HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Evolution and abortion: a polite refutation.
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.
Keywords: I don't believe it.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 06:59:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.061034.11541@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> arsmith@nyx.cs.du
edu (Alan Smith) writes:
>In article <9716@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> rt@ukc.ac.uk (R.W.Thearle) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug25.105555.12152@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lione

>Tun) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug24.134138@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel 

>Ashlock) writes:
>>>>   [paraphrased] where did your apartheid/evolutionist argument come 

>om?
>>
>>>I thought it was common knowledge. But also the characters in the book
>>>`Indecent Exposure' by Tom Sharpe (sp?) believe in segregation of the
>>>races, and actively enforce it by police effort, driven by evolutionis

>>>philosophies.
>>
>>Just for the record, they [also?] believe:
>>	- electric therapy can make you homosexual (and cure you);
>>	- transplanted organs confer some of the qualities of the original
>>		owner;
>>	- transvestism is OK if you're upper-class;
>>	- communist activists are rampant in small towns in South Africa;
>>	- shooting house-servants is not murder;
>>	- terrorists feed peanut-butter flavoured explosives to ostriches;
>>	- re-enacting the zulu massacres helps schizophrenics;
>>	- rubrics are "adult toys";
>>	- bank managers and mayors are suspicious characters and should be
>>		arrested, locked up and "interrogated";
>>	- "Black Beauty" should be banned as it is a racist book.
>>
>Whoa.  Hang on, I gotta capture this one.  "Transvestism is okay if you'
e
>in the upper class." <hysterical laughter>
>
>Big Al.  I didn't think people could get that *stupid*
>
Hey Dipshit, those are *fictional characters*  can't you tell the
differnece?

Big Al.  How can some people be so *stupid*?
>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics,alt.folklore.science
From: s082@nonne.ii.uib.no (Ketil Malde)
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Reply-To: s082@brems.ii.uib.no
Organization: student of computer science at the University of Bergen, Norway
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:25:46

In article <16u7u4INNpbi@agate.berkeley.edu> shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff) writes:

   From: shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff)
   Date: 19 Aug 1992 19:37:40 GMT

   There are serious health risks in eating microwaved jelly donuts.

Not to mention the health risks in eating microwaved CDs, golf balls,
light bulbs (halogen or otherwise)....

--

     Ketil Malde,                In real life: ketil@ii.uib.no  
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 19:38:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.145820.15124@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.163943@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>  If I am discussing the Sylow theorems with a friend and he says "what about
>>your car" and I respond "my car has nothing to do with the Sylow theorems"
would
>>you accuse me of trying to disprove the existence of my car?  You are
confusing
>>necessity and existance.
> 
> Perhaps, but if God is not relevant to the question of the origin of
> the world and the life thereon, where is God relevant?

  Well, I would say to how your life is to be led.  "He is not the God of the
dead, but God of the living.  Therefore you greatly err." (Mark 12:27)

  Why does God only apply in the past?  And only to the study of lifes origins?

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: lopresti@henson.cc.wwu.edu (lopresti robert)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: skeptic's jokes
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:49:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Aug31.194955.12863
Organization: Western Washington University


bringing up skeptic jokes reminds me of a comment by the Amazing
Randi when he performed at a Bouchercon many years ago.

Someone flips a coin 500 times.  It comes up heads 500 times in a row.
The flipper then offers to bet you on how it will come down on the
next flip.

The gambler says "I'll bet tails, because tails is due to come up."

The mathematician says: "I won't bet, because heads and tails are
equally likely to come up on this or any flip."

The magician says: "I'll bet heads, cause there's something funny about
that coin."
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: RL
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 13:09:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.231041.3803@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <19920902.130129.507@almaden.ibm.com>, ameline@vnet.ibm.com (Ian Ameline) writes:
>>   The other method (which I've seen in action) is to tell them that
>>you're already a member of the largest growing religion on the face of
>>planet -- that's right, you're Catholic. And why, you might ask, is
>
[...]
>My usual technique is to say to the JW, "Get out of here and leave me alone or,
>by God, I'll see how far I can throw you."  The JW invariably responds with,
>"You shouldn't take the Lord's name in vain."  Having just been told by the JW
>that I should keep my oath, I do so.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

A middle-aged woman an a teenage girl rang the bell the other day, and
the tell-tale comicbooks were in clear view as I opened the door.  Inspired
by recent browsing in sci.skeptic, I went straight for the jugular, ignoring
the older woman's intro as if she were not even talking.  To the young girl
I said, "How old are you? 16?  You shouldn't be wasting a beautiful day
like this.  You should be out doin' stuff with your boyfriend.  
Tell these crazy people you want the rest of the day off.
Don't let these people scare you with all this bullshit,
they're just in it for the money.  They have no idea what they're
talking about..."  but by then I would have had to shout to be heard as
the older woman hustled the younger down the road to the next house.  The
girl kept looking back -- I gave her one Rodney Dangerfield "OK," 
one thumbs up, and, at the last glance, one of those balled-fist-to-sky 
sports victory things.  She must have laughed because the witch shook her
hard by the arm. 

I don't think the old prune liked me much -- might have been her mother.

-- 
jft
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Stooping down  (was: The difference ...)
Date: 26 Aug 92 08:38:13 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Aug25.174915.8553@Princeton.EDU> ydobyns@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (York H. Dobyns) writes:
>In article <5158@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>
>>stooping down to your adversary's level means that you implicitly admit
>>that s/he is right.
>
>How interesting. I suppose that using armed violence against the Nazis
>in WWII was an implicit admission that Nazism is right?
>

Sigh. I knew that would come up. 
The context was "debate", "argumentation" etc.  "Right" refers to
yielding to an argument. 
In case your opponent starts using physical force, it's not a debate
anymore.  This is actually Ashlock's defense: his opponents are not
"debating" anymore, they are engaged in political action by all means
available, including conscious barefaced lies.
Re Nazism. The answer to nazism (an ideology) is argument. The answer
to violence is force, but not necessarily so (think of Gandhi).
Nazi ideology was in part a glorification of violence.  Even so, the
troops were sent in after they actually committed violence.  The troops
were not supposed to be part of the proof that nazism isn't right.

JWN
From: EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person
Date: 30 Aug 92 02:58:00 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

"information," unproven, with no substance, passed off as "facts?"  Interesting
 notion, but hardly a novel one.  Another fascinating aspect of this "museum"
 is its tendency to present things as clean-cut good or evil. I once read a
book by some priest explaining why people should believe in Creationism. (I
can't remember the book's name).  Throughout his explanation, this priest used
many "scientific" "facts."  Actually, his facts were not at all facts.  I don't
know where he got his information, but much of it was FALSE.

<TACHYON>
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Gods ... Juvenile Crap !
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:23:40 -0500

Gods ... ask a five-year-old to give a synopis of theology and you will
come to realize just how juvenile and absurd the whole idea is. Watch
that five-year-old play with his/her plastic army men or dolls and
see how arbitrary omnipotence evolves. The rules are the same as
our currently worshiped 'gods' have followed. 

Dump religion. It is a throwback to the ages of stupidity. 

Gods are a product of man ... not the other way around. The
sooner we abandon this ridiculous point of view, the sooner we
can learn to take responsibility for our own actions. 

-- Jim Mason
-- Freedom is Risk
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Why binary logic?
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:16:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <31AUG199209224286@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes...
>In article <1992Aug31.144441.9547@lonex.rl.af.mil>, jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims) writes...
>>In article <27AUG199210063281@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>>It's been done, books and articles have been written on it.  Jan
>>>Lukasiewicz was the first to construct a three-valued logic, I
>>>believe (true, false, indeterminate).  Now there's also fuzzy
>>>logic, which has an infinite number of truth values (real numbers
>>>from 0 to 1).
>> 
>>An infinity of integer values is the same.  Logic base googleplex? 8^)
>>Of course, this can always be reduced to binary, and we're right back
>>where we started. 8^(. 
> 
>The same what?  The cardinality of the natural numbers is not the same
>as the cardinality of the reals (between any two real numbers is another
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>real).  The number of values there are is distinct from the base they're
 ^^^^^
>expressed in.

Several people (including jft) have emailed me to let me know that while
my statement about the cardinality of the natural numbers versus that of
the reals is correct, the parenthetical remark I made is *not* the
reason why.  (The counterexample everybody has given is that between
any two rational numbers is another rational number, but the cardinality
of the rational numbers is the same as the cardinality of the natural
numbers.)
   Please disregard the above underlined parenthetical remark.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution and abortion: a polite refutation.
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:43:23 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <schumach.714788827@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>
#>I thought it was common knowledge. But also the characters in the book
#>`Indecent Exposure' by Tom Sharpe (sp?) believe in segregation of the
#>races, and actively enforce it by police effort, driven by evolutionist
#>philosophies.
#
#Sigh. I guess we should not be surprised at this late date that Lionel
#would accept statements made within a work of fiction as hard evidence.
#Tell me, sir, do you often have trouble distinguishing between characters
#in a book and living people?

To which I might add that the inability to understand fiction is
a general characteristic of fundamentalist religious types. It's
probably inherent to their creed, which after all starts with taking
their holy books too litteral (like thinking mankind consists of three
races, descended from Noah's three sons).  What happens when these 
fundamentalist types get power can be seen in Iran, where 
the nightmares that the main character had after losing his faith
(all in a novel) were taken to be identical to the author Salman
Rushdie's own viewpoints, whereupon a contract was put on him. 
Christian fundamentalism is to be feared more, because the Christian
holy books contain many more Officially Sanctioned Massacres than the
Q'uran.

Summarizing: fundamentalist analphabetism is a menace to mankind.

JWN
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 03:34:21 GMT

In article <schumach.714786240@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
{The logic of man deleted}

>I toss the question back at you: given the tons of evidence that the Earth
>is old, what would evidence of a recnt origin look like? A little notice
>attached to the Earth somewhere, "Copyright (C) 4004 BC by Yahweh. All rights
>reserved"?

Open your bible to the first page and read!

It says right there that God created the heaven and earth. To state
otherwise is to claim that God lied. The bible tells us that cursing
the holy spirit is an unforgiveable sin!


-- 
  |                     In God We Trust                            |
--+--                                                            --+--
  |                                                                |
  |                                                                |
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Date: 29 Aug 92 18:02:10 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


In article <schumach.715109153@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>Wouldn't it be fun for a group of skeptics and other science-
>literate folks to picket this? Go with a familiarity with the 

I dunno.  People with their mind set "need" enemies to rail against.
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art."
        Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:49:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.194458.7777@asl.dl.nec.com>, duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>My point is that the origin of life is not directly observable
>and therefore dogmatic statements about origin are out of line
>on either side of the issue.

Dogmatic statements are always out of line, about every subject, and we all
know that.

>P.S. If you follow the original thread you'll see that videotape
>was given as an example of good evidence in a burglary case. Hence the
>satirical videotape comments. 

Ah, that was satire!  (I mistook it for ignorance.  Well, it's probably ignorant
satire.)

I set Followup-To: talk.origins.

-- 
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Science is like democracy - it's not perfect, but it's the best thing available.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15861 talk.origins:10795
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:05:56 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)

In article <1992Sep3.155246.17752@city.cs>, lionel@cs (Lionel Tun) writes:
>This is another illustration of the _assumptions_ that evolutionists
>start from, that of uniformity. What if at some point within the
>last 6,000 years human language suddenly and inexplicably exploded
>from one to hundreds instantaneously?

What if pigs had wings?  The evidence discounts the above completely,
so we don't really care.

>Do these linguistic reconstructions discount the confusion of 
>languages at the Tower of Babel?

You got it.  That's why we include linguistics in the large class of
modern sciences that would have to be rewritten if anyone ever came up
with an ounce of credible evidence against evolution.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15503 alt.culture.usenet:746
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Derek Tops Dan!
Date: 31 Aug 92 01:30:48 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Aug28.112005@IASTATE.EDU> btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.023116.6935@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>,
>dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug25.101956@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
>Ashlock) writes:
>> >In article <1992Aug25.065402.19240@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>,
>> >dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>> >> In article <1992Aug23.101121@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
>> >Ashlock) writes:
>> >>>   When a person expresses an implausible view,
>> >>>   contradicting my knowledge base,
>> >>>   and can only defend that view by verbal obfuscation or repitition,
>> >>>   which are themselves an act of colossal rudeness,
>> >>>   why should I be polite?
>> >>
>> >> Dan, the simple reason is that politeness is part of civilization's
>> >> unwritten code of behaviour.
>> >

[deletions]

>> >> (As their status would be offended by such immaturity).
>
>       I've gone golfing with quite a few people I consider of high calibre --
>scientists and the like.  I don't notice their reaction significantly different
>when they slice one off into the woods.

Sure. And when they hit their big thumb with a nail, they reactr like any
other human. However, scientific debate is different. When Dan
degenerates it into a "name calling" session it ceases to be scientific
debate.

>       Personally, I respect someone who will say what they feel.  Dan always
>begins correspondence politely, and gives the other person the benefit of the
>doubt.  It is only when the use of reason has obviously failed does he support
>to use of strong language.

Failed, in *his* opinion. And anyone's use of reason is not perfect.

>Admittedly, this will seldom succeed in convincing
>someone else where reason has failed.

Exactly. Dan did you get that?

>On the other hand, on the net where
>silence is often misinterpreted as agreement or submission, ('by your refusal
>to answer these claims ...', or 'the silent majority ... ') voluable disagree-
>ment is often necessary.
>

Sure. But when did voluable==denegerate language???
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15887 alt.culture.usenet:780
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Dan Tops Himself -- Netiquette & Politeness (Was: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...))
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:22:04 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Sep3.174513.4528@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.025332.16509@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>Hmmmm, justifying your actions because "someone else does it." That's fallacious
>>argument #1193, your arguments are degenerating with your language.
>
>If there's a claim, implicit or otherwise, that nobody else does it, it's not
>fallacious at all to point out that someone does.

True.  But that don't make it *right*.  If I went and wiped out six million 
jews and then said "But Hitler did it!" they'd still throw me away.

Big Al.  Why the hell we're arguing about what's right here I'll never figure 
out.  In three months on the net I've seen one apology and that was on alt.sex
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15181 talk.origins:10205
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker))
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Jim's Logic and the Origin of Feces.
Date: 23 Aug 92 01:45:29 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug19.104637.3527@hemlock.cray.com>, robd@cherry09 (Robert
Derrick) wrote:
> He has become indistinguishable from Lionel Tun.  They are
> both victims of an evolutionary arms race right here on
> T.O.  They are prey, and their survival tactic has become
> the elimination of content from their words.  They fail
> to see that Lamarkian behaviour will not save them, for
> their previous characteristics are still extent, as a
> permanent subtext to everything they produce.  They 
> cannot escape their past except by facing it head on,
> and as Jim discovered, that is impossible.  He promised
> "The Theory" before he realized that he could not
> possibly succeed.  That is a bitter pill, and so he is
> now trying to become the voice of God.  He is still
> mired and sinking inevitably.

For a long time I have searched for a solid scientific
theory based on creation by a metaphysical being. If 
the creationists had such a tool as a weapon against evolution,
we would have a far better objective discussion forum. However,
so far creationists have been unable to present such a theory,
and in many cases sadly they have turned to falsification/editing of
scientists' statments in books. And don't forget the infamous
human footprints side-by-side dinosaur prints.

It is a simple case, if evolution is *false*, give us a better
scientific *theory* and stop nagging. In our world a theory
is considered valid until is it superseded by a better one. If
you want to introduce creationism as the valid scientific explanation
to the myriad of life forms on Earth, you have to use your brain
and guts and produce a theory, instead of relying on ancient
mythologies. You will never be accepted, and for instance bet
creationism reintroduced to school use, unless you follow the rules
of the world.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"Read my lips... No Willie Horton..."
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins