HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:14:19 GMT

jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>Who says he *did* confuse us, I'm sure not confused. Maybe it's the
>interpretation of the data that's confusing you?

  Perhaps you can explain how the data should be interpreted.  Lets start right
away:

    How should we interpret the data presented by ice cores?

  Once you explain that we can work from there.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Rant! Rave! (was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark))
Date: 15 Aug 92 00:09:10 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50) writes:
>To me, it's too easy to turn theistic evolution into deism.  So I personally 
>wouldn't say I susbscribe to theistic evolution without adding rather
>emphatically that God always has and always will exercise His sovereignty
>over the operation of the universe. Evolution as a mechanism is well supported
>by the data available to us. But I don't see it as a complete, sufficient
>explanation for all of life. Obviously I don't claim that that position
>is a scientific one. It's a Christian one.

There are some t.o regulars that appear to believe I hold a different
view than the one Bill describes above. For communications sake, Bill
has summarized my thoughts rather well and I wanted to express this
publicly to help dissolve any confusion.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,talk.religion.newage
From: jeffp@netcom.com (Jeff Papineau)
Subject: Re: Saga of the Family of Light I - Pleiadians13
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 05:50:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <64365@cup.portal.com> Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com writes:
>RA comments
>>'high priests'?  When your aliens give you the blueprints for a nuke
>>reactor, airplane, or anything more complex than the wheel, come back and
>>try that remark again.
>
>Well RA even if we totally ignore the book that says Tesla was dropped off
>by ETs as a young child.  It is kind of hard to ignore Tesla claimed to
>have daily contact with ETs.  And he did receive the whole AC power system
>as a vision as he was walking home from dinner with a friend. He did not
>write any of his vision down.  But did build the first AC power plant at
>Niagra Falls seven years later.  He also invented radio and remote control,
>a saucer engine, etc.  So I would say AC, radio, and his other 700 patents
>are a little more complex than the wheel.  He also had a way to end war for
>which he was killed.  Now the thing that is really a joke is Tesla is
>hanging around wanting to share stuff,  but all our er, scientist, don't
>believe they can contact him so he comes through old ladies who don't even
>know what rf means.
>
>DS
>
>It sounds to me like you belong to that cult that believes the speed of
>light is constant.  Is this post short enough for you?

Gosh, don, what a great post. You left out the part where the gov. siezed
all his notes minutes after his death and sealed them from scholars as
well as the pubic. 

Any of you SOLIC types ever read about antigravity research in the press
since, oh, about 1955 or so? I didn't think so. Any of ya'll ever heard
of PINE GAP? (NSA Crays's turn on;-). I doubt it.

Jeff-

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: djsrmi@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (John Sadowsky x6211)
Subject: Re: Mandelbrot Set shaped crop circle
Keywords: skeptic
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 02:22:48 GMT

tc37942@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tani  Chen) writes:

>The other day I saw a TV show on crop circles.  Unfortunately, I missed most of
>what was being said....One clip that I did see was a crop circle in the shape
>of the Mandelbrot Set.  What I want to know is, are there any good          
>explainations of this?  Are there Mandelbrot Set shaped UFOs circling Earth?
>Mandelbrot Set shaped landing pads?  shuttles?  And how aerodynamic is the
>Mandebrot Set, anyway, with all of the dendrites and antennas hanging off of it?
>Any ideas?

>Tani Chen
>tc37942@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu


      What really freaked me out was, the other day, I was simulating
the part of the Mandelbrot set near the seahorses area and, darned if
it didn't look just like a field of crops.
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:09:54 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <13AUG199211532381@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

>For those jilted by Mensa, there's always Densa.  (Anybody have the 
>address?)

16 Connaught Place (Street? Road?) London England
Correct details Monday
I currently await my life membership card, Tshirt, etc

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|           It all depends on the size of your ham sandwich           |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:42:58 GMT
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <phil.714222145@adam.adelaide.edu.au>, phil@adam.adelaide.edu.au (Phil Kernick) writes in part:
|> >They don't have the intelligence
|> >to work out that the concept of IQ is completely flawed and meaningless.
|> Really?  I'm in Mensa and I know that ability to do IQ tests correllates
|> well with ability to do IQ tests.  Ie, the more you do the better you get.
Is this supposed to be a contradiction?  Something that correlates
with itself is pretty meaningless.

You probably meant this as a joke, but you should be a little less
subtle as some large proportion of us are too stupid to follow the
etherial rhetoric of the top 2%.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14717 talk.origins:9790
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:41:53 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>>kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

>>> If God's intention was to confuse us wouldn't he have
>>>made the tree rings, ice cores, lake bottoms, and coral reefs all disagree to
>>>some extent as a hint?

>>His intention was not to confuse us.

>If he didn't intend to confuse us, then why did he do this?  Mr. Omnicience
>surely would have known what what such things would have been taken for.

Who says he *did* confuse us, I'm sure not confused. Maybe it's the
interpretation of the data that's confusing you?

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14424 talk.origins:9553
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Rant! Rave! (was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark))
Date: 16 Aug 92 20:43:55 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <31nz03n.5egE00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes...
>max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
> 
>If someone refers to themself as a follower of something, yet fails 
>to practice the teaching of that same thing, *that* is a hypocrite,
>and *that* is *part* of the issue here. Another part of the issue
>is people such as *yourself* that cannot see the simple logic it takes
>to deduce these facts. People such as *yourself* who instigate crap 
>similar to what you've done here. People such as *yourself* who argue
>merely for the sake of arguing. People such as *yourself*... well, 
>anything further and I would be guilty of the same behaviour as 
>*yourself.*
> 

I wonder what Jim would say to the many Christians who disagree with
his fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible - all of whom would 
claim that *he* is the one who is not the true follower of Christ?

What does Jim think that the Pope, for example, thinks about how
old the Earth is?

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: CFD: New newsgroup sci.siano.vs.schaeffer.battle.to.the.death
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:01:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.102314@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
> 
>    Brilliant idea.  Much as talk.abortion and talk.politics.animals give us a
> place to put the tasmanian-devils-of-the-net,
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Dan
> Dawell@IASTATE.EDU

Hey Dan! Wotcha got against Tasmanian Devils?! I quite like the 
little buggers myself, (though it's a good idea not to let them 
gnaw on your arm.)

Tim O'Neill
(Tasmanian-devil-of-the-net)
From: rocher@husc8.harvard.edu (Jean-Marc Rocher)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crop Circles (a different twist)
Keywords: Foolhardy experimenters take note...
Date: 23 Aug 92 00:49:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Aug22.204935.15022
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Aug21.190743.27929@clipper.ingr.com> kontos@clipper.ingr.com (Thorne Kontos) writes:
>
>     We at the M&K research division have pondered the creation of
>crop circles since someone here still thinks these things are made
>by aliens of higher intelligence. (Like an alien race capable of
>intergalactic travel has nothing better to do with its time than
>turn a few circles in the middle of a wheat field.) 
>     However, we are considering the extremely remote possibility
>that crop circles could be caused by a natural phenomenon, and based

>details on a new experiment to prove our theory. The most obvious
>choice of natural phenomenon is of course lightning. Recent Nasa
>     
>                                             Thanks for your time,
>                                             T.K. Kontos
>                                             (the K in M&K 8^))


	Recently, I believe two German students admitted to being the
source of the crop circles which had appeared in the area. Their technique
was simply to use a large, round object and flatten the wheat in geometric
patterns. I think the people who were claiming that "the precision of
these patterns cannot be achieved by any known force on earth" are 
seriously underestimating the power of the prankster.

	Your lightning theory, however, sounds very interesting, although
I tend to think that the vast majority of these formations are man(or woman)
-made. Based on what you have said, though, i doesn't seem unreasonable 
to think that lightning may be a possible, though infrequent, source.
If these experiments are carried out, please let us know of the results!

Good Luck!

					...Jean-Marc Rocher

and remember, lightning never strikes twice in the *ZAP*  Yeeeoowwwwww!!!! 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: CFD: New newsgroup sci.siano.vs.schaeffer.battle.to.the.deat
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 23:31:56 GMT

Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: 


Dig it!  Where do I vote?  But maybe it should be
sci.skeptic.battle.to.the.death?

Big Al.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 15 Aug 1992 10:13 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Aug15.082301.10916@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes...
>In article <1992Aug13.043038.29341@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug13.034525.26523@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>>>>Now that the Shroud has been shown to be 14th Cen., it now becomes a
>>>>>remarkable 14th centuary image instead of a remarkable 33 AD image.
>>>>>Are there any reasonable theories as to how the 14th C artist pulled
>>>>>off the image reversal???
>>>>Why do you ask?  Do you think there are none?
>>>To get a thread going :-)
>>>But seriously, because I'm still waiting to find a reasonable theory.
>>>There's got to be one out there!
>>
>>Would you mind clarifying?
>>
>>This could mean that you haven't looked at the subject much at all, and you
>>haven't seen most of the theories.  Or it could mean you _have_ seen most of
>>the theories but think they have mistakes.  So which theories have you already
>>seen?
> 
>I've seen all the theories and they are all fragile.

All of them?  Could you give a list?  I'm sure many of us would be
interested in seeing a comprehensive list of the theories to date.
(I can think of several:  painting, Nickell's rubbing hypothesis,
the radiation theory, vapor contact, and miracle.)  What specifically
do you find "fragile" about Nickell's theory, put forth in his book
_Inquest on the Shroud of Turin_?

>There could be some I've missed and there could be some new ones hot off the
>press.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crop circles: natural or human-made?
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:07:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: anasazi.1992Aug19.160750.22461
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug19.035522.3008@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
]> Anyway, I saw the same TV show, and I have to admit that it did stir
]> my interest.  They made some pretty strong arguments that it was
]> rather unlikely that the crop-circles were made by humans... for one
]> they said that the recent frequency of appearance alone would make it
]> difficult unless there were "a whole army of crop-circle makers out
]> there" (loose quote).
]
]Is there anything to rule this out? There hasn't really been that many 
]of them and they are easy to make. I myself know two hoaxers, and there
]are sure to be many more. Isn't it also interesting that they seem to
]appear in certain areas; possibly because several independant groups of
]hoaxers are working together, are inspired by each others work and are
]encouraged by the media attention which then gets focused on these
]'centres of crop circle activity'.

Consider the following more likely (IMHO) explanation:
  -most crop circles are natural (circular symmetry, after all, is one
   of nature's favored forms) or a result of unintended human intervention
   (such as filling in a sink-hole and then planting crops over it).
  -a few crops circles are made by hoaxters - especially the hieroglyphic
   type.
  -no crop circles are made by aliens, energy beams, or new age
   causes of any sort

PS... I saw a crop circle last week! On departure from London Heathrow
airport, I was looking at the fields to see what I could see. I
saw a pattern that was like:


       o

     o O   o

       o

in a field... about 5 minutes after takeoff towards the North.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"Modern liberals are the termites in the structure of our society."
  John Moore
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: scientific explanation for divining rods?
Date: 15 Aug 92 16:05:37 GMT
Followup-To: alt.folklore.science,sci.skeptic
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

[Just a repost - Carl]

bobm@Ingres.COM (Bob McQueer) writes:

>In <1992Aug13.014852.10681@panix.com>,
>	dated Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:48:52 GMT,
>	carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>
>>   Reminder:  Randi has tested quite a few dowsers before, and they have
>> universally failed under controlled conditions.
>
>Arthur C. Clarke's TV show had a section on dowsing in which he covered the
>Randi experiments.  Clarke noticed the same thing about the Randi experiments
>I did - Randi buried a bunch of pipes with water in them, and set things up
>so that his dowsers would hit 1 in 10 by sheer luck.  In keeping with the
>way he runs his $10000 contest, he got the dowsers to agree that they
>would hit 9 in 10, and when they did not, he pronounced their attempt
>a failure.  The interesting point was that the dowsers did hit quite a
>bit better than 1 in 10, about 5 in 10 if I recall correctly.  Without
>details about the number of trials and the exact conduct of the experiment
>in front of me, that seemed to be a statistically significant result.  Clarke
>made the same point at the end of the show.
>
>In keeping with the original poster's request for sources, Clarke also had
>a geology professor from the U of Wyoming, I believe, who thought he had
>a rational explanation for dowsing.  I want to say that he was claiming
>that people could detect small magnetic field changes as they paced a patch
>of ground, but I may not be remembering correctly.  Whatever it was, it
>sounded reasonable and not terribly off the wall.
>
>Dowsing is often lumped with various stuff like astrology, Kirlian photography,
>etc.  It somewhat muddies the picture that some of the practioners place
>themselves in the "psychic" category (like the ones who "dowse" over maps).
>However, the practice probably deserves some consideration.  I don't believe
>it, but I don't disbelieve it either.  Unlike a lot of the other "claptrap",
>it doesn't fly in the face of reason, or suggest vast rewrites of existing
>theory.  There is also quite a lot of anecdotal support.
>
>BTW, I'm not reccomending Clarke's show ("Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World"?
>I'm not sure of the title).  It had its interesting bits, but was terribly
>uneven, and Clarke was no James Burke.  Hasn't run in several years anyway.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:18:19 GMT
Reply-To: michael@dime.cs.umass.edu
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <713649613.F00001@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:
>Friday August 07 1992, Bob Beauchaine writes to (crosspost 2) All:
>
>BB>   Well, context or not, how many legs does a grasshopper have?  The
>BB>   ones in my back yard have six, the Bible says four (in Leviticus
>BB>   under the food laws).  I await your context sensitive explanation
>BB>   of how this only appears to be a contradiction.
>
>Ones in my backyard have four. Two wings, four legs, two graspy things, like a
>preying mantis.

Well, on Earth, grasshoppers have six legs.

>that insects tend to have six legs? In any event, it seems a very accurate
>description: they go on all fours, and they have jointed "legs"
>above their "feet"; that is, they have a pair of limbs above the ones on which
>they stand.

Grasshoppers move on their own in three ways:

	1.  They walk on all six legs.
	2.  They jump using the hind legs.
	3.  They fly, which involves (2), and then flapping their wings.

Grasshoppers _can_ use their front legs to grasp things, but they do _not_
"goeth upon all four."

Strike one.

michael@cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 19:50:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.082301.10916@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>Would you mind clarifying?
>>This could mean that you haven't looked at the subject much at all, and you
>>haven't seen most of the theories.  Or it could mean you _have_ seen most of
>>the theories but think they have mistakes.  So which theories have you already
>>seen?
>I've seen all the theories and they are all fragile.
>There could be some I've missed and there could be some new ones hot off the
>press.

Yes, but _which_ones_?  Name them.  "I've seen all the theories" is a
non-statement; by definition, if you've never heard of some theory, you can't
be aware that you've never heard of it.
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott)
Subject: Inconsistency in the bible
Organization: University of Western Australia
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 05:12:00 GMT


People on this newsgroup may not be aware that Biblical scholars have
been aware of the problem of "doublets", as these inconsistencies are
called, since the middle ages.

In fact these "doublets" lead to the hypothesis (the "Documentary
Hypothesis" as the formal statement of it by Julius Wellhausen in the
19c is called) that the pentateuch is actually four sources amalgamated
by a fifth editor. This is recognised by all the leading religious
learning institutes in the world, and was acknowledged by the Vatican in
the "Divino Afflante Spiritu" in 1943.

Consequently things like "7 pairs/1 pair" "Raven/Dove" "Creation1/
Creation2" simply don't matter, except to the most mindless of
fundementalists. 

(A good source book for all this is "Who wrote the Bible" by Friedman,
Harper Row 1987)
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Pt 1/3: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 13 Aug 92 06:59:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <713649613.F00002@csource.oz.au>, joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes...
>Friday August 07 1992, Bob Beauchaine writes to All:
> 
>>> number of beasts in the ark
> 
>I don't see any difficulty here. Obviously 7:2 says how many mated pairs, and
>7:9 says that the animals entered the ark in mated pairs. Perhaps I'm missing
>something.

Yes, verses 19-20 of chapter 6.

>>> The bat is not a bird.
> 
>We classify bats as mammals which fly. The Bible classifies them as flying
>things which are mammals. See the difference?

The Bible does not classify bats as "flying things which are mammals."
See Leviticus 11:12-19.  It lists "the bat" as an instance of what "you
shall detest among the birds."

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic