HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Masr effect
From: lippard@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 17 Nov 1992 20:31 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <168A39FF.SERTEL@ibm.gwdg.de>, SERTEL@ibm.gwdg.de writes...
>My "Backstage news about the EUROSKEPTICS Proceedings"
>will soon disappear from this board. There was no reply,
>Dr. Nienhuys did not answer my questions and I don't even know
>whether anyone read my   message. Another long report about
>Mars effect research posted to this board had no response. Is this the wrong
>newsgroup for such messages or would you suggest another
>reason explaining the absence of reactions?
> 
>Suitbert Ertel
>Institut fuer Psychologie. Goettingen. Germany.

I read it, and am quite disappointed in the lack of response from
Jan Willem Nienhuys.  This is certainly the right place for it, though
it should perhaps have been crossposted to alt.astrology.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Idiot theories abound (AIDS).
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:14:09 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <1e6m6lINN92@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J  
Lydick) writes:
> In article <1992Nov15.162710@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
> Ashlock) writes:
> >   Goddamnit could one of the SKEPTICS please construct and  
AIDS-was-caused-
> >by-the-govenment theory?  Then it won't be quite so silly.
> 
> OK, I'll have a go at it:

[...]
> There.  How's that?
>  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
------
> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet:  
SOL1::CARL
[...]
Damn good!  You even got around the "nobody would create such a thing  
because they couldn't hit the target without endangering themselves"  
problem.  Please hold onto your post so that you can disclaim it later  
when it becomes and urban legend.  I fear your meme may be as contageous  
as the virus!

=========SunCat++++     | kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu
"Congress is not the sole suppository [sic] of wisdom."
  -- Rep. Bill Schuette (R-Mich)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Insults
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:27:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.171244.26285@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>,
kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:

                       [endless discussion deleted]
 
> It also might help to ignore the adolescent attacks of a person who strives
> to drag conversations into the mud. To substitute attack for intelligent
> discourse and thereby demonstrating lack of self control sure isn't going
> to help teach anyone how to grow up. What you've got to realize is that
> its a two way street. There are adolescents on both sides. Those who
> relish in hurting others by changing the subject with personal attacks, and
> those who haven't got the internal strength to maturely handle such attacks.

   Still beating that same tin pot, eh, Dave?  If you are such a mature and
honest debater why on earth did it take three weeks and twenty five responses
for Cark Luydik(sp?) and I to drag out your admission,

    "I do not beleive it is possible to tell a psychic from a con man[1]" ?
 
> Do you really feel that the only problem is that we have got a bunch of
> whiners out there? Do you really think that the use of insults also does
> not reflect an adolescent approach to discussion?

   For the 10^5th time: the insults are a secondary or tertiary line of defense
against poeple who waffle, equivocate, duck, dodge, change the subject, deny
the reality of the game after agreeing to play, etc. etc.  Yourself, for
example.

> Dave.Kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM                       |
> (619) 485-2504                                    |

Dave, this is the .sig I insulted you into adopting.  No assinine 
paranormalist quotes or anything.  Does this mean you don't have
the maturity to handle the attacks?  If not, why cave in to my
immature adolescent behavior?

   The key point here is that you beleive in something improbable 
because of unrepeatable personal experiences and are thrashing about 
trying to find something to justify them  This is all fine; except that
you do it ON SCI.SKEPTIC.  Nuff said.

[1]Recall:
---------------insertion----------------------------------------------------
Article: 16143 of sci.skeptic
Path:
news.iastate.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uune
et!ncrcom!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!SanDiego.NCR.COM!tortuga!kraus
From: kraus@tortuga.SanDiego.NCR.COM (David (Dave) Kraus)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Con-man or psychic?
Date: 18 Nov 91 18:26:29 GMT
<1991Nov15.150649@IASTATE.EDU>
Reply-To: kraus@tortuga.SanDiego.NCR.COM (David (Dave) Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo

In article <1991Nov15.150649@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
writes:
>In article <1991Nov15.012328.24654@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>,
>kraus@tortuga.SanDiego.NCR.COM (David (Dave) Kraus) writes:

>> So, I'm ducking the question," How do you tell a real psychic from a con
>man?"
 
>   Yes, you were, and, having read the below answer, I think either (i) you
>just admitted you can't or (ii) you ducked the question again.

Ok...one more time in very simple language.

I do not believe that it is possible to determine with certainty whether
a psychic is a con-man or not. Using scientific methods or not.

Got it!!?? (chuckle chuckle)

I hope my sig invades your dreams.


====  David R. Kraus ============ | "Some terribly insightful
|     (619) 485-2504              |  quote that shakes the
|                                 |  foundation of all your
|   dave.kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM   |  beliefs."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
See, this was long enough ago that Dave still had his funny .sig.


Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19853 alt.messianic:3470
From: avi@eagle.imagen.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:06:43 GMT
Reply-To: avi@eagle.imagen.com
Organization: none

>>where he initially refused to heal the son of a non-Jewish woman, claiming to have
>>come ONLY for the Jews, and only after she said that the dogs get to eat the
>>crumbs of their masters tables, did he agree, or when he told the people NOT to
>>stone the sinner despite the ehavy sin (i.e. tolerance and forgiveness), not

>I have always interpreted that passage (Mat 15:26) to mean the exact opposite
>i.e. Jesus was presenting the conventional argument and then proceeding to
>abolish it.

What ? But he clearly argued with the woman and she asked for him not to abolish
it but to EXTEND it, stating very clearly that the relationship between God
and Messiah to the Jews as opposed to the Gentiles is between a man and his
dog, and Jesus CLEARLY did not agree (since he argued with her), but out
of compassion, EXTENDED it - although that was NOT the initial intent.

Now if he were to abolish it, he would do what he did with the Law of Sabbath
(The man is the Lord of Sabbath and not vice versa, which by the way abolished
his credibility as the genuine Messiah).
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Homosexual Agenda (was: Fundamentalist nightmare)
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 17 Nov 92  09:06:30

Since we seem to be discussing homosexuality. . . .
 
This morning 11/16/92 I was listening to my favorate leftist
radio show, Pacifica radio KPFK, and as a guest they had one
person who was for discontinuing the ban on homosexual in the
millitary, and one who was against offically allowing homosexuals
in the millitary.
 
The rational side pointed out that homosexuals are already in
the millitary, in large numbers--- numbers equal to the ratio
of momosexuals to heterosexuals in civilian life. Removing the
ban would therefore not cause any harm, and could only help by
protecting current and future millitary personale from losing
their careers.
 
The other side, who shouted down the former, said that to "allow"
homosexuals into the millitary (as if they were not ALREADY THERE),
would be a devistating blow for troop morale. He said that even if
a homosexual performs just as well under fire as a heterosexual,
the heterosexuals wouldn't trust them to watch each others backs!
 
I was struck by the simularity between the latter's "arguments"
to the rationalizations of why black people should be kept out
of the "regular" armed forces. The individual said that homosexuals
could offer "support" behind the lines, where they "wouldn't
interfere with moral---" the identicle argument that was used to
segregate black people into their own squads!
 
There was also brought up the "problem" (his word) of women in the
millitary, who were "a moral problem" in "Desert Storm," because
they were going behind "sand dunes" to copulate. The BBC reported
that American service men raped Saudi women during "Desert Storm---"
is having heterosexuals in the millitary thus dangerous to morale?
 
Now, I am a "straight" (heterosexual) male, and I have my doubts
that homosexuals are any more a problem in millitary than the
heterosexuals are. I live with two lesbians who are in the
millitary (one Marine, one Air Force), and I used to live with
a lesbian who was in the Army, who was discharged after being
wounded while supporting the illegal Panama invasion. Yet I see
every bit of evidence that these women, who are homosexual, are
-FINE MEMBERS- of the millitary; one trains men how to kill
efficently, and she has been sent to several countries to train
"our" allies. She has saved American troopers lives by the training
she provided, and she has awards and medals enough to choke a pig.
 
My question: is there ANY evidence that shows that acknowledging
the current homosexuals in the millitary their right to be there,
is going to hurt the millitary? Has there been studies?

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: None
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:10:40 GMT

In article <51483@seismo.CSS.GOV> tcarter@seismo.CSS.GOV (Thomas Carter) writes:
>
[135 line article deleted]

Isn't there some law oriented group where this quite probably
intelligent discussion would make more sense?  Sci.skeptic is the home
of gimlet-eyed scientists and woolly-minded enthusiasts of fringe topics
like ufo's, wierd radiations, crop circles, and astrology.  Social
sciences make an occasional appearance, and sometimes stay for a long
thread, but when as in this case it becomes a controlled technical
discussion of case law, it is time to shift groups or perhaps use
email.

Roger
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: "The Universe of MOTION" (book review)
Date: 16 Nov 92 06:17:35 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

Yay! He finally got a clue and posted his articles to ski.skeptic instead
of tormenting everyone (we can only laugh so hard) in sci.space and 
sci.space.shuttle. Now, let's see if he answers questions posted to the
net about his claims. I only get responses when I email him nad sometimes
not even then.



-- 
Patrick Chester            |----------------------------------------------------
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
Politically Incorrect      |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Future Lunar Colonist      |"The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us
#^%$!! Militarist          |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
(Of the Sun Tzu mentality) |----------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:17:18 GMT

In article <1dq7jfINNnhs@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.005001.8143@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>>Yes, you are probably right, but that doesn't make Christianity useless or
>>invalid. It is a lofty goal that can improve men/women who strive to
>>achieve it.
>
>And in the process cripples with guilt many who have been told they're supposed
>to achieve it and that it's possible to at least come very close to achieving
>it.  Of course, the Church also gives you a way to get rid of the guilt they've
>just induced.  Actually, the fact that this particular religion gets rid of the
>guilt is one of its big selling points.
>
>Hmmm.  What happens to a physician who's found to be inducing spurious symptoms
>in his patients and then "curing" them.  Interesting double standard, isn't it.

Yes, it is a shame when any goal is not met and leads one to feel guilty or
sad.  So let's get rid of all goals - NOT.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: hau4@ellis.uchicago.edu (sven  hauptfeld)
Subject: Re: Correlation between sexual preference of parents and children
Reply-To: hau4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:49:20 GMT

In article <6NOV92.15475011@enh.nist.gov> aberson@enh.nist.gov writes:
>In a previous article, edw@caligula.cts.com (Ed Watkeys) wrote:
>>Does anyone know if there is any correlation between the sexual pref-
>>erences of parents and their children? 
>
>Yes.  Children born as the result of a heterosexual union are
>overwhelmingly likely to be heterosexual.
>

As you are joking, I won't insist on your misinterpretation of the word
"correlation", but will merely add to your joke:

...and children born as the result of a homosexual union are never found to
be heterosexual.  

:-)

	Sven

From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:13:55 GMT
Subject: UFO's?
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic

"Why would we care about a UFO?" asked Louis Achitoff, an FAA Eastern region 
spokesman.  "If the pilot's up there with a clearance and at the right altitude, we don't care what planet he comes from."
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightm
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:18:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

ER> .It strikes me that if we were going to follow the sort of criteria
  > .for the characteristics each of us found objectionable, we'd have
  > .no teachers at all. Would you mind telling us precisely what mannerisms
  > .it is you find objectionable? As far as I can tell you have so
  > .far declined to do so.

No, the school system is somewhat self-regulating.  If a single parent
complains, the child will probably just be transferred to another class.
If many parents complain, that teacher will change, or will not stay in
the system very long.  It doesn't matter what the real or imagined trait
is that this teacher is exhibiting.  If it upsets enough parents, action
will be taken.

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                                                                                                       
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: pierres@microsoft.com (Pierre Stromberg)
Subject: Re: Von Daniken and Berlitz:  Where are they today?
Date: 22 Nov 92 22:42:53 GMT
Organization: Sausage, SPAM, Baked Beans, and SPAM Incorporated.

In article <1ejv43INNb78@anthrax.solbourne.com> kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:
>Does anyone know what has happened to:
>* Erich Von Daniken, author of _Chariots of the Gods_ and several other
>  _* of the Gods_ books


     I don't know. He's probably living quite well off of his interest.


>  I remember it was discovered that he paid to have artifacts constructed
>  for the _Chariots of the Gods_ movie, and I seem to remember he was tossed
>  in jail for a while (anyone know why?  Fraud?).

     According to my cultural anthropology professor, he served time in
prison before Chariots of the Gods was published for selling false life
insurance claims. My professor also made the claim that he started
writing Chariots while he was in jail but I don't know how much
credibility there is to this claim.





---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Pierre Stromberg         Microsoft Corporation         Redmond, Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
uunet!microsoft!pierres   pierres@microsoft.UUCP   decvax!microsoft!pierres
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" - Samuel Johnson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: matth@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Matthew Hannigan)
Subject: Re: Where has Galileo been all these years?
Organization: AODC, though I don't speak for them
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 11:16:32 GMT

In article <1df9qjINNi5h@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <2930020228.3.p00168@psilink.com>, "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>>Did I hear correctly?  Has the Vatican now officially recognized the
>>!!!SUN as the center of the universe?  Surely not.
>
>Actually, it's officially acknowledged the Big Bang.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder when they're going to consider poor Giordano Bruno's case.

	-Matt
matt@aodc20.aodc.gov.au

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
Subject: Re: Hot coffee (was Re: sci.skeptic: The Frequently Questioned Answers)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:46:13 GMT

In article <20NOV199216213727@vxcrna.cern.ch>, german@vxcrna.cern.ch (GERMAN,FERN./EP) writes:
|> 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. [...]

A major cooling mechanism is radiative transfer.  I believe that the 
rate of radiative cooling is proportional to some high power (like 
the fourth) of the temperature difference between the coffee and the 
ambient temperature of the room (this is why radiation dominates 
your experience of a warm object if the temperature difference is 
high).  Of course, I've never studied coffee dynamics - so its main 
cooling mechanism may be convection or conduction.  It these latter 
are sufficiently greater than the heat loss by radiation, then your 
comments of the heat conduction/capacity of coffee vs. coffee with 
cream may be valid.

-- 
J. Giles
From: shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Innumeracy, humorous ... maybe.
Date: 16 Nov 1992 20:54:18 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: hijack.berkeley.edu

In article <1e7ct5INN4rn@agate.berkeley.edu> shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff) writes:
>As a quick exercise in numeracy, estimate how many lottery tickets are sold
>each draw and how often someone wins the jackpot.  This should tell you
>which odds are more likely to be correct.  As another exercise, estimate
>the size of the jackpot and the fraction of the sales they are likely to
>give back in the jackpot.

Just to clarify what I meant:
Consider the California 6/49 lottery.  California has 25 million people,
so they sell maybe 10 million tickets a draw.  They don't have a winner
every time, but have jackpot winners regulary, so say 50% of the time.
Thus, the odds of winning are in the neighborhood of 1 in 20 million.

For the second approach, the jackpot is maybe 5 million dollars.  They pay
back maybe 50% of ticket sales via the jackpot, so they must sell about 10
million one dollar tickets per jackpot.  Thus, the odds of winning could be
estimated at somewhere around 1 in 10 million.

The point of this exercise is to demonstrate how you can quickly estimate
the order-of-magnitude odds of winning.  This provides a simple sanity check
on which odds are more likely to be right: 1 in 14 million or 1 in 10 billion.

As an unrelated comment on numeracy, I find the most useful fact to remember
is that there are about 250 million (1/4 billion) people in the United States.
Most things make much more sense per-capita.  E.g. a 300 billion dollar defense
budget has no real meaning to me until I work out that it's a bit over $1000
per person.  Likewise, if some policy will cost the US $25 million, that
means it will cost you a dime (on average).  (Apologies for the US-centrism;
use your appropriate population for this per-capita trick.)

Ken Shirriff				shirriff@sprite.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic: The Frequently Questioned Answers
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:04:20 GMT

In article <BxywDu.JA0@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>>New Age

>It's probably worth dealing with the Neopagans somewhere around here
>too.  Neopagans disown New Age beliefs with a fervour that would make a
>Jehovah's Witness proud, but they share a lot of the beliefs in your
>list; the main difference seems to be a marked reluctance to actually
>*give* *money* to all the charlatans who try and sell them things. 
>They've got various sorts of Goddesses (and some Gods though they don't
>seem to be as important) and are also keen on the Moon.  A real pagan
>would do them better justice.

I don't think you need to specifically criticize neo-pagan religion
unless you are willing to generally criticize all religion (in which case
you had better be prepared for some appalling flames).  From my
experience with it, neo-paganism is no more or less unscientific than
any other form of religion.  Many neo-pagans do believe in some of
the things in the FAQ, but so do many Christians, atheists and
agnostics, and members of other religions.

I think it would be better to keep religion out of the FAQ in the hopes
of avoiding the fate of talk.religion.misc.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic