HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Allan Bloom, Micheal Medved and Jack Chick
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 14:40:08 GMT

In article <P0BLXB6w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K'
Siano) writes:

Here I am, happily reading this 'Bad Satan Psycho-Juju' by Rev P-K
Siano article debunking the Satanism Conspiracy, when suddenly a new
conspiracy looms--the Curmudgeon Conspiracy!  It seems we've got to
protect people against the dangerous lunacy of people like Tipper
Gore, Allan Bloom and Micheal Medved.

>This demonization of different subcultures, linking them to
>harmful mental and physical effects, has become a popular tactic these
>days. It's not enough to just <dislike> something; one has to show that
>it's as physically or psychologically <harmful> as dioxin or PCP. In a
>notorious passage in <The Closing of the American Mind>, Allan Bloom
>described, in lurid Humbert Humbert detail, twelve-year-olds forsaking
>Plato and Aristotle and throbbing sexually to rock music on their Sony
>Walkmans.

What a terrible thing!  How dare this man not like rock and roll.  If
we allow people to have opinions on what sort of music they don't like
and think is bad, what will they have opinions about next--movies??

>More recently, Michael Medved has portrayed the film industry as a
>decadent, soul-sick coterie of dissolute leftists in <Hollywood Vs.
>America>-- an image that isn't very different from Jack Chick's
>caricatures of gays, Satanists, and secular humanists.

Yes, indeed.  Movies!  Micheal Medved hated 'The Cook, The Thief, His
Wife, and Her Lover', so he is a wacko like unto Jack Chick.

>If one is convinced that a rotten elite is polluting our society with
>garbage culture, then it's a lot easier to believe in clandestine
>groups of baby-killers and blood-drinkers.

If you don't like our precious cultural heritage, and don't agree that
it is in every respect wonderful and great, you are a right-wing
looney tune.  I don't agree with a lot of what Medved or Bloom had to
say, but their respective books were not Jack Chick comic books,
either.  Medved did not content himself with talking about the bad
effects he thought emanated from the media, he quoted a lot of social
science research to back his case up.  And it's a hell of a lot of a
better case than the anti-porn people can make, for instance; even if
it is less popular in some minds.

The good Reverend needs to get a grip.  He is going funny in the head
from reading too much about Satanic conspiracies.


-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22962 talk.religion.misc:27730 alt.pagan:15965
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse"
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:06:30 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

nancyp@techbook.com (Nancy Parsons) writes:

> 
> I was involved with the Department of Corrections in Oregon when
> the satanism road show made the rounds a few years ago, and had 
> a hell of a time settling down a whole office full of probation
> officers who thought the minions of the devil were about to 
> descend on Portland.  So, just for the record, I know how this
> jerks the chains of all the Christians who don't know us well.
> And I know that reacting to it with other than thoughtful, deliberate
> consideration makes us look to them like we have something to hide.
> 
	Since you're involved in law enforcement in Oregon, maybe you can
let us know the latest on the Paul Ingram case. Any news?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org

"Do I BELIEVE in the Bible? Hell, man, I've even SEEN one!!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
From: nancyp@techbook.com (Nancy Parsons)
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse"
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 06:43:06 GMT

alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard) writes:

>nancyp@techbook.com (Nancy Parsons) writes:

>> 
>> It's interesting to see which side of the axe gets ground in this
>> thread, depending on which newsgroup you read.  The fundies are
>> doing the end-of-the-world thing, the alt.pagan party line is that
>> there is no such thing, and the discussion on a.s.a.r. centers on
>> how important it is not to dismiss the stories of the "so called 
>> victoms" (sic) out of hand.  
>> 
>> Sometimes I wonder if it would be possible to stop the axe-grinding,
>> and get into a little truth-finding?
>> 
>> Okay - I've finished ranting now.

>I think you misinterpret the viewpoint around here, I'd say that
>in the absence of ANY proof that "Satanic ritual abuse" exists,
>that the burden of proof that there is such a thing is on the people
>that want to discuss it. Do you have any, Nancy? 
>                                     A.Lizard

Let me try to communicate better, having obviously botched it the
first time - I did not suggest that there is, or is not, any such
thing as satanic ritual abuse.  What I was commenting on is what
automatic reaction is engendered in various groups by the suggestion
that such a thing exists.   

Had I made the same posting in the other newsgroups I mentioned, 
I would have been upbraided just as thoroughly for disagreeing
with that particular group's views.  (Actually, that might have
made an interesting experiment.) 

I was involved with the Department of Corrections in Oregon when
the satanism road show made the rounds a few years ago, and had 
a hell of a time settling down a whole office full of probation
officers who thought the minions of the devil were about to 
descend on Portland.  So, just for the record, I know how this
jerks the chains of all the Christians who don't know us well.
And I know that reacting to it with other than thoughtful, deliberate
consideration makes us look to them like we have something to hide.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Nancy Parsons            | "You can't fire me - slaves must be sold!   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| nancyp@techbook.COM  ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!nancyp        |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: trones@dxcern.cern.ch (Jostein Lodve Trones)
Subject: Geller-Randi mailing list? 
Reply-To: trones@dxcern.cern.ch (Jostein Lodve Trones)
Organization: CERN, European Laboratory for Particle Physics, Geneva
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 10:06:59 GMT


Read in the FAQ that there exists a mailing list with updates on the
Geller-Randi lawsuit.
The suggested subscription mail address is : geller-hotline-request@ssr.com

But my system gives me "ssr.com (tcp)... 550 Host unknown".
Anyone know why, or got the tcp-address to this site?


Thank you!

Cheers,
	Jostein
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Subject: Re: Global warming, ozone depletion NOT!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:02:10 GMT

In article <1k7bmuINNhod@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, 
tjt@Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Thompson) writes:

> 
> First, direct measurements published in
> JGR and Science, and other places, show that as much as 90% of the ozone 
> over the
> south pole is depleted during the hole season. 
>
 Minor quibble:  I assume you mean depletion is >90% between 15 and 20 km. 
 Higher altitudes are much less affected, and the _overall_ depletion is 
 about 50% (still a huge effect).

 The usual set of myths (some of which Paul Dietz described) about the ozone 
 hole was thoroughly thrashed out on sci.environment just last
 week. They surface there about once every two months. Take a look there, 
 or ask me by email for my posts which I archived - I'm too tired to go 
 through this again so soon :)

 Robert Parson

 parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu.
From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: -REAL- Christians dont know god is dead
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:25:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

[ max@admin.mport.COM (Max) corrects my misunderstanding of his post  . . .]

My apologies.  I mistakenly thought that when you typed 
|> ben claimes that its not just a belief in god, it "TRUE".
you meant "ben claims that it's not just a belief in god, it's 'TRUE'", 
i.e. that you had changed the subject to belief in God, and were no 
longer discussing secular arguments for religiously based moral beliefs
(usenet threads have been known to change subjects from time to time, 
after all).  Perhaps the change you made to the subject line influenced 
my reading of your intentions.  
	Now that I understand what you were saying . . .  I think I agree 
with you, after a fashion -- not about God, of course, but that 
religiously based moral claims don't carry weight outside the 
religious tradition from which they come.  How you do construct a 
debate about moral issues when there's no common basis for morality I 
haven't figured out, however.  
-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: Satanism articles - _The Humanist_ Part 1
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:30:18 GMT

max@admin.mport.COM (Max) writes:

>roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:

>>revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:

>> [...]  How many abortions were performed last year alone
>>in the United States?  Wasn't it somewhere between one and two million?

>hi curtis,
>i contend that there is MUCH more effort involved in being pregnant for 9
>monthes than in getting an abortion at three monthes. you may not see any
>difference between a pregnant woman in her first trimester and a full birth
>experience, but having been around pregneant women, i can tell you it is
>not a subtle difference.

If being around pregnant women makes one an authority, then count me
in that class :-).  I agree that a fully developed infant is far more
advanced than a month-old fetus -- it may be difficult for many people
to distinguish the latter from the fetus of a fish.  I see the
question that persists in the abortion controversy being that of the
existence of life, particularly human life.  From there the issues 
rapidly become very complex, embroiling members of the medical, legal,
and theological professions and the followers of all three.

>>>     Here's an additional statistic from the FBI: over two thousand
>>>children are murdered each year by their own parents!

>>Or is this death rate up to three orders of magnitude higher?  Guess it
>>depends on what the doctors and lawyers ultimately decide "children" are.

>heh, i can see it now: 

>	"dr. doom's abortion clinic and satainc bookstor:
>	walk in medical attention, candles, books, tarot cards, 
>	and of course, heavy metal music selection...
>	enjoy our fine selection of d&d games in the waiting 
>	and recovery rooms!"

I didn't say that I believe that abortions are a form of satanic
ritual abuse.  However, given my admittedly off-topic comments above,
I can see how you might conclude that I may be so inclined.  Sorry
for the confusion.

Just one more off-topic remark.  The option for adoption is not
encouraged enough by abortion rights groups, in my opinion.  I realize
that carrying a baby full term puts added responsibilities on the
mother, (e.g. she may have to take care of her health for one thing,
cutting down or eliminating the use of tobacco and alcohol) and if she
is economically deprived a reduction of income due to time off from or
loss of a job might be an intolerable option -- not to mention medical
expenses.  Encouragement for adoption would have to include some
incentive for its choice.

I think this topic has been stretched to the limit for this newsgroup,
and don't intend for it to continue beyond this post.  However, if
anything further is to be said, it should at least have a new title.

>-max
>"having a baby? no, we are having a child: fewer diapers! our lawyer said
>so!"

Sounds like a couple that has opted to adopt! :-)

Curt roelle@sigi.jhuapl.edu

Opinions of the author only.


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: does this sound right?
Organization: none
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:33:16 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   25 Jan 93 08:20:26 EST
>FROM:   dan mckinnon <dan.mckinnon@canrem.com>
>
[...]
        Rechecking, and I found an atlas that says the earth's land area
>is 52,426,000  sq. miles, out of 192, 426,000 sq. miles total area or
>about 1/4, then.
>
> 1 acre/second =365(days)*24(hours)*3600(sec/hour)=31,536,000 Acres/year
>
>***  MEA CULPA ***   BTW, I see on my first message, although I showed
[...]

>  31,536,000 /640 (Acres/sq. mile)=  49,275  sq. miles per year

So far, so good.
>
>  So (49,275 / 52,426,000) * 100 = .93989 % of world's land area lost

That's .09398 %, I think. At least on my calculator. 

>permanently each year, and since they are talking about rainforest
>only,out of all the world's land area, are claiming such a high figure
>that it is all gone by now, and what remains is clearly a figment of our
>imagination.
>
>   Because of my earlier mistake, any checking of figures is welcome.

Sorry if I've missed the whole point.  I checked your figures and got a 
different answer.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe I should have kept my mouth 
shut.

-jim

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: Nasty Remarks
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 21:14:11 GMT


From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Nasty Remarks
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:44:12 GMT

In article <C1JrsJ.Loz@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
wri

tes modestly of himself:
>Too bad that some blockheads among us writhe with envy at the
>spectacle of a gifted soul aiming at stardom, and who spit gall
>rather than applaud a trapeze artist flying high, netless, over
>marble.

        *SPLAT*

Cute Barry. I like it. But please learn to read. I did not write it about my
self. Richard Lubbock of Toronto wrote it as was clear in context of re-post
of WELL conference.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth "the Lesser")
Subject: Re: Eve Mitochondia?
Organization: Generic American College Kids (G.A.C.K.)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:49:50 GMT
Reply-To: slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth "the Lesser")
X-Posted-From: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:
>
>What mechanism is proposed that gets paternal mitochrondial DNA into the
>zygote?

Spermatozoa carry mitochondria in the "collar" region.  Occasionally (<1/1000,
I think) the collar can be absorbed into the ovum along with the head.

BTW, the hereditary medium in mitochondria is DNA, not RNA--they're not
retroviruses, you know....

Seth L. Blumberg          \    "The whole thing was an accident.  No saboteur
slb22@columbia.edu (play)   \ could have been so wildly optimistic as to think
sethb@ctr.columbia.edu (work) \    he could destroy an airplane this way."
    > No one I know shares my opinions, least of all Columbia University. <
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22910 soc.culture.usa:10158 talk.religion.misc:27679
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.culture.usa,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Allan Bloom, Micheal Medved and Jack Chick
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:07:47 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

> In article <23JAN199311150484@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
> 
> >Not quite.  The argument (which Siano makes in another article which
> >goes into some detail on Medved's book) is more like "Michael Medved
> >misuses statistics to argue for a number of mutually inconsistent
> >propositions, so he is a wacko like unto Jack Chick."
> 
> I found Medved's book annoying in some ways.  But I would be
> interested to hear how any reasonably sane person would argue it is
> like a Jack Chick comic book.  As to misusing statistics, statistics
> are misused in 94.8 % of all cases where they are used at all.
> 
> -- 
>      Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
>                gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

	Uh, since we're talking about an article I'd written, could someone
do me a favor and Email me some of the previous messages on this topic? I
don't know what's wrong with my node's Usenet feed, but I've noticed that a
lot of topics crop up on newsgroups whose initial messages I've somehow
missed.

	Actually, the original article (of which the _Humanist_ article is a
small part) argues that Medved's book is basically incoherent from a logical
and factual point of view. (And in an earlier draft, I think I did compare
Medved to Jack Chick in the luridness of his descriptions of movies. Since a
lot of people didn't know who Jack Chick was, I took the reference out-- it
was just too arcane.) 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org

"Do I BELIEVE in the Bible? Hell, man, I've even SEEN one!!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (Christopher Biow)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: THE DIVINE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:24:04 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <1993Jan26.183026.6476@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ashall@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew S Hall) writes:

>It IS a well known FACT that any statement THAT is made with randomly
>CAPITALIZED words must CONTAIN more truth than ONE that is made with
>NO capitalized words.

anD it iS a wEll knOwn fact thAt stAtemeNts wiTh ranDom caPitalizEd
lettErs are UsuaLly wriTten by drieux. exCepT foR thIs One, tHat is.



Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: "dan mckinnon" <dan.mckinnon@canrem.com>
Subject: does this sound right?
Reply-To: "dan mckinnon" <dan.mckinnon@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: sci
Date: 25 Jan 93 08:20:26 EST

UG>    Approximating the earth as a sphere and calculating the surface area
given the e quatorial radius is 6.357E6 meters and so on and so on I
calculate that .004% of the earths surface is disappearing every day.
Now suppose that 50% of the eart hs surface is water (a drastic
underestimation) then multiply by 2 and we get .008%.  The only factor
we need is what proportion of surface area left is rain fo rest which I
have no idea about.  Multiply by the appropriate factor and we stil l
have a pretty small percentage.  Can somebody add to this?

       Okay, going with your additional figures we get .008 * 365= 2.92%
year!!!! And remember, they say lost "forever". This is clearly getting
ridiculous!

        Rechecking, and I found an atlas that says the earth's land area
is 52,426,000  sq. miles, out of 192, 426,000 sq. miles total area or
about 1/4, then.

 1 acre/second =365(days)*24(hours)*3600(sec/hour)=31,536,000 Acres/year

***  MEA CULPA ***   BTW, I see on my first message, although I showed
the proper procedure, I did not multiply  by the second factor of 60
sec/min * 60 min/hr., and so was way low on proper figure. My apologies
to Mark, and all. My calculator sometimes fails to register if not
pressed just so, and I probably wasn't looking.


  31,536,000 /640 (Acres/sq. mile)=  49,275  sq. miles per year

  So (49,275 / 52,426,000) * 100 = .93989 % of world's land area lost
permanently each year, and since they are talking about rainforest
only,out of all the world's land area, are claiming such a high figure
that it is all gone by now, and what remains is clearly a figment of our
imagination.

   Because of my earlier mistake, any checking of figures is welcome.

   Again, this was based on a World Wildlife Fund ad that says one
acre of rain forest disappears every second, forever - due to man's
logging, of course.
---
  OLX 2.1 TD  Just got a new car for my wife...Great trade...
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kellogg@teal.csn.org (Patrick Kellogg)
Subject: Heloo, my name is Patrick
Summary:  Introductory post
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 06:59:04 GMT

1. I am looking for skeptic meetings in the Denver/Boulder area. I have an
address "Bela Scheiber P.O. Box 7277 Boulder CO 80306" but I'd rather show
up at a metting and not bother anyone with a letter. Please mail me if you
know of any upcoming Rocky Mountain Skeptics meetings.

2. I recently moved from the comforting politically correct world of college
into a temporary position as a programmer. One of my co-workers said to me,
"There isn't ANY scientific evidence for evolution whatsoever." I was struck
speechless (a rare rare thing for me..) Therefore, I am sending "The Skeptical
Inquirer" my subscription check immediately. 

3. Can you tell me about a vague legend I remeber hearing? A young girl (12
years old?) recieved messages from Mary. The Pope at the time (late sixties-
the year, not the Pope's age this itme..) recieved four prophecies and kept
them secret from the public until recently. I think they were the "Prophecies
of Fatima". Any more info/corrections. Mail me..

4. Gertrude IS the furriest goldfish in my aquarium.

-------------------------------------------
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Kalki:  Krishna, or Borg?  You make the call
Date: 26 Jan 1993 11:55:46 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1993Jan25.151011@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>Borg

Sorry, Dan.  The Borg were rational.  Try again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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