HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: An exercise in brain-d
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:34:36 GMT

In article <717318277.3@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORG>, Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) writes:
|> Reply-To: Rick_Moen@blyth.com
|> 
|> In article <LEET.92Sep18080414@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
|> wrote as follows:
[...]
|> >
|> > I am almost prepared to unsubscribe from this newsgroup, because it is
|> > becoming obvious that it is simply a platform for the promulgation of
|> > ideology, and not a forum for actual skeptical investigation.
|> 
|> Lee, I think your complaints are justified, [...]

I agree with LT and RM, although I assumed that LT was going to Fight-
On-Forever in the finest tradition of s.s, so I just ignored the rest
ofthe exchange.

I'm hoping LT (or 'leet' as his system seems to call him--I kind of like
that but he probably hates it) will stick around.  I'd be especially 
interested in seeing his views on stuff other than creationism....

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17501 talk.religion.misc:17669
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Meteorites & l'academie
Date: 1 Oct 92 05:40:17 GMT

Hardly a month passes in which I don't hear some fatuous assertion that
the French Academy's dismissal of meteorite reports shows that
scientists are pig-headed, closed-minded, etc., usually proceeding
audaciously to the conclusion that x self-contradictory and/or
unsupported claim made by the speaker therefore has merit.

As long as I'm going to have to hear this old chestnut ad infinitum,
I though it might be nice to find out how much of the story is true, and
how much is New Age folklore.  Have any historical studies been done of
this incident, that I might conceivably look up?   It seemed prudent to
ask _before_ exercising my rusty French.

Cheers,
Rick M.
(Best reached at Rick_Moen@blyth.com)

P.S.:  Consider adding the full story, if it emerges from the present
discussion, to the newsgroup's FAQ file?

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:45:03 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <LEET.92Sep29100139@dove.ims.com> leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:

>I personally think that you're partly right, but Judas's primary
>motivation was personal gain (rather like being Jim Bakker's chief
>accountant); he could rip off the chief priests for a bundle, and then
>turn around and be made Secretary of the Treasury under Jesus's
>kingdom.  

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.

And, in contradiction to Lydick (who has inferred from my remarks that
my skull must be rather full of bones), I want to reiterate that the
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?

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. 

The problem is why Judas was there at all.  At least that is easy to
explain: in that way you get at least hold of the snitch if he's 
double crossing you or part of a scheme or trap.  He can't get away
with the money if the "goods" are not there.  But rely on him for 
identification?  I need more convincing.

JWN
Date: Tuesday, 29 Sep 1992 14:19:49 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Chimpanzee vs Human DNA

one other interesting tidbit from sagan and lady's article, which i didn't
realize before: not only are chimpanzees the closest related species to
humans, but also humans are the closest related species to chimpanzees.

think about it: chimps are genetically closer to us than they are to, say,
gorillas.  neat.  goes against what is "natural" to believe.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17096 talk.origins:12170
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 29 Sep 1992 07:18:51 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep25.223049.18687@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>>(3) Therapsids -- part-mammal-part-reptile. Look up condylarths in a
>>>>    book on fossils. These are reptiles with fur, or mammals with
>>>
>>>Umm, just curious, but how was it determined from a fossil that a particular
>>>animal has fur???
>>
>>If you did any reading whatsoever of the field you criticize, you would
>>know that skin imprints for many fossils, including diplodocus have been
>>found.
>
>And which field was it that I criticized?

You criticized the theory of evolution, with a claim that there have been no
"transitional forms" of fossils found.

>I merely asked what I thought was a logical question.

And your ignorance of paleontology shows that you had no basis (other than
having read and immediately swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, creationist
propaganda) for your claim regarding transitional fossils.

>You do seem to have such *thin* skin...

Maybe there's some sort of cosmic law of conservation of thicknesses:  His skin
and your skull balance each other quite nicely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:05:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.193930.2799@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>>
>>One more time... sure it's causal, *anything* can be said to be causual.  What
>>does it tell you in general, however, about the cause of the universe?
>
>About as much as religion does. What can one say about 'god created the
>heavens and the earth' other than it is a causal claim. I see the distinction
>you are making, but not the difference.

You mean to tell me that certain logical conclusions don't fall
into place for you if you accept the premise that a Supreme Being
(god) created the heavens and the earth?

> 
>>>
>>>>This is not to say that you couldn't have a set of religious
>>>>beliefs that would contain this belief.  In that case, it would
>>>>not be superstition. 
>>>
>>>Christians have the same evidence of the existance of god, heaven, and
>>>hell that the fellow knocking on wood has this will bring good luck.
>>>How is it that one is superstition, and the other is not? 
>>
>>My such claims!
>
>Oh? You have some clear objective evidence for any of the above? If not,
>my claim is true. And I claim only lack of objective evidence.

Actually, the superstition can probably be objectively tested.
That is, a study could be done to determine if knocking on wood
statistically changed the presence of what we think is good luck.
The control group would, of course, have an object that felt like
wood but was not.  If the study was scientific and conclusive, I'd
bet you'd start the practice of knocking on wood... :)

>>>>>Rich

-- 
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: Dan Yurman <dyurman@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: 26 Sep 92 02:50 PDT
Subject: Re: KOSHER? In a Pig's Eye!
Nf-ID: #R:roelle.717178869@uars_mag:-412703106:cdp:1469000005:000:563
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dyurman    Sep 26 02:50:00 1992


Really quite astonished byu t thjisis string of responses.  I would
have thought that someone by now would have pointed out that
the practice of keeping Kosher in a home is a private matter
for thosee family in queswtiontion, and not appropriate as a subject
for sophmoric jokes like "hazy" and "lazy."

----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Yurman            | dyurman@igc.apc.org | Chance favors only
PO Box 1569           | MCI Mail: 364-1277  | the prepared mind.
Idaho Falls, ID 83403 | 43N28 112W02 -7 GMT | -- Louis Pasteur


Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17090 ca.earthquakes:1146
From: rogers@isi.edu (Craig Milo Rogers)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Quake Day - Minus 4
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:23:00 GMT
Reply-To: rogers@blips.isi.edu (Craig Milo Rogers)
Distribution: world
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute
Keywords: wizard, quake, predict, sky quakes

In article <19ta55INN699@news.aero.org> helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) writes:
>The Bay Bridge segment went down because Yerba Buena Island and
>Oakland got a bit farther apart. The section went past its
>expansion rollers. Notice that exactly ONE segment went. The remainder
>of the bridge appeared undamaged. And the biggest problem of fixing it
>was just LIFTING the goddamned piece back up to reconnect it.

	Well, to start with, they DIDN'T just lift the collapsed decks
back into place; they cut them out, and built new replacement decks.
Before doing that, though, they had to jack the bridge towers back
into place.  Source: Competing Against Time, p. 149.

	Furthermore, Pier E23's anchor rivets sheared, and the deck
nearly collapsed there.  Pier E17 experienced severe rocking, and
began to fail.  Source: ibid, p. 147-8.

	As you might guess, I recently receved my (not free) copy of
Competing Against Time, and enjoyed reading it.

					Craig Milo Rogers
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: Mark-Tarbell@suite.com
Subject: Re: J. Witnesses
Reply-To: suite!tarbell@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Suite Software, Anaheim CA.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:32:28 GMT

> In article <1992Sep22.162609.236@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata -  
FSO) writes:
> >One can always play logical games as this and come up with the
> >conclusion that there is no such thing as selflessness.

The basic problem with the "reward"/selflessness schema is that
the reward is known beforehand. With such foreknowledge, I
doubt it is possible to act "purely" on so-called altruistic
motives, since you know you'll be getting a dog bone when
it's all over.

If religion is to function on altruism, any rewards of such
altruism must be kept a secret from the religion's own
practitioners.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU
Distribution:  usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:32:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.170420.8190@srg.srg.af.mil>, 
dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes...

>In article <26538@dog.ee.lbl.gov> TWChan@lbl.gov (Terry Chan) writes:
>>JRowe@cen.ex.ac.uk (John Rowe) writes:
>>  +
>>  +	I thought the secret of balancing eggs upright was to use a
>>  +little slight of hand to put down a small pile of salt or similar
>>  +and balance the egg on that. Another UL?
>>
>>No, actually, that's what they invented superglue for.
>>
>>Terry "Mr. Wizard" Chan
> 
>     Well, so much for Mr. Wizard.  A reasonable skeptical search of the
>available video materials (mostly commercials from shortly after the
>introduction of mass-produced cyano-acrylate adhesives) shows conclusively
>that SuperGlue (tm) was invented to suspend construction workers from American
>Football goalposts by their construction helmets.  
> 
>     I have never seen a reasonable explanation of why construction workers
>were singled out, however.  The twin miracles of politics and economics, I
>suspect.  A sticky issue indeed.

I thought the solution to this was obvious.  The guy wasn't a construction
worker, he was a chemical engineer, and they invented superglue to do office
"pranks" with until some smart marketing types saw the potential for it as
a new product.

> 
>David "Read My Smileys" Pipes
>:-) :-)
>robear@digex.com

ditto :-)

Gene
Battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 27 Sep 1992 17:12:53 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep21.170238.25151@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>Carrying any position to logical extremes can produce
>unsatisfactory results.  For example, believing that this is the
>one and only life might tend to make me more selfish of myself
>having no care or consideration for anyone else.  I might even
>have fun breaking every social law in the book.  

Ah, yes.  This illustrates the underlying moral bankruptcy of so many of the
religious (not that I'm claiming that John belongs to this class):  It's only
fear of god that keeps them acting nicely.  Hence their frequent perception of
atheists as inherently immoral.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Chimp ``Language'' (Was: Re: Chimpanzee vs Human DNA)
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:14:56 GMT
Reply-To: ingria@BBN.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com
In-reply-to: onar@hsr.no's message of 29 Sep 92 13:07:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.130725.6525@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:

				  I might also add that the most intelligent chimp
   up to date knows about 1000 words and can use actively some fewer words. She has
   invented her own grammar. Simple, perhaps, but grammar still.
   Ex:
   Man hit. = A man hits someone.
   Hit man. = Someone hits a man.

What's your own source for this?  Is this something other than the
Yerkish or signing chimps experiments?  My impression was that careful
examination of the signing chimps experiments showed signs jumbled
together rather than any consistent syntactic use.  Is this a new
result?

-30-
Bob
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Dream analysis therapy
Date: 3 Oct 92 18:32:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <TORKEL.92Oct2184044@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes...
>In article <60846@mimsy.umd.edu> biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes:
> 
>   >Does anyone know of good sources debunking the use of 
>   >dream analysis for psychotherapy?
> 
>  It isn't possible to "debunk" any form of psychotherapy. There are no
>agreed criteria by which to judge the effectiveness of therapy.

The philosopher of science Adolph Gruenbaum has published a number of
works critical of Freudian psychoanalysis.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Idea for FAQ file
Date: 2 Oct 92 09:34:50 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <1992Oct1.072316.18641@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

>Can people think of famous examples, in the past, when

>(a) The skeptic view was proved absolutely right,
>    (eg. Turin Shroud, Piltdown Man etc etc)

The Turin Shroud is a good example.  The Piltdown Man is not.  That
was a scientific hoax rather than a paranormal claim, (although it is
a good example of the way in which science corrects itself).

>(b) The skeptic view was, in fact, proved wrong
>    (eg. "X-rays are a hoax" Lord Kelvin 1900,  etc etc)

A better example (and one which gets trotted out by the paranormalists
on a regular basis) is meteorites.  A couple of hundred years ago
reputable scientists poo-pooed folk stories of hot rocks falling from
the skies, rating them about as probable as falling fish.  They were
proved wrong.

>(c) Unresolved,
>    (eg. UFOs, Loch Ness, etc etc)

Yup, with a note about Occams Razor.

>(d) Intrinsically unprovable either way,
>    (eg. all true conspiracy theories, JFK etc etc)

I already cover conspiracy theories and their unfalsifiability.

>If we brainstorm & compile a list of examples in all
>categories, it would make an interesting section in the FAQ file.

Yes.

Paul.




-- 
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
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: an exercise in brain-dead logic
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:41:04 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <LEET.92Sep22100513@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>The Darwin/Marx issue is one of the social impact of scientific
>discovery.  Only some scientists have a conscience about the results of
>their investigations when nonscientists read and try to interpret
>them.  You're right; this issue has nothing to do with validity, but
>it has everything to do with ethics and morality.

I see.  Do you also believe that the surviving Beatles should be sent to prison
for life because Manson claimed to have been influenced by them?

>Benjamin> 	Skeptical investigation of what?  Whether or not Marx
>Benjamin> mis-used Darwin's theories?  Whether or not Hitler mis-used
>Benjamin> Darwin's theories?  Again, this is irrelevant.
>
>Not to a skeptic.  If Marx mis-used them, why were he and Darwin
>amiable correspondents?

Perhaps because at the time Marx would've appeared to be a harmless eccentric?
:-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17452 alt.conspiracy:10960 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3408
From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: alt.conspiracy.jfk under attack
Date: 4 Oct 92 21:13:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvM8A7.6J7.2
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

> Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsk!cbnewsj!att-out!walter!ramona.com!doug
> From: doug@ramona.com (Double Agent)
> Subject: alt.conspiracy.jfk under attack!
> Message-ID: <53.X6661@ramona.com>
> Date: 02 Oct 92 06:10:05 GMT
> Lines: 9
> 
> [Hope this one gets through.]
> 
> I've been tipped off that someone at one of the main news distribution
> sites has installed a program that randomly deletes a percentage of
> postings to alt.conspiracy.jfk....


It did. As it did the first time you posted it (Message-ID: 
<52.X6661@ramona.com>). 

Would you care to tell us who tipped you off to this? It wouldn't happen to
be a certain regular poster to a.c.jfk who was mistaking normal messages
from rn for evidence of some sort of attack on a.c.jfk, would it? Would you
care to tell us which main news distribution site? Would you care to tell us
why you felt obliged to cross-post this not once but twice to sci.skeptic?
Would you care to tell us why you didn't think your post had gone through
the first time?
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:38:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.143805.20352@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>I think what we have here is often no more than an addictive personality
>trading one addiction for another. In this case, it is a change for the
>better. Many have changed from the above without religion, I do not think
>that it is in any way necessary.

Ah, but you're assuming that you need religion for God's assistance in
changing.

>
>BTW, I do not see what this has to do with the text it was in response too.
>If one does not sin because of the carrot (heaven) and the stick (hell),
>then there is no inherent morality. What we have is behavior modification
>somewhat along the lines of B. F. Skinner, as I understand it.

And just how do you define morality to say it doesn't exist in that
situation?

>Rich

-- 
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: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: America vs Creationism
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 10:05:41 GMT

>Environmentalists would have us believe that we will soon be up to our
>necks (or boiling over) because of car shit.  Sniff the air some
>evening in New York and you could come to believe them.  Just don't
>try and exert yourself.
>
Couldn't agree more. Environmentalists are almost just as bad as
Creationists. All the talk of doomsday can easily make your head ache. 


Onar.