HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: v462etnn@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (David L Anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mars effect
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:11:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: acsu.BxxMxw.CEx
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <168A312235.SERTEL@ibm.gwdg.de>, SERTEL@ibm.gwdg.de writes...
> 
> 
>My Mars effect messages are about to disappear from
>this list. There was no reply. Why?
> 
>Hypothesis (1) The sci.sceptic forum serves to exchange views
>               not research results.
>Hypothesis (2) The stuff was too technical
>Hypothesis (3) Readers interested in the messages have been
>               waiting for a reply by Jan W Nienhuys, the main
>               former discussant on that subject. But he did not reply.
>Hypothesis (4) The topic has become boring.
>Hypothesis (5) Not responding to my message (lack of reinforcement)
>               will make me stop sending such nuisance.
>Hypothesis (6) ....
>Hypothesis (7) ....      (You may continue if you like)
> 
>S. Ertel
> 

Theory 1: Mars effect is baloney.

D. Anderson
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: BIOLOGICAL ALCHEMY
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:54:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.163444.2391@cnsvax.uwec.edu> 
  mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:

I think you forgot the similies in this post, but never mind.
       
>                              BIOLOGICAL ALCHEMY
>                        ( ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION )
>               ( ALTERNATIVE Heavy Element Creation in Universe ) 
>
>               (1) Obtain a good sample of plant seeds, all of the same 
>                   kind.  [Some kinds might work better that others.]
>               (2) Divide the sample into two groups of equal weight 
>                   and number.
>               (3) Sprout one group in distilled water on filter paper 
>                   for three or four weeks.
>               (4) Separately incinerate both groups.
>               (5) Weigh the residue from each group.  [The residue of 
>                   the sprouted group will usually weigh at least 
>                   SEVERAL PERCENT MORE than the other group.]

Yeah, but listen tiger.  If the plants are converting energy into mass
(they couldn't just be growing could they, plants do get some nutrients
out of the air.....  nahhh, that would make it too easy) then they would 
need a SHITLOAD of energy to make an appreciable amount of mass.  Where 
does that energy come from?

C Frog
From: cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Date: 16 Nov 92 03:22:59 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

G T Clark (gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
> 
> 	The bible is patently not inerrant.Read Leviticus,chapter 18(or
> thereabouts) where it fairly clearly states that insects walk "upon all
> fours... fourfootedly upon the ground".That's quite clearly a mistake,
> no matter what stage it crept in at.

This isn't a mistake, its an idiom.

> 
> 	G.
> 
> p.s. that's from the King James VI (authorised) translation.

--
                                                                     ___
Bill Rea                                                            (o o)
-------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre, | E-Mail   b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury,           | or     cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand           | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.alien.visitors
From: beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede)
Subject: Re: Jeane Dixon Predicts Bush Victory
Organization: SCTC
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:53:42 GMT

>>the sex of unborn children: You send me 50 dollars and some pertinent
>>information about the time of conception, etc. and I will tell you the sex
>>of the child. If I am wrong you get your money back.
>If they offer double your money back, go for it. PV

That's just an even-money bet.  They'd have to offer triple your money back to make it profitable for the customers.

	Mike

-- 
Mike Beede         Secure Computing
beede@sctc.com     1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100           
------------------ Arden Hills, MN  55112
                    (612) 482-7420
From: cregar@tbd2.brl.mil (Raymond Cregar )
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: HIV Dracula
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:58:01 GMT

Not being an authority on any subject, I am curious if the issue
has been raised concerning the effect of HIV on the Dracula trade.
With the release of the new film "Dracula", I thought the timing
relevant.

1.  Would HIV publicity affect the popularity of Dracula films?
2.  Would copy-cat "vampires" be discouraged due to HIV?
3.  Could HIV be transmitted by vampires?

Your thoughts and comments would be greatly appreciated.
Raymond D. Cregar
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: german@vxcrna.cern.ch (GERMAN,FERN./EP)
Subject: Hot coffee (was Re: sci.skeptic: The Frequently Questioned Answers)
Reply_to: german@cernvm.cern.ch
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Summary: Not so easy
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:21:00 GMT

In article <TJFS.92Nov20132454@coffee.tadtec.uucp>, tjfs@tadtec.uucp 
(Tim Steele) writes...
> 
>b) You buy cup of coffee with a tub of milk, but then get called to
>the phone.  If you want your coffee to be as hot as possible, should
>you put the milk in before you take the call or when you return?
> 
>Answers below.
> 
>b) You should add the milk before you go as the rate of cooling of the
>coffee is proportional to the temperature difference between the
>coffee and the room.
>
It's perhaps true, but it isn't so simple:
The constant of proportionality depends on the kind of matter there is
in the cup, black coffee is not the same as coffee with milk. I think 
one have to take into account the different specific heats of both
liquids. What is independent of that is the rate of loss of heat, not 
the rate of decrease of temperature.
    ,      ,
German Fernandez, alias GERMAN@CERNVM.CERN.CH  
European Organization For Nuclear Research (CERN)
Geneve - Confoederatio Helvetica
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: The Efficacy of Prayer
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:16:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.165424.13010@ncsa.uiuc.edu> jsue@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey L. Sue) writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.183047.4239@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>Is it also not possible that many do good despite being christian? I am
>>not trying to label Christianity as evil, but there does not seem to be
>>any overall correlation between being Christian, and being positive.
>>
>
>Has somebody made the statement that Christian's are the *only* positive
>force on earth?  

Not that I am aware of. I did not make that claim. Why did you bring this
up? In fact, I am not really sure that Christianity -is- a positive force.
Much good has been done, and perhaps as much evil, depending upon how
you count these things.

>                I think that in order to progress or improve ourselves,
>we always need to have our sights set on some final "visions" of where
>we would like to be.  A model.  And to many, the writings in the bible
>are their model.

Or their intepretations of the Bible. But the Catholics, Methodists,
Mormons, and Baptists all disagree on what the -true- intepratation is.
 
>The dangers and negatives come into play when we try to use our
>"model" (ideals/beliefs) to change someone else.  

The Christian and Mormon missionaries seem unconcerned. Pop quiz...
Which well known book says "Go forth and spread the word"?

>                                                   I think this kind of
>tendency was talked about in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
>(Heinlien?), which I read a few years ago.  In this book the moon
>became the place where earth people sent their criminals.  The
>inhabitants of the moon decided they wanted to emancipate themselves from
>earth, and be their own society.  In doing this they needed to create a
>government and laws.  I found it very intriguing how "typical" human
>responses were demonstrated in this story.  Specifically, the tendency
>of people to try to create laws to control how others live their lives.
>Examples of this are laws to make gambling illegal, etc.. 

Read that -years- ago. Might be worth a re-read.
 
>There are some very interesting insights in this book about how people
>really do act/react.  I think, in general, that someone choosing a belief
>system to follow because it "speaks" to them is great!  However they give
>all belief systems a bad name when they use their belief system as a means
>to rationalize control of others.
>
>More to the point of this discussion.  I think that if you read the New
>Testament from the standpoint of your personal life, it seems much more
>positive.  However, those who use it as a "weapon" against others tend
>to be more vocal and drown out these positive aspects.

You mean things like 'do not suffer a witch to live'?

I suspect that any part of the Bible can be used in this fashion if
interpreted -correctly-. 
 
>Jeff Sue   
> - All opinions are mine -       (and you can't have any, nya nya nya)


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: save@cpva.saic.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Hot coffee (was Re: sci.skeptic: The Frequently Questioned Answers)
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:19:40 PST
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Science Applications Int'l Corp./San Diego

>> (Tim Steele) writes...
>> 
>>b) You buy cup of coffee with a tub of milk, but then get called to
>>the phone.  If you want your coffee to be as hot as possible, should
>>you put the milk in before you take the call or when you return?
>> 
>>Answers below.
>> 
>>b) You should add the milk before you go as the rate of cooling of the
>>coffee is proportional to the temperature difference between the
>>coffee and the room.
>>

NOT!!! Let's say the coffee is at 70 C and the coffee + milk is at 50 C.
The coffee alone will initially cool more rapdily, but in time it will
reach 50 C and therefore cool at the same rate as the milk and coffee
combined.  Not adding the milk bought you that extra increment of time
it took to reach 50 C.  Also, while you were away, your milk, which was
at 10 C has warmed to room temperature, that is 23 C, so now when you
add it to your coffee it cools it less than it would have if you'd
added it right out of the fridge.

Clark
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: The mighty John Winston, Robert McElwaine, etc.
Summary: loons-R-us
Date: 22 Nov 92 16:09:38 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd2.cis.pitt.edu

In article <n0ea2t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>John is very enjoyable to read, but after a year or so it gets
>kind of tedious. I wish the resident fire walker would come back!
>At least he made an attempt to rationalize away his mistakes.

	I know what you mean. The message immediately previous to 
this one (at least on my system) was on "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS"
from the indefatiguable, ubiquitous, inexorable Robert McElwaine,B.Sc.

	That message, which I'd seen before, I just skipped over. Seeing
THIS one about John got me to thinking...

	It's really quite sad, actually. John seems like a rather nice
guy, judging by his endless cheerful postings. I have to wonder if he
really believes all this, or if he just has so much time on his hands 
that he's playing the longest-running practical joke on the net.

	Robert, on the other hand, is somewhat annoying. At least John
writes new messages, while mcelwre@... seems to have simply written or
gotten hold of maybe five or six messages which he reposts in a
cycle. John responds to Email (often publicly, but we'll forgive him),
but Robert hasn't responded (at least to me) so far.

	Whether Robert B.Sc. actually believes the amazing pseudo-science
that he posts, I don't know. If he DOES, I have to doubt that he actually
EARNED his B.Sc....

	Of course, the REALLY tragic thing will be if either of these 
people get hold of TRUE information about revolutionary physics or
alien visitors... none of us will listen to them until it's way too late
and the aliens have landed...


				Sea Wasp
				  /^\
				  ;;;

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:15:04 GMT

In article <28064@castle.ed.ac.uk> gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark) writes:
>
>       The bible is patently not inerrant.Read Leviticus,chapter 18(or
>thereabouts) where it fairly clearly states that insects walk "upon all
>fours... fourfootedly upon the ground".That's quite clearly a mistake,
>no matter what stage it crept in at.
>

It also says that pi=3.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 22:06:08 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <1992Nov20.190550.9085@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>>>[The Bible] also says that pi=3.
>>The Bible does not directly say this.  In 1 Kings 7 we find
>>measurements of 10 and 30 cubits for the diameter and circumference
>>respectively of a round Sea of cast metal.  From these measurements we
>>can determine a value of 3 for Pi.  Note that this is accurate to the
>>precision given by the measurements.
>>As such this "error" doesn't buy us much.  Had the measurements been
>>recorded so that Pi could be computed as 3.1, then we would simply
>>note that Pi is not 3.1 either.  Similarly for 3.14, 3.142, 3.1416,
>>3.14159, and so on.  It is not possible to write down measurements for
>>the diameter and circumference of the Sea, or any circular object for
>>that matter, in such a way as to yield the exact value of Pi.

>They could have written "it was about 10 cubits across".  That would not have
>given pi, but it would not have given an error either.

So now we have to consult a Hebrew scholar to find out if the
translation could possibly be rendered "about 10 cubits" (unless we
can eliminate the possibility, we have not demonstrated an error).
Sounds like a lot of effort to me, and it's possible that the
scholarship is subject to some uncertainty.  My point?  Simply this:
The example seems rather contrived, and is not likely to be
compelling.  Remember, we're offering evidence to convince others, not
ourselves.

Having been raised partly in a Christian tradition, I once naively
accepted the inerrancy of the Bible.  Later, of course, certain
glaring errors changed that.  But the Pi "error" certainly would not
have done the job.

If our purpose is to convince, "Pi = 3" is a poor tool, IMO.
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: BIOLOGICAL ALCHEMY
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:14:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Nov18.221421.21071
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <1992Nov17.163444.2391@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
|>                               BIOLOGICAL ALCHEMY

What is REALLY irritating is that this and the 'vibrating matter' one
are posted over and over again, with no signs of anything new ideas
(and I use the term 'ideas' very loosely) or of any intelligence higher 
than a calendar program associated with the posts.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Innumeracy, humorous ... maybe.
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:49:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.045407.29782@udel.edu> 
  mccoy@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Don McCoy) writes:
>In article <BxoJK2.KzI@ccu.umanitoba.ca> 
>   vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:

>>He stated that people
>>just didn't understand that the odds of winning that lottery were
>>about 10 billion to 1 (49 * 48 * 47 *46 * 45 * 44).
>>
>>He was of course, inumerate himself, as the odds of winning are 
>>actually about 14 million to 1.
>>
>Uh, I could be wrong here, but I believe 10 billion to 1 is right.
>How did you arrive at the 14 million to 1 figure???

The odds of winning the lottery described are 49 choose 6 or 10 billion
divided by 6!.  Around 14 million. 

>..don...

C Frog
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: HIV Dracula
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 01:16:08 GMT

schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:

>>3.  Could HIV be transmitted by vampires?

>Well, theoretically, but it wouldn't be fatal anymore.

Don't forget that vampires are, in fact, dead.  Unless you mean that
anyone bit by a vampire would die of the bite before contracting AIDS.

Vampires, being dead, cannot serve as hosts for the HIV virus.  But then
the same could be said of a dirty needle.
From: jmv@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Jean-Marc Vezien)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: blindfolded trick
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:05:04 GMT
Organization: GRASP Lab


[Description of blindfold trick deleted]


How does he do it ? What do you think ?
Of course, the thing he puts in front of his
eyes are not actual coins but it looks like it.
Does he put the blindfold himself ?
Did a neutral observer examine the material before
the trick begins ?


I 've seen that performed two or three times, the guy
rode a bicycle between obstacles.

Nothing really amazing here. Just keep in mind:
ALL the actions of a magician, even the least significant,
are aimed at fooling you. Take nothing for granted, and soon,
you see where the trick lies.


JM.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Skeptical Scope
Date: 16 Nov 1992 18:05:09 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov16.121116.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca>, bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:
>Just imagine the feast that we would have if Rober McElwaine, the 
>person most responsible for downgrading the value of my B.Sc.,
>(B.Sc from which university ??) started posting to this group!!

I hate to break this to you, but he *DOES* post to sci.skeptic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The 2nd amendment- part 2
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:56:50 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <721923838.4@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORG>, Terry.Preston@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Terry Preston) writes:
|> 
|> [... lots of irrelevant stuff about court cases - which demonstrate
|>      what I've thought all along -- the courts haven't really addressed
|>      the issue at all ...]
|>
|>  * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)

Neither of these legalese articles have *anything* to do with 
sci.skeptic.  Please don't post any more unless you have remarks
to make on some aspect of the issue which *is* relevant to the
newsgroup - such as whether gun-control achieves any desirabe
results (or *ANY* results at all!).  These are questions which can
be studied through the means of independent verification.  Legal
issues (apart from deliberate misquotation - which *can* be
checked) are all matters of opinion anyway - and *aren't*
scientifically relevant.

-- 
J. Giles
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: HIV Dracula
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:33:46 GMT

cregar@tbd2.brl.mil (Raymond Cregar ) writes:

>Not being an authority on any subject, I am curious if the issue
>has been raised concerning the effect of HIV on the Dracula trade.
>With the release of the new film "Dracula", I thought the timing
>relevant.

[...]
>3.  Could HIV be transmitted by vampires?

Well, theoretically, but it wouldn't be fatal anymore.

mark
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:46:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.160423.29721@news.eng.convex.com> swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.061549.983@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>
>>      "for anyone hung on a tree is under God's curse"
>>                                    -Deut. 21:23
>>
>>How can somebody possibly be the Messiah if they are under God's curse?
>>But change the story a bit, blame it on the Romans, and THIS problem
>>nicely goes away!
>
>The cross is explicitely interpreted as a tree in the New Testament,
>and Messiah's hanging on the tree is shown to be redemptive and
>substitutionary - he became acursed for our sakes, that we might be
>redeemed from the curse which we were under (Galatians 3:13).
>
>No attempt is made to dodge this issue in the scriptures.  You are
>barking up the wrong tree.   ;^)

Well, all of those "tree" passages predate Mark, the earliest Gospel. It
seems that the "line of reasoning" changed, Paul's statement in
Galatians, written around 49, being a very early attempt to deal with
this problem. There is no "tree" from the composition of Mark onward.

-- 
  
        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"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic