HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:11:44 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

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
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14285 talk.origins:9477
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:37:31 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>In article <84Tl03xo571300@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim
>Loucks) writes:
>> czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
>> >None of which answers the questions the original poster raised.
>> 
>> None of which deserves an answer other than the one it received.

>   So what you're saying is that you cannot answer the question, "why is God
>trying to decieve us?" except by praying that the person will stop asking the
>question?  Jim, by ducking this question so completely you impeach the
>reasonablness of your views.  

We're not communicating, again. My posting was a reply to someone 
calling God an "asshole" for "dicking with the information." My remark
about praying for those who believe such may have been unnecessary, 
but in no way was it a plea to stop asking questions, but rather to
realize that God, in my opinion, has not intentionally deceived us.
Does that clarification help?

>   Lets check it out again.  The world looks really old to most people that
>study ways of figuring out how old the earth is.  The ones that don't see the
>earth as old have leaders that are foresworn to their God to lie, cheat,
>equivocate or whatever it takes to put their view across[1].  Clearly the
>world looks old when not viewed through the blinders of fanaticism.

Once again, we must be carefully consider all evidence and weigh the
worldview and bias of everyone.

>   Now Jim tells us that the world is _really_ only 6-10k years old.  We ask
>him why God chose to decieve us and he says "I'll pray for you".  Dis-gusting
>intellectual dis-honesty.  Clean it up or leave, Jim.  The earth _is_ old and 
>God almost certianly isn't a liar.

I don't believe I've ever made such a statement. As previously stated,
it is my belief that life on earth is fairly young, the earth may or
may not be old. It is also my belief that God could have easily created
with the appearance of age, though most definitely not to deceive. If
God created a 100 foot tree, would it not have the appearance of age?
If such a tree were created, I have no problems with God also creating
tree rings if he so desired. Nobody asked me why God chose to deceive
us, but rather why an asshole dicked with the information. That was
the context of my reply.

I hope this helps clear up any miscommunication.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: mensa farce
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 23:18:49 GMT

In article <6682@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feu
rbacher) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.055305.4617@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbot
@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>
>|Whilst on the subject of mensa, can anybody explain exactly what
>|sigma xi, tau beta pi, pi mu epsilon etc etc are?
>
>Tau beta pi is a national electrical engineering society.


They're all frats.  Or somethin simlar.  Prob'ly not "live in" frats, and
I'll bet they do accept girls, but still...

Big Al.  You know, My dad once told me this story about Thigma Pi Thigma...
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.philosopy.misc
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Humanist Manifesto
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:53:32 GMT

Does anybody have a copy of the Humanist Manifesto (I or II) that they
could e-mail me?  I've got access to printed copies, but not to a
scanner.

Thanks.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Is my fallout shelter
Rosemount Inc.                                |termite proof?
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Inconsistency in the bible
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:21:35 GMT

In article <86220@netnews.upenn.edu> jmv@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Jean-Marc Vezien) writes:
}In article <1992Aug14.160558.2618@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}> In article <1992Aug14.090144.9132@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott) writes:
}> }The bible is an historical document, regardless of the existence/non-
}> }existence of God.
}> 
}> Then why are there things mentioned for which there is evidence that it did
}> NOT occur as stated?  Wouldn't that case doubt on the things for which there
}> is no historical evidence one way or another?  Maybe it is so and maybe it 
}> isn't.
}
}James, I think what he meant was that as long as the bible
}was written by someone (lots of writers probably) in the past,
}it is an historical document. As for the relevance of its content,
}I would use it in a profane way, as clues to find out when each
}part was written for example, but surely not as historical evidences
}per se.

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"?


Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14427 alt.magick:3850 alt.pagan:7915
From: mimir@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Billings)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.magick,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Book Review 'Persuasions of the Witch's Craft' (longish)
Date: 17 Aug 92 00:51:44 GMT
Organization: The Friends of Loki Society

In article <5a5kPB3w164w@ailanth.UUCP> ailsa%ailanth.uucp@wang.com (Ailsa N.T. Murphy) writes:
>
>from what i hear, she came clean to the group she was working with and they
>didn't mind.  also, i hear it is a pretty good ethnography.  personally, i am
>glad to have anthropologists studying us.  means we must be real, eh?  B)

 I would love to study us for my Masters and I know people who are doing
so at a few other universities. They are also having to fight tooth and
nail to do so and keep even a modicum of respect from their advisors,
professors, and peers. They aren't taken too seriously and they advised me
that it really wasn't worth the trouble.

Wassail,
Grendel

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Al Billings - Anthropology Undergrad - Admin for the Troth-l Mailing List | 
| SysOp of The Sacred Grove BBS (206)634-1980 -=- mimir@u.washington.edu    |
------------------------------ Cut Here -------------------------------------
begin 644 GRENDEL.PUB
MF58``1%^*@Q":6QL:6YG<RP@06S^`2N`$7JAHA^YG*D:W0:>,_,\N<XL-]7BN
LV+1/'DT4SH3V2$'*(9NAE_,+VB9R.4=@$9R.J1?CL3H!9@HR8+7DD3@%`!$%E
``
end
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: SKH4161@MVS.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:30:00 GMT

In article <=7!n#8-.payner@netcom.com>,
payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.195306.26252@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>It is good to know that those who have problems adjusting to life because
>>they are highly intelligent should have no place to get together to talk
>>things over.  Thank you for that insight.
>
>And you assume that all intelligent people have difficulty "adjusting to
>life", and that this is MENSA's purpose. I really do not thing that either
>your assumption or conclusion are correct.

That's an unsophisticated interpretation.  If someone says, "I crashed
because I was driving too fast", he doesn't mean to imply that driving
fast will always cause a crash.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14235 alt.paranormal:2103
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: WANTED: Research Info on Uri Geller
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:47:47 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:
> long discussion of how they attempted to independently replicate
> some of P & T's findings, and what they found.  This is very important
> because M & K found the original reports were very incomplete.  I
> mentions this as a caution when you read the original sources.
> 
> (Randi's book is not for the squeamish, he's not at all subtle
> or pretty.)
        Etcetera. I'd also recommend Martin gardner's "Science: Good, Bad and 
Bogus" for some very trenchant essays regarding the heyday of P and T. The 
Marks and Kammann book "The psychology of the Psychic" is also highly 
recommended.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"What? They have BIGGER DICKS?! _BOMB THEM!!!!_"
                        Our Leaders, paraphrased by George Carlin
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Jim sez: who ya gonna trust, me or your senses?
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:00:57 GMT

In article <39EA03P761SV00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim
Loucks) writes:
                                [deletions]
>Maybe we shouldn't be messin' around where we're messin' around. I 
>believe the Bible to be a revelation of God, not just "religion." 
>The Bible states that God will frustrate the intelligence of the
>intelligent, and just maybe this origins debate is one of the 
>frustrations. I think we can all admit that man can be extremely
>proud, and wouldn't intellectual pride be an extremely easy trap
>to fall into? Maybe God never intended for us to try to figure out
>how old the earth is, or how he created life. But man with all his 
>pride must know, and for this pride, God frustrates those minds. 

   Jim, I will refrain from swearing and profanity BUT do you realize what you
just said?  You just said that any attempt to use reason to deduce things about
the world is an act of hubris and that we should just all accept the Bible
instead.  From this I deduce that you think God gave us brains IN ORDER TO AID
THE DEVIL IN DAMNING OURSELVES?!?

   Don't you EVER think through the logical implications of what you're saying?

   Don't you EVER perform reality checks on your philosophy?

Also, you've managed to imply that the work of many of my friends and
colleagues as well as my father are acts of self-destructive pride rather than
good hard scientific work.  This claim is made without any understanding of the
work's content, motivation, or application and benifits.  Your arrogance,
adopted to defend an indefensable position, beggars belief.

   Jim, if the best you can do is dismiss the evidence as proof of overweening
pride, you cause is lost.  You can only convince those that already agree with
you and you may annoy those with any brains or even a sense of fair play. When
I say the world looks old, that's not my pride speaking, its my education.

   Now produce some evidence or logic argument  or shut up.  Unproven
assertions, repeated hundereds of times, are not proper on sci.skeptic and
WE'VE HEARD THEM BEFORE.  You are being BORING and UNORIGINAL.  As Sue notes,
you are refusing to explain WHY the earth looks old, except to echo the cop out
"Dare we question God?".  We're not questioning God, we're trying to understand
his putative handiwork and YOU'RE NOT HELPING.

    Also, where the heck is the Creation Theory FAQ (tm)?  Are you going to be
creationist #307 to turn out to have lied when he said there was such a theory
and that he'd post it some time?  If so it is a lie rooted in your foolish trust
of dishonest people rather than any actual malice.  Doesn't the fact that there
is no theory of creation tell you something?

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jongj@nijmeg.ingr.com (jorrit de jong)
Subject: Re: Energy fields and the like
Organization: Intergraph Nijmegen
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:11:45 GMT

I happen to know several people, who are capable to see aura's. 
It is a matter to be open and to have the awareness that aura's exist. 
It is very simple to see them. If you start with asking a person to stand
with a dark background and to look a little bit above the head, you will
start to see a kind of thin white mist around the whole body. This is called
the ethric of the human (Animals only have an ethric, no aura).
In a later stage, it is possible to easely feel an aura with your hands.

Elm me when you have more questions 

Jorrit de Jong
j_jong@nijmeg.ingr.com

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski)
Subject: Re: Crop Circles (a different twist)
Keywords: Foolhardy experimenters take note...
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 16:57:33 GMT

In <1992Aug21.190743.27929@clipper.ingr.com> kontos@clipper.ingr.com (Thorne Kontos) writes:
>     However, we are considering the extremely remote possibility
>that crop circles could be caused by a natural phenomenon, and based
>on the frequency at which crop circles appear, the following gives the
>details on a new experiment to prove our theory. The most obvious
>choice of natural phenomenon is of course lightning. Recent Nasa

>     Our proposal is to repeat Nasa's experiment in the middle of a
>wheatfield during a rainstorm. The crops should be thoroughly soaked,
>with groundwater in between the rows. Since I doubt this has been tried,
>I figure someone with a slightly larger research budget than ours
>could carry this out in their spare time. Our research does show that 
>when lightning strikes water, it does tend to distribute itself in a
>circular pattern (Based solely on where the dead fish pop up; someone

 >voltages/currents. So help us in our quest to prove that crop circles could
>be a natural phenomenon. And believe us when we say, we are as skeptical as
>you.

I agree with your quest, but lightning is hardly the "obvious choice".

I have been called out to examine a field after a lightning strike, and
the affected patch didn't look anything like the infamous crop circles.
Sites of lightning strikes are generally easy to identify; there is a
central area where the explosive heating has made a hole in the ground,
slightly charred, and there are a number of radial spokes where the
charge dissipated (or, technically, initiated) through the soil, bored
in and out of the ground.

The circular swirling cannot be created this way, and the circles would
hardly be perfectly uniform and delinated.

Nice try, though.
 
-- 
Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada
From: brian@audiofax.com (Brian Troxell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:19:44 GMT
Organization: AudioFAX, Inc., Atlanta, GA

In article <39EA03P761SV00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:

[fascinating weaseling deleted]

Hey, Jim! Can I have your permission to use your last post next time I
want to weasel my way out of an argument I've lost?

Or maybe I'm not supposed to know whether or not I can use it.

Damn, this pride has my intellect confused.

-- 
|~~\ 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,talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:25:39 GMT


Jim Loucks writes:
>We're not communicating, again. My posting was a reply to someone
>calling God an "asshole" for "dicking with the information." My remark
>about praying for those who believe such may have been unnecessary,
>but in no way was it a plea to stop asking questions, but rather to
>realize that God, in my opinion, has not intentionally deceived us.
>Does that clarification help?

Note that he also cannot have "unintentionally" deceived us, as God
is subject to more stringent standards of excellence.  If God
does not make mistakes, one cannot claim that he is fallible to
excuse the effects of his actions, and if he is all-knowing, is fully
aware of the subtle effects and implications of his actions.
Therefore, if something he does results in deceptions, they must be
intentional, as there is no such thing as "unintentional" with
regards to the doings of a being who is both omnicient and omnipotent.

>It is also my belief that God could have easily created
>with the appearance of age, though most definitely not to deceive.

If the results of his actions result in a deception, then God is
either deceptive, not-omnicient, or not-omnipotent.

You can even claim that God is withholding his omnipotence in order
to provide "free will" for us and other beings such as Satan, but
if he does so with omnicience, he is culpable, still.

In fact, even if he is only partially omnicient, or omnicient only
relative to the human race, he is culpable.  If you give a loaded
gun to a 5 year old and he kills someone with it, you don't need
to be completely omnicient for it to be your fault.  God must accept
responsibility for his actions, if he expects us to accept
responsibility for ours.  It is clear however, that Christianity
teaches Jesus will accept the responsibility for your actions.
So who is accepting responsibility for God's?  Apparently, *you* are,
by purporting to speak for him.

And we have an interesting problem of relativity if you make the claim
that the definition of "Good" is whatever God does and/or wants, and
is not independently definable.  Imagine then, the existance of a universe
where God is a senselessly cruel tyrant.  By the definition of "Good",
it doesn't matter what horrible senseless acts he might perform, how
carelessly he might treat his people, it must be "Good" because that is
how it is defined.  And we're nothing but at his mercy.

I'm afraid I'm not ready to relinquish my personal sense of self respect and
responsibility to such an unknown quantity as a God who refuses to make
clear what his interests are.  Especially based on a book which effectively
claims that knowledge is the root of all evil, ignoring the fact that it
is also the root of all good, and where without knowledge (the root of
self-awareness) we are truly no more than animals.


Keith

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:31:55 GMT

bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.121048@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>  I have to agree with Dan, you a presenting God as a liar, purposefully doing
>>His best to trick people into believing something false.  I don't know about
>>you, but that isn't the God I worship.
>
>Ah, so you're saying He unintentionally tricks us despite His omniscience
>and omnipotence.

Did Warren say that?  I don't think so.  That is the logical content of
Jim's postings, which is what Warren, Dan, myself, and others have been
harping on him about.

>God the Incompetent.
>
>At least that explains the platypus.
>
>Personally, I see a _lot_ of hubris in this discussion.  It's call
>"the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy."

Depends on who you're attributing it to.

>Bear Giles
>bear@fsl.noaa.gov


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14409 alt.magick:3837 alt.pagan:7883
From: mimir@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Billings)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.magick,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Book Review 'Persuasions of the Witch's Craft' (longish)
Date: 16 Aug 92 03:41:09 GMT
Organization: The Friends of Loki Society

In article <1992Aug15.184056.23584@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
> The book is also careful about protecting
>the privacy of individuals and aspects of the practices which were
>given in confidence.

 I don't know about anyone else, but I identified at least a half dozen of
the people, even with the fake names. I have books by the ones I
identified for the most part, like the Swedish (I believe) lady who was
Wiccan and started doing Nordic workings and gradually shifted emphasis. I
have her book within a few feet of me and I knew who she was as soon as
she was described. The same with a number of others.

Wassail,
Al Billings aka Grendel

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Al Billings - Anthropology Undergrad - Admin for the Troth-l Mailing List | 
| SysOp of The Sacred Grove BBS (206)634-1980 -=- mimir@u.washington.edu    |
------------------------------ Cut Here -------------------------------------
begin 644 GRENDEL.PUB
MF58``1%^*@Q":6QL:6YG<RP@06S^`2N`$7JAHA^YG*D:W0:>,_,\N<XL-]7BN
LV+1/'DT4SH3V2$'*(9NAE_,+VB9R.4=@$9R.J1?CL3H!9@HR8+7DD3@%`!$%E
``
end
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic