HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Addiction (Was Re: Soul)
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:16:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct15.172659.3279@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.050539.29574@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct14.132912.7126@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct13.181140.8643@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>I'd like for you to explain your jump from a definition of an addiction
>>>>to "I must be extremely unusual". Because it does not follow. I also assume
>>>>that you have what you always seem to be asking for. Citations and numbers
>>>>to show why you think that you "must be extremely unusual". How about
>>>>sharing them with us?
>>>
>>>Your definition leads to the conclusion that anyone who stops is not
>>>addicted.
>>
>>A better summary was posted earlier by someone else. But are you defining
>>a class of addicts who do not need their fix (whatever that may be)?
>>
>>Because if you are, then I am addicted to cigarettes. I tried them long
>>ago, didn't like them, and havent smoked one since. 
>>
>>You know, I have no clue as to what you are alluding to. How about just
>>saying it clearly, or some other surprise tactic?
>
>Okay, you stated that an addicted person is one who cannot stop.  The
>logical deduction is that a person who does stop was not addicted, 
>because if he was truly addicted, he *could* not have stopped.  Carl
>pointed out that he had smoked 2 packs a day for 12 years, but was not
>addicted by your definition.  You expressed puzzlement, so I pointed out
>the implication of your claim.  That's all.

So what is the problem, he was not addicted. I have known others who
have done this, but damn few. Note, nicotine is chemically addicting,
but not like morphine. The bigger problem seems to be the habit.

Now if I had said that everyone who uses an 'addicting' substance, like
nicotine, is automatically, irretrievably addicted, then your puzzlement
might make some sense. But as it followed from (and only from) assumptions
you had made, I do not feel responsible for it, or any others you may have.
Please try to restrict your conclusions to what I have said.
 
>My point was and is, you need to rephrase your definition.

Not because of your assumptions. Please state them up front in the future.
 
>David Pipes
>robear@digex.com
>

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: What did Judas betray?
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 20:05:06 +1000

Monday October 05 1992, Robert Sheaffer writes to All:

RS> In article <1992Oct1.174521.25085@engage.pko.dec.com>
RS> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:

>> The internal division within the
>> Sanhedrin also hindered its effectiveness in carrying out its
>> verdict.

RS> How much enforcement power would be required to take some guy out,
RS> stone him, and hand his body on a tree?

Quite a lot. How much would it take for your Supreme Court to take someone out
the back and shoot him? The Sanhedrin as a body could only require capital
punishment when sitting as a body while fulfilling certain requirements. These
requirements were deliberately not fulfilled during the last decades before the
destruction of the Temple.

This is not to say that it is impossible that members of the Sanhedrin took any
action, just as it's not impossible that members of your Supreme Court are
vigilantes in their spare time. It is, however, impossible that Jesus was
condemned to death by the Sanhedrin sitting as a court.

jds


 * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Dinosaurs and man co-existed at one time?
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:10:44 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Oct14.141205.2956@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com> mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:
|>The most famous such footprints are the ones at the Paluxy River in Glen
|>Rose, Texas ...
|
|Unfortunately I won't be alble to go to the conference, $$$$.  But,
|I was wondering if the tracks are available to the general public.
|Are they in a state park or are they on private property.
|
|Glen Rose isn't *that* far away and be a could site for a weekend 
|road trip.
|
I believe that *some*, at least, of the prints are in a state park.

Unfortunaely, they are in a river bed, and are usually covered by water.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:44:16 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1992Oct9.134219.3229@spectrum.xerox.com>,
eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall) writes, in part:

>In article <n0bb5t@ofa123.fidonet.org>,
>Jean-Francois.Beaulieu@f128.n167.z1.fidonet.org writes:

>|> In 1908, a meteorite exploded above the siberian toundra and blasted the
>|> trees below. The way trees were blasted suggest an explosion 100 meters
>|> above the ground. I believe also that their was something strange with
>|> the path of the meteor once it came into the atmosphere. I read few
>|> years ago few different explanations, even including a UFO!, but I don't
>|> know what's the most convincing explanation up to now. Any idea?

>My recollection of the facts of the incident center on the "ground zero" effect
>of the meteor. Apparently, all of the trees directly under the explosion
>remained upright - as they would in a nuclear blast. 
	Not unique to a nuclear blast.  Any airburst will have a zone straight
	below where there is litle effect.

	(Is the Tunguska event on the FAQ list???)

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
146 Main St			|I am the NRA.
Maynard, Mass		01754	pierson@msd27.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Question of Humanity's First Language
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:38:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Oct15.163846.20315
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <GERRY.92Oct15094150@onion.cmu.edu>, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
|> The question that is begging to be asked, though, is this:
|>   What is a language?
|> I am not trying to be trite or start a long discussion, but it is
|> believed that as homo erectus evolved into homo sapiens, the evlution
|> of language was a key part of that evolution.  I strongly believe that
|> the early h.e. and h.s. communicated abstract notions by means of
|> grunts and arm motions.  
What is this belief based on?  I know of no reason to maintain this
theory.  The differences between h.e. and h.s. are anaotomical and
cultural, but there is no logical reason to assert that these differences
correlate to different linguistic abilities.

|> Is this a language?  If not, just when does a
|> means of oral communication switch from being a pre-language to a real
|> language (TM)?

But actually I wanted to contribute yet another unaswerable question:

Clearly all undamaged humans are born "pre-linguistic" is a very literal
sense--they are destined to learn a language, but don't have it yet.
At what point does a kid have "enough" language skills to be "human"?
And what is the status of the kid before that?  "non-human"? "pre-human"?
"proto-human"?

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:04:08 GMT

In article <1b0h5vINN9be@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.105047.10775@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>A study could be done to determine if religious beliefs changed the cure rate
>>>for a series of terminal diseases.  (This has been tried, I believe.)
>>
>>All that would tell you is how benificial to the human health is that set of
>>religious beliefs.  It does not tell you anything about the validity of those
>>beliefs unless that religious belief defined itself in terms of physical
>>health (which is extremely unlikely).
>         ???????????????????????????
>
>You've *GOT* to be kidding.  In case you're not, consider the following facts:
>
>o A substantial percentage of televangelists are faith healers, as well.  
>o There are several Christian sects which teach that medicine is evil, and that

I don't see televangelists quiting their beliefs because somebody
didn't get healed.  They believe that with faith, healing is
possible.  IF someone doesn't get healed then they didn't have
enough faith.  In addition, there are other explanations that
could be given...

However, most televangelists are Christian in which their central belief is
in Jesus as the Son of God and Savior.  Whether or not someone gets healed
doesn't change or invalidate their religious belief at all.

>  illness can better be treated through prayer.  Unfortunately, it's all too
>  frequently the small children of members of these sects who end up dying for
>  lack of treatment.

But what else is needed besides prayer?

>o Even outside those sects, there are quite a few others that, while not
>  frowning on medicine, still ascribe any cures to their prayers being answered.

So how could you disprove that?

>
>>I was only observing that, at least in the cases we were talking about,
>>the superstitious beliefs could be scientifically tested but the religious
>>beliefs could not.
>
>And only by (deliberately?) ignoring some reasonably prevalent religious
>beliefs could you reach such a stupendously stupid conclusion.

Thank you for your confidence in me :) I believe that you will
find that most religions will couch their beliefs in such a way
that they will be unfalsifiable by scientific standards.  And it's
always easy for a non-religious skeptic to make fun of *any*
religious belief for that reason alone.  It's really gets old,
Carl...

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Mars Face Wager
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 12 Oct 92  09:06:38

Tag: Richard A. Schumacher (schumach@convex.com)
ID#: schumach.718502387@convex.convex.com
And: rodb@slugo.corp.sgi.com (Rod Beckwith)
 
RB> "Richard, I accept your offer. I agree with all conditions 
RB> to this bet. I hope you don't make this bet with too many 
RB> people.....It could get quite expensive for you."
 
RA.S> "You're the third. Anyone else out there want to make an 
RA.S> easy $100? C'mon! Put up or shut up, eh?"
 
I have never been one to want something for nothing. I'd feel
badly about taking your money. How about a "Gentleman's Bet,"
to wit: if the Mars Face turns out to be natural formations
due to known geological mechanics, you send $10 to a charity
of my choice. If said structures turn out to be artificial,
I will send $100 to the charity of YOUR choice. I find the
chance of my loosing our friendly wager so remote, I'm willing
to give 10:1 odds. We can send the reciepts to the winner.
 
As for choosing Tim Maroney as final arbitrator, well, all I
can say is "Interesting choice!" I once refered to him as "The
Ego That Ate FidoNet (tm)." While he has called me a "liar"
half a dozen times, assasinated my character, cast aspertions
on a women friend of mine, and goes to elaborate, complicated
lengths to get the last word, he is still someone I'd trust
a sawbuck to. (SMILE!)

--- Maximus 2.00
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Gerry Roston, I'm sorry.
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:08:23 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <LEET.92Oct14084400@dove.ims.com> leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
#Jan> I must admit that I came rather close to stating life is
#Jan> "meaningless", namely in the sense that I don't believe that
#Jan> there is any grand pattern or coherence in "life".
#
#And the problem here is that this is a universal statement - if you
#really believe that, Jan, then you must somehow believe it about my
#life also.  When I pressed you on it, you suddenly made a case that
#meaning was individual (an existential statement - in the sense of
#formal logic, not philosophy), and I cannot reconcile the two
#different statements.

Well, there's meaning and meaning.  It's a word with meany meanings (!).
The subjective  `discovery' that it is no use to find a grand overall
pre-ordained meaning doesn't really contradict the realization that
little patches of local private meaning can be prevented from 
encroaching on one's mind, and neither the conviction that this local
private reality interpretation is what's behind all those pretenses of
a universal meaning.
I don't see a contradiction.
>                                                     Rather than
>generate more of that sort of flame-baiting, I'm dropping this thread.

I second that motion.  Let's simultaneous hit the "K" for KILL on the 
count of one!

JWN
one

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17764 alt.sources:2173
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.sources
Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics and Astronomy
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:21:28 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <1992Oct7.180626.15933@pixel.kodak.com> jeh@raster.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes:
>CAPS lock key worn out FROM OVERUSE?  Are your EARTH-shattering theories TOO
>important for LOWER CASE?  Well, help is on the way.  The following filter
>will give YOUR TEXT THE EMPHASIS it deserves.

Or IF you use EMACS to edit your POSTINGS, then YOU might FIND the
following FUNCTION useful.  This will not UPCASE two words in a row.
This is a FEATURE, not A bug.


;;; Convert random words to upper case

(defun capsize-region (&optional proportion)
  "Convert random words to upper case.  Argument is proportion of
words to be converted.  Default is 1 in 4"
  (interactive)
  (random t)
  (setq proportion (cond ((or (not proportion)
			      (< proportion 2))
			  4)
			 (t
			  proportion)))
  (save-restriction
    (narrow-to-region (region-beginning) (region-end))
    (goto-char 1)
    (while (not (eobp))
      (cond ((= (% (random) proportion) 0)
	     (upcase-word 1)))
      (forward-word 1))))


-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: babb@k2 (Scott Babb)
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Organization: Sanders Associates
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 13:14:09 GMT

Mike Polen (mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com) wrote:
: Tim Miller) writes:
: |> 
: |> On 08 Oct 92 02:20:55 GMT, doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) said:
: |> 
: |>  D> Washington, DC (AP) - Mary Matalin, designated Bush campaign attack-bitch,
: |>  D> followed up recent charges related to Democratic presidential candidate Bill
: |>  D> Clinton's secret meetings in Moscow with high-ranking officers of the KGB by
: |>  D> demanding to know why Clinton has no alibi for November 22, 1963, the date
: |>  D> of President Kennedy's assassination. Asked Matalin, "why won't Bill Clinton
: |>  D> come clean with the American people?"
: |> 
: |> 	Heh heh heh.  Man goes to Moscow, can't remember a thing about
: |> it.  Anyone ever see "The Manchurian Candidate?"
: |> 
:  	Heh heh heh.  Man attends meeting in the white house on support 
: 	to Iraq, can't remember a thing about it.  Anyone ever see 
: 	"The Manchurian Candidate?"

  	Heh heh heh.  Man is President for eight years, can't remember a
	thing about it.  Anyone ever see "The Manchurian Candidate?"

--
   Lockheed Sanders may disagree so these are solely the opinions of:
             Scott L. Babb - babb@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com
              "We didn't inherit the Earth from our parents,
                   we are borrowing it from our children."
From: Jean-Francois.Beaulieu@f128.n167.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:33:10 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992

In 1908, a meteorite exploded above the siberian toundra and blasted the
trees below. The way trees were blasted suggest an explosion 100 meters
above the ground. I believe also that their was something strange with
the path of the meteor once it came into the atmosphere. I read few
years ago few different explanations, even including a UFO!, but I don't
know what's the most convincing explanation up to now. Any idea?

---
 ~ SLMR 2.1a ~ Do you believe that drugg may damage the brain? according
  to a poll with n.american teenagers: 33% said yes, 28% said no and
  39% were unable to understand the question.
--- FMail 0.92
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Exploration is not Technology
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:01:33 GMT

In article <1b2botINNssg@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>You're talking about proving a negative.  See the FAQ for a detailed
>description of why your bullshit is so unreasonable.

Did we ever actually get an FAQ?
--
"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 (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Dowsing Info Wanted
Date: 14 Oct 92 11:47:47 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <nkjrm.7@taxus.uib.no> nkjrm@taxus.uib.no (Rolf Manne) writes:
#
#>4. There is a controversy about dowsing going on in Germany. The 
#>main proponents, two professors of physics from Munich, state that there is 
#>a positive effect which, however, is very weak. They make it quite clear 
#>that dowsers are notorious at overstating their abilities. These supposedly
#>positive finds of these two professors have been questioned by German
#>skeptics. It is clear that their best results were obtained in those 
#>experiments which were most difficult to control. I have seen nothing 
#>about this debate except in the German language.

Around November 1 the Proceedings of the 3rd EuroSkeptics Congress 1991
(Amsterdam) will be published, under the title: Science or Pseudo? : The
Mars effect and other claims.

The price will be 25 guilders (opportunity to sign up for pre-publication
price has ended). The book can be ordered from me.
Payment by Eurochecque or Credit card.

JWN

>
>>5. Personally I have taken part in three tests of dowsers here in Norway.
>>They were all double-blind, meaning that neither the dowser nor the people
>>watching controlling him knew what the correct answer was. One of these
>>tests were arranged by the Norwegian Army in 1987 where officers had 
>>been lead to believe that dowsing was good for finding victims of snow 
>>avalanches. The second test was in 1991 and involved a medical 
>>doctor who dowsed for "earth radiation", a health hazard which some people 
>>believe in both here and in Germany. The third test was only a couple of
>>weeks ago and was for a radio program. None of these tests showed any
>>dowsing ability.
>
>>Rolf Manne
>>Department of Chemistry, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
>>e-mail Rolf.Manne@uib.no
>
>Rolf Manne
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Gerry Roston, I'm sorry.
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:55:58 GMT

max@admin.mport.COM (Max) writes:
: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) said:
: 
: >Jan> Those judgements have to be carried out by those who live that
: >Jan> life themselves.
: 
: >Why?
: 
: are you seriously asking why one has to judge the meaning of life for
: themself? would you like to have your meaning determined for you?
: 

I wouldn't, but a great many people would.  They also want somebody
else to tell them what is right and what is wrong.  This dread of
thinking for one's self appears to be what was called "spiritual
hunger" in another thread.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I have a very good
Rosemount Inc.                                |DENTAL PLAN.  Thank you.
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17606 alt.sources:2160
From: keith@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Keith Steiger)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.sources
Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics and Astronomy
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:03:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: nntp.1992Oct7.220328.6693
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.

In article <1992Oct7.210230.14052@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> amorgan@csd-d-5.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.180626.15933@pixel.kodak.com> 
>  jeh@raster.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes:
>>CAPS lock key worn out FROM OVERUSE?  Are your EARTH-shattering theories TOO
>>important for LOWER CASE?  Well, help is on the way.  The following filter
>>will give YOUR TEXT THE EMPHASIS it deserves.
>Could someone PLEASE post some elisp TO DO this?  I have a VERY
>important THEORY about why C and LEX are EVIL and I wish to POST
>them at ONCE.

upcase-region and upcase-word are BUILT into EMACS.  CLEARLY Richard Stallman
AGREES that THIS KIND of EMPHASIS is ESSENTIAL FOR EVERYONE.

	Keith Steiger
	"Is THIS an APPROPRIATE USE of alt.sources?"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa