HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Scud rockets hit Israel
Date: 1 Oct 92 02:07:22 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

snggab01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:

> Sorry for those friendly skeptics out there who have already replied to my
> previous request last week but our netnews service was shut down by the 
> powers that be so I did not get to see any replies.
> 
> I have received an earful from Jewish and Christian bible punchers about the
> scud missiles hitting Israel during the Gulf War of 1991,the fact that 39
> missiles hit Israel,slamming into crowded apartment blocks and only one perso
> was killed directly by the attacks,that individual supposedly owning a pork
> factory.ie.that this was all a miracle tallying in with biblical prophecies.
> 
> I am extremely skeptical about this miracle theory.Can anyone out there 
> tear this miracle theory apart eg.from the point of view of a ballistics 
> analysis.

        Gee, you'd think Uri Geller would;ve done something about those 
Scuds...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
Servo: "Dianetics, by L. Ron Hubbard."
Joel:  "Why is my life messed up? Page 74."
Servo: "When will this movie end? Page 155."
Crow:  "How much money can we get out of Tom Cruise? Page 85."

                                       "Mystery Science Theater 3000,"
                                       during a volcano scene in
Date: Friday, 2 Oct 1992 19:11:41 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: that time of the month for the holy mother...

look dude, no offense, but i really don't care why you think i should
believe the guy on tv rather than the religious people.

i just want to know how he did it.
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Chimp ``Language'' (Was: Re: Chimpanzee vs Human DNA)
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:03:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: onion.GERRY.92Sep30130347
 <92272.225700RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <1992Sep29.130725.6525@hsr.no>
 <lchlb0INN6tq@news.bbn.com> <92273.183239RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

One must always wonder whether the research done with chimps and
dolphins is the real McCoy or merely a reflection of the experimenters
desires.  The work is fascinating, but...

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The most foolish mistake we could possibly
Field Robotics Center,          | make would be to allow the subjected people
Carnegie Mellon University      | to carry arms, history shows that all
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | conquerors who have allowed their subjected
(412) 268-3856                  | peoples to carry arms have prepared their own
                                | fall. Adolph Hitler
The opinions expressed are mine | 
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Paying Attention (was: Reincarnation)
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:56:43 GMT

In article <1alda5INNk87@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.091006.26276@netcom.com>, obrien@netcom.com (Robert O'Brien) writes:
>>
>>Uh, excuse me, I'm new to this group, but I'd like to point out that
>>the following is seriously at odds with any definition I've heard of
>>for the concept of "luck"
>>
>>That is, I think "bring good luck" and "ward off bad luck" are, in fact,
>>synonymous in any definition.
>
>Oh?  Let's try one:
>	Bring good luck:  Cause normally random events to be decided in your
>		favor more often that would be statistically likely.
>	Ward off bad luck:  Ensure that normally random events aren't decided
>		in your favor less often than would be statistically likely.
>Example:
>	I make a bet with you in which we flip a coin 100 times.  Each time it
>	comes up heads, you pay me $1.  Each time it comes up tails, I pay you
>	$1.
>
>	Good luck (for me) is if I end up making a lot of money on the bet. 
>	Bad luck is if you make a lot of money.  Indifferent luck is where we,
>	as expected, both break even, to within a few dollars.

Not so Carl, good or bad luck as nothing to do with a statistical probability.
If I speed down a highway at 85 mph every day for the last two years and
finally get a speeding ticket one day, then if I do not have my lucky rabit
with me, I will think that I had bad luck even though statistically speaking
I am doing great.  Your're definition of good, bad and indifferent luck is
not the way it is commonly used although it is logically consistent.

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

-- 
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: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:07:53 GMT

In article <1ale3oINNk87@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.232433.24489@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>=A spiritual hunger in a person is a recognition that there is more to the
>=world then what meets the physical senses.  It is trying to get all the
>="missing" information it can about this spiritual realm so that they can
>=live their lives accordingly.  If this spirtual realm contains God, then
>=the hunger exists to please him and to know everything they can about him.
>=If it contains the notion of a soul, then certain questions come to mind
>=for which theories are advanced (reincarnation being the one mentioned).
>
>How then, is a spiritual hunger different from incipient schizophrenia?  And
>how is a fullfilled spiritual hunger different from full-blown schizophrenia?

Perhaps you should ask a qualified mental health professional that question,
if you really think that there is confusion between the two...

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


-- 
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:  (batman@apple.apple.com (Ken Laws))
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Standing on the Cliffs of Atlantis
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:11:58 GMT
Organization: apple

Ha. Thought that subject would get your attention.

A few years ago, I visited the Greek island of Thira
(Santorini). Standing on a balcony, looking out over
the huge, mostly underwater volcanic crater that defines
the island, I remembered something I read/heard about
somewhere: Thira is the source of the Atlantis legend.
When the volcano blew long ago, most of the island fell beneath
the sea.

So, where did I hear this, and is it the "standard
explanation?"

-Ken.
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Idea for FAQ file
Date: 1 Oct 92 07:23:16 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide


Can people think of famous examples, in the past, when


(a) The skeptic view was proved absolutely right,

    (eg. Turin Shroud, Piltdown Man etc etc)


(b) The skeptic view was, in fact, proved wrong

    (eg. "X-rays are a hoax" Lord Kelvin 1900,  etc etc)


(c) Unresolved,

    (eg. UFOs, Loch Ness, etc etc)

(d) Intrinsically unprovable either way,

    (eg. all true conspiracy theories, JFK etc etc)



If we brainstorm & compile a list of examples in all
categories, it would make an interesting section in the FAQ file.



Any comments or contributions??


Category (b) should be the most taxing and most interesting.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: chapman@ims.com (Dave Chapman)
Subject: Chimpanzee vs Human DNA
Keywords: chimpanzee,DNA
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:44:08 GMT

Here is a reference for the claim that human DNA and chimpanzee DNA
are 99% alike:

Evolution at two levels. Molecular similarities and biological
differences between humans and chimpanzees. Science 188:107-116 (1975)
King, M.C. and Wilson, A.C.

The point with the monkeys is that evolution survived another
possibility for falsification. If humans and chimpanzees share a
common ancestor in the "recent" past then they should share both
morphological and genetic similarities. They do. Evolution has passed
another test.


-- 
Dave Chapman   	       	       	    | The chickens are in the air.
Integrated Measurement Systems	    |
9525 SW Gemini Dr.		    | work 503 626 5373
Beaverton, Oregon		    | chapman@ims.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Soul
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:04:01 GMT

msavasti@telesciences.com (Michael Savastio) writes:

: Why am I responsible for any of my actions?  Am to whom am I
: responsible?  To a bunch of other clumps of standing-up mud, if that's
: all we are?

Exacty!  And you are responsible to the other clumps of standing-up
mud because they all got together and decided that each clump was
responsible for it's own actions.  They wrote these rules down and
called them "laws."  Then they invented lawyers, and it all went down
hill from there. ;)

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Now KEN and BARBIE are
Rosemount Inc.                                |PERMANENTLY ADDICTED to
                                              |MIND-ALTERING DRUGS..
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Chimpanzee vs Human DNA
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:07:25 GMT

>this has virtually nothing to do with the discussion, but too bad; i find it
>interesting.
>
>did anyone read last week's parade magazine? there was an article by carl
>sagan and someone else (i forget her name) about chimps.
>
>one interesting point was that some scientists gave a chimp two stacks of
>pictures: one stack was of pictures of humans, and the other was of pictures
>of non-human animals.  they then gave the chimp a new stack of photos, this
>one having both human and non-human animals.
>
>the chimp proceeded to seperate this stack into human and non-human stacks.
>she got everything right.  except one picture.  she put the picture of herself
>in the "human" stack.
>
>even further removed from the discussion is another interesting experiment:
>scientists got a bunch of maques (some sort of higher primate) and paired them
>up.  each pair would be dealt with as follows: one would be placed on one side
>of a glass wall, the other on the other side.  they were in plain view of
>each other.  there was a chain in one room.  if the chimp in that room pulled
>the chain, he would get fed.  if not, he would not get fed.  however, there
>was a catch: if he pulled the chain, the other maque would get an electric
>shock, causing obvious pain.
>
>after the chimp with the chain figured this out, they would refuse to pull
>the chain.  relative social standing of the two chimps didn't matter; nor
>did whether the two chimps knew each other or not.  one chimp starved himself
>for two weeks before giving in and pulling the chain.
>
>makes you wonder who has more humanity, us or chimpanzees.  actually, it
>doesn't make you wonder at all.  it flat out slaps you across the face
>with the facts.
>
Very, very interesting indeed. I might also add that the most intelligent chimp
up to date knows about 1000 words and can use actively some fewer words. She has
invented her own grammar. Simple, perhaps, but grammar still.
Ex:
Man hit. = A man hits someone.
Hit man. = Someone hits a man.



Onar.
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:17:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.110354.9015@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:

>Does this mean  that God created a situation where we could have had direct
>knowledge of Him, not interfaced through books and interpreters, but this 
>direct contact was hidden.  We were then given free will to rediscover God with
>secondhand evidence, while the physical  world contains evidence contrary to 
>some interpretations of the written word that theoretically supports the
>existence of God?

No :)

>
>GXKambic
>sd
>


-- 
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: ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell)
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Organization: Entropy Limited, Vancouver Canada
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 23:16:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.162515.11505@lsil.com> gascan@dcst16.dc writes:
>In article 28SEP199212340962@csa1.lbl.gov, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>> [...]
>> It is no accident that human body temperature is close to 100 on the Farenheit
>> scale.  Mr. Farenheit designed his scale so that it would be exactly 100.
>> But for reasons that I do not remember, he was a little off.

Probably his subject(s) were, on average, 1.4 degrees warmer that what
later came to be considered normal.

>BZZZZZZZ!!!!  Thank you for playing!
>If you theory is correct, what did Mr. Farenheit use for the '0' end of his scale?

Independently of his--as you call it--theory, he used (according to what I
learned in school) a mixture of salt, water, and ice. For a given
concentration of salt, this has a well-defined freezing point.

-- 
ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!eslvcr!ted   (Ted Powell)
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Chimpanzee vs Human DNA
Date: 5 Oct 92 06:36:15 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <BvI5AK.2ox@newcastle.ac.uk> w.p.coyne@newcastle.ac.uk writes:
|
|But the lifestyle of the gorilla and chimp are must closer together than
|either is to the lifestyle of humans.  So you would expect there to be
|greater physical similarities between those 2, than between them and 
|humans
|
True enough.  It is mostly a matter of how likely you think convergent
evolution of anatomically *indistinguishable* adaptions for knuckle-
walking are.  Yes, convergance on knuckle walking in mixed arboreal/
non-arboreal brachiating apes *is* reasonable, but is such great
similarity of anatomical adaptions reasonable?

This is not an easy question to answer, and that is why I say the issue
is technically *undecided*.  (I am, myself, ambivalent on this).

And, as I mentioned there is *some* discrepant *molecular* data.

Of course, I do not see a great deal of difference between first cousin
and first cousin once removed, so I consider the issue to be one of
'filling in the details'.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: J.Z. Knight and Ramtha in _People_
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:07:10 GMT


	In the most recent issue of _People_ magazine, there is an
article on J.Z. Knight and her troubles with her ex-husband Jeffrey
Knight. It turns out that JZKn had seen JK in an ad when she was still
married to a Tacoma, WA dentist back in 1980, that she fell in love
with him there and then (she was 34 and he 24), and that they met in
1981 and got married in 1984, with him becoming her fifth husband.

	"He was the most beautiful man I had ever seen. He smiled and
his eyes twinkled a dark fire," she later wrote.

	In 1976, back in her houses' kitchen, she got sight of another
man -- Ramtha, who was a 35,000-year-old warrior from Atlantis, "this
thing ... made all of light, like golden glitter dropped through a ray
of sunlight." (And I thought it was all coppery, from that orichalcum
paneling) According to JK, JZKn called Ramtha "a Christ for our
times."

	However, JZKn and JK divorced in 1989, and JK has been
contending that his $120,000 settlement is inadequate; he needs it to
pay for medical treatments for HIV. The split began in 1989 when
JZKn's two sons (now 26 and 24) caught her in an "extremely
compromising" position with a young novice Ramster, 19-year-old John
Alt. For his part, JK has taken up with a younger man also:
25-year-old Geoff Corbin (JK had probably gotten HIV from a gay
lover).

	JK has claimed that JZKn used his belief in Ramtha to sucker
him into giving him less than his due; JZKn retorts by commenting that
JK was independent enough to consort with male prostitutes.

	JZKn has an estate in Yelm, WA, which contains a maze
(pictured in the article) which the Ramsters are supposed to go
through blindfolded; JK claims that JZKn has earned as much as $4
million/yr from various Ramtha enterprises.

	For awhile, Shirley MacLaine was a Ramster, but she has now
quit for someone else.

	Linda Evans is still a Ramster.

	The article disappointed me in not addressing the question of
how Ramtha figured out his age or how there could be a big sunken
continent in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean or why Atlantean
artifacts have not turned up in abundance along the shores of the
Atlantic and the Mediterranean. I guess JZKn's answer would be that
"Ramtha had actually lived there, and you didn't."

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17553 talk.religion.newage:4567
From: v462etnn@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (David L Anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: J.Z. Knight and Ramtha in _People_
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:53:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct6.220710.12138@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes...
> 
>	In the most recent issue of _People_ magazine, there is an
>article on J.Z. Knight and her troubles with her ex-husband Jeffrey
[beaucoup deleted]
>compromising" position with a young novice Ramster, 19-year-old John
>Alt. For his part, JK has taken up with a younger man also:

It's been a little while, but "Who is John (G)Alt" -- highly
prophetic, these developments ;->

David "Just walk away from society" Anderson
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17509 alt.conspiracy:10984
From: spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Date: 6 Oct 1992 03:14:23 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: szechuan.ucsd.edu

In article <5OCT199217402077@csa3.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>Are we supposed to believe that the Soviet Gov't, which couldn't organize
>the harvest of the crops that it planted, or get bottles to the vodka
>factories, did, in spite of its decay, manage to get a Star Wars defense
>up and running?  Not very likely.

I agree that a Soviet/Russian/FSU/CIS Star Wars defense system is
pretty unlikely, for the myriad technical reasons that our SDI folks
are learning, much to their chagrin.

However, I'd like to point out that the Russia, with a government that
can't get its vodka into bottles, is currently the only country in the
world to have a manned, operational space station in orbit around the
Earth.

For that matter, considering the painful fact that this country is rapidly
going to hell in a handbag, some might be led to be skeptical of the widely
publicised Space Shuttle flights. :-)

Again, I don't believe for a minute that the USSR or the CIS had/have
an operational Star Wars defense program, but I think it's somewhat
shortsighted to write them off completely, which the quoted posting
appears to do.  Back in the 1950s the common wisdom was that since the
then Soviet Union had trouble building a working alarm clock, the
would never be able to launch an earth orbiting satellite.  Sputnik
proved a lot of people wrong.

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"If you don't think people are this crazy, you need to move to LA!"
                                     - Gary Stollman
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientific facts
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:51:29 GMT
Organization: Northern Illinois University

In article <1aa443INNe2l@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.150200.31779@mp.cs.niu.edu>, you write:
>=>>I'll give you my informal and unofficial definition of fever.  (No, I do
>=>>not have any medical qualifications).

>=Now please expound on your wonderful theories of physics and the heat
>=equation, and their relation to this.
>
>Certainly:  The rate at which heat is conducted between a source and a sink
>is proportional to the difference in temperatures of the source and the sink.
>...

Your mistake is to think of the thermometer as the sink and the tongue
as the source.  Actually the sink includes the tongue and other parts
of the mouth, as well as the thermometer, and the source is the interior
of the body.  The rate at which heat is being transferred from the
interior to the periphery through the blood stream is the essential
factor.  This is not a static conduction problem, but a problem with
forced warm fluid flow.

The rapidity of rise of the thermometer is not measuring the body
temperature, but the rate at which blood is being pumped to the periphery.
As the earlier discussion on sci.skeptic indicated, body temperature is
not a very reliable measure of fever, particularly when it is a low
grade fever.  I was answering a question about better measures.  And I
was suggesting that the blood flow rate to the periphery, as indicated
by the rapidity of the temperature rise in the thermometer, is a more
reliable measure than is the temperature alone.

 -NWR
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Dream analysis therapy
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:32:15 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? Has there been anything
>that would imply such therapy could actually be harmful?
>I'm not looking for sources that debunk psychotherapy
>in general. The more recent, the better.

I don't know of any "sources," but consider the following:

Freud's analysis of dreams was as follows: Dreams are caused by disturbances
while we are in the sleeping state. We may be disturbed by outside noises,
by our digestion, by a too-hard bed, by subconscious fears, etc. If we
were undisturbed, we would not be dreaming. Analyze what we dream about,
and we will understand what is disturbing us.

Reasonable sounding - but wrong. The dream state, characterized by rapid
eye movement (REM), is now known to be an integral part of the physiology
of sleep, for reasons that are not yet understood. We cannot sleep for
long without dreaming. Hence Freud's theory, while a good early attempt
to explain dreaming, has subsequently been shown to be incorrect.

Of course, a neo-Freudian might still argue that the way our mind creates
its dreams during the dream state shows 'what is bothering us'.


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"