HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rosch@cpdw.enet.dec.com (Ray Rosch)
Subject: Re: Get Off John's Back Please!
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:50:18 GMT


In article <1992Jul29.185219.29352@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, timpson@acetek.enet.dec.com () writes...
> 
>>
>>I am amazed that fully half of the traffic of this newsgroup is comprised
>>of your three-line messages ("I'm having an astral wank, everybody!"),
>>empty posts (" "), and one-screen text dumps. 
>>
>>Call me a skeptic, but I would think an intelligent life form who
>>wanted information distributed would get in touch with someone who had
>>a clue.
>>
> 
> 
>>   Come on guys! Give the guy a break. I know John and he's a really
>>   nice man. If you don'l like his posts then skip them. But geeze
>>   why so hostile? Freedom of speech is for everyone not just the
>>   people you agree with!
> 
>>                                  Denise
> 
>	It's not a question of freedom of speach it's the quality/quantity
>	of John messages.  It is rediculous and should be tempered.
> 
> 
>	Steve Food_for_the_Grays


	What is missing here is an appreciation for the attitude & beliefs
	of sci.skeptic readers.  The reason why this group is sci.skeptic
	is - surprise! - we are skeptical of paranormal claims.  This 'forum'
	provides an objective, skeptical view of extra-ordinary claims.

	I suggest that those people who cannot understand why this is called
	sci.skeptic do not post to it.  Frankly I am amazed that people
	cross-post to sci.skeptic from alt.alien.visitors and talk.religion.
	newage.  They push their ideas at three distinct groups - one, a
	discussion group on 'New Age" religion, the second on alien visitors
	which has an 'alt.' category and thirdly a science oriented group -
	hence the "sci." which admits to being skeptical. So we of sci.skeptic
	are asked to 'give John a break'? Why not understand that the topics
	he posts to this group are not going to be accepted without, dare I
	say it, skepticism !!!

	If John posts here in the form of an affirmation - "I had an astral
	projection and here's why it's true" then fine! It legitimately in-
	vites a skeptical response.  But when John posts unsubstantiated and
	outlandish comments he invites rather crude retorts - {eg.: John you
	are a &*#$@!}

	True, the deck is loaded in sci.skeptic's favor. Rebuttal here and in
	any other group by sci.skeptic will take on a derisive snicker if
	the posting in question is outlandish and unsubstantiated. Skeptics
	can do that and do do that.  Every group on the net has skeptics
	in it. So we 'hurt' other's feelings.  The Easily_Offended will be
	easily offended. Professional_Victims will be elated. Objectivists
	will laugh. [But the Women in Red, WIR's, are true...]

****
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed do not in any way reflect those of my employer
****
From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Radio transmission ESP test?
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:59:47 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Jul28.013844.15736@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>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

Thanks for keeping us informed, even though there appears to be little
information.  I couldn't help noticing the phrase "they stopped reading
the responses ..."  Perhaps this is an unwarranted interpretation on my
part, but that sounds as if there was no well formed procedure for
handling and analysing the results.  When you chat with Barry Williams
again, perhaps you could at least ask for some description of the
planned analyses (if any :-), and perhaps you could also get some
rationale for the design in the first place.  In particular, there seems
to have been no attention given to control comparisons, nor even to the
establishment of expected performance.  It would be worthwhile, given
your opportunity, to pin down some of the details of this "experiment",
now repeated twice.  Is the protocol worth our attention at all?

Roger N
From: gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca (Gary Katch)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.bizarre
Subject: Song for sci.skeptic.
Date: 28 Jul 92 02:07:52 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Concordia University
X-Dedication: To the skeptics.
X-Bizarre-Dedication: For Moosh.
X-Copyright: I said it first.
X-Mailing-Address: Computing Services C-1012
  1455 De Maisonneuve West
  Montreal (Quebec) H3G 1M8
X-Phone-Numbers: voice (514) 848-7632
  fax (514) 848-7622
Originator: gpkatch@alcor

[Sung to the tune of "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"]

Because I wasted so much time with rn reading news,
I had to unsubscribe most groups, not knowing how to choose,
But then one day I read a group, a welcome antiseptic:
The smartest group I ever read and it was called sci skeptic!

[Chorus]
Super-scientific skeptics expose all that's bogus:
Randi sees through Geller fraud, exposes hocus-pocus
Poor John_-_Winston's cabalistic texts are quite atrocious
Super-scientific skeptics expose all that's bogus!

Hum, di-de-lum di-de-lum, di-de-li
Hum, di-de-lum di-de-lum, di-de-li

I know those U.F.O's in NASA's videos look nice
But they're really only sublimating particles of ice;
And when we make a pilgrimage to see Greys in Mt. Shasta
We'll stay at home in bed and go by O.B.E. -- it's fasta!

[Chorus]
Super-scientific skeptics expose all that's bogus:
Cattle eating all our grain with appetites ferocious;
Global warming melting polar ice and raising oceans --
Super-scientific skeptics expose all that's bogus!

Hum, di-de-lum di-de-lum, di-de-li
Hum, di-de-lum di-de-lum, di-de-li
[Modulate]
Hum, di-de-lum di-de-lum, di-de-li
Hum, di-de-lum di-de-lum, di-de-li

Now hyper-weak dilutions give us medicines holistic
But given facts, practitioners appear to be autistic.
Let's dowse our way to San Jose and emanate our auras
But keep that J.F.K. stuff out, and join our skeptics' chorus!

[Chorus]
O, super-scientific skeptics expose all that's bogus
The Rev'rend counters Maximus's patriarchal focus
And if you post before you think, you're only braggadocious
Super-scientific skeptics expose all that's bogus!

-- gk
From: swells@triton.unm.edu (Ed Gruberman)
Subject: Re: Response to Cary Collet(t)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 19:29:01 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Jul21.160744.14552@news.nd.edu> wlamonac@haydn.helios.nd.edu (william lamonaca) writes:
>
>It's inconceivable that he ever would bested the swordsman.
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

you keep using that word.  i do not think it means what you think it
means.

sew
From: djimenez@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Daniel Jimenez)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: skeptic-faq V 0.1
Date: 30 Jul 92 07:24:25 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Jul29.232747.23650@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>[after quoting and responding to my "factoring" posting]
>Anyway, if we are dealing with people who aren't too sophisticated
>mathematically then you should be able to trick them:
>
>ME: Is there an x,y,z,w that fit FLT?
>NewAger: No.  Proof by Hughlkjasdjfl's 3rd Lemma
>ME: (nuts) Is there a transfinite between aleph 0 and aleph 1?
>NA: No.  Proof by Hughlkjasdjfl's 4th Lemma
>ME: (damn) Is P a proper subset of NP?
>NA: No.  Proof by Hughlk...
>ME: Don't bother, please reduce the Hamiltonian problem to polynomial
>    time (VICTORY!)

I think we're getting somewhere now.  The NewAger could provide a bogus
algorithm for reducing HC to polynomial time, e.g.,

    for i in 1..n loop
        apply the Schnitzel transformation to each node
        in the graph with respect to the Foo factor of
        the adjacent edges
    end loop
    etc.

BUT, your original idea of factoring turns out to come in handy here.
P = NP implies that there exists a polynomial time solution to factoring,
so now the NewAger can't say it's impossible to factor big numbers.

Of course, he could be a smart NewAger, and claim P != NP first.
-- 
Daniel Jimenez
"                      " -- John Cage
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Plausible Denial
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 19:21:18 GMT

revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
: 
:         "Plausible Denial" is, in its strictest definition, a denial
: that the listener thinks is credible. In its pragmatic use, it's
: basically a believable lie.
: 

It doesn't even have to be believable as long as it's not falsifiable.
Not too many people (that I know of) believe that Reagan and Bush
didn't know exactly what Ollie & Co. were doing.  But, as long as we
can't _prove_ that they knew what was going on, they have plausible
deniability.

I just looked up "plausible" and the first definition is:

  "Superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious."

So plausible deniable would be a claim that _might_ be true, but we
know probably isn't.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  What should the entire
Rosemount Inc.                                |human race DO??  Consume a
                                              |fifth of CHIVAS REGAL, ski
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |NUDE down MT. EVEREST, and
                                              |have a wild SEX WEEKEND!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: skeptic-faq V 0.1
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:27:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.214827.13287@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> 
  djimenez@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Daniel Jimenez) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.204535.20322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> 
>  amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>>In article <1863@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>>>[about how we could test an alien, e.g. "Prove FLT"]
>>Fermat's Last Theorem has the risk that the AB (advanced being) will 'answer'
>>it by saying "Well, just integrate over the semi-hyperbolictransrealpartially-
>>dynamic numbers and it is obvious".  A better solution, which I saw here
>>(but I don't remember who suggested it) is to ask for the factorization of 
>>some *huge* number that is known to be composite but whose factors are
>>not known.  Computing the factors of, say a 10000 digit number, is way beyond 
>>us right now but for an alien dude it should be cake.  Checking
>>the answer is, of course, trivial.
>
>What if the aliens say "Factoring is intractable."  Humans don't know if
>there is any less-than-subexponential solution to factoring.  Factoring
>could even be NP-complete (unlikely, though).  It might turn out that
>all the computing power in the universe may not be able to factor a 10000
>digit number in a reasonable amount of time.

Okay, so don't make it 10000 digits (that was just and example fer cryin'
out loud).  Pick a number that would take us, uh, 10 years to factor
using our computers.  If they are really advanced then they should
be able to crank out an answer in under a week (that would only require
a computer 500 times faster than what we use).

Anyway, if we are dealing with people who aren't too sophisticated
mathematically then you should be able to trick them:

ME: Is there an x,y,z,w that fit FLT?
NewAger: No.  Proof by Hughlkjasdjfl's 3rd Lemma
ME: (nuts) Is there a transfinite between aleph 0 and aleph 1?
NA: No.  Proof by Hughlkjasdjfl's 4th Lemma
ME: (damn) Is P a proper subset of NP?
NA: No.  Proof by Hughlk...
ME: Don't bother, please reduce the Hamiltonian problem to polynomial
    time (VICTORY!)

>Daniel Jimenez

C Frog
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
From: grante@aquarius (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:31:51 GMT

grante@aquarius (Grant Edwards) writes:
: boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken) writes:
: 
: : Up until a few years ago, there was no proof that people could have
: : lucid dreams, dreams in which the dreamer knows he/she is dreaming.
: 
: Isn't a lucid dream when you _don't_ know it's a dream and it seems
: real?
: 

Karl is correct, thanks to the people who explained lucid dreams to me.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I was making donuts and
Rosemount Inc.                                |now I'm on a bus!
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
From: michaelb@cse.fau.edu (Michael Rogero Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Book on Flat Earth Theories
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:30:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

I am looking for information regarding a promised book on Flat Earth
Theories.  In Whole Earth Review's book _Fringes of Reason_ there
was an excellent article on Flat Earth Theories by Robert Schadewald.
In the section about the author they stated that he had an upcoming
book on Flat Earth Theories entitled _The Plain Truth_.  This was
published several years ago and I have been looking for any announcement
of this books publication.  I have looked in Books in Print for the
last few years hoping to see it listed, but it has yet to appear.

Does anyone know if or when this book will be published and by who?

-- 
<<                                                               >>
<< Michael R. Brown    CS Graduate Student-Florida Atlantic Univ >>
<< Internet: michaelb@sol.cse.fau.edu                            >>
<< BitNet: m_brown@fauvax                                        >>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Response to Cary Collet(t) 
Organization: just me
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 19:54:14 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <1992Jul20.235452.19544@rosevax.rosemount.com> 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?
>
>--
>Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  A shapely CATHOLIC
>Rosemount Inc.                                |SCHOOLGIRL is FIDGETING
>                                              |inside my costume..
>grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |

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
robear@digex.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: A prediction
Organization: just axe, why don't you...
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 14:59:08 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <1992Jul28.190755.296@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>I predict that next Tuesday, most major newspapers in the United States of
>America will carry stories about a gruesome double murder at 92 Second Street
>in Fall River, Massachusetts.  The prime suspect will never be convicted of
>murder, and the murder weapon will never be found.

Good point, Carl.  The first rule of trickery; know more than those around
you.

Good old Lizzie, eh? :-)
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
<disclaimer deleted>
		David Pipes
robear@digex.com

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Anti-motion sickness wristbands
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:42:11 GMT

In article <4818@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
>In article <1992Jul15.012428.27716@u.washington.edu> mpark@u.washington.edu 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 such
>way that you constantly feel it and think about it, has a "placebo" effect.
>IN the report I read it was a physician who taped a piece of paper (folded)
>to his arm. It had a charm written on it.
>Motion sickness seems to have great potential to be cured by placebo  effect.

I think you're overgeneralizing the term "placebo effect" here.  I know that in
my case, anything that distracts my attention from the scenery to the side of
the car tends to prevent motion sickness.  This can include sitting in the front
seat where I have a good enough view through the windshield that I don't look
through the side windows.  Now, if all that's needed is some distraction from
the motion, then we're not talking about a placebo effect here.  It's a placebo
effect only if whether it works depends on whether the person believes in
advance that it will work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: alt.close.minded.ninnies
Keywords: go back to sleep
Date: 26 Jul 92 05:47:53 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

rodb@slugo.corp.sgi.com (Rod Beckwith) writes:

> Hear no evil,speak no evil,see no evil & bury your head in sand.
> 
> 	How long did it take us to fly?
> 	How long did it take to prove the Earth was round?
> 	How long did...............I think you all get the POINT!
> 	(if you don't,go back to sleep)
> 
> You SKEPTICS keep the rest of us striving for greatness....THANKS!:*]
> 
> R.I.P.
> 
> Rod
> 
        I guess than we can look forward to Rod Beckwith going on to achieve 
greatness, revise all of known science, and have his name enshrined in the 
annals of the Giants Who Walked the Earth.

        Or, he might wind up eating out of KFC garbage bins.

Rev. P-K-- "Ah, here's some with some MEAT on it!!!"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
From: pensyl@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Alzheimer's Disease
Date: 30 Jul 92 09:56:45 EST

Is Alzheimer's Disease really a disease in the context of decreasing/
undermining human performance?   Or, is it one/any/more than any of
the following:

 o  overwrite of the afflicted (apparently afflicted) person's memory;
    suggesting that the afflicted has used all of memory, or

 o  premature contact with their god such that their mind is caught up
    in thinking beuond this earth and daily concerns (to them) merit no
    thought, or

 o  (closely coupled with the above) a protective feature where these
    people have had enough earthly pain and the mind begins to erase
    thoughts of earth and are (the afflicted) trying to appeal to their
    god to whisk them away?

Have fun?
Flames and jokes are accepted!
JP
From: djimenez@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Daniel Jimenez)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: skeptic-faq V 0.1
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:48:27 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Jul29.204535.20322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>In article <1863@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>>[about how we could test an alien, e.g. "Prove FLT"]
>Fermat's Last Theorem has the risk that the AB (advanced being) will 'answer'
>it by saying "Well, just integrate over the semi-hyperbolictransrealpartially-
>dynamic numbers and it is obvious".  A better solution, which I saw here
>(but I don't remember who suggested it) is to ask for the factorization of 
>some *huge* number that is known to be composite but whose factors are
>not known.  Computing the factors of, say a 10000 digit number, is way beyond 
>us right now but for an alien dude it should be cake.  Checking
>the answer is, of course, trivial.

What if the aliens say "Factoring is intractable."  Humans don't know if
there is any less-than-subexponential solution to factoring.  Factoring
could even be NP-complete (unlikely, though).  It might turn out that
all the computing power in the universe may not be able to factor a 10000
digit number in a reasonable amount of time.

If asked for a proof of the intractability of factoring, the aliens could
just pull the same trick as with the FLT example, e.g., "The proof of
Fermat's Last Theorem implies the intractiblity of factoring, obviously!"
-- 
Daniel Jimenez
"                      " -- John Cage
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Song for sci.skeptic.
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:24:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca (Gary Katch) sings:

>[Sung to the tune of "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"]

>Because I wasted so much time with rn reading news,
>I had to unsubscribe most groups, not knowing how to choose,
>But then one day I read a group, a welcome antiseptic:
>The smartest group I ever read and it was called sci skeptic!

>[Chorus]
>Super-scientific skeptics expose all that's bogus:
>Randi sees through Geller fraud, exposes hocus-pocus
>Poor John_-_Winston's cabalistic texts are quite atrocious
>Super-scientific skeptics expose all that's bogus!

Now if we can just get Julie Andrews to record it...
-- 

Anson Kennedy                                                   anson@netcom.com
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

"If you don't watch the violence,    \           "If I had been the Virgin Mary,
you'll never get desensitized to it."  \                I would have said 'No.'"
-Bart Simpson                            \  -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
From: DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Another thought problem.
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:36:03 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

CSYSPCN@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (CSYSPCN) says:

> Since we're doing thought problems, this is one of my favorites:

> Suppose we have a cannonball, suspended over an infinit plain, by
> a lightyear long piece of wire.  You cut the wire at the top, speed
> of light limitations say that the cannon ball can't know that the top
> has been cut for a year, so it can't start to fall for at least a year.

> So the question is: What holds the cannon ball up during that time.

> Answer: Ignorance!

Correct answer:  The wire.  It still has tension.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic