HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Reply-To: zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:22:13 GMT

In article <1154@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <LEET.92Sep29092800@dove.ims.com> leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>|
>|(Here's where the debate gets interesting, because Robert knows this
>|stuff backwards and forwards.)  Is it a violation of Jewish law when
>|someone *else* does it?  As I recall, it was (and still is?) lawful to
>|ask a Gentile to perform a non-lawful act on one's behalf.
>
>This is not what I understood from an Orthodox colleague of mine a few years
>back.  He claimed that in visiting a sick relative/friend at the hospital
>he had to stand in the elevator until it happened to stop on the right floor
>(since pushing the button would be considered work - in particular lifting
>a load [himself]).  When I asked him why he could not request someone else
>to push the button for him, he said that work by proxy was still work.

There are NO LIMITS to what people are capable of believing or doing
when it comes to religion!  Shouldn't this man have run out of the
elevator when he saw that he was going to be part of a sin (a load
being lifted)?  Imagine he left the hospital (I assume he could press
the button on the way down!) and then went to a house of prostitution.
There he didn't say a word but passively accepted having sex and
letting the girl remove his wallet and take money out of it.

-- Steve
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:00:58 GMT

In article <1a911tINN82t@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>Hmmm.  Of course, the whole point of chaos theory is that these large effects
>caused by small changes are inherently unpredictable.  Why is it that damned
>near anything that's at best partially understood by the layman ends up getting
>dragged in (inappropriately) to support things like astrology?

Especially this butterfly effect if often terribly distorted.  Chaos theorists
say that a butterfly can cause a storm, not that you can predict a storm by
watching all the butterflies - which is tantamount to what astrology does.

-- 

thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Science is like democracy - it's not perfect, but it's the best thing available.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:06:13 GMT

In article <BvLI5u.Brx@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> fernee@newton.physics.uq.oz.au (Mark Fernee) writes:

[all gone...]
[
>While sceptics retard the advancement of knowledge, let's try not be too 
>gullible either.

This caught my eye. Do you know of any cases where a skeptic has retarded
the advancement of knowledge? Does anyone? But even if a few cases are
brought up, I think that as a generalization, it is wrong. 

Look at all the anti-gravity devices made unmarketable by skeptics, it is
indeed a sad state of affairs... :^)
 
>Mark. 
 

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: KOSHER? In a Pig's Eye!
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:00:51 CST
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO

In article <1a8s8vINN82t@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
> In article <roelle.717686439@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>>The host I were strangers until that morning.  I hadn't the slightest
>>notion he kept Kosher.  As someone pointed out this is a situation of
>>culture clash.  Where I grew up in the plains (both parents raised on
>>farms), kitchens were social places.  When people got together, adult
>>guests would often pitch in to help in the kitchen, assisting the
>>hostess.  My intention in walking off to his kitchen holding a cup in
>>my hand was to save him the trouble.  As to particular house "rules"
>>there was no indication.
> 
> Yet another example of your appalling ignorance of other customs.  Given what
> you've told us, I'm pretty certain that there was, indeed an indication:  It's
> called a mezuzah, and you would've seen it attached to the doorpost of the
> home, had you had the slightest shred of understanding of a culture not your
> own.

Here's my $.02.  I think that the host should have told the guest that
it was an Orthodox household.  Then, the guest could say "Gee, what does
that entail" and then the host could say "Well it means that we...".
This is how we learn things.  To assume that anyone is aware of anything
(when it is clearly important) is foolish.  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.  Tolerance
of others, open communication and a sense of humor (were these things
universal) would smooth out alot of the crap that causes wars.

When I moved into a house that I found in a roommate wanted section
of the paper, the first night I made my famous ham and bean soup.
The stuff cooks so long that the meat sort of dissolves.  My new
roommate (total stranger) offered me some of his dinner.  I offered
him some of mine.  He was eating the soup when I remembered the
mezuzah on the door frame.  Uh, oh.  I asked him if he ate kosher.
He gave me a suprised look at that question and said no.  Whew.
Then I told him that the mezuzah was on the wrong side of the door.

Ted Feuerbach - Scientific Systems Consultant
Disclaimer:  Monsanto didn't say this, I did.
From: naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Explanations sought
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:27:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: uctvax.1992Oct2.162733.202961
Organization: University of Cape Town

Seeing every one is so into discussing the Judas/Jesus myth how about
the following:


1.) Was Rhea Sylvia, the mother of Romulus and Remus, really a virgin
is the virgin birth of Romulus scientifically possible.

2.) What sort of ship did Hercules sail in when he went through the pillars
of Hercules.

3.) What was the effect of Thor drinking up a large portion of the ocean.
Seeing that many fish died because of this, was it morally correct for him
to do this. If not how can he be considered a god.

4.) How thick was the shell of the egg from which Helen of Troy hatched.

I am not interested in debating the historical validity of these stories, I
am just going to blindly accept.
 
*****************************************************************************
* Baby Doc Naturman                                                         *
* USS Enterprise                           "It's life Jim,                  *
* Final Frontier                                  but not as we know it."   *
* naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za                                                 *
*                                                       Spock of Vulcan     *
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 14:46:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.213955.23389@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
 
>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.

This is one point which I have been unable to resolve. That is, it is
said that god answers all prayers. Unless the answer is always 'no',
how can god answer prayers involving personal matters without infringing
upon the free-will of others? Or in larger matters, suppose one prays
that the niners win. Since there is no evidence that god affects the
physical world directly, the only way to affect the outcome of the
game would be to affect the players directly. In which case god must
be playing fast and loose with their free will.

What gives? 
 
>-- 
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Organization: Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:57:53 -0400 
From: Daniel Read <dr3u+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Fwd: J. Witnesses
	<7018@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>

---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------

>Isn't it true (by their standards) that if one "refuses god" 
>one is condemned to eternal damnation? So, for every "soul
>they save" there are 10 (100?) set to burn in hell forever?!
>I'd say they're doing the devil's own work! :-)

They claim that Christ is using them to do a `winnowing work' in `the last
days', and that those who still reject their message at the time Armageddon
comes will be killed by God, so your observation is essentially correct.


Response:

"Essentially" correct ... except that Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in 
Hell.  Consequently, those people die but have no after death
experiences.  I think that is a very significant difference from what
was initially posted. 

daniel
From: ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: J. Witnesses
Date: 30 Sep 1992 21:52:10 GMT
Reply-To: ingria@BBN.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com
In-reply-to: eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU's message of 29 Sep 92 12:41:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.124118.12387@spectrum.xerox.com> eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall) writes:

   All good and fine if you subscribe to the notion of dualism. There is a point of
   transcendence, however. This dualistic thinking is more a product of the "Western"
   brand of thinking than actual reality. Even physicists (via Quantum Physics) have
   admitted that a dualistic nature is not true nature. So, basically, you _are_ playing
   out a logic game within the very limited confines of the human brain. It is never
   as clear cut as this _or_ that; more realistically it is this _and_ that. At least,
   that's what my dog told me.

Does it have the Buddha nature?

-30-
Bob
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:38:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep28.192529.4385@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <1a4q2lINNf10@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep21.170238.25151@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>Carrying any position to logical extremes can produce
>>>unsatisfactory results.  For example, believing that this is the
>>>one and only life might tend to make me more selfish of myself
>>>having no care or consideration for anyone else.  I might even
>>>have fun breaking every social law in the book.  
>> 
>> Ah, yes.  This illustrates the underlying moral bankruptcy of so many of the
>> religious (not that I'm claiming that John belongs to this class):  It's only
>> fear of god that keeps them acting nicely.  Hence their frequent perception of
>> atheists as inherently immoral.
>
>Yes, I've heard this argument many times from fundmentalists.  They claim that
>Only God saved them from a life of sin, that he retrieved them from a sordid
>existance as a (insert one) alcoholic, wife beater, druggie, adulterer, child
>abuser, etc.  Obviously they would never have gotten any better on their own!

I think what we have here is often no more than an addictive personality
trading one addiction for another. In this case, it is a change for the
better. Many have changed from the above without religion, I do not think
that it is in any way necessary.

BTW, I do not see what this has to do with the text it was in response too.
If one does not sin because of the carrot (heaven) and the stick (hell),
then there is no inherent morality. What we have is behavior modification
somewhat along the lines of B. F. Skinner, as I understand it.
 
>Sarcasm meant.
>
>Sue
>> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Famous Last Words
Date: 1 Oct 92 23:46:56 GMT
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

In article <2025@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>A Western Union memo stated that the the telephone "is inherantly of
>no use to us".  In the UK, the head of the Post Office (I think)
>remarked that "the Americans may have use for the telephone.  We do
>not.  We have plenty of office boys."  Meanwhile the Mayor of an
>American town was more visionary, saying "I can see a time when every
>town will have one!".  Another writer of the time (can't remember who)
>forsaw an age when "A man might call a friend and ask `Where are you?',
>and the friend would answer, as it might be, `Crossing the Sahara', or
>`In the middle of the Pacific'.  Or the friend might not answer, and
>so the caller could reasonably conclude that his friend was dead.

Why is the last one in included in your list. Given cellular phones and
a dense enough statlite network that will certainly be possible in a few
years.  I have even seen articles suggesting the everybody should be assigned
a personal phone number cuz we'll need it real soon now.

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
From: rhatcher@fnalo.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:34:56 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab

In article <47953@shamash.cdc.com>, dternes@duke.cdc.com (David Ternes) writes:
> Is there any significant difference in body temperature between the sexes?
> Is there any significant difference in body temperature athletic and
> non-athletic individuals?

I'm tired of this thread, so I thought I'd type in the blurb in this week's
"Science News" (Sept 26, 1992: Vol 142, Number 13, page 196) completely
without permission (typo's mine).  I suggest individuals interested in
*further* details visit the library for the complete JAMA article.

[title] Body temperature: Don't look for 98.6 ^oF

In 1868, Carl Wunderlich published a seminal paper on body temperature in
25,000 adults. His more than 1 million measurements indicated that while
temperatures of healthy individuals varied, they averaged 98.6 ^oF 
(37 ^oC). Texts on fever still cite Wunderlich's study, one of the few
to investigate normal temperatures, and accept as dogma the 98.6 ^oF
average-body-temperature figure, notes Philip A. Mackowiak at the
University of Maryland School of Medicin in Baltimore. However, his new
data suggest the average should be 98.2 ^oF.

Mackowiak's group measured oral body temperature digitally up to four
times daily for three consecutive days in 148 volunteers.  The healthy
men and women ranged in age from 18 to 40.

Like Wunderlich, Mackowiak's team found that normal temperatures vary
between individuals (by as much as 4.8 ^oF) and even within individuals
over the course of a day (by up to 1.09 ^oF). However, the Baltimore group
found that 98.6 ^oF "was not the overal mean temperature, the mean 
temperature of any of the time periods studied, the median temperature,
or the single most frequent temperature recorded".  Indeed, they report
in the Sept. 23/30 _Journal_of_the_American_Medical_Association, 98.6 ^oF
accounted for just 8 percent of their 700 readings.

Maximum normal temperatures varied from a 6 a.m. low of 98.9 ^oF to a
4 p.m. high of 99.9 ^oF. Though age did not appear to influence readings
in this group, women tended to be about 0.3 ^oF warmer than men, and
blacks about 0.1 ^oF warmer than whites. Mackowiak's team also observed a
2.44-beats-per-minute increase in heart rate with each 1 ^oF rise in
body temperature.

Mackowiak described Wunderlich's data collection as awesome, noting that 
thermometers then took 15 to 20 minutes to obtain temperatures and had
to be read while still in place -- the armpit.  Today, however, physicians
eschew such underarm readings because of their unreliability.
       -J. Raloff
   
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: JRowe@cen.ex.ac.uk (John Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:17:10 GMT
	<26499@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Organization: Computer Unit. - University of Exeter. UK


	I thought the secret of balancing eggs upright was to use a
little slight of hand to put down a small pile of salt or similar
and balance the egg on that. Another UL?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:14:09 GMT

In article <1a0jrsINNqp7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ak104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert Clark) writes:
>
>
> Proponents of astrology have used the argument that the different
>gravitation pulls of the Sun and the Moon on the Earth at different
>times of the year could be used to explain the alleged differences
>in personality by birthdate. They cite the enormous gravitational
>influence of the tides to show how fluids on the earth, and by
>extrapoloation fluids in our bodies, are affected by astronomical
>objects. 
>  Critics have attacked this by saying you need tremendous amounts
>of mass to detect these _differential_ effects and by using statements
>like "the weight of the doctor has a greater gravit. effect on you
>at birth than the moon does." I've always bought these arguments.
>HOWEVER, the recent autumnal equinox has given me pause. I was looking
>at a picture of an egg balanced on its end and reading the caption to
>the picture which stated that only during the vernal or autumnal equinox
>may a fresh egg be balanced on its end, when I started wondering
>how such a small amount of mass can detect this effect.

The egg business is nonsense, and has been debunked.  You could have
tested this yourself.  It is certainly possible to balance an egg on
its end at any time of the year--I've done it.

>  We are finding more and more that conditions on the developing
>fetus during the early period of gestation have a great impact
>on future development. Even small alterations in the amniotic fluid
>during the first trimester can cause birth defects.
>   Can we be sure that the small variations in the gravitational pull
>exerted on our bodies during our gestation will have no effect
>on our future physical and mental makeup?

Yes, we can be sure-- when the gravitational pull of the doctor/midwife
who delivered you is greatly exceeds the total gravitational pull of the
other planets.

>
>
>							-Bob
>
>
>P.S.
>     
>     A true skeptic never stops wondering and questioning.


A *true* skeptic would have tried balancing eggs him/herself before
posting such drivel.

Jeff Shallit
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Clinton and Creationism
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 3 Oct 1992 11:28 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Oct2.023912.959@netcom.com>, anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes...
>wjc@guardian.austin.ibm.com (Bill Collum) writes:
> 
>>Maybe I missed something, being neither a devout "beliver" nor an
>>avowed "skeptic" (well, maybe more skeptical than most), but is 
>>"Scientific Creationism" really taught in public schools? With
>>tax-payers dollars? Tell me it's not true. It's no wonder we're well
>>on our way to becoming a third-world nation when children are
>>taught "beliefs" and "superstitions" rather than "evidence" and 
>>"facts" in schools that are intended to prepare them for life as
>>productive citizens. 
> 
>Arkansas *had* a law requiring the teaching of Scientific Creationism in
>public schools, but it was struck down.
> 
>My original question arose from a conversation I had with a friend. Neither
>of us knew the date the law was signed, so I mmade a fairly general query.
>I've since been informed that the was passed under a previous (Republican)
>administration in the state.
> 
>At least one other state had a similar law, but I can't remember which
>one right now.

Louisiana, which law was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Some legislators in Arizona had also attempted to get such a bill passed
several times, but it always failed.  (This was during Bruce Babbitt's
term as governor, and he would have vetoed it anyway.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 4 Oct 92 18:04:42 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <5795@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
=In article <1almc4INNg1n@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
=>In article <5751@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
=>>Pharisees are reported to have plotted against Jesus, that they hated
=>>his guts (enough to frame him for execution by Romans, all according to
=>>the same Biblical source) and that after the Temple incident any Temple
=>>guard or money changer or supporter of the Pharisees could have been
=>>trusted to identify Jesus who (still according to the same sources) must
=>>have had national fame - why else was he welcomed so much in Jerusalem?
=>
=>Just like you can count on every eyewitness to a crime to be able to identify
=>the suspect these days, right?  
=
=I don't suppose the authorities then knew as much as people nowadays.
=Carl seems to be bent on presenting the *then* authorities as modern 
=bureaucrats having the benefit of lots of experience and jurisprudence 
=and results of psychological research, and moreover extremely worried
=about a possible miscarriage of justice.  The story of the Gospels do
=not support that. 

No, I'm merely assuming that they don't want to have a botched arrest attempt.


=HP: That's your business. What do I have officers for?  Last week the
=whole city was filled with his devotees shouting Hosanna, and umpteen
=moneychangers lost their capital when he whipped them around and their
=tables fell over in the crowd.  I told you to have some people tail him.
=They know him by sight, don't they?  Get some of those moneychangers to 
=assist you.

DO they know him by sight well enough to identify him at night, or were they
simply relying on the fact that he seemed to be the center of attention
wherever he went to aid them in following him?  Might as well take someone
along whom you're SURE can identify him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17384 talk.origins:12458