HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Why did the chicken cross the road?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:38:19 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.151409.18643@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
>In a world where we're more or less free of trichinosis because commercially
>raised swine never touch the earth, what turkey farm is going to have actual 
>turkey moms and dads rearing their own turklets? I agree that commercially
>raised turkeys are indolent enough that were they left in charge of their  
>turklets in a rainstorm, they would let them drown: commercially raised
>turkeys, unlike most birds and beens, are too indolent to even need to
>do "it" -- they may propogate by parthenogenesis. So, if you think you've
>seen one turkey and have therefore seen them all, you may indeed be right.

	Dunno about parthenogenisis, but artificial insemination plays an 
important role because, while we have succeeded in breeding turkeys for
trait *we* desire (in a food animal), turkey sexual programming has 
lagged, and they still react best to turkeys who look like the studly
& svelte wild turkeys. Imagine what the birth rate would do if we all
wanted mates who looked like Mel Gibson/Diana Riggs and we all *looked*
like Henry VIII...

							James Nicoll
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.urban:12366 sci.skeptic:8166
From: chrislyn@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Tracey L. Stanchfield)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Philadelphia Experiment (?)
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:04:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: bsu-cs.1435
Organization: Dept of CS Ball State University Muncie In


What the _HELL_ was that crap w/ all the CAPITALIZED words about?

???

someone _please_ tell me this was a joke! that there are such loonies out
there in real life, I find frightening...

tracey
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,misc.kids
From: lcheap@milton.u.washington.edu (Laurel Cheap)
Subject: Re: Walla walla bing bang (was Re: Worm song?)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:40:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.211856.18700@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> spg@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Stephen P. Guthrie) writes:
>
>Mares eat oats and does eat oats
>and little lambs eat ivy

(and to continue . . .)

A kid'll eat ivy too
wouldn't you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurel Cheap           University of Washington   lcheap@cac.washington.edu
Information Systems    Seattle, Washington  USA   a.k.a. Brendan's mommy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Whacky Flakey License plates
Keywords: licence
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:07:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.192704.29980@uwm.edu> 
  spice@convex.csd.uwm.edu (James G Spice) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.015005.29416@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>  djb6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>Moving right along...
>>New Hampshire licence plates say "Live Free or Die".  Great state motto.
>>
>
>UL or not?  A New Hampshire man was arrested and prosecuted for
>covering up the "or Die" portion of the motto on his lisence plate.
>
>Amazingly so, this is fact, not fiction.  The resulting litigation
... deleted ...

Is it possible that it is illegal to cover up part of your license
plate (to keep less than lawful people from changing their numbers)?
This might explain the arrest.

>Jim Spice

C Frog
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
From: david.lloyd-jones@rose.uucp (david lloyd-jones)
Subject: Ask Marilyn Again
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 10:59:27 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.2)


Date Entered: 04-11-92 21:57
REplying to: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
B(>Subject: Re: Ask Marilyn Again
B(>:

B(>: |>chance of hiding the prize.  The other one has a 50% chance of hiding
B(>: |>the prize.  It does not matter whether you switch or not, but if you
B(>: |>miss the prize either way it is going to bug the hell out of you for
B(>: |>quite a while.
B(>:
B(>: If the odds were initially 1/3 that you were correct and revealing the goa
B(>: reveals no new information, how could the odds jump to 1/2 that you were
B(>: correct?  Either revealing the goat reveals some information about the
B(>: other 2 doors, or the odds you guessed correctly initially remain at 1/3,
B(>: in which case the chance the prize is behind the other unopened door is 2/
B(>: and therefore, you should switch.
B(>:
B(>: -Mike

B(>It does reveal new information. It reveals that the prize is behind one of
B(>the two remaining doors.  Make of this what you may.


Seems to me this depends upon the algorithm Monty uses for determining
the door to open.  If his rule is "I will open a goat door, picking one
at random if there are two," then the initial condition is you have a
1/2 chance: 50% you got it right, 50% the one Monty doesn't open has it.

On the other hand, if Monty's rule were "I will open a door, and if it
has the prize behind it we'll can the show and re-shoot the whole deal"
then he would be giving you genuine information, and the odds would move
from 1/3 to 2/3.

The New York Times interview he did several years ago, when this
first became big news, seemed to me to imply that the first was the
actual algorithm.

                                          -dlj.
---
   SLMR 2.0   Unable to locate Coffee -- Operator Halted!
   RM 1.60: Usenet: Rose Media - Hamilton (416) 575-5363
From: tzf@cs.arizona.edu (Theron Friedman)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Origins of Syphilis
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:47:23 GMT
Reply-To: tzf@cs.arizona.edu (Theron Friedman)
Organization: U of Arizona, CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Apr6.174049.13771@anasaz>, morris@anasaz (Bob Morris) writes:
|> >In article <1992Apr3.152228.16602@sunova.ssc.gov> chuck_adams@qmail.ssc.gov (Chuck Adams) writes:
|> >
|> >Was it really "much more virulent than today"?  How would anybody know?  
|> >
|> It's pretty common for a virulent disease to become milder.  They sort of
|> "shoot themselves in the foot" by killing their hosts (people) then die
|> for lack of hosts.  The milder ones that let their hosts live longer
|> have a chance to be transmitted to someone else before the host is gone.
|> 

Think about it for a few minutes: here you have these millions & billions
of copies of the "virulent form" out there, and suddenly ALL of them
mutate to a milder form? Come on now. I always thought that Crichton's
book (damn, what was the name of that turkey) really blew it on that one.

More likely mechanism: the "virulent strain" knocks off everyone who
doesn't have the right genes for developing defenses. The surviving hosts
(if any) have systems which aren't affected as strongly. Unless the
(hypothetical) milder strain has other competitive advantages, there's
no reason that the virulent strain shouldn't invade the same hosts as
long as any remain. ..... Since syphyllis hits mainly AFTER the hosts
are sexually active, hence possibly after they have already produced
children, it can take several generations before the selection process
has winnowed out all of the people who are highly susceptible.
	But my guess is that what's happened isn't a lessening of
the virulence of the germ, but rather a strengthening of, uh, us.

terry "I like llamas" friedman
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
From: david.lloyd-jones@rose.com (david lloyd-jones)
Subject: Japanese law monsters
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 10:11:10 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.2)


Date Entered: 04-16-92 23:19
U(>From: unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (resU nwonknU ehT)
U(>Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
U(>Subject: Re: Marilyn Really Doesn't Have to be too Goddam Smart to Keep Her
U(>Keywords: dangers of interbreeding and excess fiber

U(>}No fucking wonder the Japanese are trouncing us.
U(>agreed partially.. except their import laws are much more stringent than
U(>ours are..  I think we should have an "eye for an eye" law, where we have
U(>import laws EQUAL to those of the country that's trying to import stuff
U(>to us..  Obviously it wouldn't be allowed because it's not "fair".. but it'd
U(>be a cool idea.

All this crap about what the nasty Japanese do is the best candidate for
Current Mother Lode of American urban legends.  They won't import
anything.  (Hunh?  They're supposed to rush out and buy two ton cars
with the steering wheels on the wrong side?)  They speak an impenetrable
language.  (Actually an effective number of them speak English...)

They won't let investment into the country.  (I built the first 400 coin
laundries in Japan without too many investment hassles, but when some
friends and I wanted to buy Chrysler pre-Iacocca we couldn't: illegal
for non-Americans to own the Allison tank plant.)

Why all this wierd nonsense about Japan?  There's this huge literature
written by losers, people using the Japanese as scapegoats for their
own stupid disasters.  People who make successes of their time in Japan
-- IBM, Coca-Cola, me -- don't get such wide coverage.

                                            -dlj.
---
   SLMR 2.0   Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.
   RM 1.60: Usenet: Rose Media - Hamilton (416) 575-5363
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Today's conspiracy theory
Keywords: that's an old joke, sonny.
Date: 9 Apr 92 08:54:55 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK

In article <1992Apr8.203803.27333@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892) writes:
>In article <uspam.702715034@mcl> uspam@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu (Tom Maynard) writes:
>>In <ku1q2tINN2ma@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Peter van der Linden) writes:
>>
>>...
>>>---------------- start of today's conspiracy theory -------------------
>>>I believe that the two principal causes of higher cancer rates are nuclear
>>>radiation and chemicals in the food supply.
>>
>>One significant cause of "higher" incidence of cancer is the significant
>>increase in life-span.  When people don't die of heart disease or tuberculosis
>>or some other disease, you see cancer at later ages.  This doesn't mean that
>>there _has_ to be an unnatural cause of this cancer, just that it was
>>previously masked by early death.
>>
>Let's not forget the role that nicotine abuse plays here.  Although up to
>half the lung cancer from smoking is attributed to radiation exposure.

By who? This sounds suspiciously like a tobacco-lobby smokescreen to me.
The basic problem with smoking is chronic low-level irritation of the
lining of the lungs (epithelium, squamous metaplasia for those who are
interested). Chronic irritation of any structure increases the chance of
cancer (Marjolin's ulcer, Pott's tumor of the scrotum etc...), and when you
add to this the overtly carcinogenic nature of the PAHs that accompany
cigarette smoke (it's not the nicotine), you end up with a very high risk
of developing Ca bronchus.

Back to that 'attribution', it really does sound like a smokescreen. It's
impossible to establish a causal link for that hypothesis, just as it's
very difficult to establish it for smoking. Association and very strong
evidence is enough for anyone with half a brain, but that lets out all the
people we elect to look after our interests.

The take home message is:

        Dont kid yourself. If you smoke, you are killing yourself.

Later,

The Wisp. [now where's that Zippo?]
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
From: djb6@ellis.uchicago.edu (dennis joseph brennan)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Captain Crunch and the Phone Phreaks
Summary: Frauds against the phone company
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:19:25 GMT
Reply-To: djb6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Confusing Organizations

True Stories, distilled by the book _Cyberpunk_ and other stories.

In the seventies there were people running around who called themselves 
"phone phreaks" who could accomplish all kinds of shenanigans at the phone
company.  One discovered that the toy whistle given away as a prize in a 
box of Captain Crunch cereal duplicated the tone used by the phone company
to make an overseas call.  He could therefore make free long distance phone
calls.  Another trickster was a blind guy who could whistle with perfect 
pitch who could accomplish similar feats.  Supposedly it was these characters
who evolved into the computer criminal/hackers.

"Captain Crunch" is a registered trademark of General Dynamics, Wax Tadpole 
division.

Dennis Brennan
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: some old uls
Summary: While I'm sitting here loafing around...
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:52:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: dog.22537
Reply-To: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

>the old story that eating fresh-baked bread still hot from oven
>has some hideously unhealthy result to the eater.

T.  It makes you fat--bread is optimal when just cool enough to 
touch and still hot enough to melt its own butter.  In my humble
and increasingly corpulent opinion.

C'mon, guys.  If you're gonna start a UL about fresh-baked bread
(jeez, what's next...Mom?  Apple pie?), start a GOOD one, like
"Those bread-baking robots contain a THC sensor and a special
modem that operates over the power line..."

--Joe "Seemed like the yeast I could do" Chew
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.urban:11797 alt.folklore.college:1203
From: bew4568@rigel.tamu.edu (WILSON, BRUCE ERIC)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,alt.folklore.college
Subject: Re: Boldly Not Going Where No Man Has Not Gone Before
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:27:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.folklore.urban

>>>Overcoming their reluctance to trample the grass, practicality
>>>overcame them and slowly but surely paths were worn in the grass. 
>>>Skinny paths where the traffic was sparse, wide, well worn paths where
>>>the traffic was dense.
>>>
>>>After the paths were clear a landscaping company came in and paved the
>>>paths, matching the concrete walks to the size of the paths worn in
>>>the grass.
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

A friend of mine (call him Bob, for that's his name) takes great delight in 
having being the origin of a certain path across a certain lawn here.  He 
started riding his bike across the lawn and soon it was a major conduit of 
humanity.  It's not a sidewalk yet, and it hasn't been named, but we're 
working on it.

Bruce E.

P.S.  Bob was also the one who named the Dan Quayle Nature Trail, which lies 
next to George Bush Drive.
From: russ@bbx.basis.com (Russ Kepler)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Geronimo!
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:18:26 GMT
Organization: BASIS International, Albuquerque NM

In article <1992Apr13.204539.25135@PA.dec.com> mikkelson@breakr.enet.dec.com (snopes) writes:
>In article <10APR199218471700@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu>, 
>  ae313406@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (Vance Kochenderfer) writes...
>>  Sorry to inject some facts into this newsgroup (AFU motto), but here's
>>the calculation:
>
>>Symbols:
>>    D=Drag force on body           CD=Coefficient of drag=D/(.5*d*V^2*S)
>>    W=Weight of body               l=length of body
>>    d=density of air=1.23kg/cu.m. at sea level
>>    dl=density of lead=14000kg/cu.m. just about anywhere
>>    S=characteristic area of body
>>    V=speed of body                r = radius of body
>>    Vol=Volume of body
>
>I was told we wouldn't have to do any math in this newsgroup.

Best get ready for the pop (soda? tonic?  ahhh, well) quiz later...


-- 
Russ Kepler, Basis International Ltd. russ@bbx.basis.com  phone: 505-345-5232
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Ask Marilyn Again
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:29:47 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr09.144705.1393@rose.uucp> david.lloyd-jones@rose.uucp (david lloyd-jones) writes:
>Since I wrote this I have seen another message in which
>WJEURLE@ATHENA.MIT.EDU posts a matrix of possibilities.  I have not yet
>figured the fallacy in his reasoning, but the following does seem to me
>probative: When Monty opens a door to show you a goat, **he has given
>you no new information**.  You already knew that there was one or more
>goats behind the doors you haven't chosen.

Ok, David, how about this variation:

You pick a door.  Monty offers you the choice of either keeping your doors,
or keeping what's behind the two doors you didn't pick.  Do you switch?  Of
course!, even though you know that there was one or more goats behind
the two doors.  Now, go back to the original problem.  How is it that
opening one of the two doors that you didn't pick suddenly ceases to induce
you to switch?  You're still faced with one door vs. two doors, the only
difference being that you know that one of the two doors has a goat, but,
as you point out, you knew that already.  So if Monty does give you no
new information, as you correctly point out, it makes sense to switch.

Or, do it this way: there are a hundred doors.  No matter which door you
choose, Monty will open 98 doors with goats.  Do you switch?  If not, how
do you figure that correctly chose the door with the goat (a 1% chance)
50% of the time?
-- 
Ted Frank          + "A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in
U o' C Law Skool   +  color and content according to the circumstances and
Chi, IL 60637      +  the time in which it is used."  --  Holmes
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Run out of town on a rail
Date: 17 Apr 92 09:49:05 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK

In article <1992Apr14.220120.10800@fivegl.co.nz> derek@fivegl.co.nz (Derek Tearne) writes:

[stuff about rails, tarring & feathering...]

>
>ObUL: Chimney sweeps and people who tar roads had high incidences of
>      cancer of the scrotum.

Don't know about people who tar roads, but the chimney sweep one is no UL.
It's a statistically proven(?) and medically recognised condition - Potts'
tumor of the scrotum. It's due to chronic irritation of the skin of the
scrotum (all that soot & sweat), and for you biologists out there, it's a
squamous cell Ca, basically a Marjolin's Ulcer of the scrotum.

This Potts is the same as he of the Potts' fracture (ankle) and Potts'
puffy tumor (chronic osteomyelitis of the cranium).

Later,

The Wisp. [who hasn't a Pott to p*ss in...]
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Ask Marilyn Again
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:16:37 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1992Apr12.130411.9190@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes...
>The algorithm is a third one: "Out of the two doors you did not choose,
>I will open the one with a goat; if both of the two doors have goats,
>I will randomly select one of those doors."  I think this also indicates
>it's pretty straight-forward that one should switch.

For those who are convinced they know whether they should switch or not let's
try the game with a slight rule change.  Contestant picks a door.  Contestant
is led away, and Monty opens the unchosen door with the goat, if both have
goats he chooses at random.  Contestant does *not* see which door is opened.
Contestant is now allowed to keep the initially chosen door or switch for
the unopened, unchosen door.  But the contestant never gets to see which of
the other 2 doors was opened, he just knows he gets "the other one".

Does this change the odds at all?  If so, why?  And what are the odds now, and
should the contestant switch?

Example:  3 doors, contestant chooses door 3.  Monty opens door 1 and reveals
a goat.  Contestant is allowed to keep door 3 or get the other door (door 2).
Contestant does not know whether the "other door" is door 1 or door 2.

-Mike
From: PCT601%sirius.ukc.ac.uk@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (Robryche)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: My posting about the Marilyn/Monty problem
Date: 10 Apr 1992 05:55:26 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Which was of course completely wrong as I worked out last night.
The correct reasoning has been explained elsewhere on this newsgroup
so I wont labour the point.
If you're really not convinced, try drawing a tree diagram.
Worked for me.

"Hey Monty, can I have the goat?"

*****    _  |  __  __/   ____/   /   /  *
****    /  _'     /     /       /   /  **
***    __ |      /     /       __  /  ***
**    /   /     /     /       /   /  ****
*  __/ __/ ______/ ______/ __/ __/  *****

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
From: vince@cadence.com (Vince Gibboni)
Subject: Re: Ask Marilyn Again
Keywords: Marilyn
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:02:05 GMT

amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>
>.. Monty Hall puzzle
>
>Please don't start up a thread there, just ask for the FAQ.  I read rec.puzzles
>and the Monty Hall thread drives most regulars nuts.
>
>BTW - If anyone out there *really* believe they are right, I am willing to
>bet money on switching being the correct solution.  Lots of money.
>

    Could someone _PLEASE_ explain this one to me. (Perhaps I've just
    never heard the thing fully specified). Does Monty know which 
    door the prize is behind ? Will he never intentionally reveal the
    prize ? If Monty will intentionally avoid revealing the prize
    then obviously it is better to switch (as there is a 2/3 chance
    that the prize is behind one of Monty's two doors - and he has
    ruled one out for you) - but this seems too simple for anyone
    to argue with. If Monty doesn't know where the prize is, then
    obviously all doors have an equal chance (as no special pre-selection
    has been done), and there is no reason to switch (I will, happily
    bet _lots_ of money on this). So where's the catch ? Why is
    there an argument ?! Am I missing something ?! 


--
                                                        vince@gda.cadence.com
    And in the battle on the streets 
    You fight computers and receipts
        - Pete Townshend
From: paulo@eik.ii.uib.no (Paul Olav Tvete stipendiat)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: PepsiCo UL
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:37:11 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Bergen

I heard this one about '86. It was presented as true, but after reading a.f.u. for
a while I have begun to wonder.

Supposedly, there were pipes at PepsiCo which distributed Pepsi Cola throughout the
headquarters. Workers and management had an unlimited supply of Pepsi, and naturally
consumed enormous amounts of it.

When Pepsi Free (without caffeine) was introduced, they switched over to it. Suddenly
everyone experienced caffeine withdrawal symptoms; workers were sleeping over their
machines, executives fell asleep during meetings.

Does anybody know the background for this story?

[Norway has the world's highest per capita consumption of coffee. Sometimes I feel like
I am the only one who's not addicted to the stuff.]

-- 
Paul Olav Tvete;  paulo@ii.uib.no  ---- Ein # kan'kje vara evig, veit du. ----