HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: Successful Zap of President Bush During Sunday's Debate
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:08:32 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington) writes:

> This is to indicate that there was a successful deployment of the
> IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV effect against George Bush during last
> Sunday's debate.  Tonight I'll use it against Dan Quayle.  
> Stay tuned for Thursday's and Sunday's deployment.  
>  
> For the skeptics (yawn...don't they have any friends in the know?)
> Count the Thursday blinks on CBS.  Count the Friday blinks.  Compare.
>  
        Big deal. I've managed, through MY use of Psychic Power, to keep both 
George Bush and Ronald Reagan in such a state of discombobulation that 
they've managed to RUIN this country's economy over the last decade! 
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

        MY powers are far GREATER than your puny BLINKS! I can wreck whole 
ECONOMIES! I can destroy whole SLEWS of Savings and Loans! And with sheer 
MENTAL POWER, I have been able to wreck the HOPES, DREAMS and ASPIRATIONS of 
an entire UNDERCLASS!!!

        So you can knock off this diddly-squat "I can make them Blink!" 
stuff. Compared to some of us powerful psychics, you're just dicking off.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
Servo: "Dianetics, by L. Ron Hubbard."
Joel:  "Why is my life messed up? Page 74."
Servo: "When will this movie end? Page 155."
Crow:  "How much money can we get out of Tom Cruise? Page 85."
                                       "Mystery Science Theater 3000,"
                                       during a volcano scene in
                                       "Hercules and the Moon Men."
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Clinton and Creationism
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:45:21 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Oct09.184814.13854@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:
|    This was actually very good for the West, since the young Theodosius
|Dobzhansky proceeded to pack up his theories and a few thousand fruit flies
|and come to the US.  His research was among the best of this century in the
|field of genetics.

Indeed.  You can hardly read any works on genetics without coming across
this name.

And just think, all of those freshman bio experiments with fruit flies were
*first* done by Dobzhansky and his students.  The brilliance of his work
is in its very simplicity.

|    I believe that Lysenko was heavily influenced by the theories of 
|Lamarck, with regards to the effects of environment of evolution.  Lamarck
|believed that changes caused by environmental effects could lead to changes
|in the genotype of the animal - would that be phylogeny recapitulating
|ontogeny? :-)  (not really, I know...)

It's called 'inheritance of acquired characteristics' and was "common
knowledge" in Lamarck's day.  Of course, in the 1910's, when some people
'rediscovered' Lamarck that had long since been forgotten and inheritance
of acquired characteristics *appeared* to be a big innovation.
[Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it].
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: rodb@slugo.corp.sgi.com (Rod Beckwith)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Face on Mars An Other Time
Keywords: Richard owes me $100.00
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:26:10 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

Rod Beckwith [writes]

>I wonder how many bets were taken that Chris (CRAZYMAN) Colombus would
sail
>off the end of the Earth? 

>Here is another clever person with a wonderful example human intellect.
This
>is a quote from a 1865 Boston Post editorial:

>"WELL INFORMED PEOPLE KNOW IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TRANSMIT THE VOICE OVER
>WIRES AND THAT, WERE IT POSSIBLE TO DO SO, THE THING WOULD BE OF NO
>PRACTICAL VALUE."

>Anything is possible......the jury is still out on this one folks.

>Rod

Richard Shumacher [writes]

>You wanna bet?

Rod Beckwith [writes]

>How much are you willing to lose?

Richard Shumacher [writes]

>>$100. How about the same bet I made with Joshua Geller?

>>  If we agree on the basis of Mars Observer data that
  
>>  (1) the 'face' is artificial, I'll pay you $100.
  
>>  (2) the 'face' is natural, you pay me one dollar.
  
>>  If we do not agree on the interpretation of Observer data, 
>>  the bet is off.
  
>>  In any case, the bet expires on 1 January 2001, so that we
>>  don't have to keep track of each other forever.
  
>>  We must both agree on the interpretation of Observer data
>>  to conclude the bet. We will not appeal to any third party.
  
>>  The bet will be in force when you agree to all these
>>  conditions and post your acceptance to sci.skeptic.
  

>>Whattya say? I have $100 worth of confidence in my conclusion.
>>Do you have $1 worth in yours?
>>Richard

Richard,

I accept your offer. I agree with all conditions to this bet. I hope you
don't make this bet with too many people.....It could get quite expensive
for you. 

I truly hope the Mars observer does not meet the same fate as the Russian
probes. All information this probe records will be important for a future
manned mission. 


Rod

-- 
Rod Beckwith     |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 
Datacom I/S      |"The great obstacle of progress is not ignorance,
rodb@corp.sgi.com|but the illusion of knowledge."
                 |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


			
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.sources
From: jeh@raster.kodak.com (Ed Hanway)
Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics and Astronomy
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company, Digital Systems Center
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 18:06:26 GMT

CAPS lock key worn out FROM OVERUSE?  Are your EARTH-shattering theories TOO
important for LOWER CASE?  Well, help is on the way.  The following filter
will give YOUR TEXT THE EMPHASIS it deserves.

/* Usage:					*/
/* lex cap.l					*/
/* cc -ocap lex.yy.c -ll			*/
/* cap < mundane_text > very_IMPORTANT_text 	*/
%%
[a-zA-Z]+	{ 
			if(!((rand() >> 5) % 3)) {
				char *s;
				for(s = yytext; *s; s++) {
					*s = islower(*s) ? toupper(*s) : *s;
				}
			}
			ECHO;
		}
		ECHO;
%%

--
Ed Hanway --- jeh@raster.kodak.com
This message is packed as full as practicable by modern automated equipment.
Contents may settle during shipment.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: Gerry Roston, I'm sorry.
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
	<1b2765INNbq3@gap.caltech.edu> <5892@tuegate.tue.nl>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:44:00 GMT


>>>>> On 9 Oct 92 10:03:11 GMT, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) said:

Jan> In article <1b2765INNbq3@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>
>Jan never said he sees life as meaningless.  He simply said he doesn't need no
>steenking "holy book" to tell him where to find that meaning.  I understand

Jan> Carl, I appreciate your support, but this phraseology is yours
Jan> (at least not mine,... I think).

I think so, too.

Jan> I must admit that I came rather close to stating life is
Jan> "meaningless", namely in the sense that I don't believe that
Jan> there is any grand pattern or coherence in "life".

And the problem here is that this is a universal statement - if you
really believe that, Jan, then you must somehow believe it about my
life also.  When I pressed you on it, you suddenly made a case that
meaning was individual (an existential statement - in the sense of
formal logic, not philosophy), and I cannot reconcile the two
different statements.

Jan> [vivid imagery deleted] For me they have "meaning", but that's
Jan> what I have put there myself.  I think this is a different
Jan> "meaning" from The Meaning of Life and The Universe that other
Jan> people talk about.

It would be different if you could conclusively prove that you had put
the meaning there solely yourself, but this is a skeptical newsgroup ...

>that you've abnegated all responsibility for that sort of thing in you own

Jan> May I change that to "that you've constructed your
Jan> responsibilities as based on the Bible"?

>life, having chosen to accept what's said in one so-called "holy book" chosen,
>apparently, in ignorance of the existence of many competing holy books.  That
>doesn't mean that all of us are as pathetic as you.

Jan> Well, well, may I change that to: "all of us share your concepts
Jan> of meaning."?

Thanks for trying to soften these up, Jan, but this newsgroup's
attitude (rather, the attitude of the most frequent participants)
toward Christianity (particularly the evangelical and fundamentalist
varieties) is well-known.  Other posters in just *this* thread would
like to equate "born again" with "lobotomized", and would like me to
flame back at them so they could prove their point.  Rather than
generate more of that sort of flame-baiting, I'm dropping this thread.
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "But foolish and unlearned questions avoid,
Integrated Measurement Systems |  knowing that they do gender strifes."
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  - 2 Timothy 2:23
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |                                         THUMP!
From: hjort@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Can quantum terminology be flakeproofed?
Date: 12 Oct 92 01:23:47 EDT

In article <1b9fngINNfon@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, aa387@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jim Kutz) writes:
> One  reads all  kinds of  horse manure  these days  from magazine
> writers  about how  a quantum  event doesn't  really exist  until
> observed by  a *conscious* entity.  They invariably cite  quantum
> physics as an 'authority' on this. Then they go off on some flaky
> 'mind over  matter' tangent about  how supposedly one  can choose
> which  reality  to  recognize,or  even  just  shut  your eyes and
> 'refuse  delivery'  on  whichever  aspects  of  reality you don't
> happen  to like,  supposedly forcing  reality to  conform to your
> expectations.
>
> [very good discussion deleted to save space]
>  
>           - Jim Kutz (aa387@cleveland.freenet.edu)
>  
> --
>  
> A Fair Witness is one who, if asked:
> "Is that house over there white?",
> answers: "Well it's white on this side."

This was a wonderful discussion. However I think a much simpler explanation
that will convince people much more quickly is to examine the method of
"observation" directly. For example, you wish to set up a photon detector
to detect photons. How can this be accomplished? You must have the
photon interact with something else, as you cant detect a particle that
doesnt interact with it's suroundings. It is this interaction that
collapses the wave function. (the photon can't react with a detector if
the photon is in the far slit :) Now it is easy to point out that what
we normally call an observation is by definition an interaction. And then
to simply observe that an interaction can collapse the wave function,
and observation is a form of interaction, should quickly dispell the
idea that a sentient observer is responsible for the wave collapse.

But then again, never underestimate the power of human stupidity :)

                 				-Hans H Hjort

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington)
Subject: IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV and the Upcoming Presidential Debates
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy, New York's Computer Consulate. +1.718.729.5018
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:26:20 GMT

Yup, this is a reminder that I'll be illuminating the broadcasting
cameras during the debates.  
 
Just thought you'd like to be kept in the light...
 
Still zappin' Dan on Thursdays nights on CBS Evening News.
 
Oh, also, got a chance to zap local news shows in my old hometown -
New Orleans - last week.  
 
Jeff
idealord@dorsai.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: UFOs and BOM.. BOOM!
Keywords: ufo
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:32:23 GMT

In article <gdavis.719083919@griffin>, gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis) writes in part:
|> 
|> He too eagerly dismisses individual accounts where there is no physical
|> evidence as fraud or likely fraud.
|> For example the Hill alleged abduction is eagerly dismissed as likely
|> the fantasy of Betty Hill inflencing her husband.
I'm not sure whether Menzel had really solid reason for dismissing
the Hill story, but clinical psychologists certainly did--the story
is quite typical of fantasies.  And, of course, upon investigation, 
it is clear that the story was and is a fantasy.

|> The next book taken was of the entirely opposite spectrum.
|> It had little if any physical evidence and begged that the reader
|> believe. The book, Communion was a bit too psychological for
|> me to swallow and it would have been helpful if the abductee had
|> not been a writer. The victims profession prior to his alleged
|> abduction sheds doubt on his creditability.
|> He has ofcourse written a popular book to warn the world of the alien 
|> presence,not to mention doubtlessly make "mucho dinero" from the
|> movie rights.
|> On a scale of 1 to 10.. it got a 2 or 3 for credulity.
Communion is probably the "true story" of the author's psychological
fantasies and fears.  This is an excellent example of how some 
UFO beliefs are driven by mis-interpretations of unusual psychological 
experiences.  From that point of view, it is a valuable book.  As 
evidence of alien visitors, it is totally useless.  I give it a
9 of 10 as a psychological case, 1 of 10 as science fiction, and
for the damage it has done, -100 on the social responsibility scale.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Superstition vs Piety (Was: Faith Healing)
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:48:12 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1b4dinINNncc@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1432@tecsun1.etl.army.mil>, riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>>	Once again, our modern skeptic blindly refuses to accept
>>the ancient distinction between superstition and piety."Superstitious" was
>>always a term of disdain. It is only in recent times that "pious" also became
>>a term of scorn.
>
>You're wrong.  While I don't accept that ancient distinction, my refusal to
>accept is not blind.  The ancient distinction, as near as I can tell, is:
>	Pious describes someone who believes in one's own religion. 
>	Superstitious describes someone who believes in a different religion.

	Time for my standard "appeal to authority". The source of my
knowledge of this subject is Robin Lane Fox's "Pagans and Christians".
For twenty bucks, this book can be yours from the History Book Club, or
any decent bookstore in hardbound version. Fox, as I have noted before
on sci.skeptic, is a professing atheist who spends much time outlining
the intellectual distinctions in Greco-Roman culture among "piety",
"superstition", and "true religion".

	As a good historian, Fox refuses to make value judgements on the
belief systems of the ancients, instead distinguishing what they believed
from why they believed it, insofar as the historical record supports
speculation. 

	In those days, professing atheists were few in number, so there
were few people who classified all religious belief as "superstitious" in
accordance with Lydick's definitions. But as Robin Lane Fox points out
in "Pagans and Christians", there was in Roman times a hierarchy of belief 
(or more appropriately, non-belief), such that the beliefs of the lower 
classes were attributed to superstition. Because this state of affairs
continues to be the case today, such concepts are both relevant to the current
discussion and useful for intellectual debate.


	Bill R.

	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."
-- 
Bill R.
From: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Question of Humanity's First Language
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:31:17 GMT
Reply-To: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall)
Organization: Xerox

In article <1bcitoINNhim@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct12.123640.21156@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> >	Conclusions:
|> >
|> >	According to Punc-Eq, humanity had a relatively small
|> >ancestral population, which almost certainly had one language or at
|> >most a small group of closely related languages.
|> 
|> This doesn't follow.  What makes you think that that ancestral population
|> developed a language?  There remains the possibility that the population
|> increased and spread before the invention of language.

That is a practical impossiblity. Even relatively "unsophisticated" primates have
a verbal language. Considering that the brain capacity of homo sapiens exceeded that of
the current homo sapiens sapiens, the lack of an innate language facility would
have been so unlikely as to be preposterous.

|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Erik Radmall                    | Xerox Corp.
eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com    | Knowledge-Based Systems Competency Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17738 soc.motss:42494
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Jesus and the 'Naked Youth' (was: Focus on Crucifixion)
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:54:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Oct9.195405.22885
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct8.020043.20225@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>Robert> (Another significant deletion is that of Mark's youth who fled
>>Robert> naked in the garden, for reasons that might best be discussed
>>Robert> on "soc.motss".)
>
>Here's the referenced passage from the NIV Bible:
>
>MAR 14:51   A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following   
>            Jesus. When they seized him,
>MAR 14:52   he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.  
>
>Sure doesn't sound like any homosexual behaviour to me, but everyone can
>make up their own mind.

But WHY did they attempt to seize this youth? Surely they did not simply
seize everyone in sight, they came to arrest Jesus. According to John (12:?),
the chief priests wanted to arrest Jesus and Lazarus. NO attempt was made
to arrest any of Jesus' other disciples. Hence, the reasonable presumption
is that the "naked youth" was Lazarus.

Now, in the "Epistle of Clement" discovered after WWII by the late Prof. 
Morton Smith of Columbia University, the apparently 
'censored' passages of Mark bring the "raising of
Lazarus" story into Mark (otherwise, only in John). The problem is, it has
Jesus and Lazarus spending the night together in circumstances that are
suggestive of homosexual love, and Clement explicitly
denies such rumors in this epistle, indicating that they were
rather widespread at the time (3rd Cent AD). Smith notes that it has
often been argued from purely Johannine sources that "the disciple
Jesus loved" was Lazarus. So, the argument briefly stated (for the
longer version, see my "The Making of the Messiah") is that the 'youth
who fled naked in the garden' = 'Lazarus who Jesus spent the night with' 
 = 'the beloved disciple whose head rested on Jesus' bosom'. 

The fact that the 'naked youth' was one of the FEW Marcan passages
deleted in both Matthew AND Luke strengthens our suspicion that
Christian writers after Mark found this passage to be embarassing.
But as was said before, you make up your own mind.

-- 
  
        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:18009 alt.alien.visitors:7468 sci.astro:10833
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Menzel and UFOs
Keywords: ufo
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:36:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct15.174037.20201@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <Bw4y81.FvH@csn.org> jrblack@teal.csn.org (Roger Black) writes:
>>In article <gdavis.719083919@griffin> gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis) 
>>writes:
>>
>>>The first volume I selected was the 1977 publication by DoubleDay,
>>>"The UFO Enigma", Donald Menzel, Harvard Astronomer.
>
>I should point out that Menzel's co-author here was Dr. Ernest Taves, 
>a respected psychiatrist. It was suggested in an earlier post that Menzel
>should have gotten proper input from a mental health professional on
>the matter of the Hill case. Obviously, he did.
>
>
>>Menzel should be taken with a very large dose of salt.  A number of the
>>people who dealt with him in the early years of ufology (such as E.J.
>>Ruppelt, the head of Project Blue Book from 1951-53, and J. Allen
>>Hynek, the science adviser to Blue Book for many years) apparently
>>considered Menzel to be arrogant, devious, and dishonest.  Many of his
>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>"scientific" explanations of UFO sightings were so outlandish that even
>>people who were sympathetic to his conclusions were embarrassed by his
>>arguments.  People on both sides of the UFO controversy had a great
>>deal of difficulty understanding why such an intelligent and capable
>>scientist was so determined to make an ass of himself in public when it
>>came to UFOs.
>
>This is nothing short of slander against a respected astronomer, whose
>contributions to the science of astronomy far outweigh any those of any 
>pro-UFOlogist in the field. 

Read that again, he said... "and J. Allen Hynek, the science adviser to 
                                 --------------
Blue Book for many years) apparently considered Menzel to be arrogant, 
                          ----------------------------------
devious, and dishonest." Now you may say that "J. Allen Hynek" did not
say this, but if he did, then the statement is accurate, even if the part 
about Menzel is not.

>                          I agree that Menzel was sometimes arrogant
>(many distinguished, elderly scientists sometimes get that way). I
>further agree that sometimes he was careless (who isn't?). But
>to call him "devious and dishonest" is a reprehensible and groundless
>insult to the memory of an oustanding scientist, who taught and did research
>for many years at Harvard University.
 
[._.._]
 
>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic