HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:19:30 GMT

In article <zlsiida.80@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>, zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes
in part:
|> 
|> >  !!!!
|> 
|> >  Tsk, tsk.  You mean mensa is not a reliable source of info?  You
|> >surprise me greatly! :-)
|> 
|> If you were a member you wouldn't be surprised......or maybe you are and 
|> that's why the smiley......you should see some of the stuff that goes on at 
|> the UK AGM

The smiley was because I have heard many reliable reports of the goofiness
of mensans.  Naturally, my bad attitude could have nothing at all to do
with the fact the the local org. wouldn't even TALK to me, let alone
invite me to join. That shows how smart they are, grumble, grumble,
who do they think they are anyway, grumble, grumble, who wants to belong
to their stupid club anyway, grumble, grumble. :-) :-)

(By coincidence, I was seduced by CSICOP a few months later--I guess 
Kurtz et al. got me on the rebound.  And I didn't even have to pass 
an IQ test!)

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14641 sci.physics:13064
From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:41:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: vice.10191
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.


In article <1992Aug19.134953.1500@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> p257shu@fs1.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Susanne Huettemeister) writes:

>Recently the German NewAge journal raum&zeit (space&time) carried a
>long 'scientific' study that supposedly proved that microwave-cooked
>food will unconditionally lead to cancer in anyone eating it. The proof: 
>luminescent bacteria swimming in milk from a microwave oven 'shine'
>longer, and other arguments of that level. 

Well, I haven't read this article and my German is a bit weak so I
doubt I could make sense of it even if I had a copy.  However from
what you've described this sounds like one of those papers such
magazines love to publish to "prove" what the editors already
believe.  It's a long way from how long luminescent bacteria shine
to cancer.  Furthermore there are few if any agents known which
*unconditionally* lead to cancer in anyone, biological variance is
just too great.  Your description matches the type of advocacy
journalism which takes some exeriment (often marginally designed and
only loosly related to the point at hand) and then reaches a desired
conclusion via some dubious mental gymnastics.  Typically the
article is then hyped, increasing magazine sales and revenues
regardless of the scientific value of the "study."

Did this article reference any scientific journals?  A referred
publication would be much more reliable.

>                                        But still, this paper has
>been taken serious even by usually skeptical people, because at first
>glance it looks sound.

I would be careful judging something like this based on "skeptical
people" taking it seriously.  In the first place, the people who are
qualified to comment on it need more than skepticism, they need
expertise in the field.  Then, who classifies them as skeptical?
Sometimes the proponents of an idea rather stretch the term in order
to sell their theory.  And of course, some people are skeptical of
some ideas and not others.  In fact, if a person were skeptical of
microwave ovens this would likely predispose him to accept such a
"study."

Of course if microwave food is so bad I might as well go ahead and
eat it.  I've already eaten some so I'm sure to get cancer anyway. 
:-)
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic  NOT!
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:23:23 GMT
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <88434@rphroy.ph.gmr.com>, hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50) writes in part:
|> ASA purposely takes no stand on evolution:
|> 
|> "As an organization, the ASA does not take a position when there is an honest 
|> disagreement between Christians on an issue. We are committed to providing 
|> an open forum where controversies can be discussed without fear
|> of unjust condemnation. Legitimate differences of opinion among Christians who 
|> have studied both the Bible and science are freely expressed within
|> the Affiliation in a context of Christian love and concern for truth."
|>  -from the ASA membership application package
|> 
|> In other words, don't try to deal with controversial issues by squelching
|> debate.
|> 
|> Bill Hamilton

Except for the slight technicality that you have to be a "Chirstian" to
qualify for the "open forum", everyone else is ruled out.  That does 
rather squelch an awful lot of debate.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Date: 13 Aug 92 04:30:38 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Aug13.034525.26523@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>>Now that the Shroud has been shown to be 14th Cen., it now becomes a
>>>remarkable 14th centuary image instead of a remarkable 33 AD image.
>>>Are there any reasonable theories as to how the 14th C artist pulled
>>>off the image reversal???
>>Why do you ask?  Do you think there are none?
>To get a thread going :-)
>But seriously, because I'm still waiting to find a reasonable theory.
>There's got to be one out there!

Would you mind clarifying?

This could mean that you haven't looked at the subject much at all, and you
haven't seen most of the theories.  Or it could mean you _have_ seen most of
the theories but think they have mistakes.  So which theories have you already
seen?
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Inconsistency in the bible
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:13:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.051516.26741@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott) writes:
}m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}: Ah.  A historical document much like the Illiad or "Why the elephant has a
}: trunk"?  I understand that.  Perhaps a better word would by "hysterical"?
}
}I don't know if you have a particular axe to grind, but my original post
}actually pointed out that these contradictions/doublets are known, and
}quite happily explained by orthodox biblical scholars. 

I've read your reference.  Perhaps you are confused:  explaining why the sky
is blue does not make it change colors.  Nor does addressing the authorship
eliminate the errors.


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,talk.politics.guns
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Subject: Re: Killing bers with handguns (Was: Re: A random thought)
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH
Distribution: usa
Date: 13 Aug 92 09:24:06


viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>I'd say the animal has a pretty good chance of killing the hunter in both 
>of these actions, and isn't that what makes it a sport?

IMO, no.  By your example, then, none of the track and field events are sport.
It's about time to let this thread die, but I stand by my initial post.

Shooting a sleeping animal at close range is not, IMO, a sporitng thing
to do.
-- 
    Brice Dowaliby         |    I don't speak for them. 
From: Ken.Stuckas@iphase.UUCP (Ken Stuckas)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: origin of life articl
Date: 12 Aug 92  17:40:00 EST

-> >   Just to nit pick, but given a fair coin, the previous 1,000,000 >
->   tosses have absolutely no bearing on the next.  The odds of the >
-> next toss being tails are still 50-50.  I understand your point, >
-> but your analogy is flawed.

IMHO it depends on the question you ask in advance of flipping any coin.

Q#1: If I flip this coin, what are the odds that it will come up heads?
     (Obvious answer: 50/50)

Q#2: If I flip this coin, what are the odds that it will come up heads
      1,000,000 times in a row?

Once the coin has been flipped, you can't go back and ask the question in retrospect, because the question has no relevance.  Or does it?

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14436 alt.magick:3854 alt.pagan:7928
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.magick,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Book Review 'Persuasions of the Witch's Craft' (longish)
Date: 17 Aug 92 05:10:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug16.015808.16448@peponi.wcc.govt.nz> hobbs_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:

>         As for the SI interview, that sounds to me too much like the kind of
>intellectual arrogance that the author warns against. The reviewer sounds like
>a conversionary skeptic, a type I dislike almost as much as conversionary
>atheists...

I am rather perturbed by the concept that one must have all the answers to 
absolutley everything in order to be properly skeptical. This is absurd. Why is
it that in order to ****doubt**** claims that one can turn lead to gold, one
must be an absolute master of alchemy, chemistry, and physics? There is nothing
at all wrong with being skeptical. Why everyone seems to think that it is 
neccesary to have ALL the answers to all questions to doubt far fetched claims 
is beyond me.

I absolutely reject the apparent link between doubter, skeptic, and debunker.
If there is a shred of truth to any claim, it will be provable.

There is a difference between intellectual arrogance, and proof of extrordinary
claims. That someone doubts it does -not- make it true.

I expect to leave reality behind in alt.aliens.visitors, but not in 
sci.skeptic.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


 
>just the dry thoughts of a warped mind in the windy season.
>anthony (the bard)
>--
>Anthony Hobbs             the Bard                hobbs_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz    
>OverPope, First Holy and Unreformed Church of Frozen Yoghurt - romantic poet - 
>synth player extraordinaire - kate bush is goddess - hail Eris - praise "Bob"!
>DISCLAIMER: I am not Romanian and was not head of the Securitate for 15 years.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14289 talk.origins:9479
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Rant! Rave! (was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark))
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:24:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: hilbert.1992Aug13.152432.20000
Distribution: na
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon

In article <c15403hR59Gn00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>>Methinks that you need a short history of the Balkans.  Take a look at what
>>happened between the Croatians and the Serbs in WWII.  Both as noted:
>>"followers of Christ."  Please do me one favor.  Don't try to beg off with one
>>of those "if they kill, they cannot be followers of Christ" answers.
>
>I assume by "followers of Christ" you meant followers of Christ Jesus.
>It appears you and I define "followers of Jesus" differently. It also 
>appears this thread has continued too long. Later.
>
>>GXKambic
>
>-- 
>Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
>{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks

Once again, Jim flees headlong from the slightest appearance of logic. Jim, 
when you call someone a Muslim, do you first check and make sure they
have all of the virtues that the Koran extolls?

No?

Then you are a hypocrite.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Rant! Rave! (was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark))
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 23:12:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <32wr03GG5ex300@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>
>>A Christian cannot hide behind scripture when addressing another human being.
>
>This Christian doesn't "hide" behind anything as far as the general
>usage of word is used. In the sense you're using, I'll "hide" behind
>the grace of God and admit to that anyday.

I have no clue what this means, in any sense.
 
>>Paul wrote "All scripture ... is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
>>correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the MAN OF GOD may be
>>perfect..." [2 Timothy 3:16,17]  Note the phrase MAN OF GOD in this passage...
>>this is not a list of the uses of scripture when dealing the unconverted.
>
>How does the non-Christian become Christian if not through Scripture?

Constant brainwashing? Especially effective on the young. Keep in
mind that the use of brainnwashing techniques has no direct bearing
upon the truth/falsity of whatever is being brainwashed. But honest
folk usually have no need for this kind of stuff.
 
[...]
>
>Unfortunately, Scripture is often "the *last* refuge" sought by most
>when it should have been the first. Do you have a problem with the
>author?

You mean author(s). The bible was written by man (in this case, the
sex is correct, to the best of my knowledge). And one of the reasons why
their works were chosen for inclusion in the bible was a paticular bias.

Although I do see your parallel. 
 
>Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
>{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: CFD: New newsgroup sci.siano.vs.schaeffer.battle.to.the.death
Date: 19 Aug 92 03:34:28 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. @ NU

In article <KENTD.92Aug17152727@zappa.FtCollins.NCR.com> 
kentd@FtCollins.NCR.com (Kent Dalton) writes:
[...]
>Any opponent who lets
>a thread die in less than a 3 month period shall be forced to sit naked
>in a hot tub with Don_-_Showen and have his DNA regenerated.

I don't give a shit about the flame-battle...but this part had me rolling
on the floor!  Great post.

	RA
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:29:27 GMT

> Jim Loucks Writes...

>Who says he *did* confuse us, I'm sure not confused. Maybe it's the
>interpretation of the data that's confusing you?


Conflicting information is handled by "proper interpretation" of the data?

Where the method of "interpretation" is to assume that the
data has been altered by God, and therefore false??

Words to live by...
  "If I don't like it, it must be an illusion!"

Vern Nelson

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Book Review 'Persuasions of the Witch's Craft' (longish)
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 18:42:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.155726.22878@engage.pko.dec.com>, stanley@verga.enet.dec.com (My name is...) writes in part:
|> 
|> You trying to convert us now, Robert?  Alt.alien.visitors getting too slow?
|> 
No to the first question, yes to the second!
From: Mischa_Sandberg@mindlink.bc.ca (Mischa Sandberg)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mensas farce?
Date: 18 Aug 92 02:17:57 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>The elitism of Mensa is a big farce, anyway. They don't have the intelligence
>to work out that the concept of IQ is completely flawed and meaningless.
>Mensa is the most useless, aimless, tacky, idiotic  organisation in the world.

Au contraire, my friend. Mensans are the first to laugh at the "meaningfulness"
of the IQ tests. To say nothing of posing the musical question,
"If I'm smart, why ain't I rich ?"

Useless? As another poster mentioned (Robert Schaeffer), we have great
parties, and the conversation tends to cover more ground than the latest
sports scores.

Aimless? Well, aside from the above, right? Yes, it is *explicitly* aimless.
Dr. Lance Ware, one of the founders, went to length to ensure as much.
Put it this way: how would you feel about a bunch of supposedly extra-
bright people who excluded 98% of the population by definition ---
with SOME PURPOSE? I'd feel my glands of paranoia start to kick in, if
they did have some purpose.

Tacky? Opinion. Idiotic? Set an objective definition of idiotic, and I'd
argue it with you any day. Oh, did I mention? Mensans never pass up a
good argument, provided there's an element of futility to it.

Else why would I bother responding to you, right? :-)

--
Mischa Sandberg ... Mischa_Sandberg@mindlink.bc.ca
                 or uunet!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!Mischa_Sandberg
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Engineers think equations are an approximation of reality.
Physicists think reality is an approximation of the equations.
Mathematicians never make the connection.
From: brian@audiofax.com (Brian Troxell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:22:43 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: AudioFAX, Inc., Atlanta, GA

In article <1992Aug17.144159.12775@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.092452.27338@cco.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>]The IQ isn't meaning less, but MENSA is.  That is, the IQ has some merit
>]for some abilities, but MENSA exists only for self-flattery and egotism.
>
>Hmm... when I was a member, I found very little of that going on. It was
>a social club, and a way to find those of similar intellectual
>interests (not easy otherwise in a place like Phoenix, AZ).
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Did someone say "self-flattery and egotism?"

Way to prove the point of the previous post, Keith.






	

-- 
|~~\ rian        2000 Powers Fy Rd. |  "In all systems of theology the devil
|--< _____       Suite 200          | 	  figures as '_Mr._ Tro*.' 
|__/   |         Marietta, Ga 30067 |  -Mutlu, talking about me. 
       | roxell  (404)933-7600      |   No, I don't understand it, either. 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics,alt.folklore.science
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:13:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.015046.12425@cs.mun.ca> paulk@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Paul E. King) writes:
>p257shu@fs1.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Susanne Huettemeister) writes:
>
>>Recently the German NewAge journal raum&zeit (space&time) carried a
>>long 'scientific' study that supposedly proved that microwave-cooked
>>food will unconditionally lead to cancer in anyone eating it. The proof: 
>>luminescent bacteria swimming in milk from a microwave oven 'shine'
>>longer, and other arguments of that level. But still, this paper has
>>been taken serious even by usually skeptical people, because at first
>>glance it looks sound. Anyway, could someone lead us to serious reviews
>>of the health risks (or even benefits) inherent in microwaved food?
>>Since the technology has been on the market for a while and extremely
>>widespread these days, studies should abound. Thanks!
>
>
>I believe that theory has it that microwaves act on food by heating its
>water content. The wavelength of these waves are short enough that they
>are said to cause vibrations in the water molecules. This vibration

     Not exactly, to pick nits.  First the wavelength of your usual 
     2.45 GHz microwave is about 12 cm.  Second, the process is dielectric 
     heating which acts on a bunch of biological materials including water
     and can be understood classically as the action of an electromagnetic
     field on a polarizable medium.  

                                  dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.magick,alt.pagan
From: cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY)
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Organization: Glassboro State College, Glassboro, NJ
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:24:52 GMT

In article <59620@mimsy.umd.edu> biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes:

>I remember listening to a ... member of one of the investigatory 
>commisions on the Shroud ... It was his opinion that the shroud had to 
>have been made with an actual crucified body

[stuff deleted from above]

>If he and the dating are right, it was produced by one very 
>scholarly, very sadistic person in the 14th century, and should be
>an object of horror, not veneration.


i recall hearing in my medieval history class that there was a middle ages 
painter or sculptor, who recieved permission from the pope to crucify, or 
have crucified, several prisioners so that he could observe how the body 
changed during the various stages of death ... for the purpose of course of 
being better able to paint jesus' own crucifixion....

kc
From: jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.f.baugher)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Summary: Feynman and MENSA
Date: 19 Aug 92 01:37:06 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois

In article <qt9mysa.sheaffer@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> In article <1992Aug17.002420.5887@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> >>
> >>
> >The elitism of Mensa is a big farce, anyway. They don't have the intelligence
> >to work out that the concept of IQ is completely flawed and meaningless.
> >
> >Mensa is the most useless, aimless, tacky, idiotic  organisation in the world.
> 
>   Yes, but they sure have some neat parties sometimes!
> 
> -- 
>   
>         Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

Speaking of MENSA, I am reminded of the late Richard Feynman.  In  one
of  his  interviews,  Dr.  Feynman  mentioned that he thought it was a
silly thing to belong to an organization whose  main  purpose  was  to
determine who  was  worthy of being granted membership in it.  Feynman
mentioned two examples that he had encountered, one  being  his  high-
school  honor  society  and  the  other  being the National Academy of
Sciences. Feynman resigned from the NAS for this very reason.

Is MENSA like Feynman's high school  honor  society?   Does  MENSA  do
anything  besides  pass  judgment  on  who can belong to it?  What are
their meetings like?  I have never applied  for  membership,  since  I
probably wouldn't qualify.

Dr. Feynman was of course an unconventional  person.   He  even  toyed
with the idea of turning down the Nobel Prize.  He feared that a Nobel
would draw too much attention to himself, getting in the  way  of  his
work.  However, he concluded that he would draw even MORE attention to
himself if he turned it down, so he reluctantly agreed to  accept  the
Nobel.


Joe Baugher			**************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories		*  "You see, something's going to    *
2000 North Naperville Road	*   happen.  Something wonderful!"   *
P. O. Box 3033			**************************************
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033		
(708) 713 4548				
ihlpl!jfb                   Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!	
jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic