HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 4 Oct 1992 00:32:56 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct2.232433.24489@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
=A spiritual hunger in a person is a recognition that there is more to the
=world then what meets the physical senses.  It is trying to get all the
="missing" information it can about this spiritual realm so that they can
=live their lives accordingly.  If this spirtual realm contains God, then
=the hunger exists to please him and to know everything they can about him.
=If it contains the notion of a soul, then certain questions come to mind
=for which theories are advanced (reincarnation being the one mentioned).

How then, is a spiritual hunger different from incipient schizophrenia?  And
how is a fullfilled spiritual hunger different from full-blown schizophrenia?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Quit Judas / Crucifixion etc.
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:31:59 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

I propose that we drop this subject.  No new points of view are
raised.  And the subject is going farther and farther away from
the empirically testable (unless you call provoking people with
strong opinions an empirical test of their mind contents . . .).

JWN
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell)
Subject: Re: Chimpanzee vs Human DNA
Organization: Entropy Limited, Vancouver Canada
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 05:57:26 GMT

In article <92272.225700RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>...
>one interesting point was that some scientists gave a chimp two stacks of
>pictures: one stack was of pictures of humans, and the other was of pictures
>of non-human animals.  they then gave the chimp a new stack of photos, this
>one having both human and non-human animals.
>
>the chimp proceeded to seperate this stack into human and non-human stacks.
>she got everything right.  except one picture.  she put the picture of herself
>in the "human" stack.

But did the example stack that had "pictures of non-human animals" contain
pictures of _chimps_? Did it contain _any_ pictures that would preclude a
classification of "primate" and "non-primate"? Was the "human and non-human
animals" classification (and the preclusion of primate/non-primate) 
manifested anywhere other than in the minds, and possibly the notes, of the 
experimenters?
    In the mixed stack (that she was to sort out) were there pictures of
chimps other than herself? If so, which stack did she place them in?
    Until this is cleared up, it's not reasonable to say that she didn't get
everything "right". 

-- 
ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!eslvcr!ted   (Ted Powell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: chris@visix.com (Chris Cole)
Subject: Re: Skeptic Novels
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:25:38 GMT
Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA


Actually, I've found Umberto Eco's "Name of the Rose" to be much more 
entertaining.  In short, it's a medieval "detective" story
(well, of course it is much more than that...) that takes place in a 
monastery, with two skeptical monks playing the parts of Holmes/Watson, while
the rest of the monks are running around predicting Armageddon.  Well
written, intelligent, and absorbing.  Two thumbs up.

chris

"The Hell Law says that Hell is reserved exclusively for them that believe 
  in it.  Further, the lowest Rung in Hell is reserved for them that 
  believe in it on the supposition that they'll go there if they don't."
   The Honest Book of Truth; The Gospel According to Fred, 3:1
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Jesus and the Moneychangers (was: What did Judas betray?)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:12:13 GMT

dickb@bilver.uucp (Dick Biow) writes:

>I don't believe the money-changer incident happened. Nobody was allowed to 
>carry a weapon, like the whips John has Jesus take with him, except for the 
>guards.  Jesus never would have been allowed to approach the money-tables, 
>any more than a robber would.

The Bible says 'a whip fashioned of cords'...sounds to me like an impromptu
weapon made on the spot, say from rope belts...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: rjn@FC.HP.COM (Bob Niland)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: UN-WISE QUOTES
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:44:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: fc.BvEEEE.1rK
Reply-To: rjn@FC.HP.COM
Organization: Hewlett-Packard/WSY Ft.Collins,CO,USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.3 PL6]

> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu wrote:

> Modern orthodox "scientists" are still saying SIMILAR 
> things AGAINST UFO Spacecraft

Not at all.  It is widely agreed that there are objects ("O") in the sky
(apparently flying, "F") that cannot be identified by their observers.  The
problem is that UFO fans forget that the "U" stands for Unidentified.  When
advocates speak of "UFO"s, they usually do NOT mean "unidentified".  They
mean "ET craft".  Why don't they say so, hmmmm?  Science has no problem with
things unknown.  It does have a problem with those who can't accept
"unknown", draw unsupported conclusions and go on to form convoluted belief
systems about mysterious phenomena.

> Cold Fusion

There have been recent reports in sci.fusion, by skeptical investigators
actually performing experiments, suggesting that there is "something there"
- i.e.  a new mysterious phenomenon.  It may or may not lead to "power too
cheap to meter".  Unfortunately, much of the work, reporting and
hypothesizing in the CF realm over the last few years has had all the
earmarks of pathological science, if not outright fraud.  When it looks like
a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, even a rocket scientist
has to step back and ask:  "Is this a probable duck, or something worth
investing (and possibly wasting) my time on?"

> Astrological Influences

When the majority of seat-holders on the NYSE are picking stocks by the
stars, I'll start paying attention :-)

Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland      Internet: rjn@FC.HP.COM               3404 East Harmony Road
                CompuServe:  71044,2124               Ft Collins CO 80525-9599

This article represents only the opinion[s] of its author, and is not an
official or unofficial position of, or statement by, the Hewlett-Packard
Company.  The text is provided for informational purposes only.  It is
supplied without warranty of any kind.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:13:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.035406.4927@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca> ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell) writes:
>
>That certainly takes the cake for a non sequitur. He wasn't saying that
>belief in a rabbit's foot was any of those things, he was saying that it 
>did not fit the given definition of superstition.
>    The given definition (see above) was "an irrational belief in the 
>ominous significance of a particular thing or circumstance." According to
>(Merriam-)Webster's Third New International: "OMINOUS applies to that which
>shows a menacing, threatening, and frightful character foreshadowing evil
>or tragic developments, sometimes rather vague."
>    Pointing out that this is hardly consistent with "a belief that a
>rabbit's foot will bring _*good*_ luck [emphasis added]" really does _NOT_
>amount to suggesting that "belief in a rabbit's foot tell[s] you anything
>about the cause of the universe", nor any of your other claims. Really!

You're right.  I thought he was saying that a belief in a rabbit's foot
was indistinguishable from religion.  That is why I was trying to show
that it didn't fit into the definition of religion.

However, doesn't a belief in a rabbit's foot bringing good luck have the
implication that if I forget my rabbit's foot or fail to carry it with
me today, then *bad* luck will strike me?  That certainly sounds ominous to
me!

>
>-- 
>ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!eslvcr!ted   (Ted Powell)


-- 
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: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:36:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.182712.15201@newshost.lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
|> [...]
|> This is simply incorrect.  He intended the 100 point of the scale to be
|> the average human body temperature, and the zero point as I defined above.
|> Good grief, it's not like the scale is from pre-history.  The man left
|> records of his intent.

Ok. I actually looked it up, and I was slightly wrong.  To quote the
Encyclopedia Brittanica:

      [...]
      In devising a scale for his thermometer, Fahrenheit chose as zero
      the lowest temperature obtainable with a mixture of ice and common
      salt, and first proposed to divide the interval between this temp-
      erature and that which is normally found to characterize the blood
      of a healthy man into 12 divisions, subsequently increasing the number
      to 96, purely as an arbitrary measure of convenience.  Fahrenheit 
      had previously shown that pure water while freezing in the presence
      of ice always gave the same reading on his thermometer, and he
      invented the mercury thermometer so that he could observe the
      constancy of the boiling point of water, a report of which he
      had read in "The History of the Sciences" issued by the Royal
      Academy of Paris.  [...]

So, he picked 96 as the temperature of the human body - and was off by
a couple or three degrees.  His intent was, nonetheless, that the scale
be defined by human body temperature. 

-- 
J. Giles
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Re: <None>
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
 <Sep18.050933.60537@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> <1092@tdat.teradata.COM> <1992Sep25.001922.17712@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> <1992Sep28.191617.4384@desire.wright.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:01:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.191617.4384@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:


   >>In article <Sep18.050933.60537@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
   >>|In article <GERRY.92Sep17120955@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
   >>|What *I* want to know is how come all the pro-choicers are against capital
   >>|punishment?

What I want to know is this:

Why are you lame-brains misquoting me twice in one week!!!  I never
said the above!  (I never use *xxx* for emphasis...)  

I can make an ass of myself without any of your help.  

PLEASE CAREFULLY CHECK ATTRIBUTIONS ON ALL INCLUDED MATERIALS!

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
Field Robotics Center,          | all men are created equal, that they are
Carnegie Mellon University      | endowed by their Creator with certain
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | unalienable Rights, that among these are
(412) 268-3856                  | Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
                                | That to secure these rights, Governments are
The opinions expressed are mine | instituted among Men, deriving their just
and do not reflect the official | powers from the consent of the governed.
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | That whenever any Form of Government becomes
or any other organization.      | destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
                                | the People to alter or to abolish it...
                                | Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: twiddyd@reis55.alleg.edu (David Twiddy)
Subject: Re: Faith and sceptics.
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:28:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.111404.18688@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)  
writes:
> 
> 	Let us not forget Mark Twain's definition of "faith":
> 
> 	Faith is when you believe something when you know it isn't true.
> 
> 	What more can be said?

	A hell of a lot more can be said.  Please, people, let's not let  
one of the major philosophical conflicts of our time be reduced to  
one-liners.
--

David "master of obscurity" Twiddy <twiddyd@alleg.edu>
"Small wheel turn by the fire and rod
 Big wheel turn by the Grace of GOD"
 			-Jerry Garcia
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 05:37:01 GMT

In article <1a0jrsINNqp7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> 
  ak104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert Clark) writes:

> Proponents of astrology have used the argument that the different
>gravitation pulls of the Sun and the Moon on the Earth at different
>times of the year could be used to explain the alleged differences
>in personality by birthdate. They cite the enormous gravitational
>influence of the tides to show how fluids on the earth, and by
>extrapoloation fluids in our bodies, are affected by astronomical
>objects. 

Actually, if you are alt.astrology they don't claim anything of the 
sort.  No explaination is offered as to why astrology "works".

>  Critics have attacked this by saying you need tremendous amounts
>of mass to detect these _differential_ effects and by using statements
>like "the weight of the doctor has a greater gravit. effect on you
>at birth than the moon does." I've always bought these arguments.

Smart lad.

>HOWEVER, the recent autumnal equinox has given me pause. I was looking
>at a picture of an egg balanced on its end and reading the caption to
>the picture which stated that only during the vernal or autumnal equinox
>may a fresh egg be balanced on its end, when I started wondering
>how such a small amount of mass can detect this effect.

It can't.  You can balance eggs on one end at any time of year.

C "Nice try" Frog
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17018 alt.alien.visitors:6981
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: NASA 'UFO Video' Rides Again
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:00:28 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

First: Paul, the Followup-to field is NOT intended to be an indication of the
subject of the article, or to otherwise identify the article.  The Subject: and
direct replies to a set of newsgroups other than that in the article to which
you're replying.  You might want to read through the documentation on your
newsreader software at some point.

In article <1992Sep22.161556.3290@ntb.ch>, milsom@ntb.ch (Paul Milsom) writes:
=>As a former professional astronomer, I've seen countless things that to the 
=>untrained eye could be considered "space-ships" but are really things like 
=>flocks of birds, reflections of lights on clouds, satellites, weather 
=>balloons (and some with bizarre flashing lights!) ..
=
=Ah, the telling words here are "to the untrained eye could be considered .."  
=
=I think it's unfair to assume that people's brains are "the size of walnuts"
=just because theirs is an untrained eye.

True.  But when they prove to have an untrainable eye, that's a bit different. 
For example, take the fellow who was arguing in sci.skeptic a few months ago
that the film really WAS a UFO being chased by a secret weapon.  Please.  He
repeatedly made assertions concerning the size and the velocity of the objects
in the video.  He was asked how he'd estimated these parameters.  He said it
was just "obvious."  We pointed out to him why it was NOT obvious, and
explained a number of ways that the parameters could be estimated.  He owned up
to the fact that none of these ways were applicable in this case, but continued
to insist that he KNEW the size and velocities of the objects.  That's not an
untrained eye, that's an untrainable eye.

=By the way, this "object" seems to be the one I have on a commercial video,

I don't think so.  The object under discussion in this thread is from a film
taken by the payload bay camera on a space shuttle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Lauren Stratford's _Satan's Underground_
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 01:33:25 GMT

In article <3OCT199211533698@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes in part:

|> Surely both the publisher and these clinical psychologists must be aware
|> of the details of these criticisms.  
An extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof!  

Publishers definitely do NOT research the books they publish, unless
they fear libel.  Psychologists are often poorly informed or worse.

I am far more alarmed that ANYONE would take such blatant nonsense 
seriously, even without knowning that it has been debunked in detail.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:34:40 GMT

In article <5751@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>
>May I repsectfully submit that this is dubious. (1) the price paid was
>the equivalent of one (1) slave - a symbolic sum in itself. Not a bundle.
>(2) the imputation of greed as a prime motive for a traitorous Jew seems
>to me not based on Biblical sources, but on certain other less lofty
>traditions (if you catch my drift) that are not becoming for a Sunday
>school teacher.

May I respectively point out that:

1) Greediness implies excess desire of wealth, amount unspecified.  Yes,
it was not "a million dollars" but it was positive cash flow, nontheless.

2) No one ever said that greed was the only motive that Judas had.  But
he didn't turn down the money initially which shows that it was a factor.
How much is anybody's guess.

For my information, are you trying to show that things *could*
have been different than portrayed in the Gospels?  Or are you
trying to show that they *must* have been different.  I don't
believe that you have shown the latter at all.  It is always easy
to show the former for just about any event, IMHO. 

>Pharisees are reported to have plotted against Jesus, that they hated
>his guts (enough to frame him for execution by Romans, all according to
>the same Biblical source) and that after the Temple incident any Temple
>guard or money changer or supporter of the Pharisees could have been
>trusted to identify Jesus who (still according to the same sources) must
>have had national fame - why else was he welcomed so much in Jerusalem?

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

>
>Why have the snitch employed to tip about a quiet arresting place do the
>identification as well?  The "authorities" are reported to have been
>insulted to their faces with large crowds attending;  the comparison with
>modern judicial authorities who order arrests of people they only know
>from paperwork is not convincing. 

Explain why you think that all lowly Temple guards *must* have
known what Jesus looked like.

-- 
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: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Creationism
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
	<1992Sep30.162924.4810@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:39:56 GMT

>>>>> On 30 Sep 92 16:29:24 GMT, wjc@guardian.austin.ibm.com (Bill Collum) said:

Bill> Maybe I missed something, being neither a devout "beliver" nor an
Bill> avowed "skeptic" (well, maybe more skeptical than most), but is 
Bill> "Scientific Creationism" really taught in public schools? With
Bill> tax-payers dollars? Tell me it's not true. It's no wonder we're well
Bill> on our way to becoming a third-world nation when children are
Bill> taught "beliefs" and "superstitions" rather than "evidence" and 
Bill> "facts" in schools that are intended to prepare them for life as
Bill> productive citizens. 

Uh, if we're "on our way to becoming a third-world nation", it's not
due to the citizens who were taught after 1981 (who are generally
still too young to have worked much after college) but due to the
citizens who were taught between the time of the Scopes trial and
1981.  I refuse to be so rash as to draw any conclusions about science
teaching's effect on economic viability of a nation, since both Japan
and the former USSR have taught evolution exclusively during this
century, and have not performed similarly in the world marketplace.

Bill> A person's "beliefs" are his own business (I choose not to share
Bill> mine in the anonymous forum of the net), but regardless of
Bill> religous affiliation, children should be taught to be inquisitve, 
Bill> curious, and questioning. In short, teach "scientific principle" 
Bill> rather than "religous dogma".

So the "fact" of evolution should be questioned, too?  Yow ...  I am
still indebted to the sensitive college professor who reminded me that
atomic theory, as taught in my chemistry classes, is still "just a
theory".

Bill> (I still can't believe it. Creationsim in school? Really?)

Yeah - right after your English elective, "The Supernatural"
(introduced into my high school alma mater in 1972).
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "And these words, which I command thee this
Integrated Measurement Systems |  day, shall be in thine heart; And thou shalt
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  teach them diligently unto thy children,"
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  - Deuteronomy 6:6-7a
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |                                         THUMP!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc