas Jefferson's (I think) dismissal of
meteorites (don't remember the exact words, but the gist of it was that it was
easier to believe that two northern professors would lie than that rocks could
fall out of the sky)?  If so, you might be able to find a starting point that
doesn't require you exercise your rusty French.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: tides, doctors, sun, and moon
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:44:09 GMT

Nothing funnier than a skeptic hoist by his own petard, eh?
I plead guilty as charged -- thanks to Scott Chase and everyone
else who set me straight.  I must have misremembered the statistic --
it must have dealt with the gravitational gradient, not gravity
itself.  Had I been careful enough to check the gravitational
attractions myself, I'd have seen the error.  Mea culpa!

Jeff Shallit
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics.
Date: 6 Oct 92 10:08:14 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <BvLpDp.427@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:

>I think I spelt skeptic wrong.

Actually no.  "skeptic" is the US spelling, "sceptic" the
UK/Commonwealth one.

Paul.




-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: An exercise in brain-d
Date: 24 Sep 92 00:38:39 GMT

Reply-To: Rick_Moen@blyth.com

In article <LEET.92Sep18080414@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
wrote as follows:

> Mostly because every creationist who has done so has generated enough
> flames to incinerate Brazil, and has then been blamed for it.  It is
> clear by the tone of your message that this subject cannot be
> discussed rationally even with those who are the most qualified to
> discuss it.  I, myself, am not a creationist - as popularly defined in
> *this* newsgroup - although I share some of their characteristics (and
> I'm sure you'll be completely fair in ascribing some to me).
>
> I am almost prepared to unsubscribe from this newsgroup, because it is
> becoming obvious that it is simply a platform for the promulgation of
> ideology, and not a forum for actual skeptical investigation.

Lee, I think your complaints are justified, but Chris to his credit
admits he just jumped to conclusions, and I hope you will consider
staying.  You asked some perfectly reasonable questions, and I was sorry
to see you flamed in response -- AND (at first) not answered.  Write it
off to experience, and satisfy yourself that the difference in tone and
attitude has been noticed.

I recall, about a year ago, getting flamed in person by a CSICOP Fellow,
no less, for simply asking him a question.  I asked:  "Why, when CSICOP
is $400,000 in debt and facing a $12 million lawsuit, is it adding to
its new $500,000 replacement headquarters with a $1.5 million second
building?"  _I_ didn't get an answer, either.

Cheers,
Rick M. (not purporting to speak for anyone but himself)

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientific facts
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:50:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: newshost.1992Sep29.215032.27552
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1992Sep26.042421.3276@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
|> [...]
|> A fever is when the oral temperature registers 99.5 or above within 20
|> seconds of inserting the thermometer in the mouth.  The rapidity with
|> which the thermometer reaches the temperature is probably more important
|> than the temperature itself.  [...]

As far as I can tell, most medical thermometers are accompanied by
instructions to shake then down to about 94 or below before using.
Further, they are stored at room temperature (they're in the medicine
cabinet or the doctor's bag or the nurse's breast pocket or somewhere).  
As a result, it's usually more than a minute before the thermometer's
indication even begins to *move*.

-- 
J. Giles
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:31:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct01.191609.20719@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:
>>>
>>>Hmm.  No well-defined properties.  Just a bunch of metaphysical hogwash.
>>>Not a very useful definition, I'm afraid.
>>
>>TRANSLATION:  Well you gave me a definition, but I really don't know what
>>to do with it.  Yeah!, I'll attack the definition, that's what I'll do!
>
>More like, what you said has *nothing* to do with science.  Pretty useless
>as a basis for scientific inquiry.  Might do pretty well with 2000 year old
>myth cycles, though.  Try giving a scientifically useful definition, so 
>it can be properly looked into, if that is indeed your intent.

No, that was not my intent.  Please reread the chain...

>
>>>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>>
>>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
>
>David Pipes
>robear@digex.com


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: KOSHER? In a Pig's Eye!
Date: 29 Sep 1992 06:14:55 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <roelle.717686439@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>The host I were strangers until that morning.  I hadn't the slightest
>notion he kept Kosher.  As someone pointed out this is a situation of
>culture clash.  Where I grew up in the plains (both parents raised on
>farms), kitchens were social places.  When people got together, adult
>guests would often pitch in to help in the kitchen, assisting the
>hostess.  My intention in walking off to his kitchen holding a cup in
>my hand was to save him the trouble.  As to particular house "rules"
>there was no indication.

Yet another example of your appalling ignorance of other customs.  Given what
you've told us, I'm pretty certain that there was, indeed an indication:  It's
called a mezuzah, and you would've seen it attached to the doorpost of the
home, had you had the slightest shred of understanding of a culture not your
own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.