HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Organization: Entropy Limited, Vancouver Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 03:34:15 GMT

In article <eharbin.725572135@convex.convex.com> eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin) writes:
>>   On the other hand, in what non-Christian country would you choose to live?
>
>>In the US of A, you moron!  The USA is NOT a christian nation,
>>regardless of what scum like Pat Robertson, Ronald Reagan, etc., like
>>to claim.
>
>In fact, it's a Christian society with no established religion. I don't want
>an established religion any more than you do, but I do want a Christian
>country and I observe most of my countrymen are Christian - a state of affairs
             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>I approve. Even us morons may express a preference - or is that too much
>liberty for your taste?

What methodology were you using for your observation?  Have a look at:

The Future of Religion
Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge
University of California Press
ISBN 0-520-04854-7
BL48.S72  1984

For example, in chapter 4 they discuss some of the results of a study
conducted by the National Opinion Research Center in November 1972 (things
may have changed since, of course, in either direction). They cite
references for complete details of design and sampling. One of the figures
given was the national rate for attending church more often than once a
month. This was 54% (page 77), and of course included churches you would
not necessarily be willing to call Christian. The metropolitan area with
the highest church membership per 1000 population (this from a different
study) was Provo-Orem, Utah, at 966; the lowest was Eugene-Springfield,
Oregon, at 262 (page 71).

When you say you observe _most_ of your countrymen are Christian, do you
mean that you have observed "most" (whatever proportion that word might
imply for you) of your sample attending a Christian church, asserting that
they are Christian, simply behaving in a way that you approve of, or what?

-- 
ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!eslvcr!ted   (Ted Powell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Hoagland? What's the deal?
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:18:22 GMT

In article <BzxL3I.614@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>In article <1hk5mlINN34t@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes...
>>  ...
>>Well, let's see now:
>>    1)	It really WAS a face once, but it's eroded since it was built;
>>    2)	Well, it's not really shaped like a face, but it was designed so that,
>>	from orbit, it would LOOK like a face.
>>    3)	Maybe the "pyramids" don't look like pyramids at two-meter resolution,
>>	but if we could look at them at 2-centimeter resolution, they'd
>>	obviously be artifacts;
>>    4)	(This one's for the innumerates out there)  But, given the locations of
>>	the "pyramids," Hoagland's come up with LOTS of interesting
>>	correlations.  They MUST have been put where they are intentionally!
>>Need anybody say more?
>
>The point of my question "Why inconclusive" was that the previous poster
>implies that the _new_ images will be inconclusive.  They haven't even
>been obtained yet.
>
>It isn't good science to make a claim before having _evidence_, is it?
                                 ^^^^^

  I don't see any problem with making a "prediction" before having
evidence.  In fact, it wouldn't be a prediction if he waited
to see the evidence first.  Furthermore it is perfectly good
science to make predictions based on current knowledge and
hypothesis - and then to see whether the future evidence
bears out prediction.

  But this doesn't get to the real point - IMHO he is really 
claiming that the face hypothesis is unfalsifiable, and giving 
the excuses which can keep the face proponents from accepting 
adverse data.  Discussing this is also perfectly good science.
  
> ...

--henry schaffer  n c state univ
From: James Randi - Wizard <geller-hotline@ssr.com>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: The latest....
Date: 22 Dec 1992 00:52:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu
Posted-By: xx029 (aa387 - Jim Kutz)

Hi folks!  Things continue to improve.  (1) Mr. G's lawyer in Florida (in
the case he has against Prometheus, et al) faxed in a message recently,
just 24 hours before a scheduled deposition of his client, saying that
the deposee would not be appearing, (2) Mr. G has just made overtures in
that case in the UK, suggesting that he would settle for a much lower
award, and (3) I have Mr. G scheduled for a deposition in NYC on Feb.
2/93.  Very soon, interesting things will begin to happen.

Meanwhile, I have just signed another book contract.  The present book,
"Conjuring," has received excellent reviews (except for one magician who
did not show up in the book) and in 1993 I will be appearing on at least
two major, major TV programs that will feature the Geller saga.  Another
major TV news/investigative show will examine the Geller matter, as well.
I'll be doing a major lecture tour in Australia in '93, too.  So, great
coverage is coming up and that can only end up going in the direction of 
unravelling this whole thing in our favor.  I'm much encouraged.

The ONLY down note is that The James Randi Fund is running low, and in
need of a major transfusion.  If anyone out there knows of an agency that
might promote this cause, I'm ready to do some heavy listening.

							        JR

-- 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 21:51:08 GMT

In article <eharbin.725547983@convex.convex.com> eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin) writes:
>It was in Christian societies that both modern science and 
>liberal democracy evolved. This was not accidental.

Of course it's not accidental.  Christianity covered such a large area of the
globe--due to such events as killing or converting those who were not
Christian--that you shouldn't be surprised if _anything_ arose there, even if
it wasn't the best place for it to arise.

Do the words "Dark Ages" mean anything to you?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:32:00 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

>>On the other hand, in what non-Christian country would you choose to live?

>How about in one of the many cultures that used to exist but have been
>completly destroyed by Christian evangelism?

>You see, Christianity has wiped out not just individuals, but entire cultures.

By which you mean, you couldn't think of any in which you would choose to
live.

>>This century has tried several experiments in explicitly anti-religious
>>statecraft

>Hmmm.  Here once again we see the collossal ignorance and arrogance of a
>typical Christian:  I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that

I'll accept your humility and openness as a model. Of some sort. Put it
this way, if you were in charge, I suspect the difference between anti-
and a- religious would be negligible. A little too much heat here for mere
neutrality.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic

John, listen carefully.  Tell your friends to send me all the money 
they can replicate. $100 dollar bills, preferably.  This is what you 
must do.  I know the people of earth. All their habits and needs and wants.
You must do this in order that we take control.  Posting here is futile.
Money is Power. Send me as much as can be replicated. In return, you and
your friends can stay for a free weekend at the Sands Hotel in Vegas after
I buy it.  This is the new plan.  This is what you must do.  

Anxiously awaiting lots of money, your friend Tony.


P.S. Earth will be a better place with me in control.





all disclaimers apply 
"And suddenly there was a terrible roar all around us and the sky was full
of what looked like huge bats, all swooping and screeching and diving around
the car, which was going about a hundred miles an hour..."
							  -Hunter S. Thompson
							  "Fear and Loathing" 


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: kenl@origami.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Ken Lehner)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 21:50:15 GMT

In article <eharbin.725572135@convex.convex.com>, eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin) writes:
|> >   On the other hand, in what non-Christian country would you choose to live?
|> 
|> >In the US of A, you moron!  The USA is NOT a christian nation,
|> >regardless of what scum like Pat Robertson, Ronald Reagan, etc., like
|> >to claim.
|> 
|> In fact, it's a Christian society with no established religion. I don't want
|> an established religion any more than you do, but I do want a Christian
|> country and I observe most of my countrymen are Christian - a state of affairs
|> I approve. Even us morons may express a preference - or is that too much
|> liberty for your taste?

I guess not all of the posts from Mr. Lydick are reaching your site.

What is a Christian country?  Who decides (and who decides "who decides",
etc.)?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: bear@kestrel.fsl.noaa.gov (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Organization: Forecast Systems Labs, NOAA, Boulder, CO USA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:01:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.052800.4534@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>But yes, there
>usually is a distinction made between adult baptism and infant
>baptism.  The former does go through a rather rigorous process or
>preparation, but the latter does not (the parents and godparents
>take the responsibility of preparing the child) But later on, the
>grown adult can make up its own mind and renounce its faith if it
 ^^^^^^^^^^^             ^^^                       ^^^          ^^
>so chooses. 

I'm speechless.

In English, refering to an adult as _IT_ is considered extremely rude
because it implies that the person being discussed is no more intelligent
than a piece of furniture.  Many people even refer to their pets by
HE and SHE instead of IT.

The thought of an adult leaving the "Body of Christ" is so unacceptable
that you called me _IT_ three times!

I feel that this illustrates your opinion of non-Christians quite well...
Of course, it is precisely this type of belief ("if you aren't a Christian
you're sub-human") that I left the Christian church.

Oh, your "the parents and godparents take the responsibility of preparing
the child" sounds rather like brainwashing.  The parents and godparents
should _educate_ the child, not _prepare_ the child.

Thank you for a most enlightening illustration of Christian thought!


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21718 alt.messianic:3726
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 27 Dec 1992 11:32:43 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Dec21.211146.5520@news.eng.convex.com>, swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes:
>In article <1h3354INNfm0@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>No, it just sounds about as stupid as most of the other bullshit from Jesus
>>freaks.
>
>Carl, do you know what you are talking about?  You don't sound like a
>skeptic; instead you simply sound shrill and irrational.

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about:  I'm talking about most of the bullshit
that gets posted to sci.skeptic by jesus freaks like Lee Thomas.

>Most of the people who post on alt.messianic are quite knowledgeable
>and sincere about scripture and their faith.  Is there some personal
>reason why you feel compelled to continue posting this invective here?

Is there some reason why you're posting to sci.skeptic?  That's the newsgroup
in which I read the post to which I was replying.

>If you have any questions about Messianics there are plenty of people here
>ready to listen and answer succinctly and to do so with respect for your
>point of view.  All you have to lose is your uninformed preconceptions.

Well, perhaps you'd be better off reading the bullshit posted to sci.skeptic
before you form your opinion of what I'm talking about.  You have nothing to
lose but your (misplaced) high regard for jesus freaks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Homeopathic remedies
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:11:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.220247.19534@rosevax.rosemount.com>, grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
> wsadjw@rw6.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
> : 
> : It is even not much more irrational than astrology.
> :
> 
> Excellent!  
> 
> In english that is called being "damned with feigned praise."
                                               ^^^^^^^
                                               faint

	--Hal

-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,talk.religion.misc
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Hormesis/Homeopathy
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:07:09 GMT

In article <1h31d3INNfm0@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.173125.21260@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>=>The basis of homeopathy is to find a substance which, in sufficiently large
>=>doses, would produce EXACTLY the same symptoms as the disease being treated.
>=>Now you're saying that the symptoms should be slightly different. You're
>=>stretching the definition of homeopathy far beyond what is reasonable. At this
>=>rate, you'll soon include all of non-surgical medicine under the definition.  
>=>Why don't you just give up and admit that you're not talking about homeopathy?
>=
>=My assumption here is that two different irritations may not produce "EXACTLY"
>=the same "response from the body" although the outward symptoms may appear
>=to be "EXACTLY" the same. I am just pointing out a possibility, not trying
>=to convince you that this is true. I do this often and I think that you take
>=it to mean that I actually believe something is true.
>
>I see.  Glad to hear that you finally admit to being flat-out liar.  Thanks for
>the confession.  Perhaps, having now admitted this failing, you can attempt to
>remedy it.  Would that Derek Abbot were so honest.
>
>=My dictionary doesn't have this word. What does "hormesis" mean? I would
>=gladly use it if it would more acurately describe homeopathic-like reactions
>=at higher dilution strengths.
>
>Hormesis is the idea that exposure to a substance at a level that is at the
>very limit of being able to produce clinical symptoms will tend to enhance
>the body's defense mechanisms.  However, for hormesis, you need a high enough
>dose that it *DOES* produce clinical symptoms.

Hey, wait a minute. I just recalled  reading of enviornmentalist suits 
against major corporations for all sorts of vague ills and sicknesses 
supposedly caused by low levels of contaminants. This was from an issue of 
_Reason_, wonder if I still have it somewhere?

This is in contrast with homeopathy, not hormesis BTW.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp)
Subject: Two "Incompatable" Threads (Was: What did Judas betray?)
Organization: LA&W RR
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 04:12:12 GMT

In article <1hk48rINN34t@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.211146.5520@news.eng.convex.com>, swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes:

>>Most of the people who post on alt.messianic are quite knowledgeable
>>and sincere about scripture and their faith.  Is there some personal
>>reason why you feel compelled to continue posting this invective here?
>
>Is there some reason why you're posting to sci.skeptic?  That's the newsgroup
>in which I read the post to which I was replying.

The answer to both these questions is the same: this thread was cross
posted between alt.messianic and sci.skeptic when the content was
appropriate to both groups.  However the thread has now "evolved" in
such a way that this seems no longer the case.

Would follow up posters please be so kind as to edit the newsgroups line
to maintain their thread on either sci.skeptic OR alt.messianic?  This
should reduce the quantity of traffic in each group which is no longer
appropriate there.
From: James Randi -- Wizard <geller-hotline@ssr.com>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: The Prometheus case in Florida.
Date: 22 Dec 1992 00:54:03 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu
Posted-By: xx029 (aa387 - Jim Kutz)

I've just been informed that Geller has entirely dropped the case against
Prometheus et al in Florida.  Just recently, he was saying he'd settle for
$50,000 instead of millions, and now he wants to drop it all.

Verrrry interesting!   						 J.R.




--
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Date: 3 Jan 93 05:43:54 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec29.183758.2411@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata -
FSO) wrote:
> In article <1992Dec28.215354.24896@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> >
> >But how do I tell if someone ignores the core beliefs of Jesus?  Not only can't
> >Christians agree on who is a Christian, they can't even agree on what the core
> >beliefs of Jesus are.  It's as if there were a few dozen mutually contradictive
> >Republican party platforms.

> I would suggest that people read the New Testament for a
> definition of what Jesus stood for.  It is the "party platform" of
> Christianity.  To those who say that it has ambiguities, I would
> reply that there is plenty of unambigous and clear teachings of
> Christ to go around. 

Should we also take into account all the other Gospels that the early
Church
rejected? No wonder the religion is streamlined, because the church made
sure that the Gospels conformed to a standard :-).

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,talk.religion.misc
From: v070qg5d@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Ouiji (sp?) boards?
Date: 31 Dec 92 23:21:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

(Corey Carroll) writes...
>I find this hard to believe.  Are there any more
>rational explanations for the apparent "demonic" action of an
>Oijua board?

    The funniest thing about Ouija boards is that if you blindfold the people
using it so that they are unable to see the board and the lettering on it, 
the board will spell out nothing but nonsense.  Of course, the users are simply
guiding it say what they want it to say, whether the are doing it 
subconsciously or otherwise.

                                                  --Ernie Weigel
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Repost of Truzzi Lecture:  How to Hand
Date: 27 Dec 1992 12:31:59 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Dec23.194106.12517@exu.ericsson.se>, exudeb@exu.ericsson.se (Dave Breeding, xt-dGR,) writes:
>>Hmm.  I am surprised to hear that either of these two approaches qualifies
>>as "science"!  This, of course is very "balanced" of Truzzi--he stands
>>firmly between a straw scylla (sp?) and a straw charibdis (sp?)!  Truly
>>the only place for any reasonable (straw) philosopher to stand.
>>
>>I leave a cataloging of the flaws in this kind of argument as an 
>>exercise for undergraduate rhetoric students.
>>
>
>Hi Robert:
>
>Unfortunately, I'm not an undergraduate rhetoric student, so please
>help me with this.  My understanding of the Truzzi article was that he
>was simply enumerating three ways that people commonly approach these
>anomalies,

Hmmm.  I don't suppose you bothered to try to come up with examples of either
of the first two ways Truzzi talked about?  You see, what he did was to claim,
without evidence, that all but his select group fell into the first two
categories.  In particular, he claimed (without evidence and by implication)
that most of conventional science falls into his "debunker" category.  Now,
once you've swallowed THAT particular lie, the rest will go down quite easily.
Maybe you SHOULD take an undergraduate course in rhetoric.  It will teach you
to challenge suppositions.

>and that he was arguing that the third way was the most
>appropriate for the scientific community.  He seems to me to be saying
>that the first two ways are not science, which is what you seem to be
>saying also.  And yet you seem to be disagreeing with him.  ???

In particular, he's saying that his group is somehow unusual in being neither
credulous nor closed-minded.  Where have we heard something like that before?
Ah, yes:
	Our way is the right way!
	Our way is the only way!
	Sieg Heil!
See, Truzzi isn't even original in the strategy of the Big Lie!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic