HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Dangerous Bigot Logic (Was: Re: What did Judas Betray?)
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:25:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.015755.27976@telesciences.com> msavasti@telesciences.com (Michael Savastio) writes:
>
>In article <GERRY.92Sep24103141@onion.cmu.edu>, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>>In article <LEET.92Sep23080525@dove.ims.com> leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>>
>>   (N.B.: This does not imply that Jews as a race are to blame for Jesus'
>>   death, but only that *some* of the leaders at *that* time were.)
>>
>>Does this line imply that christian morons, like the shit head Lee
>>Thomas, are a race also?  It is people like Lee, who make statements 
>>like this, that cuase occurances like the Nazi genocide of the Jewish
>>people.  Heck, they're a different race, therefore non-human, therefor
>>killing them is okay.
>>
>>Fuck off and die you anti-semitic, slime, asshole.
>
>Yes, bigot logic is truly tragic.  gerry@cmu.edu provides this example:
>
>* Jews are a different race ==> Jews are non-human ==> killing them is okay.
>
>Which resulted in the death of millions of humans.  Let's look of some
>more examples of dangerous bigot logic:
>
>* Christian morons ==> Christians are sub-human ==> killing them is okay.
>
>* Lee Thomas is a shit-head ==> Lee Thomas is mentally inferior ==>
>                                                    killing him is okay.
>
>* Fuck off and die ==> I want you dead ==> killing you is okay.
>
>* Lee Thomas is slime ==> Lee Thomas is non-human ==> killing him is okay.
>
>* Lee Thomas is an asshole ==> Lee Thomas is just a body part ==>
>                                                    killing him is okay.
>
>Let me suggest an alternative:
>
>* Lee, I disagree with you, and here's a rational, level-headed reason
>  why you shouldn't believe what you do:  Jews didn't kill Jesus; human
>  beings killed Jesus.  If Jesus were born in white, middle-class America,
>  you and I would be strapping him to an electric chair right now.  The
>  only way to defeat bigotry is to look at people as people, and not to
>  divide them up into artificial categories ==>
>  Hmm, I never looked at it that way before.  I'm sorry if I offended you.
>  I promise to choose my words carefully, so as to avoid such animosity
>  between human beings in the future ==>
>  Nobody gets killed.
>
>It's a long shot, but it's worth a shot.

But I interpreted Lee's remarks to be just that!  So where is the
disagreement?

>--

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:39:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.151145.8990@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.022938.13677@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>> In article <schnitzi.717877881@eola.cs.ucf.edu> schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
>>>ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>>>>I would define soul as that spiritual part of us humans that
>>>>>>defines us in God's image. It is a separate entity, infused into
>>>>>>the body before birth, and leaves the body at death.  Because it
>>>>>>is the part of us that is like God, it is intrinsically and
>>>>>>naturally immortal.  Furthermore, it is the principle behind our
>>>>>>intellect and reasoning ability.
>>>How would you explain the fact, then, that medical conditions which
>>>affect our brain (accidents, strokes, drugs) also can affect our
>>>"intellect and reasoning ability"?  Do these things damage our
>>>souls as well?
>> No, it is the expression of the soul's effect that is damaged.
>> Let me give you an example.  You know that it is the brain which
>> is behind the movement of our limbs.  The brain sends a nerual
>> message for a muscle to contract and the arm moves up.  Now what
>> happens when the nerves which connects the muscle to the arm is
>> cut?  No more arm movements.  Does this mean that the brain is
>> damaged?  No, the brain is not damaged although the vehicle it
>> used to control the body's limbs is.  Therefore, the expression of
>> the brain is nullified.  In much the same way, the soul uses the
>> brain through the mind as a vehicle by which intellect and
>> reasoning ability is expressed.  A stroke or other such illness
>> stifles this expression, but the soul has not been damaged by this
>> physical failure in any way.
>
>Gee, does this mean that any expression of the human, even brain damaged is an
>expression of the god-like soul.  No matter what you are doing, it is what god
>would want you to do?
>
>GXKambic
>sd
>

The soul has a gift called free will.  It can choose to do things
that are contrary to God.  Remember, because it is *like* God
(i.e. have similar properties) this does not make it God.
Therefore, there is no guarantee that all of its actions are what
God would want that person to do.

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Dream analysis therapy
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:40:44 GMT

In article <60846@mimsy.umd.edu> biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes:

   >Does anyone know of good sources debunking the use of 
   >dream analysis for psychotherapy?

  It isn't possible to "debunk" any form of psychotherapy. There are no
agreed criteria by which to judge the effectiveness of therapy.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell)
Subject: Re: KOSHER? In a Pig's Eye!
Organization: Entropy Limited, Vancouver Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 03:34:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.150051.4516@bb1t.monsanto.com> tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com writes:
>[...]
>                                            If the kitchen was tainted
>(I can't remember the proper word), then it would have served the host
>right for not advising the guest of the house rules first.  

But he did say, stay out of the kitchen, first by stating that _he_ would
get the coffee (not to be confused with just offering to), then by
confronting the guest with the coffee pot. Judging by the guest's report,
both of these messages were too subtle. Consequently, I find it hard to
fault the host for his subsequently diminished level of subtlety.

-- 
ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!eslvcr!ted   (Ted Powell)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17108 alt.folklore.urban:24453
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Date: 29 Sep 92 11:38:11 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


twcaps@tennyson.lbl.gov (Terry Chan) writes:

>Earlier, Cecil points out that a Professor Ken Gray of the Art Department
>of the University of Alaska at Anchorage and his friends balanced 17 dozen
>eggs on end on the 1985 vernal equinox.  This guy was supposedly noted
>for sponsoring art events at various equinoxes, solstices, etc. and the 
>1985 event was called "Egg Zen Trick".  My guess is that this is exactly
>the sort of cute story that makes the rounds of the newswire feeds during
>these periods and it probably got around and scrambled in the empty shells
>of those believers.
>
>Terry "Have you heard the one about which came first?" Chan

Terry, this part of the post seems to imply that Ken Gray in 1985
was the start of the rumor that you could balance eggs only at
equinoxes.  Am I misinterpreting what you're suggesting?

The rumor definately dates from before 1985 (I used to hear it
as a kid in the '60s), so I suspect Gray was balancing because
of the rumor, not that the rumor started because of Gray's
balancing.
-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Gerry Roston, I'm sorry.
Date: 3 Oct 92 15:50:25 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <LEET.92Oct2101243@dove.ims.com> leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>
>Jan> I remember discovering the liberating idea that life is
>Jan> meaningless (even if God does exist). 
>
>But what happens when life ceases to be enjoyable - and one is either
>certain that enjoyment is gone permanently, or one cannot be certain
>that it will ever return?  If life is meaningless, then death is not a
>tragedy.

Enjoyable, meaning etc. are all personal matters. *I* can think *my* life
hopeful, enjoyable, meaningful (h.e.m. for short),  and *you* can think
*yours* to be h.e.m. or not.  But there's no way in which *I* can judge
*your* life to be so. Those judgements have to be carried out by those
who live that life themselves.

>Jan>           If God exists and is good and infinitely good at that,
>Jan> (let's *assume* that) then He would surely not have saddled us
>Jan> with the task to discern those unfathomable meanings in life.
>
>If (since) He is good, He would provide it (the meaning) for us,
>written down, and we could then look it up as needed.  This dovetails
>us nicely back into our other ongoing debate. :-)

No. The judgement is strictly personal.  Therefore it can't be in a
book.

>It's not the random events that I was referring to, but rather the
>overall trend.  If life itself is truly meaning-free, then the world
>is neither better off nor worse off if I cease to exist.

True.  As the human race will probably go the way all species go,
maybe helped a little by ourselves, and as the Earth will be incinerated
after some billions of years anyway, this seems rather evident.
But our acts are not measured by the effect they have on the ultimate
fate of the world.  So this is irrelevant.

>                In fact, if life is meaningless, there is no
>difference between a doctor saving a life and a murderer taking one,

There is a big difference.  The first one enables the patient to continue
judging the patient's life to be h.e.m., whereas the second does the 
judgement for his victim, and rather summarily at that. The more
interesting contrast is between a doctor helping a terminal cancer
patient with euthanasia and a concentration camp guard taking care
not to kill his victims while torturing them, even if they beg him
to get it over with.

JWN
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation (Was Re: Creation
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:57:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.163256.11662@lsil.com>, gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
writes:
> In article 6@sycraft.com, ken@sycraft.com (Ken Richardson) writes:
>> 
>> There is, after all, a high degree of similarity between DNA programs
>> and computer programs.
>>
> 
> You flatter yourself.  Please demonstrate that you (or anyone!) knows enough 
> about DNA to make this kind of a statement.

   Um, well, actually it is much worse than that.  A very large number of
people know enough about DNA to make the negation of that statement (which
requires far less knowledge; your point is well taken).  This assumes we limit
ourselves to computer programs we can write now; self organizing adaptive
systems (e.g. genetic algorithms) are starting to produce tenny-weeny baby
DNA-like computational constructs.

> 1. Bill Gascoyne

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: John_-_Marlboro@skeptic.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992: Day After July 3, 1992
Reply-To: John_-_Marlboro@skeptic.ncsu.edu
Organization: NCSU Skeptics
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:51:50 GMT


John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
|> Dear Astral Travellers: Last night I attempted to send Big Al some
|> telepathic information. I sent him enough Elvis Presley (songs and etc.)
|> to last a person a lifetime. All I got back was a bunch of sick X-rated
|> movie stuff. I believe someone or something is trying to pull an astral
|> joke on me. I am not saying its Big Al's fault though.
|> John Winston.

John,
*I* confess.  *I* sent the X-rated pictures.  I really didn't think it
would work!!!

John Marlboro.

``Call me a skeptic, but I would think an intelligent life form who
  wanted information distributed would get in touch with someone who had
  a clue.''
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Focus on Crucifiction (was: Cruxed for Prophecy?)
Keywords: crucifiction prophecy sacrifice hebrew
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:01:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.234317.8088@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.040823.4454@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>Surely you are not claiming that to undergo severe stress to the
>>point of sweating blood, to be brutally scouraged (by Romans),
>>having a crown of thorns placed on your head, then carrying a
>>heavy cross for a good long way, and finally being nailed hand and
>>foot to a cross is a recipe for lengthy survival.  I find it amazing
>>that He lasted as long as He did.  In fact, I find it quite
>>amazing that the Person who was nailed to the cross was alive at
>>the time of the crucifixion! 
>>
>
>Nonetheless, victims DID routinely survive for days upon the cross.
>Josephus tells of three victims who were "pardoned" and taken down,
>at his request, and given medical assistance. One of them survived.
>(He does not state the cause of death of the others, but they likely
>died of gangrene.)

Yes, but were those victims Josephus tells about treated the same
way as Jesus was or did they merely hang on the cross fastened
with ropes?  Were they scouraged and their heads split opened with
thorns, etc the way it was done to Jesus?  I think that these are
important details.

>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dickb@bilver.uucp (Dick Biow)
Subject: Re: Jesus and the Moneychangers (was: What did Judas betray?)
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:46:16 GMT

Those are good points. However, trying to trace down contradictions in the bible leads nowhere; Judas commits suicide twice by different means. The question to
ask would be why the primitive church chose to include the scene in the temple. 
Since all 4 gospels have it (multiple attestation), scholars believe it's part
of a very early tradition -- yet I havcen't read anything that proposes what
the author was trying to teach. I also doubt that ROman soldiers -- or Pilate --
feared jewish mobs. Pilate slaughtered at least one protest meeting and was ultimately removed from office for "excess cruelty." Excess cruelty to _Romans_ must have been somewthing really gory!

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:12:30 GMT

sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <1a92ttINN82t@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes...
>> 
>>  [discussion of using Kelvin (absolute temperature) to calculate
>>   percentage change deleted. It is correct - just not needed for my
>>   point :-)   -   DH]

>Actually, the most interesting way to measure the change is in terms of 
>the quoted uncertainty of the original measurement which established the
>98.6 degree value - which I do not know, of course.  That will be independent
>of the temperature scale used, and a good indication of how fouled up
>the original experiment really was.  If the original experimenter had quoted,
>for example, 98.6 +/- .2, then I would say that the new result isn't really 
>new at all, but merely a refinement.  Two sigma deviations are no big deal.

   Yet another point is that the (recent?) study also showed that time
of day, sex, and age were factors that affected individual body temperature.
To make an accurate comparison between two population samples, one should
correct for any differences cause by these other factors. Is the 0.4 
difference due to a large number of the people belonging to a warmer age/
sex/time-of-day group in one study when compared to the other? The original
study (a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away?) was done at a hospital,
wasn't it? Isn't that where sick people go? Don't sick people have warmer
temperatures? Are the two studies *ensuring* that only non-sick people
are included? This question requires knowing how the samples were selected.


Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Date: Tuesday, 29 Sep 1992 19:31:34 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: that time of the month for the holy mother...

we've all heard about statues or paintings of mary or jesus or some saint
crying, or sometimes crying blood.

i saw some tv program (maybe "a current affair" or some such schlock) which
had some guy on it who was renouncing these "miracles" as pure charlatanism.
as evidence, he made a statue of mary cry blood, a copy of the mona lisa cry,
and some other things.  the dude doing the interview tried to figure out how
he did it by examining the base of the statue, and the backs of the paintings,
and such.  he couldn't figure out how the guy made this happen, so he asked.

the dude responds, "a true charlatan never reveals the tricks of his trade,"
or some such.

this left me feeling very unsatisfied.  i mean, up until that point the guy
was very convincing.  if he just said how he did it, it would've been even
more convincing.  but as is, for all i know, he could've snuck into some
church where mary was crying blood, and stolen her.  obviously that's not
what i believe, but the guy is asking for as much faith as the fanatics are.

does anyone know how he did it?
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:36:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep27.223827.26557@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <vn#pa5=.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep26.145922.22060@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>
>>>Rich, the dictionary defines religious beliefs as those beliefs
>>>concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe
>>>especially belief or worship in God or gods.  Superstition, on the
>>>other hand is defined as an irrational belief in the ominous
>>>significance of a particular thing or circumstance. Therfore, in
>>>my mind, if somone has a set of beliefs that deal basically with
>>>the first definition, then even if the set of beliefs consist of
>>>something which we may think as irrational doom & gloom, I would
>>>put it in the first category.  If however, I have an isolated
>>>belief e.g. if I knock on wood three times, I am averting
>>>disaster, this would be a superstition since it does not tie in
>>>any way with the first definition.  Does this make sense to you?
>>
>>So are you then saying that 'knock[ing] on wood three times' to
>>avert disaster does not related to 'the cause, nature, or purpose
>>of the universe'?  I am not sure that I do follow you. 
>
>Exactly, there is nothing is this belief, in and of itself, that
>has any relevance to the cause, nature or purpose of the universe.

Lets see, cause - knocking in wood, effect - aversion of disaster.
It is clearly causal. And since there is no apparent explicit relationship
between cause and effect, there must be a more fundamental relationship.
I can see no realtionship that is not rooted in the fundamental nature
of the universe (whatever that is) which could have the power to avert
disaster. 

>This is not to say that you couldn't have a set of religious
>beliefs that would contain this belief.  In that case, it would
>not be superstition. 

Christians have the same evidence of the existance of god, heaven, and
hell that the fellow knocking on wood has this will bring good luck.
How is it that one is superstition, and the other is not? 
 
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
>HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
>7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
>McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729

Rich again
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:31:21 GMT

ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>I would define soul as that spiritual part of us humans that
>>>defines us in God's image. It is a separate entity, infused into
>>>the body before birth, and leaves the body at death.  Because it
>>>is the part of us that is like God, it is intrinsically and
>>>naturally immortal.  Furthermore, it is the principle behind our
>>>intellect and reasoning ability.

How would you explain the fact, then, that medical conditions which
affect our brain (accidents, strokes, drugs) also can affect our
"intellect and reasoning ability"?  Do these things damage our
souls as well?

Mark Schnitzius
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu
Univ. of Central Florida
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic