HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Robert_Broughton@mindlink.bc.ca (Robert Broughton)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: NOTICE:"Bigfoot/Sasquatch" Sightings Request
Date: 14 Sep 92 04:13:48 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Well, I'd like to believe that something like the sasquatch exists. There are
certainly Indians aroud here that believe in it. The harsh reality, however, is
that if something like this exists or existed in recent history, we would have
found some skeletal remains by now.
--
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Robert Broughton    Robert_Broughton@mindlink.bc.ca

"We calm and reassure. We embrace people with the message that we're
all in it together. That our leaders are infallible and that there is
nothing, absolutely nothing wrong." - Miles Drentell, _thirtysomething_
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:08:27 GMT

In article <716004026.AA00000@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:

>JAF> Since when does an all-powerful First Cause translate to creationist?
>
>The point about a First Cause is that it's *first*. It causes all the later
>events. Since this postulated cause is all-powerful the later events can be
>guided. So, this First Cause is a conscious decision to cause all later effects.
>That, to my mind, translates as Creation.
>
>Besides, even if this argument were to be faulty there'd be a thousand other
>reasons to believe that Orthodox Judaism demands a belief in creationism.

But does a creationist really mean simply one who believes in Creation?
I've never seen it that way.  In ordinary usage, I thought that a creationist
is one who believes in Creation as described literally in Genesis.  So what
are some of those "thousand other reasons"?

>jds

-- 
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: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: UFO Sightings was: Re: UFO Abductions: A Lucrative Game
Summary: Why are the witnesses loonies?
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:58:40 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

Why is it that many of the people who claim to have seen a UFO or been 
abducted by a UFO seem to be people who you wouldn't believe even if they
claimed the sun will rise tomorrow?  Is Douglas Adams right (that the aliens
seek out the least reputable person, put on a pair of fake antennae, hop
around while making beeping noises, board their spacecraft, and watch the 
mayhem they've stirred up) ?  Why aren't there photographs, video tapes,
or any other unambiguous proofs of their existance?

I've never seen one, and I travel cross country many times a year.  I
usually drive at night so that there is less traffic (if any), so I
should be abducted.  But, it hasn't happened.  Could I be someone that
the aliens would call reputable?
From: epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:07:32 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <crtn0rm.sheaffer@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> In article <1992Sep9.215226.5884@access.usask.ca> bickis@skmath3 (M. Bickis) writes:
>>A more important issue than gender- or culture-biased questions is that
>>the attitude towards writing multiple-choice tests is a contributing
>>factor in the score obtained, and this is one place that sex differences
>>appear.  Although males outperform females on the math SAT, this sex
>>difference does not carry through in university performance. 
> 
> From which one can conclude either:
>  
> A.     The SAT tests are biased in favor of men,
>  
>                        or
> 
> B.    Grades given in college math courses are biased in favor
>       of women.
> 

Or that the group taking the SAT is not the same group that takes
university math.  I would expect that a fair number of people (women and men)
who get low math SAT scores would not continue their math education in
university.  Those women who take university level math courses
may have done well on the SAT's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorne Epp                                               epp@mala.bc.ca
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind (was: Logic and God)
Date: 13 Sep 92 19:48:56 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <1992Sep9.181357.8639@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.221034.5533@meteor.wisc.edu>, tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:

>>I suspect that trees and rocks are not conscious, but I am not certain of
>>it. However, I will stipulate for the purposes of argument that a brain 
>>or other information processing device is necessary for consciousness
>>to exist. This does not prove that it is sufficient. My point is that
>>no such proof is possible, because the phenomenon is unobserveable in
>>any objective sense. 

>You're on very shaky ground here, Michael.  Let's make a similar argument
>in another field:  I will stipulate for the purposes of argument that atoms are
>necessary for chemical processes to exist.  This does not prove that the
>existence of atoms is sufficient.  No such proof is possible, because I can
>postulate some unobservable sine qua non for chemical processes, and claim that
>the atoms only mediate this unobservable stuff.

>You can make exactly the same argument in ANY field.  You can ALWAYS postulate
>that there's something unobservable that's REALLY the guts of that field, and
>we're only seeing its effects.

In any other case, the argument would be wholly specious. In the case of
consiousness, we know, by observations irreducible to physical science,
that it exists, and yet we cannot observe it in a physical context. I have
no evidence, physical or otherwise, for this extraphysical component of 
chemistry. But I know that I exist as a sentient being, even though such
existence is unverifiable by anyone but myself.

mt
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: "Live Dinosaurs"
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:48:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: LLNL

In article <1050@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <26239@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:

	[On how much can be cloned from an ancient blood sample -- not
very much]

>|(*) The speaker claimed that it *was* dinosaur blood, but I think that
>|this was just some unwise hyperbole. 

>Very likely.  Even *after* the amber is opened it may be difficult to be
>sure it is dinosaur blood, and not blood from some other organism.

	But _if_ some genes that closely match some known genes
commonly used in determining family trees can be found, then one can
see where these genes fit in the family tree.

	And from their location, one can possibly guess what the owner
was from family trees found by other means. Let's use the dinosaur
example because that seems to be everybody's favorite extinct animal.
The closest living relatives of dinosaurs are birds and crocodilians;
birds are very likely descended from a lineage of rather small
carnivorous dinosaurs, while dinosaurs and crocodilians share a common
ancestor not shared by other living reptiles (lizards, snakes,
tuataras, and turtles). In other words, one should get this family
tree:

  |-- Crocodilians
--|
  |-- Dinosaurs
        |-- Birds

	So, if you also have blood samples from a chicken from your
friendly neighborhood grocery store and a Florida 'gator, you've got
it made. :-) Of course, one will some more sample sources to give a
more complete picture. Would any of you volunteers care to contribute a
blood sample to this noble endeavor? And don't forget some from your
pet dogs and cats and hamsters and parakeets and turtles and fish, if
any.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: NOTICE:"Bigfoot/Sasquatch" Sightings Request
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:26:29 GMT

In article <roelle.716493712@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
|> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> >   Our research group is currently investigating reports and sightings of the
|> >animal known as "Bigfoot" or "Sasquatch". If you or somebody you know has had
|> >such a sighting, or come across what may be evidence supporting the existance
|> >of such an animal, please get in contact with us in one of the following
|> >formats:
|> 
|> In other words if anyone has evidence against the existance of such an animal,
|> your "research group" is >not< interested? 

I bet they are interested.  They are probably even aware of it.  In any 
case, I'm certainly interested, so pass along any evidence against 
the existance of such an animal to me, if you would be so kind.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:57:09 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

I found this on the page just behind the title page:

Copyright(c):Jeweah, 4004 B.C.

You happy now?

Big Al.  (I mispelled God, huh?)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: boucher@roche.csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher)
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witlesses (Re: Logic and God )
X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message are those of an
	      individual at SRI International, and do not necessarily
	      reflect those of the company.
Reply-To: boucher@roche.csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher)
Organization: SRI International, Computer Science Lab, Menlo Park, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:29:27 GMT


I'm not jewish, but I always tell Jehova's Witnesses that I am.
It works like a charm.  You see, they believe that all jews are 
damned to hell, and cannot possibly be saved.  So, they don't
waste their time trying to save you  ;-)

Peter K. Boucher    (boucher@csl.sri.com)
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: 4 Sep 92 07:28:57 GMT

js = joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater)

me: It is not the case that all Orthodox Jews are creationists.

js: I believe that you may be wrong in this, depending on how you define
js: Orthodox Jews and depending on how you define creationism. I believe
js: Orthodox Judaism demands a Creator who is an all-powerful First Cause.
js: For instance, the Thirteen Principles Of Faith (Maimonides) refer to
js: "HaBoreh" - the Creator rather than use another title for the divine.

Since this is not soc.culture.jewish, I am sending my response to Joe
Slater by mail.  Anyone who is interested can write to me for a copy.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     FEELINGS are cascading over me!!!
 |warren@      
/ nysernet.org 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: John_-_Salem@vax.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Get A New Title
Reply-To: John_-_Salem@vax.ncsu.edu
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:34:16 GMT


In article <65194@cup.portal.com>, John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
|> Dear People on the Physical Plane: 

You mean, like a 737?

|> I just got back from the OOBE experience and didn't see any 
|> buggers this time so that is a good sign. 

Dig deeper into your nose next time.

|> There is one book I didn't
|> send that I recommend everbody read and I may send it to them later. It's 
|> called Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda. 

Not to be confused with Autobiography of Yogi Bear.

|> Dear Folks: So much interest has been shown in the article about the 
|> Ostrich people (by Leonard and Doug) that I decided to look up the material
|> again. It turned up being in the Sun Magazine Sept. 26, 1989 Page 7. 

Oh, the Sun.  That's a credible source, almost as much as Weekly World News!

|> New
|> evidence shows ostrich people came from outer space. Decendantws of space
|> aliens have been living on Earth for centuries- in a weird African tribe
|> known as the ostrich people. 

Dear John, please tell us about this evidence which proves the ostrich people
came from outer space.

|> He said he discovered that working behind a cloak of ultrasecrecy, 
|> the U.S. many years ago granted the aliens permission to abduct humans in 
|> exchange for their superadvanced technology. He believes that 
|> s moment , there are at least 70 different species of aliens on Earth performing an infinite variety of missions and there are also secrtet alien underground bases on American soil.
|> Source of information:Sept. 8, 1992 Examiner.

Right.  They abducted one John Winston and planted all these other absurd
ideas in his mind.  What other explanation could there possibly be?

GET A CLUE, JOHN!  Or at least take your crap off sci.skeptic.

John "No relation" Salem
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:26:42 GMT

In article <88261@netnews.upenn.edu>, jmv@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Jean-Marc Vezien)
writes:
> PROOF IRRATIONNAL NUMBERS ARE EVIL:
> 
> Decomposition of 6 in prime: 6 = 2 x 3
> and:
> 
> 2 / 3 = 0.66666666666666666666666
> 
> i.e. infinitly evil !!!! 
> 
> AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!
> 
> 
> hum...
> 
> 
> JM.

   This is a truely remarkable satire of Creationisim.  It clearly states 
a blatant falsehood most gleefully.  The errors are:

    (I) 2/3 is rational.
   (II) 2/3 <> 0.66666666666666666666666; 2/3 = 0.66666...
  (III) If three sixes are bad, 23 sixes are worse.
   (IV) 23/3 ~= infinity or {23!/(3!*20!)}/3 ~= infinity, depending.
    (V) 6 is really 3x2, not 2x3.

*Snicker*

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:56:06 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <716004026.AA00000@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:
|
|The point about a First Cause is that it's *first*. It causes all the later
|events. Since this postulated cause is all-powerful the later events can be
|guided. ...
|That, to my mind, translates as Creation.

However, *that* form of 'creationism' is unobjectionable, and totally
innocuous.  It has no reason to reject *any* scientific results, no
matter how old they make the Universe, and no matter what mechaisms they
find for the origin of humanity.  Any such finds can be incorporated
into *this* form of 'creationism' without trouble, since all of the events
so determined by science where implicit in the original Cause.

This form of 'creationism' is usually called Deism, and is fundamentally
opposed to the religion of the Fundamentalist sects.  It is certainly *not*
what the ICR would call 'creation science'.

Nor is it what most people here mean by Creationism (note the capital 'C',
to indicate that it is a proper noun).

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: p_misiak@unibwh.unibw-hamburg.de (Carlo Misiak)
Subject: Re: Newsweek Article: is Science Censored?
Organization: University of Federal Armed Forces Hamburg
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 10:07:44 GMT

In article <1955@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:

   By the way, the reason that trawling through statistics looking for
   correlations is dangerous is as follows:

   A significant correlation is one greater than 95%.  But if you look at
   random data in 20 different ways, you are going to find a significant
   correlation 1 - 0.95^20 = 0.64 of the time.  In other words a study
   looking at random data 20 different ways has a greater than evens
   chance of finding something "significant".

   Disclaimer: I am not a statistician.  I hope I got that right.

It is actually worse than that (than your somewhat - fuzzy, at least -
statement). If your N is large enough, you will get significant correlations
in the range of .3 which gives an r^2 of an amazing 0.09 which infers that
you can forget the correlation.

Now if you have a large correlation matrix of say 100 by 100 elements and you are
on the 5% level you will find 500 significant but discardable correlations by chance. 

Then imagine you have 1000 variables and you run through the procedure 20 times
each time selecting another subset of 100 vars out of the original 1000.

Call the results scientific results that *prove* something.

Cheers

--
Carlo Misiak

*** All that we C or Scheme is but a mind in the machine *** (remember POE) ***

Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.)
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:16:00 GMT

In article <14685@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, ah690549@mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Annette C. Hollmann) writes...
>I think that it is worng to make separate lists for minorities and
>"majorities" wit the intent of discriminating for or against the minority.
>The ideal way to handle the situation would be to cover the names on the
>cv's during the first stages of selection. All publications should be
>cited showing the first initial and the surname rather that the complete
>name for each author. That way, the committee will not know if the
>applicant is male or female until they decide to invite that person for an
>interview. To avoid identification of gender before that stage,
>communication should be limited to email, fax, or snail-mail rather than
>phone. Because most applicants will not be invited for an interview,
>covering up the names will prevent 90% of the discrimination.
> 
>I would not accept a position that was obviously part of an affirmative
>action program. I would rather know that I got the job by fair and square
>competition.

I can understand the sentiments in expressed in the penultimate sentence,
however, the last sentence does not follow from the preceding.  Just
because you get the job without affirmative action does not mean that
you were hired "fairly and squarely" regarding all other standards
of "fairness and squareness".  A cynic might say that if you were hired,
chances are great that you were not the "best" candidate, because the
selection process is so flawed from a scholar's point of view.  Why pick
this criterion as being the worst?  Most positions of "power" are 
achieved by hook or by crook.  Why dismiss criterion for hiring under-
represented individuals, which IMO has plausible arguments in its
favor?   

You are unfairly comparing affirmative action with some ideal, non-
existent perfect system of "fairness and squareness".  I would find
it more instructive to compare it with what currently exists.


> 
>C.A.Hollmann ;-)
> 
> 
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:22:11 GMT

It would be nearly impossible to do a disguised-name search in a smaller field
such as mine (geophysics).  Any search committee member or candidate worth
their salt would know who did a project or wrote a paper even if the names
were erased.
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers,soc.culture.asian.american
From: lseltzer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Linda A. Seltzer)
Subject: Re: Asian-American success (was Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:19:23 GMT

In reply to Jason Solinsky's description of four arguments generally
made in favor of affirmative action, I find that an important
argument is missing.  That is, in many academic job searches today
women with outstanding qualifications are still not obtaining
interviews, even if they are more qualified than the men.  Even
in cases where men claim to really want to identify outstanding
female candidates, the women's dossiers are overlooked.  I have seen
some very outstanding women fail to receive interviews.  If
there were quotas for interviews, then at least the employers could
have a chance to meet the candidates, and perhaps then they would
favor some of the candidates.  I feel that the need for affirmative
action arises because extremely highly qualified female candidates
are being ignored, not because less deserving people should be
given preference. The point is that these women ARE EQUAL.
If faculties won't correct the situation
voluntarily, then there should be directives from the universities
for interviewing more women.
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Asian-American success (was Re: Hiring quotas and faculty positions)
Date: 13 Sep 92 23:34:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Sep13.233438.10071
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Sep13.132648.22593@Princeton.EDU>, lseltzer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Linda A. Seltzer) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep12.145305.21269@news.acns.nwu.edu> len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) writes:
|> >they attributed this discrimination not to direct action by the institution
|> >against Asian-Americans but to the fact that it gave preference to
|> >children of alumni and to athletes.  Since Asian-Americans were not
|> >highly represented in those groups, they were in effect discriminated
|> >against.  However, the Department of Education found that Harvard's
|> >standards were rational, so they did not require them to change them.
|> >Perhaps the reasoning was that 20 or 30 years from now the Asian-Americans
|> >will get their due when a much higher percentage of children of alumni
|> >will belong to that group.  Of course, the children won't have to work
|> 
|> Berkeley has gone through similar debates, but being the child of
|> alumni wasn't the issue there.  The issue was extracurricular
|> activities.  It was clear that if admissions were based on
|> academic criteria alone, Asian Americans would constitute a
|> much larger segment of the Berkeley student population.  
|> If it's not the "children of alumni" excuse, it's the "extracurricular
|> activities" excuse.  Maybe colleges should simply say that they
|> need affirmative action to assure some representation of white
|> students even though they are less qualified.

The extracurricular activities excuse is a perfectly legitimate one. In fact
its a damned immportant criterion for colleges to use in undergraduate
admissions. My question is, since when have Asian students accelled any less
at extracurricular activities than at academics?

With most schools I would say that this is most likely an attempt to attribute
a racist agenda to a place where there wasn't one, but with Berkely
undergraduate, the number one argument against affirmative action, I wouldn't
put anything beyond them.

Jason W. Solinsky
Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
From: cyg1431@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Who needs to know )
Subject: Archive of Fabrikant postings??
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:44:21 GMT

Has someone archived Fabrikant's postings?  I
just heard about this, and would like to peruse
them, if someone has them.
Please respond via email.
Thank you.
Chris