HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Krishnas, Vedas, and all that (was: TM debunking needed)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:43:07 GMT

In article <7VHVXB7w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us> system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
: >Actually, the Vedas state that the Moon is 800,000 miles HIGHER than the
: >Sun, in the plane of the Bhu-mandala system, not that it is farther away
: >in terms of linear distance.
: 
: 	What's the "Bhu-mandala system"?
>
>The Bhu-mandala system is a gigantic disk-shaped region in
>higher-dimensional space. Its 3-dimensional projection is on the
>ecliptic. Ordinary human beings cannot see the physical disk of
>Bhu-mandala, because our senses are not sophisticated enough. But its
>existence has been reported by demigods and advanced yogis.

	Are you sure that their imagination wasn't working in
overdrive? One shouldn't have to be a Yogi to have to detect this
Bhu-mandala system.

:       And is the Moon _closer_ in linear distance, or isn't it?
>
>Yes, the Moon is closer in linear distance, but higher than the sun in
>the "z" coordinate. However, this is a 3-dimensional analogue of what is
>actually a higher dimensional situation.

	I can easily imagine extra dimensions. But what reason is
there for supposing that to be the case?

: >Eclipses are explained as the result of the planet Rahu passing
: >between the sun and the earth, or the moon and the earth. In modern
: >astronomy, the planet Rahu is identified as the moon's ascending node,
: >which is indeed in line with the sun-moon-earth system during an
: >eclipse.
: 
: 	There is no such thing as a planet separate from the Moon that
: causes eclipses.
>
>So you say, but this is only your opinion. You cannot see Rahu, but that
>does not mean it doesn't exist.

	But if it is a see-through object, then how can it cause
eclipses?
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: mccullou@snake12.cs.wisc.edu (Mark Mccullough)
Subject: Re: Eve Mitochondia?
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:34:15 GMT

In article <stormo.727576257@beagle> stormo@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Gary Stormo) writes:
>hanche@ams.sunysb.edu (Harald Hanche-Olsen) writes:
>
>>>>>>> In article <eur.727528220@dutncp8>, eur@dutncp2.tn.tudelft.nl
>>>>>>> (Eur van Andel) writes:
>
>>Eur> Not quite true. All of mankind DOES descend from one woman, and MORE than
>>Eur> one man. (this is a bit difficult to understand, but true nontheless )
>
>>But it is very likely also true that we all descend from one man, and
>>more than one woman.  To be precise, only if we trace our ancestry
>>through our mothers, their mothers, etc., will there be a unique
>>common ancestor (Eve) for us all (and unique only if you don't count
>>her mother, and so forth).  Statistical theory predicts that if we
>>trace our ancestry through our fathers instead, there will be a unique
>>forefather back there.  It's just that it's impossible to trace this
>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>through the genetic record, which is why no one ever talks about Adam.
>>No reason to believe that Adam and Eve even knew each other, BTW...
>
>>- Harald
>
>Not true.  Just as mitochondrial DNA is inherited maternally, Y-chromosome
>DNA is inherited paternally.  So the same analysis could be done using
>Y-chromosome DNA.  It is technically more difficult, but I have heard 
>that it is being done (don't remember where or who).
>
>The notion of calling these ancestors Adam and Eve is misleading.  What
>can be identified are the nearest common ancestors through a strictly
>maternal or paternal line.  The usual (biblical) interpretation of
>Adam and Eve would be people who are the sole contributors to all of the
>current human genes.  While the "Eve" uncovered by mitochondrial DNA
>analysis is the nearest common ancestor through strict maternal lineage,
>there could be many other women concurrent with her that contributed to
>the current human genome.  As an example, my mother has many descendants,
>10 grandchildren, but none of them have her mitochondrial DNA because
>she had only sons.  Her genes exist in her grandchildren's generation,
>but not her mitochondrial DNA.

There is one slight problem with all of this.  On certain cases, (rare I
admit, but it does occur), mitochondrial DNA can come from the father.
This is a major stumbling block for the "Eve" hypothesis, though it is
fairly new.  Some Bio people out there may know more on this than I do,
I just collect a few weird facts.

M^2


Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22774 soc.culture.usa:10027 talk.religion.misc:27383
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.culture.usa,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Allan Bloom, Micheal Medved and Jack Chick
Date: 23 Jan 93 19:33:34 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1993Jan23.144008.22923@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) 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

Suggesting that an opinion is worthless or even harmful is not the same as
suggesting that it be disallowed.

>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??

And of course the problem with this particular opinion is not merely that
someone dislikes rock and roll.  Reread the passage, paying attention to the
phrase
     It's not enough to just <dislike> something; one has to show that
     it's as physically or psychologically <harmful> as dioxin or PCP.
It's not that this man dares not like rock and roll, it's that he dares
take the step from "I don't like rock and roll" to "rock and roll is a
pernicious influence on our society".
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:19:25 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1993Jan26.071539.12522@timesink.chi.il.us>, mikebo@timesink.chi.il.us (Michael Borowiec) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan20.231528.25880@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@sahara.lanl.gov (J. Giles) writes:
|> >[...]
|> >That was one of the most comical sequences I've ever encountered.  These
|> >alians conduct a discussion with the human character in an ordered sequence
|> >of topics, inferences, etc. and yet claim to be ignorant of the nature of
|> >time.  If they can conduct an ordered interview, they know of time.
|> [...]
|> It was only PRESENTED that way so you, a mere human, could comprehend
|> the purely mental exchange of ideas between the characters in a linear
|> fashion... You are so arrogant in your ignorance! (-8

Oh, so the only sensible point of the exchange was that if there existed 
beings who didn't understand time, we would have trouble communicating?  
What's profound about that?

|> PS> By the way... you really backpedaled on the issue "people who view
|> Star Trek regularly are intellectually inferior to my well-read self".

Because I didn't take such a position, I didn't backpedal.  You should
learn to read the attribution line on news articles and not lump all
people on roughly the same side of an issue into *one* person.

-- 
J. Giles
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Krishnas, Vedas, and all that (was: TM debunking needed)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:01:54 GMT

In article <TBiqXB3w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us> system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>What he said was that the astronauts never went to the moon, and his
>reason was that the moon is impossible to reach by mankind's present
>technology,

Well, was he right?
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Krishnas, Vedas, and all that (was: TM debunking needed)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 11:12:37 EST
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

> 	Well, I guess it's safe to say that the Hare Krishnas are
> essentially Veda-thumping Hindu fundamentalists. It is not for nothing
> that _Back to Godhead_ is sometimes nicknamed _Back to Blockhead_.

You heap derision on the Hare Krishnas, but you have not addressed any
issue. Is this not the trademark of a real blockhead?

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       ---------------------------------------------------------
      |                Don't forget to chant:                   |
      |                                                         |
      |  Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |       Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare          |
      |                                                         |
      |    Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA      |
      |           (kalki@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)           |
       ---------------------------------------------------------
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:17:13 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <93026.32477.L629159@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> L629159@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>  Their doing so is evidently evil.  So why won't god stop them?
>Is he not all powerful and all knowing?  Maybe he doesn't care? In
>which case, what makes you think that sacrifice is, in fact, evil?

*sigh*  I mistakenly assumed you were a believer, and responded to you
as a believer.  You plainly don't understand even the kindergarten-level
basics.  You must have gone to a public school, or perhaps you went to a
Christian school but played hooky on the day they taught the other
children about free will.

I'm surprised that only scoffers, unbelievers, and vermin like that have
responded to me.  (One person went so far as to *defend* Satanists.  And
he had the gall to call himself a "reverend"!)  Perhaps sci.skeptic was
the wrong place for my message, even though I would still expect true
believers to be reading it to keep an eye on the enemy.  Guess I should
move on...
-- 
David Canzi
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:07:25 -0500 
From: David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: 1-900/psychics
	<fYb0uyi@quack.sac.ca.us>

On 20-Jan-93 in Re: 1-900/psychics           
user David Fox@quack.sac.ca.u writes:
>Personally I equate 1-900 as a form of fraud.

I dunno...some of the 900-sex-lines can be kinda fun!  :P

David
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: does this sound right?
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:58:27 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <C1Gwpr.2AK@cs.uiuc.edu>, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:
|> [...]
|> And, of course, 1000 years is effectively forever in terms of human
|> lifetimes.  Somehow, the idea that, if we mow down a forest, a new
|> one might grow back just as good a few hundred years after I'm dead
|> (assuming nobody messes it up) is pretty much the same as being
|> gone forever.

To you, but not necessarily to the forest.  If we are limited to 
discussing the way *you* appreciate forests, then we are no longer
discussing ecology.  The ecological question should still be stated
in terms of the forest's time-scale, not yours.

-- 
J. Giles
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22966 alt.paranormal:2873
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:40:22 GMT
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <C1J5F3.3C2@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes in part:
|>  (Christopher Jon Petit) writes:
|> > As for all the ESP info---consider this.  There are many urban legends which
|> >involve ESP as 'saving the day'  Now, in order for ESP not to exist, EVERY ONE
|> >of those stories must have either an alternate explaination or be totally false
|> >.  But, if even one has no such explaination, and is somewhat true, then ESP
|> >exists in some form.
|> 
|>   But that doesn't follow that I or anyone else has to be able to SHOW
|>   you what the alternative explanation is.  
|> 
|>   Basically your logic is faulty.  YOU have made the positive assertion 
|>   (ESP is real) therefore YOU have the obligation to support it. 

Heck, "ESP" isn't even a single thing, it is just the absence of other
explanations.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22700 alt.atheism:26714
From: gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Eve Mitochondia?
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:18:18 GMT


	While the "Eve" hypothesis is not proven,and is in my view
unprovable due to competition between mitochondria,I think I should
point out that it states that all PEOPLE are descended from one woman.
	It claims this because all you mitochondria,and therefore all
your mitochondrial DNA,come from your mother.


		G.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: L629159@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Astrology: weaning a loved one
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 14:21:46 PST

From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)(in answer to a prior question)

     Cold reading is a technique whereby you can walk up to a stranger and tell
that stranger lots of fairly detailed information about himself.  It relies on
making initial ambiguous statements and observing the stranger's reactions to
them.  In a short while, you can frequently get the person to tell you quite a
bit about himself without realizing he has done so.  Then, when you finally
make the specific statements, the stranger is amazed at the fact you know so
much about them.  The application to astrology should be obvious.

End quote:

  This sounds like the technique employed by my gypsy grandmother in her
youth fortunetelling by reading palms. As explained by her, 1, as the
customer approaches, examine dress, expression, etc.  When they speak,
note accent.  When examining palm (not relevant to astrology, of course,
look for scars, calluses, etc.  Before saying anything at all, think about
the things you know, at least approximately:  The common experiences of
a person of this age, gender, social class, nationality...  A few ambiguous
statements designed to elicit a response, and you're on your way.

She was truly amazing.  She could get almost anyone to tell her all
about themselves, and leave them with the impression that she had told
them.

Al Moore
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson)
Subject: Re: 1-900/psychics
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 00:40:09 GMT

In article <C13xy8.o7@cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan17.195206.19498@Princeton.EDU>, rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson) writes in part:
>|> Your lament comes up here, now and again.  While it may seem important
>|> to save people from themselves, and from con-men, there are a few dozen
>|> or million other things that are more important, depending on one's
>|> philosophical stance.  An example in the same territory as your concern
>|> is the proliferation of "Prize winning" opportunities with judging fees,
>|> the new hi-tech versions of Keno in bars and restaurants, and the
>|> lotteries that purport to support so much societally important stuff in
>|> some ever more states.   Just try to fix it all.
>
>It is interesting to note that all of the con's listed here, including
>infomercials and 900 numbers, could well be regulated by governements.  
>I hardly think a sigh and an "oh well" are really justified where
>a little political will could do a lot to clean things up.  In fact,
>such an atitude is a large contributor to the lack of such political
>will.
>
My admittedly obscure point was that "governments" are sponsoring or
at least allowing ever more sucker games.  
My feeling is that that in itself is a bad thing,
not so much because it sucks money out of shallow pockets, though that
is bad, but because is trains us all, by example, to be less creative,
productive, self-sufficient, clear-minded, and it saps our collective
(is there any other sort?) "political will".

BTW, I think 900 numbers are one of the worst and most offensive of
these failures of societal mores, but until WE change the regulatory
atmosphere to protect ourselves (at unpredictable cost) the only
recourse is to individually refuse the opportunities to get rich, get
sex, get gratification, etc. the "easy" way.  

Roger
From: kevin@pages.com (Kevin Sven Berg)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Krishnas, Vedas, and all that (was: TM debunking needed)
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:30:19 GMT
Organization: Pages Software Inc.

[somebody wrote ...]
> >   The Vedic account of our planetary system is already researched,
> >   concluded, and perfect. The _Vedas_ state that the moon is 800,000
> >   miles _farther_ from earth than the sun. 
> 

Does anyone know WHICH Veda this is from? Is it Vedic, Vedantic or
Vedic commentary? Is this hearsay, or can someone back up the claim
with a reference? This is the first I've ever heard of this, and I've
studied Sanskrit and Indian literature.

regards,

Kevin

ps. There are other Vedic astronomical texts that have proven
extremely accurate, and have recently aided archeologists in
corrolating site dates. Other geologic information in these same
texts has been verified by Satelite imagery. If anyone's interested
I can get these references.
-- 
Kevin Sven Berg               /    /    /    /  P /  a /  g /  e /  s
kevin@pages.com              /    /    /    /    /    /    /    / 
Pages Software Inc.         /    /    /    /    /    /    /    /   
San Diego, CA.               .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .
From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:20:10 GMT
Subject: Re: Don't worry be happy.
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic

John, 

  I am desparately awaiting replies from both Satan and Mary regarding
  my letters to them which I was hoping you would forward since you 
  have e-mail connections to them..

  I still require many hundreds of thousands of dollars before I can 
  truly say that I am happy and unworried.  


  So, friend, put in a good word for me, eh?


Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22696 alt.atheism:26694
From: stigh@itk.unit.no (Stig Atle Haugdahl)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Eve Mitochondia?
Date: 21 Jan 93 12:22:30 GMT
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology / SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway


In article <eur.727528220@dutncp8> eur@dutncp2.tn.tudelft.nl (Eur van Andel) writes:
> 
> Not quite true. All of mankind DOES descend from one woman, and MORE than
> one man. (this is a bit difficult to understand, but true nontheless )
> 
Very difficult to understand. Did she have more than one father?




--


--------------------------------
Vis tecum sit      ///|\\\
                   | o o |
Stig                \ - /
--------------------------------
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 14 Jan 93 16:50:32 EST

In article <RICE.93Jan5114333@HPP.stanford.edu>, rice@sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU (James Rice) writes:
> 	<1993Jan5.002733.5359@cs.unca.edu> <C0D77L.7tH@ecf.toronto.edu>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: hpp.stanford.edu
> In-reply-to: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu's message of Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:59:45 GMT
> Yes, papal infalibility is an official dogma (axiom of
> faith) of the catholic church.  This was proclaimed in
> 1870 by Pius (!) IX.
> 
> Rice - no wonder Catholics all seem to feel so guilty
> about not believing all that they are told they should.

I've been kind of staying out of this, but FWTW....

Infallibility of the pope is only believed to be in evidence when he speaks,
"ex cathera" (from the church?).  I believe that happens very seldom.  A papal
bull is essentially one man's opinion.  Ordinary fallibility reigns at all
other times. 

George Kambic
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic