HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (alan smith)
Subject: Re: Anti-motion sickness wristbands
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 18:30:28 GMT

In article <4818@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>In article <1992Jul15.012428.27716@u.washington.edu> mpark@u.washington.
du writes:
>>I'm sure you've seen these advertised: elastic wristbands
>>with a little button that presses against a special [ahem]
>>acupuncture point, thereby alleviating motion sickness.
>>
>>Does anybody have the straight dope on this... device?
>
>I have read reports (anecdotal) that ANY gadget fastened to the body in 
uch
>way that you constantly feel it and think about it, has a "placebo" effe
t.
>IN the report I read it was a physician who taped a piece of paper (fold
d)
>to his arm. It had a charm written on it.
>Motion sickness seems to have great potential to be cured by placebo  ef
ect.
>JWN
>


Sorta like getting nervous when your watch ain't on.  Hmmmm, there's a lot
of money in that.

Big Al.  Patent Pending.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13088 alt.alien.visitors:4699
From: kevinq@Ingres.COM (Kevin Quinn)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Human Parthenogenesis? (Was: Questions from an interested p
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:00:32 GMT
Reply-To: kevinq@Ingres.COM (Kevin Quinn)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <62207@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
>write The Third Eye, a book that I love.  Lobsang had an Englishman's 
>body that was never in Tibet.  He had been living as a Tibetian monk
>for many years then he made a switch with an Englishman who was ready to
>pass on anyway. 
>John Winston.

Oh good god, John, you get more rabid by the month!

On the other hand, you're almost as entertaining as scanning the tabloid 
headlines in the supermarket checkouts.  Keep it up!


kbq


--
Kevin Quinn                         | kevinq@ingres.com
                                    | {mtzinu,pacbell,ll-winken,sun}!ingres.com
My opinions are my own.  Should you think otherwise, think again.
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: skeptic-faq V 0.1
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:55:07 GMT
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <1863@snap>, paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes in part:
[...]
|> UFOs/Flying Saucers
|> -------------------
|> 3.3: What is `channeling'?
|> 3.4: How can we test a channeler?
[...]
|> 3.3: What is `channeling'?
|> --------------------------
|> 
|> `Channeling' is remarkably similar to Spiritualism.  The main
|> difference is that the relatives `on the other side' are replaced by
|> aliens in UFOs.  This means that the channeler does not have to worry
|> about providing accurate information about people in the audience.
|> 
|> 3.4: How can we test a channeler?
|> ---------------------------------
|> 
|> [I have read lists of questions which advanced beings should be able to
|> answer (e.g. Proof or counterexample of Fermat's Last Theorem).  Can
|> someone suggest more?]
|>
[...]

I'm not entire sure why channeling should be categorized under UFOs.
After all, mediumship has a long tradition as a critical battleground
between skeptics and paranormalists.  The UFO channelers are really
ripping off a fine old tradition in an attempt to make their shoddy,
johnny-come-lately UFO theories seem more respectiable! ( :-) )

As a totally self-serving comment, I will note that I have recently submitted
a fabulously interesting article on this topic to Skeptical Inquirer 
that has not yet been accepted for publication.  Is Ken Frazier aware 
of the IMMENSE interest (heck at least 2 or 3 people!) in this topic?
Does someone want to point out to him that the world is simply
ACHING to see this topic covered by SI!  (Modesty prevents me 
from saying more. :-))

The article is called something like "Who's that on the line?  Authentication 
of Computer and Psychic Channels".  The discussion shows how Computer 
Science research on "authentication" relates to the problem of testing 
channelers.  [Computer science uses techniques including encrypted 
signatures based on fancy math such as one-way functions, zero-knowledge 
proofs, and factorization of large numbers.]  This posting and replies 
to it refer sketchily to these techniques as possibly appropriate to 
testing channelers.  My article discusses this proposition carefully and 
indicates how it might be done and why it is difficult.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: alien interstellar travel (was: skeptic-faq V 0.1)
Date: 31 Jul 92 09:28:14 GMT
Organization: Boston University Computer Science Department
In-reply-to: rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca's message of 30 Jul 92 21:16:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.211658.18401@ccu.umanitoba.ca> rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) writes:

   IF there are aliens on distant planets, then it is possible that they
   might have found a way to travel between stars in their lifetimes.
   According to our present understanding of physics, this is not likely,
   given the vast distances between stars.  Even travelling at the speed
   of light (which cannot be done), a round trip to the NEAREST star would
   take about ten years.  So, either the aliens have made a breakthrough
   in physics, or they're not visiting Earth.

The reasoning here is very naive; it assumes that aliens would have
lifespans similar to current human lifespans.  Beings with the technology
for interstellar travel could well have life-extension technology that
gives them lifespans of thousands or millions of years.

-- 
Enjoy,

Joe Wells <jbw@cs.bu.edu>
Member of the League for Programming Freedom --- send e-mail for details
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Response to Cary Collet(t)
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 19:27:31 GMT

dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:
:grante@aquarius (Grant Edwards) writes:
: >cary@carina.unm.edu () writes:
: >: 
: >: Humor is more easily recognized by my self-avowed sarcasm.  Which brings
: >: me to another point.  You have made the 4th Worst Classic Blunder:
: >: 
: >: 4.  Never get involved with sarcastic a physicist when UFO's are on 
: >:      the line.
: >
: >I give up, what are the first three?
: >
: 
: This is from the Princess Bride by William Goldman.  I do remember that 
: the first classic blunder was,
:
: 	"Never get involved in a land war in Asia."
: 
: I have always followed this advice religiously :-).
: 			David Pipes

The second is reportedly something like:

 "Never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line."
       or
 "Never argue with a Sicilian when death is involved."

The only thing I've hear for the third is:

 "Never let someone from the UPenn Math or Physics Department talk
 you into playing one of their "easy" variations of a card game."

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I want to so HAPPY, the
Rosemount Inc.                                |VEINS in my neck STAND OUT!!
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund)
Subject: Re: 48 Hours on CBS - Miracle at Lourdes
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:06:04 GMT

In article <GERRY.92Jul23114310@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>Before I really start flaming CBS, did anyone have the patience to sit
>through the entire program, 48 Hours - Miracle at Lourdes, last night?
>I watched the first 30 minutes, and all they showed were people
>claiming that miracles occured there, etc.  Did they show even one
>skeptic??  Isn't this the same channel that recently brought us
>biblical recreations and has had televangilists on during prime time?
>Who owns this channel anyway?
>
	I sat through the whole thing and was disgusted.  They did have
one skeptic on for about five minutes and he just discussed icon miracles
like weeping madonna pictures and that htey could be faked.
	CBS did not critical investigation of any of the events that I could
see.  At least they could have read _The Faith Healers_ by Randi which 
discussed some of these very sites (particularly Lourdes and NM) with
debunking and names of people to interview.

	Sheesh!

-- 
Larry Headlund  lmh@world.std.com    Eikonal Systems (617) 482-3345
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Testing for "Auras"
Date: 23 Jul 92 10:21:31 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <schumach.711764568@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>In <1992Jul20.220351.22409@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:

[On testing by shuffling people behind a partition]

>It requires care to come up with a barrier that is completely soundproof
>too. Any faint scrapings or shufflings, etc., will easily give away
>who moves where.

Or you could just play (say) random noise to mask this.

You might want to have a two stage test.  The first stage would be
designed to eliminate the obvious ways in which the psychic is fooling
him/herself.  The second stage would be set up more carefully to
eliminate all possibility of cheating.

Paul.
-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Troublesome JFK Posts
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:21:15 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system


        I'd like to recommend a small action to take to keep the JFK posts 
the hell off of sci.skeptic. Namely, mailing the posts that appear on 
sci.skeptic back to the poster, with a note saying, "Please stop 
cross-posting JFK material to sci.skeptic."

        It's not menat to flood anyone's mailbox, or cause a bandwidth 
problem. But it's got to be done, sooner or later.

        If we wanted to read more conspiracy theories, we can subscribe to 
alt.conspiracy or alt.conspiracy.JFK. But we've been flooded with this stuff 
for a while now. 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"Best Reason Not to Vote for Perot-- If he wins, it might encourage Bill 
Gates to run." 
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13029 alt.conspiracy:9293
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Plausible Denial
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:18:48 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Jul21.041434.29412@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (alan smith) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.024139.19738@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbot
>@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>
>>Could someone give me an example to illustrate the so-called "plausible
>>denial" tactic for evading a question?
>
>
>"NO!"
>
>"I would not like to adress that at this time."
>
>"Read my lips, no new taxes."
>

I don't get it. Why is that supposed to be "plausible" ???
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics
From: ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell)
Subject: Re: help needed with a thought problem
Organization: Entropy Limited, Vancouver Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 05:39:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.235824.18389@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com> chesky@squirrel.austin.ibm.com (Bill Chesky) writes:
>[...]
>suppose you have some mechanism on one end whose purpose is to push and 
>pull (longways) on the rod.  Is this not a FTL communications device 
>since when you push on one end it is going to instantly move at 
>the other end, thus sending a signal to the other end in 0 seconds

Nope. The push or pull will propagate along the rod at whatever is the
speed of sound in the rod (by definition of `speed of sound in X'), and
there's no reason to believe that that would exceed C (and lots of reason
to believe that it wouldn't).

-- 
ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!eslvcr!ted   (Ted Powell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics
From: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio)
Subject: Re: help needed with a thought problem
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:14:59 GMT

chesky@squirrel.austin.ibm.com (Bill Chesky) writes:

> Suppose there is this gigantic rod floating out in space.  Just for
> fun, says its, oh, 1,000,000 miles long.  Further this rod is ...
> ... perfectly rigid.  Now 
> suppose you have some mechanism on one end whose purpose is to push and 
> pull (longways) on the rod.  Is this not a FTL communications device ...

It cannot exist, therefore it cannot be an FTL communications device.

> Now this is a *thought* problem so I would think that such arguments
> as, "Well, it would be impossible to have a rod that was that rigid" or
> "It would be impossible to have a mechanism that could push it", would
> be invalid.

BZZZT!  That is incorrect, but thank you for playing.

Thought experiments are "performed" within a "thought universe" in
which the laws of physics apply, despite the fact that the "thought
experimentalist" minimizes various effects by assuming fantastically
accurate measuring devices, fantastically powerful sources of energy,
etc.

Thus, no matter how fantastically rigid the rod, the laws of physics
say that it will act as a collection of particles linked (primarilly)
by electromagnetic forces which propagate at the speed of light.  That
is why it is not an FTL communications device.
--
franl@centerline.com   || Fran Litterio                               
uunet!centerline!franl || CenterLine Software R&D                     
617-498-3255           || 10 Fawcett St, Cambridge, MA, USA 02138-1110
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13429 alt.paranormal:1988
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:55:02 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <24304@castle.ed.ac.uk> egnr76@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Kashko) writes:

>it seems logically possible that the disease causes the bacteria to
>appear. Killing the bacteria by antibiotics may just be aside effect
>of killing the disease. You need more investigation to show what role
>the bacteria play. Perhaps someone has done this, I don't know.
> >
I've heard a few of the medical pioneers used to drink contaminated water 
etc so that when they then became ill they could try out the remedies.
More info anybody?

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  I don't take part in any sport that requires me to change clothes  |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13089 alt.alien.visitors:4700
From: kevinq@Ingres.COM (Kevin Quinn)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Questions from an interested party
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:09:58 GMT
Reply-To: kevinq@Ingres.COM (Kevin Quinn)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <l6bdd4INNi07@news.bbn.com> ingria@BBN.COM writes:
>In article <62208@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
>Did you ever wonder why guys who claim telepathy, reincarnation, and
>contact with spiritual masters and aliens can't even write simple
>English?
>
>-30-
>Bob
>
>``Che stronzi!'' -- Federico Fellini

But Bob - at least John is no longer posting in all caps!  Some improvement,
at least.


kbq


--
Kevin Quinn                         | kevinq@ingres.com
                                    | {mtzinu,pacbell,ll-winken,sun}!ingres.com
My opinions are my own.  Should you think otherwise, think again.
From: "ted trost" <ted.trost@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: test that proves obes
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:29:54 EST
Reply-To: "ted trost" <ted.trost@canrem.com>
Distribution: sci
Organization: Canada Remote Systems


RM>Out of Body EXPERIENCES clearly EXIST, just as dreams EXIST.  The question
RM>is how to explain them.

How do we know OBE's  *aren't* dreams?

Ted VE3TTD  ted.trost@canrem.com
---
  DeLuxe 1.21 #10288  What's the frequency, Kenneth?
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Men In Black
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:03:40 GMT

In article <Jul.30.21.07.42.1992.17093@dropout.rutgers.edu>, mcgrew@dropout.rutgers.edu (Charles Mcgrew) writes in part:
|> ... playing with people's heads is dangerous stuff.  Be careful.
|> 
|> Charles
I would amplify this:  playing with people's heads is dangerous stuff.
DON'T DO IT.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: spont. human combustion
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:57:52 GMT

amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
: In article <1992Jul20.170921.11330@schbbs.mot.com> 
:   RXTL20@WACCVM.corp.mot.com writes:
: 
: >--------------------------------------------------------------------------
: >The Phx Republic and Gazette recently mentioned that the drummer for some
: >heavy metal band had spontaneously combusted on stage a few years back.
: >Sorry, forgot the band's name, but they were here in concert a few months
: >ago.
: >I thought it was a joke until I saw it in the Mesa paper, also.
: >
: >Any help?
: >
: >STICKS
: 
: Why do I have the uneasy feeling s/he is talking about Spinal Tap?
: 
: C Frog

Well, Spinal Tap's drummers sort of spontaneously exploded.  I guess
that's just very rapid combustion isn't it?

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I wonder if I could
Rosemount Inc.                                |ever get started in the
                                              |credit world?
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13389 alt.paranormal:1982
From: egnr76@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Kashko)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Date: 30 Jul 92 09:22:39 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Jul29.204138.3043@blaze.cs.jhu.edu > arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
 >In article <1992Jul29.135920.27176@news.uiowa.edu> boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken) writes:
 >>> The simple fact is that it's because X persons AGREE on what's out there 
 >>> that we may assume that something really is out there.  The rest follows 
 >>> quite straightforwardly.  However, your inner experiences are yours and 
 >>> yours alone - why on earth should we believe any of it?
 >>This is the point of view of a skeptic--that the theory with the most votes
 >>wins?  I've never heard the scientific method framed in those terms before.
 >
 >No, the point is that it can be verified by outsiders.  If I say that (say)
 >disease is caused by bacteria, you too can look for the bacteria under a micro-
 >scope.  Saying that disease is caused by invisible spirits that all the people
 >with microscopes happen to be unable to perceive is another story.

	Of course if bacteria and disease are always found together
it seems logically possible that the disease causes the bacteria to
appear. Killing the bacteria by antibiotics may just be aside effect
of killing the disease. You need more investigation to show what role
the bacteria play. Perhaps someone has done this, I don't know.
 >
 >>But let's say that's true.  If the entire population of the world were to
 >>vote on what's real and what isn't, I'm pretty sure you'd be in the
 >>minority on quite a few issues.  As has been pointed out by others, there
 >>has been anecdotal evidence of the paranormal in every culture throughout
 >>history--_no_ scientific concept or theory can make that claim.
 >
 >Fine.  There's anecdotal evidence of "paranormal phenomena".  OK, the
 >phenomena exist.  People really do have experiences that seem to be ghosts,
 >ESP, or whatever.
 >
 >But when you claim that paranormal phenomena exist, you're not referring to
 >the perceptions.  You don't mean "when I say that precognition exists I mean
 >that people think they're good at predicting the future, rather than that they
 >really _are_ good at it".  Every culture probably knows some "paranormal
 >phenomena", but not every culture knows the concept of scientific proof.

	But most, if not all cultures show some concept of testing.
I believe there is a case in the bible where Gideon, having been given
a divine sign, changes the test protocol in case the last half dozen
signs were due to chance (something to do with dew on sheep skins)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Radio transmission ESP test?
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:38:44 GMT

In article <j.newman.103@qmcc.curtin.edu.au>, j.newman@qmcc.curtin.edu.au (John Newman) writes:

> Just last week the Chanel 9 network, "A Current Affair" ran a
> copycat segment.
> The ESP test was designed by Ken White, a psychologist
> from Queensland Uni. Others on the TV panel were Simon Turnbull,
> president of the Aust. Psychics Association, Nigell Lovell,
> and Barry Williams from the Aust. Skeptics Association.

> I'll post Ch9s results if I get to see them.

No sign of results yet. I was chatting to Barry Williams the other
day, and he said that they stopped reading the responses after three
days, and they had *thousands* of them. Since the Science Show took
about three weeks to process their much smaller response, I think
it will be a while before we hear from a Current Affair.
Tim O'Neill
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13277 alt.paranormal:1948