HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: When will K2 grow up?
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:18:55 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   9 Nov 1992 18:33:50 GMT
>FROM:   E.J. Draper <draper@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu>
>
>In article <1992Nov9.172144.20865@maths.tcd.ie> Derek Bell,
>dbell@maths.tcd.ie writes:
>>		I'd heard that there were errors in the measurements that
>>showed K2 as the highest mountain on Earth; when corrected for Everest
>was
>>reinstated as the title holder. It made the (end of) tv news shows for a
>>short while on BBC & ITV a while ago. (Sorry, I don't have any
>references,
>>alas!)
>
>As I understand it, Everest was proven to be the highest mountain on
>Earth based on studies utilizing satellite telemetry.  If I remember
>correctly, these studies were done in the mid 1980s and were accurate to
>the inch.
>
>What this about K2 being taller?
>
>      |E|J-  ED DRAPER
> rEpar|D|<-  Radiologic/Pathologic Institute
>             The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
>             draper@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu

Rats!  My 1988 World Almanac lists K-2 as the highest.  Can I sue?
My humiliation should be worth a thousand, anyway.  Evidently they
measured K-2 first with the satellite geodesy and it showed up higher
than Everest's old figure.  They published the almanac.  Then they
measured Everest and restored it to its former status, making me
look like an idiot in the process.  8^(  RATS!!

Mea Culpa.


-- 
jim tims 
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe

From: Joe.Slater@f351.n632.z3.fidonet.org (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: 2 vs 14, P vs J, etc. [was: Would "Noah's Ark" have been large enough?]
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1992 23:29:04

Friday October 30 1992, Nichael Cramer writes to All:

>> From my experience with the J, P and E divisions, it seems that the
>> divisions are plausible only ex post facto; that is, I would not have
>> made those divisions if looking at an undivided text.

NC> Then by that very statement, I would suggest that your "experience
NC> with the J, P and E divisions" (i.e. with the Documentary
NC> Hypothesis[DH]) is at best minimal.

OK, show me something that's a bit more solid than the number of Noah's animals.
That one seems to be solely due to the fact that Bibilical Hebrew has no
distinct word for "pair".

I am sure you know of the "proof" that Shakespeare wrote the Bible. In my view
the DH is similarly unlikely, and as such requires a solid basis. For instance,
have we any evidence that these warring castes of priest existed?

jds


 * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Gender neutral pronouns
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:25:22 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov4.210825.22733@news2.cis.umn.edu>, chrysler@psych.umn.edu (Susan Chrysler) writes:
>The use of "they" as a singular pronoun is common in colloquial English, for  
>example:
>
>1. Anyone who needs a pencil please raise their hand.
>
>cf. 2. Anyone who needs a pencil please raise his hand.
>
>In everyday speech, (1) is the preferred, and more frequent, utterance.  It is 
>only in written language, where we are more conscious of "the rules" of
>grammar that carefully choose between number agreement and gender agreement for
>unknown or generic antecedents.

Actually, (2) is also incorrect.  What you were apparently trying for is:
3.  Anyone who needs a pencil please raise your hand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality - genetic?  (was Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare)
Organization: just me
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 18:01:05 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <1d7bniINNf9f@gap.caltech.edu> kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney) writes:
<chop chop>
>Some scientists do claim to be omniscient;

Examples, please?  I think this is stretching it, and I'd rather not
encourage people who *do* believe this is literally true...

	David Pipes
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:55:21 GMT

In article <1dk5qrINN39n@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1dk53sINN9or@gap.caltech.edu>, kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney) writes:
>>Now, an argument that Christianity is wrong because the actions of its
>>followers is wrong can be tested.  If their wrong actions were definitely
>>required by Christianity, then Christianity is wrong.
>
>OK.
>
>>If their wrong
>>actions were based on an obvious misinterpretation of Christianity,  
>>Christianity is exonerated.
>
>Obvious to WHOM?  Are you claiming that this "misinterpretation" was obvious to
>the people whom YOU claim misinterpreted it?  If not, then how do you justify
>your implicit claim that YOUR interpretation is more valid than theirs?  Again: 
>If you're talking about some ideal concept that never has and most likely never
>will actually see implementation, then invent your own word for it.  The term
>"Christianity" is already taken.

What is the definition of Christianity in this thread?
Isn't Christianity defined as the body of Jesus Christ's teachings?
A Christian is a person who follows those teachings.

Determining who and who isn't a Christian is a bit sticky. No doubt Christians
will occasionally stray from the teachings. These acts are non-Christian acts.
When does someone become un-Christian?

Of course, any belief system held by humans will be imperfect. Christianity
cannot always be exonerated since it's teachings can be "misinterpreted"
in an endless number of ways, but that doesn't make the belief system useless.
Christianity can be very useful to humanity, as well as, harmful in some
instances. But, we can't condemn it simply because it can be misinterpreted,
because that would invalidate all human belief systems.

---------------------------------------------------
Dave.Kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM                       |
(619) 485-2504                                    |
---------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19102 soc.motss:46315 alt.atheism:20724 alt.sex:35084 talk.religion.misc:20531
From: edw@caligula.cts.com (Ed Watkeys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.motss,alt.atheism,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Correlation between sexual preference of parents and children
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 21:42:29 EST
Organization: Distant Software
Reply-To: edw%caligula@phlpa.pha.pa.us
Distribution: world
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1

We were having a discussion in Ethics today about something, and I was
wondering if anyone has any information on this. By the way, I am
interested in data here, and not everyone's opinion on the matter.

Does anyone know if there is any correlation between the sexual pref-
erences of parents and their children? I'm talking about environmental
factors, and not genetic factors. In other words, if a child has two
gay or lesbian parents (or one), is there an increased chance that the
child will be gay, lesbian or bisexual?

Like I said, I'm not concerned with religious fanatics or in-your-face
militant homosexuals and their opinions; I'd just like to be pointed to
any studies done, and their findings, if you happen to know them.

Thanks a lot,
Ed

--
Edwin H. Watkeys III           edw@caligula.cts.com
101 N. 34th Street, Rm 1008            215/387-7971  
Philadelphia, PA 19104             Distant Software
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19269 alt.paranormal:2467 alt.alien.visitors:8166
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Jeane Dixon Predicts Bush Victory
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:22:37 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <BxAqys.2os@NCoast.ORG> brown@NCoast.ORG (Stan Brown) writes:

>In July 1968 send out 1024 letters to 1024 people.  In half you predict
>a Humphrey victory, in half you predict a Nixon victory.  (Keep track of
     [etc]

I heard a nice radio play once about a horse racing scam based on this idea.
You need a series of 4 races in each of which there are 4 horses, and you 
give away the 1st 4*4*....tips, charge very little for the 2nd round, up it 
a bit for the 3rd, and hit the hooked tip-user hard on the last.  They got 
found out and beaten up in the play, but I still think I may try it someday.


  You don't have to work to be mad here      email: d.budd@mcc.ac.uk
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: "The Universe of MOTION" (book review)
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:35:48 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   11 Nov 92 20:44:12 -0600
>FROM:   mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
>          
>          (Book Review):
>          
>          "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North 
>          Pacific Publishers, Portland, Oregon, 456 pages, indexed, 
.
.
.
>   "...INWARD AND OUTWARD SCALAR MOTIONS..."
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Precisely.  Without them the whole theory collapses. 8^)

-- 
jim tims 
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe
From: josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Keywords: None
Reply-To: Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:05:35 GMT

In <1992Nov5.204654.4481@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles) writes:

>|> [...]
>|> 2)  A violent criminal is released on bail.  His first stop is
>|>     a gun store - can he be forbidden to buy the gun?

>If he has prior felony *convictions*, he can be denied the gun.
>He can also be denied the vote, etc....  Of course, not all 
>jurisdictions have such constraints in place.  If there are no 
>*convictions* against him, then his rights are intact - even while 
>on bail.  The police are likely to be keeping a watch on him though.

Actually, this varies by state and type of gun.  Here in
Washington, for example, the police can put a 30 day hold on
handgun sales in cases of open criminal charges, pending
criminal proceedings, pending commitment proceedings,
outstanding warrants, and arrests for crimes of violence if
the local jurisdiction doesn't have records of the
disposition of that case.  Beyond 30 days the hold may be
extended in 30 day increments if approved by a local
district court or municipal court.  The buyer gets notice of
each hold and extension.
-- 
 Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Harmony Of The Gospels?
From: carlis_jc@cs2.lamar.edu
Date: 10 Nov 92 13:55:54 CST

   In reguard to the $1,000 contest to find a totaly consistent account of the
"Gospel" storys it would seem that the orginazation that offered said prize is
requireing one to win the "no win scenario".
   Just to set things straight first though (seeing as this is a somewhat
touchy subject) I am not a "Religious" person nor have I been offended. I just
didn't want any of this to sound like "Preaching" or bitching.
   
   Okay.........

   The Bible was written over a period of (very roughly) about 1,500 too 2,000
years. Cannnonization of the book was completed early in the 2nd century which
gives us a range of up to 4,000 years. If you think about it in terms of
history thats about 20 times as long as the U.S. has been a nation. There are a
whole lot of other factors involved here but what it boils down to is that
these books were written in another time by another culture.
   The people who wrote the "Gospels" weren't from a culture that was obsessed
with laws and law suits, rules and regulations. They didn't care if there were
4,286 people in a crowd or if it was actualy 14,360. What was important to
them was that there was a crowd and they would be more likely to say something
like "the crowd numberd as many as the stars in the sky" or something like
that.
   I guess what I'm trying to say is that the storys were never written to
stand up to modern scrutiny, and anyone who trys to read them that way is
missing the point. Take em or leave em I don't think one can reasonably expect
the Bible to meet criteria that were not present in the day and time the book
was written.
   And as far as other major discrepencys are concerned (differing geneologys
in Mathew and Luke(?) for example) as quick as you can point to one I'm sure
someone else can give you several different answers twords it (the geneologys
are through both parents for example)
   Anyway like I said the whole thing seems a waste unless said organization is
willing to make ALOT of concessions.

                                    Thanks for your time
                                       seeing as you won't get it back.....
                                                         Jay 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Election Illogic?
Summary: tsk, these city boys...
Keywords: its_them_not_me_right?
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:27:56 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne) writes:
>Ohio is a "bellweather" state...

Brief (and courteous ;) spelling-flame:

The term is "bellwether".  A "wether" is neutered male sheep.  A
"bellwether", then, is such a gelding with a bell around its neck who
serves as the leader to the flock.  More importantly, the bell provides an
easy way for the shepherd to locate the flock.

The metaphorical extension of the term to a state/group/person/etc that
provides an indication of the tendancies or actions of its fellows is
obvious.

N
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19449 alt.folklore.urban:28269 soc.culture.african.american:10988
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Repressed Memories, Ruined Lives
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:52:28 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Oct20.000006.22179@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:

>60 minutes is a yellow journalism show with low marks for accuracy and
>fairness.

After that hatched job they did on Audi, I have to agree.  I lost all respect
for them after Car & Driver published a "behind-the-scenes" report in which
they showed the accelerating Audi that was the centerpiece of 60 Minutes'
report was rigged up with a bottle of nitrogen which had been used to
_pressurize_ the transmission to several atmospheres - which 60 Minutes
conveniently forgot to mention when they used it to demonstrate "sudden
acceleration".  The final NHTSA report on sudden acceleration was the last
nail in their coffin, "pedal misapplication".  Had 60 Minutes asked the
Audi Victim's Network a hard question like that they would be a real news
show, instead they went for the cheap thrills and painted Audi a corporate
villain.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: sizeof( US Population )
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:42:10 GMT
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Originator: young@sasquatch

In article <1992Nov12.202743.15142@srg.srg.af.mil> akerson@deimos.af.mil (Pete Akerson - akerson%srg@uunet.uucp) writes:
>
>tuff@ellis.uchicago.edu (Geoff Tuffli) states :
>
>>> The population of the U.S. is well over 300 million people.
>
>I thought the number was more like 270 million. +/- about 3
>million 'undocumented' aliens.
>
>Who has the real numbers ?

	Well, "real" is debatable, but the 1992 World Almanac says that, at
	the 1990 census, there were 248,709,873 people in the U.S.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The guns of roston (wa
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:55:01 GMT

In article <1d46l4INNnhg@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU 
(Carl J Lydick) wrote as follows:
 
> Rick, where do you see the word "state" in the second amendment?
 
According to Douglas Hofstadter, the only appropriate answer to a 
question that rests on transparently false fundamental assumptions 
is the Zen term "mu", meaning (translating liberally) "The question 
cannot be answered as posed".
 
Therefore, my good sir:  Mu.
 
There!  Joshu would be proud.
 
Now, you would seem to be asserting (in an notably roundabout fashion)
that since the word "state" is not present in the U.S. Constitution's
Second Amendment, then it cannot be referring to state militias.  In
light of the fact that this is the ONLY sort of militia extant when 
the law was written, I find this belief charmingly quaint.
 
> Please note that according to the U.S. code, all males between the 
> ages of something like 16 and 35 are members of the militia.  Or 
> doesn't that count?
 
When we get into these discussions, some people seem to assume that
I'm rather dim, and they might be right.  However, I'm not quite so 
mentally deficient, nor quite so gullible, as to believe that young male
Yanks constitute a WELL-REGULATED militia (emphasis of the crucial
phrase added, of course) in any _meaningful_ sense of the term.  As I 
remarked privately to Gerry, Mom ain't a drill sergeant and thrashing
through the back forty doesn't qualify as basic training.  I AM, you
see, adequately bright to recall the words usually omitted for polem-
ical reasons.
 
That about wraps it up for the standard gun-lobby dodges.  Any others
are going to require creativity, rather than regurgitation.
 
> Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. . . .
 
I prefer Unix.  So there!  ;->
 
Cheers,
Rick M.
moen@blyth.com

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Audis (was Re: Repressed Memories, Ruined Lives)
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:08:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BxItJ0.7I8.2
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


rlbell@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell) writes:
>  The cause of the accidents was a combination of Audi's engineers assumption
>of what "normal use" was, and drivers, whose habits caused a new, unanticipated
>failure mode in the Audi transmission.


There's no evidence whatsoever that the transmission was at fault.
That idea was always an unsupported suspicion, and no faulty
transmissions were ever produced in evidence, nor were transient
malfunctions ever reliably witnessed.

The conclusion of the Canadian authorities was that it was driver
error, period.  The conclusion of a major car mag (Road and Track or
some such) was the same.

The rate at which this occurred was consistent with the rate at which
it occurred in other manufacturer's cars, after allowing for the fact
that that Audi has the pedals slightly closer than is normal.

At least one of the complainants was *obviously* at fault, since they
pushed so hard on the gas pedal (thinking it was the brake) that they
bent it. The Audi's brakes are strong enough to stall a runaway
engine.

There's a lesson to be learned here, and that lesson is that the TV
show "20/20" is sleazy. They publicized this whole thing in a
reprehensible manner - photographing a car which had been heavily
gimmicked by someone's lawyer, and then acting as if that car's
behavior was evidence. Their eventual "follow-up" was even sleazier.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19125 soc.motss:46383 alt.atheism:20752 alt.sex:35115 talk.religion.misc:20563
From: aberson@enh.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.motss,alt.atheism,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
Subject: RE: Correlation between sexual preference of parents and children
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:47:50 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: NIST

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.

Such recruitment is horrid, no?

       Sim Aberson   Ft. Lauderdale, FL   aberson%3328.span@sdsc.edu
"It's always Beach Party Barbie, or Malibu Barbie....  That shit does not
prepare you for the true horror of a real woman's life.  Where is Single,
Abused, Trailer-Park Barbie?"             - Roseanne Arnold
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: End Time Predictions (was Oct 28)
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:50:46 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Oh, heck. If the comet must fall, let it fall on Jerusalem,
with a chunk left over for Mecca. That oughta quiet the
chiliasts for a good long while.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Audi 5000
Organization: SPS
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:37:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.193904.15491@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, ccw@prefect.uucp (26554-wood) writes:
|> 
|> I have heard of no evidence of a transmission failure.  I have seen
|> comparative analysis of pedal placement in the audi 5000 vis-a-vis other
|> cars, and the pedal location and separation were not extreme.  The only
|> identifiable cause of this "phenomenon" is all the bad press that Audi
|> received, along with inadequate driver training.  Some bad press
|> resulted in more people hearing that the cars had a problem, resulting
|> in more "you know, something funny happened to me when I was driving
|> one" stories, which, when taken too literally, caused more bad press. 
|> That's it.
|> 

The bad press was generated by the litigation industry who are in a symbiotic
relationship with the press.  For a good analysis of this see "Galileo's
Revenge" by Peter Huber.  Also see P.J. O'Roarke's "Car & Driver" article
reproduced in (I think) "Parliament of Whores".  P.J.s analysis is that 
Audi's target market was old wide-asses (the upper middle class) who were
used to the miles apart pedal placement in American boat-cars.  This combined
with their slow reaction and recognition time caused a few of them to put
their foot on the wrong pedal and when the car accelerated they pushed harder.

The Japanese,  Canadian, and U.S. governments all analysed the sudden
acceleration problem and all concleded that the mutton-heads were stomping
on the gas pedal.

-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic