HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
Subject: Re: Psychics' Predictions Fizzle For 1992
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:33:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.192403.9288@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan2.231655.12160@cs.unca.edu>, kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
|> [...]
|> > Last night I was watching a program where they were looking back at
|> > the Lizzie Borden murders.  It was an intelligent program until they
|> > brought in some "experts" to look into the case.  One was a criminal 
|> > investigator and the other was a psychic and I turned it off.
|> 
|> You should have kept watching - it was a hoot.  A 10 year old
|> could have duplicated the "psychics" reading.  "Wait, someone
|> is coming in the room, they're coming closer, oh my God, they've
|> got an AX!!!"  Truly idiotic, didn't even PRETEND to tell us something
|> we didn't already know.

Anyway, you surely don't still believe in the lone ax-woman theory
do you?  There was clearly a second assassin striking with the glassy 
bowl....  And where was Nixon that day?  Or LBJ?

-- 
J. Giles
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
Subject: Re: Velikovsky Criticisms Wanted
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:27:18 GMT

In article <8341@lib.tmc.edu>, draper@odin.mda.uth.tmc.edu (E.J. Draper) writes:
|> [...]
|> It really shocked my that Sagan spent the amount of time he did in order
|> to rebuke Velikovsky.  As a matter of fact, I can't understand why
|> anybody would want to invest time and effort in dealing with such obvious
|> nonsense.

Several years ago, when Velikovsky first began publishing his fantasies,
a number of astronomers (who had the same publisher) protested the 
publisher's decision to print Velikovsky's book.  This objection was 
based on the astronomers' concern that such publication decreased the 
credibility of their own astronomy books.

Velikovsky and his supporters characterized this attack as an attempt
to conceal his work by the scientific elite (who wouldn't *really* have 
objected at all if the publisher had at least classified the book as 
something other than non-fiction).  This gave Velikovsky much more
publicity and a much wider audience than he would have otherwise
received *and* gave him the reputation of an underdog fighting for
his rights and for the "truth".

All this had two effects: 1) because of the increased popularity of
the stuff, astronomers were even more motivated to expose the fallacies
in it; but 2) because of the Velikovsky martyr complex, astronomers had
to be very careful to actually discuss the stuff on its "merits" rather
than just dismissing it out of hand - which would simply reopen the
charges of suppression, conspiracy, etc..  Hence Sagan's care in
dealing with the issue.

-- 
J. Giles
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: interminable ad hominem argument
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:38:10 GMT

zellner@stsci.edu writes:
: 
: |> >>Thousands (if not millions) of people have been tortured and killed in
: |> >>the service of christianity.  
: 
:  >  - Hitler was Roman Catholic.
:  >  - Atheists were not allowed to become member of the SA 
: 
: There have been plenty of wicked people who really believed in the 
: conservation of energy and momentum.  Does that imply that such beliefs
: are incorrect?
: 

If the laws of conservation of energy and momentum were claimed to be
the one-and-only source of morality and ethics, then the existence of
"wicked" people who claimed to believe in the conservation of energy
would be problematic.

However, the laws of physics do not claim to provide any moral or
ethical guidance.  Thus the existence of wicked people who believe in
the conservation of energy and mementum says nothing about the
validity of those beliefs.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Oh my GOD -- the SUN
Rosemount Inc.                                |just fell into YANKEE
                                              |STADIUM!!
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: California to be Destroyed May 8, Nostradamus Says
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:07:06 GMT

The Fox TV "Sightings" program January 8 contained the usual sensationalist
drivel. They were dealing with "predictions" for 1993, and one guy named
Peter Lorie (like the actor, but one one "r") claims that Nostradamus
"predicted" a giant, destructive earthquake in California on May 8,
1993. (I'm sure, of course, that Nostradamus' verses say *nothing* of
the kind, it being left to Mr. Lorie to "discover" their Hidden Meaning).
Some other character named Richard Nolle had a similar prediction; he
had a "major earthquake" hitting California either on Feb. 8, March 6,
or April 6.

Can anyone tell us more about these individuals and their predictions?
It seems that some book was briefly shown in the program; do these
predictions come from some book or other publication? I'm especially
interested in the prediction for May 8. As you may recall, there was
some goofy prediction of doom for Los Angeles a few years ago, in some
program narrated by the late Orson Wells, and a number of people got
rather spooked by the thing. Given the number of viewers of a show like
"Sightings," I suspect that the same thing may occur again. If we can
find out more about this, I'd like to get some skeptics to hold a tea
party or whatever on the San Andreas fault - right on Ground Zero - on
the appointed doomsday. 

The show also featured Dr. Terrence Sandbek of the Sacramento Skeptics
trying to talk sense about all this. Unfortunately, if you blinked your
eyes you might have missed him.


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Why does Eire get so much press?
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:00:59 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   6 Jan 93 12:57:44 GMT
creilly@maths.tcd.ie (Colman Reilly) writes:
>
>>>c) There ain't no violence in Dublin.
>
>>Maybe not now, but there has been in the not too distant past.
>>Someone I know was almost blown up at a bus stop right next to TCD a few
>>years ago! It was right by Dawson Street, I can't remember the name of the
>>street right off hand.
>
>There hasn't been a terrorist explosion in Dublin (apart from a few 
>firebombs - literally crackers) in 18 years. Could you give more
>details as to what happened to your friend?
>
>There is violence in Dublin, but I think Colman was referring to
>terrorist violence. Of that, there is very little.
>
>P.
>-- 
  ,...,.,,
 /666;    ',    jim tims
////;    _~ -   p00168@psilink.com
(/@/----0-~-0
 ;'  . `` ~ \'
  , `    ' , >
 ;|\..((   -C---->>Trying to kill the alt.messianic threads.
;;| >-  `.__),;;

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22215 alt.atheism:25435
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 8 Jan 93 23:02:04 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan8.135041.970@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>
> Strange, that people (= John ATA Something, apparantly you, and most of
> the "others" - perhaps even a lot of the atheists) don't seem to get the
> point even when it is spelled out.
> To repeat: the point is that if somebody is religious, that says diddly
> squat about his/her morals. _That_ is the point.

Seconded.   The whole point about the churches and their association 
with Hitler is that they behaved like anyone else.  They behaved like
third-rate Outer Slobodian diplomats, cosying up to Mr Big.    They 
were opportunistic and cowardly.

Yet as soon as the War was over, they went right back to the old
palaver about how Christianity has some kind of arm-lock on morality,
and we ought all to listening to them on moral issues.

It's Bologna.

jon.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:50:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.110856.25862@cs.unca.edu> kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
>In article <1ij9ndINN48o@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>Here's you jon:
>>|> >
>>|> >I think that the trouble you have here is the same confusion that
>>|> >you have exhibited before, for example when you talked about
>>|> >Chamberlain and Roosevelt.   You want to put everyone who had any
>>|> >dealings with Hitler - and now Stalin - on the same level.
>>|> >
>>|> >But they are not on the same level.   Chamberlain and Roosevelt
>>|> >kept a distance between themselves and Hitler, and dealt with him
>>|> >only when they had to.   Meanwhile the German Catholic Youth
>>|> >Organization was describing Naziism as a "spritual breakthrough".
>>|> >The point is that you *do* have to deal with a Hitler from time
>>|> >to time, but you don't have to express that kind of enthusiasm.
>>|> 
>
>Now, here's John (Johnny?)
>>|> Err, what does the German Catholic Youth Organization have to do with
>>|> the Vatican?
>
>>
>>Is this a quiz, or do you have a point to make?
>>
>>jon.
>
>Looks to me like the point he's making is that you won't let me put "everyone
>on the same level" but you are trying to put everyone on the same level.
>The German Catholic Youth Organization = The Vatican = Every Christian, to
>you...or so you make it appear.  If I were to find evidence of "Budhists for
>Hitler" would you really expect everyone to discount the teachings of
>Buddha forevermore on the basis of that?
>

Strange, that people (= John ATA Something, apparantly you, and most of
the "others" - perhaps even a lot of the atheists) don't seem to get the
point even when it is spelled out.
To repeat: the point is that if somebody is religious, that says diddly
squat about his/her morals. _That_ is the point.

	Tero Sand
-- 
	EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   or   custts@cc.helsinki.fi
   "I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an 
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
From: max@admin.mport.COM (Max)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:44:51 GMT
Organization: Microport Inc., Scotts Valley, CA 95066 US of A

biow@cs.umd.edu (Christopher Biow) writes:

>In article <1993Jan11.181752.6816@cs.unca.edu> kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:

>>>[referring to ritual satanic abuse therapy and its skeptics]

>>I think we better be careful that we don't just begin a new witchhunt with
>>the therapists as target.  If these "memories" are not real, the therapist
>>may be unwittingly providing the opportunity for these people to fantasize,
>>but that doesn't necessarily mean they are "causing" the "memories".  

>Maybe some sort of hunt is exactly what we need. We have an entire 
>profession offering health-related services without a solid science
>to back them up and without any good evidence to show greater than
>placebo-level effects of their therapy. Class after diagnostic 
>class of their prospective patients have been stripped away from 
>them, as hard sciences have produced effective therapies for 
>some conditions, and explanations of why psycho-therapy could not 
>possibly address the problems in other conditions.

a reasonable requirment for genuine service for the dollar is important,
but doont fall into the trap of believing that only the medical community
is valid (pardon if this is not what you meant). hard sciences most often
produce drug therapy, which is not always the most appropriate for a given
patient. im not advocating faith healing, either. non-drug based therapy is
a tool, as are the meds. it is important to recognize this.

=====================================================================
  \\\///   | 		             | the above represents my 
  //@@\\   | yet another nude biker  | opinion only, and is subject
  // \ \   | 		             | to change. 
  // - \   ----------------------------------------------------------  
    """    | max@mport.com | dod:234 | protect the bill of rights
=====================================================================
From: greg@antizen.EBay.Sun.COM
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Homeopathy
Date: 4 Jan 1993 17:34:34 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: greg@antizen.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: antizen.ebay.sun.com


Jan Willem Nienhuys writes;

>Which asthmatic doesn't share your desires?  But "I've experienced" and
>"I feel" is not convincing.

SO you're not convinced, frankly I don't really care. I wasn't convinced
about anything when I started looking for alternative treatments for my
asthma.

If you're satisfied with the current status of your asthma, go with it.

I wasn't, and I didn't and my search, whether real or placebo has paid off.

Sounds to me like you're trying really hard to look for excuses to hang on to
your asthma. That's your choice. Good luck to you.

Greg


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:44:06 GMT

In article <1ii6rcINNo7j@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
|> In article <C0G4Eo.F2v@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
|> >
|> > Frankly, this whole business of people, typing safely away in their offices 
|> > or homes, trading on the suffering of others in a usenet flame war makes me 
|> > a little queasy.
|> 
|> My, that's an interesting thought.   Does this mean that we'll be hearing
|> a little less about some events that may or may not have happened two
|> thousand years ago?
|> 
|> Or is this one of those deals where Christians get to justify their religion 
|> on the basis of the suffering of one man, but the rest of us ought not to 
|> point out what it has done to millions?

The answer to both questions is no.  The correct deduction is that I'll go on 
feeling queasy.

-- 
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
Subject: Re: Velikovsky Criticisms Wanted
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 09:35 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan5.182915.10798@psych.toronto.edu>, grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant) writes...
>I'm looking for some criticisms of Velikovsky's _Ages in Chaos_ and
>_Earth and Upheaval_. 
> 
>I found _Scientists Confront Velikovsky_ quite good in dealing with
>_Worlds in Collision_, particularly Sagan's chapter. Can anyone 
>suggest a book that deals with Velikovsky's later stuff?

Henry Bauer's _Beyond Velikovsky_ might.  (I haven't read it.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22054 alt.atheism:25097
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 6 Jan 93 05:17:31 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan6.043709.29638@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
|> In article <1iadi5INN1v7@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <C0CnAL.CsL@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
|> >|> In article <1ia8cnINNpeh@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >|> |> 
|> >|> |> How can any of us have any confidence that episodes like cooperation
|> >|> |> with the Nazis won't be repeated, when the church and its followers
|> >|> |> spend their time trying to rationalise away what happened, instead
|> >|> |> of saying frankly "Yes, we screwed up, and we're going to find out
|> >|> |> why".
|> >|> 
|> >|> I don't know about the Roman Catholic church, but I believe the Lutheran 
|> >|> church in (West) Germany did precisely that after the war.  I'll see if 
|> >|> I have any references in my files.  
|> >
|> >That would be great.   It would be the most definitive answer to the
|> >"no major denomination cooperated with the nazis" claim that started
|> >this discussion.
|> 
|> I don't remember anyone making this claim?  Do you have any references?
|> 
|> The discussion, the way I remember it, was a statement that
|> Hitler's regime was not based on Christian values.  How you come
|> up with the statement you made above is beyond me.

To which I replied that this claim was misleading, since Christian
churches certainly cooperated with Hitler and the Nazis.   I thought 
you had been disagreeing with that.   Was I wrong?

Are you instead saying that the main denominations *did* cooperate with
Hitler?

If you are, and there is certainly plenty of evidence that this is so,
then I wonder how anyone can claim Hitler's regime wasn't based on
christian values.

If Christian churches associated themselves with his regime, then are
they not accepting his values as their own?

jon.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: polowin@chem.queensu.ca (Joel Polowin)
Subject: Re: Advertising for Homeopathic remedies (sic)
Keywords: how_do_they_get_away_with_this_?_?_?
Organization: Dept. of Chemistry, Queen's University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:40:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.182823.20338@walter.bellcore.com> kenl@origami.cc.bellcore.com (Ken Lehner) writes:
>An advertisement in the Jan/Feb issue of _American_Health_ magazine:

>	"The side effects of most medicines are enough to make you sick.
>
>Ironic isn't it?  How the medication you take to feel better can often make you
>feel worse.  It's for this reason that Nature's Way has developed Medicine
>From Nature (tm), a line of natural homeopathic remedies that is free of side
>effects ...

Interestingly enough, "Nature's Way" was the name of Gary Larson's cartoon
series before he started drawing "The Far Side"...  Coincidence?  :-)

Joel Polowin
polowin@silicon.chem.queensu.ca, polowin@chem.queensu.ca,
polowinj@qucdn.queensu.ca

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
From: dfox@quack.sac.ca.us (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 5 Jan 1993 05:39:32 UTC

In article <1993Jan4.022547.24574@cs.unca.edu> kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
>>no one could be in any real doubt about what the Nazis intended
>
>Well, now you're not just convicting the Vatican, but also all those people

History shows that the Catholic Church, as an organization, has one of the
worst records for human-rights abuses, perhaps second only to Nazi Germany
or Stalinism, actually.

>  The Catholic Church is led by fallible men who make foreign policy
>mistakes and have many skeletons in their closets, and they can be 
>sanctimonious, just like others (I won't mentionany names). But who 
>hasn't made terrible mistakes, given a thousand years of history and rapidly
>changing moral values?

The Church says that their leaders (Popes) _can't_ make terrible
mistakes.  However, those underneath can, I guess.

According to Catholic dogma, the Pope is given infallibility in matters
of faith and morals.  Assuming this applies retroactively to all past
Popes, the concept is ridiculous, and history proves it to be so. If
you were able to resurrect a bunch of previous Popes, and put them all
in a room, they'd certainly disagree with each other on matters of 
faith and morals.

--
David Fox
dfox@quack.sac.ca.us


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Laura Houghteling Murder
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:32:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan12.142916.19590@stsci.edu>, kimball@stsci.edu (Timothy Kimball) writes...
>Ray Rosch (rosch@cpdw.enet.dec.com) wrote:
>: 
>: ...the murder of Laura Houghteling of Bethesda, MD....
>: It was reported by the local TV media - WBZ-TV, Boston - that the Police in
>: Bethesda, MD used a Psychic in their investigation.  The Psychic led Police to
>: a bloody pillow case a mile or so from the victems house...
>: 
>: This _seems_ to be a case where a Psychic found evidence to a crime which was
>: confirmed by the Police. I say _seems_ as it's either an extrodinary coinci-
>: dence or the media has mis-reported the facts of the case.
>:
> 
>Or maybe the police ought to be questioning the psychic?

This has happened on at least two occasions--someone has come forth
with alleged psychic impressions regarding a murder case which proved
correct, only to be charged with the crime.  Etta Louise Smith, a 39-year-old
employee of Lockheed, did this in 1980 regarding the Melanie Uribe murder
and was held for four days before being released, without being charged
with anything.  Three men, with no connection to Smith, were later
arrested for the crime.  Smith sued the LAPD for false arrest and won $24,184.
   A second case in 1980 involved Steve Linscott, a 26-year-old Bible student,
who dreamed he saw a man beating someone to death with a blunt instrument,
which he reported to the police.  The evening of his dream, a nursing
student named Karen Phillips was beaten to death less than half a block
away.  Linscott was arrested and convicted of her murder on the basis
of some hairs found at Phillips' house, but a retrial was ordered in 1987
when an appeals court ruled that prosecutors had distorted the physical
evidence.  I don't know the outcome of that case for certain, but I
believe I've read somewhere recently that DNA testing cleared Linscott.
(This should be taken with a grain of salt.)

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