HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (alan smith)
Subject: Re: Testing for "Auras"
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 18:45:09 GMT


I was at the renissance festival on my birthday and they had a womon who
claimed she could see (and paint!) auras.  I didn't have the money to get
an arua done, so I can't tell you anything.  I did hang out at her booth
for a while but didn't learn anything.

Well, I did learn SOMETHING.  I learned that her idea of "aura" and my
idea of "aura" are NOT the same idea.  She also seemed to be picking out
personality traits.  Truthfully, I don't think that she was trying to
cheat anybody.

Big Al.  (Sitting cross legged) Ooooowwwe!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY)
Subject: Re: spont. human combustion
Organization: Glassboro State College, Glassboro, NJ
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:56:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.225752.2485@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius (Grant Edwards) writes:

>amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
>: In article <1992Jul20.170921.11330@schbbs.mot.com> 
>:   RXTL20@WACCVM.corp.mot.com writes:
>: 
>: >--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>: >The Phx Republic and Gazette recently mentioned that the drummer for some
>: >heavy metal band had spontaneously combusted on stage a few years back.
>: >Sorry, forgot the band's name, but they were here in concert a few months
>: >ago.

it was Spinal Tap and it was a JOKE it NEVER HAPPENED. you can see it in the 
film "this is spinal tap" which is a psudo "rockumentary" made by rob "
meathead" reiner. it is very funny, but no one actually caught on fire.
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: The FORUM
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:38:56 GMT
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

One of my office mates, a born-again Forum type, has recently been
trying to sell the Forum to everyone around.  I strongly suspect that
the Forum is a crock of shit, especially considering that its founder
is a ex-used car salesman.  Are there any published paper/books that
expose the Forum for what it is?  

If I receive responses by email, I will summarize to the net.

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | Statues of marble or brass will perish; and
Field Robotics Center,          | statues made in imitation of them are not
Carnegie Mellon University      | the same statues... But print and reprint a
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | thought a thousand times over, and that
(412) 268-3856                  | with materials of any kind... the thought
                                | is eternally and identically the same
The opinions expressed are mine | thought in every case.  Thomas Paine
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Garlic - the wonder herb ??
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: 21 Jul 92 07:04:47 GMT
Keywords: garlic

In article <9220123.25217@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON) writes:

    Is there any evidence that garlic has any beneficial effects other than the
    placebo effect?

I think garlic tastes much better than placebos.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     Is it clean in other dimensions?
 |warren@      
/ nysernet.org 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: veale@Colorado.EDU (Anthony Veale')
Subject: Illusions (was Re: Erich Von Daniken)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:24:42 GMT

thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes:

>In article <1992Jul23.091433.14378@newshub.sdsu.edu>
>---------- enclosure

>My recollection of those "unknown" tracks is that they appeared as depicted
>below.  The tracks remained parallel even though they were arced and they both
>curved to the left (which I cannot reproduce with ASCII graphics):

>              |\|        |/|
>              |\|        |/|
>              |\|        |/|
>              |\|        |/|
>              |\|        |/|
>              |\|        |/|
>              |\|        |/|
>              |\|        |/|
>              |\|        |/|
>              |\|        |/|
>              |\|        |/|
>              |\|        |/|

>---------- end enclosure

Cool.  Do these look like they are closer at the top than at the bottom
to anyone else?  I suppose this is just a variation on an old optical
illusion...

--
Anthony Veale'                                veale@coma.colorado.edu   
Professional Research Assistant (System Manager Assistant)
Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy
Univ. of Colorado at Boulder                            
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Response to Cary Collet(t) 
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:21:43 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.235452.19544@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius (Grant Edwards) writes:
>cary@carina.unm.edu () writes:
>: 
>: Humor is more easily recognized by my self-avowed sarcasm.  Which brings
>: me to another point.  You have made the 4th Worst Classic Blunder:
>: 
>: 4.  Never get involved with sarcastic a physicist when UFO's are on 
>:      the line.
>: 
>
>I give up, what are the first three?
>

Never argue with a Sicilian when death is involved, never start a land
war in Asia and...????


--
McCreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com     Computers are like Old Testament gods;
Me? Speak for Compaq?  Yeah, right.   lots of rules and no mercy.
"By this time my lungs were aching for air..."               Joseph Campbell
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The EVE theory
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:34:19 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Jul20.180307.2456@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> bourd@indian.cps.msu.edu (Robert Bourdeau) writes:

>It has been sometime since I have heard much about the
>Eve theory (that all humans share a single female
>ancestor from Africa).  I don't recall any articles in the
>Skeptical Inquirer recently, or any other sources.

Scientific American did a comprehensive review of both sides of this
question during the last year.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Search for Noah's Ark
Date: 20 Jul 92 23:03:47 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <35813@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke) writes:
>Has anybody seen the creationist film on Noah's Ark?  I think it
>is called "In Search of Noah's Ark" or "The Search for Noah's
>Ark."  It was made in the mid to late 70s.

I think I saw that.  At least I saw something from that time with a
similar title.  I think it must have been different because the
conclusions reached were that the "arc" on the mountain was an early
(10th century?) shrine built by some monks and long forgotten by most.
I seem to recall some meantion of carbon dating samples taken by
earlier expeditions.  These confirmed the later date.  At the time,
Turkey was not allowing any expeditions to the arc site, so they (the
movie) said that little more could be done.

Personally, I have trouble understanding Creationists.  I believe in
the Bible as somewhat literal history, but I don't expect archeology to
prove it.  I would be disappointed is Noah's Arc were found as it would
undermine faith.

Science claims to explain, not to know.  Many people loose track of
that.  I accept (for example) the theory and description of
evolutionary origin of species.  I just choose to believe that it
didn't happen that way.  Yes, it COULD have, which is why I have no
problem with the science.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Plausible Denial
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:20:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.011848.12768@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.041434.29412@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (alan smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul21.024139.19738@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbot
>>@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>>
>>>Could someone give me an example to illustrate the so-called "plausible
>>>denial" tactic for evading a question?
>>
>>
>>"NO!"
>>
>>"I would not like to adress that at this time."
>>
>>"Read my lips, no new taxes."
>>
>
>I don't get it. Why is that supposed to be "plausible" ???

OK, here's a scenario that illustrates it.  Suppose I wanted something posted
to the net, but wasn't sure whether I wanted to be associated with it.  I could
arrange to be someplace where I didn't have net access for awhile.  I could
phone, say, Dan Ashlock and tell him I didn't have net access at the moment,
but would like him to post something for me.  I'd make sure I was cut off from
net access until the article had expired.  Now, we've got an article purported
to have come from me, but posted by Dan (since Dan and I agree on a lot of
things, and since I had no net access at the time), there's no reason for
anybody to suspect that I didn't ask Dan to post it.  And as long at the
results of the posting of the article were what I'd wanted, I could keep my
mouth shut.  However, should things turn sour, when I'm blamed for having
caused those bad results, I respond with "What article are you talking about?
I never heard of it?"  Since the article would've expired before I regained net
access, if someone asks me why I didn't object to Dan misattributing it to me,
I would plausibly deny having had any knowledge whatever of the existence of
the article.  That's "plausible denial."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:44:50 EDT
From: John E. Rodway <JER4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Testing for "Auras"
 <1992Jul20.231943.16236@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
 <1992Jul21.141826.24840@ccu.umanitoba.ca>

I saw an experiment on TV on viewing auras.  People were lined up behind a
solid fence that was only slightly higher than the top of their heads.
There were gaps between the people in certain places.  Some people, who were
suppose to be able to see auras were on the other side of the fence.  They
were to indicate where the gaps were because there should not be any auras
projecting above the fence in those places.  Needless to say they failed the
tests.  Water witching was also debunked on the same show.

John E. Rodway                     When I was young I knew everything.
JER4@psuvm.psu.edu                 Now I know nothing.
412 773-3831                       I haven't forgotten anything.
                                   Very strange.........
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13075 alt.conspiracy:9319
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Plausible Denial
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:46:58 GMT
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <1992Jul22.011848.12768@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes...
> 
>I don't get it. Why is that supposed to be "plausible" ???

"Plausible denial" refers to politicians who set things up in such a way that
they can get away with claiming they had nothing to do with it, while actually
running the show.  

When the "Republican Victory Committee" (or whoever) sets up a 900 phone line
to bash Clinton, Bush has "plausible denial" because he can claim to have
nothing to do with these folks, even though they probably would never have
done such a thing without his approval.

When Reagan claims to remember nothing about arms trade for hostages, that's
an attempt at plausible denial as well.  Enough third parties were involved
in the deal, and Reagan is sufficiently brain dead that many people will 
accept his claim has plausible, and give him the benefit of the doublt, thus
letting him off the hook.

Every politician wants to be in a situation to escape blame for his or her
actions by having a plausible argument to deny responsibility for their
illegal or otherwise stupid behavior.  By organizing the situation suitably,
the politician can guarantee plausible denial before embarking on risky
behaviors.

The denial doesn't have to be absolutely air tight - just "plausible" enough
to persuade the public to give the benefit of the doubt, and so that they 
won't look completely foolish continuing to deny reality in the face of
seemingly overwhelming evidence.  For example, everyone and their mothers
have acknowledged that Reagan knew and approved of what North was doing, 
but he can still claim not to remember anything and get away with it.

-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,sci.physics
From: chesky@squirrel.austin.ibm.com (Bill Chesky)
Subject: help needed with a thought problem
Organization: IBM, Austin
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 23:58:24 GMT

Ok people, here's an interesting thought problem a friend of mine 
gave me the other day.  I don't know the answer so I thought I'd 
try to tap into the net's vast amounts wisdom on such subjects:

Suppose there is this gigantic rod floating out in space.  Just for
fun, says its, oh, 1,000,000 miles long.  Further this rod is made
out of some super-duper-futuristic-space-age-pleiadian-uri-geller-
don't-even-think-about-it type material and is thus perfectly rigid.  Now 
suppose you have some mechanism on one end whose purpose is to push and 
pull (longways) on the rod.  Is this not a FTL communications device 
since when you push on one end it is going to instantly move at 
the other end, thus sending a signal to the other end in 0 seconds
wheras it would have taken 5 or 6 seconds if you were using radio or
light?

Now this is a *thought* problem so I would think that such arguments
as, "Well, it would be impossible to have a rod that was that rigid" or
"It would be impossible to have a mechanism that could push it", would
be invalid.  Besides I'm not really up on relativity that much but I'm
not aware of any theories that link the laws of rigidity of objects and
relativity.  Am I missing something?

Have fun.  I'll be listening!

Bill

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: july 4, 1992 - global
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:09:45 GMT

In article <712142829.0@iphase.FidoNet.Org>, Ken.Stuckas@iphase.UUCP (Ken Stuckas) writes:
|> -> Another friend knows when I want to talk to her. She'll often phone
|> -> at such points when I consciously ask her to (telepathically). What
|> -> I'd like to do is understand this phenomenon better.
|> 
|> Oh, I think I can help you understand.  It is either a product of an overactive imagination, an illogical system of rationalization or a hoax on your part.
|> 
|> Such skills have yet to be demonstrated in a controlled setting.  If you can demonstrate these "skills" then call up James Randi and arrange a demonstration.  You may win the $100,000 he has set aside for anyone who can so it.
|> 

Amazing.  KS can explain this claim when I can't even fathom what there
is to explain.   This is even better than telepathy, it is omniscience!

There are many ways to parse the original statement, many of which require
no explanation at all.  (For instance, if asked to understand why this 
person would BELIEVE this (correctly or not), one wouldn't care to dive 
in without learning a LOT more about these people and what precisely 
they believe.  One also needs to know what "telepathy" is intended to
mean in this context.)

In any case, without something tangible to understand, there is no
point is attributing this to imagination or illogic.  For instance,
we have no idea what "often" means.  

I might point out, also, that my wife is very likely to know when I 
am upset or otherwise very likely to want to talk with her, and may 
well call when I am wanting her to.  Is this telepathy or just thorough 
knowledge of "the psychology of the individual" as Jeeves would put it?  
It is not necessarily imagination, illogical, nor paranormal, although 
it may appear inexplicable, especially to an outsider.

Patience, Ken.  The FIRST task is always to determine what there is
to actually EXPLAIN, THEN we can proceed to consider hypotheses, including
"imagination", "illogic", "telepathy", and, perhaps, "ordinary human caring".

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13299 alt.paranormal:1958
From: egnr76@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Kashko)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Date: 28 Jul 92 13:47:31 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <92209.130823DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
>
>When reading the literature about photons, you will learns procedures by
>which you can obtain the evidence yourself, if that is your desire.  These
>procedures are guaranteed to work *EVERY TIME*, so there is no need to
>appeal to authority.
>
>No such procedures exist for *ANY* paranormal phenomena.

	The procedures work provided you have the technical skill and
the equipment to execute them. It is well known that some procedures
are harder than others, and require talented people to execute them reliably.

	Even if the procedures work, the existence of photons is only
one interpretation of the results. Perhaps the most parsimonious,
perhaps not. The point is there is a difference between the results
of a procedure and the interpretation of the results.

	Similarly perhaps paranormal phemomena require skills which
are rarely found in untrained individuals. Perhaps the phenomena have
"normal" explanations, perhaps both skeptic and paranormalist are
wrong.
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Lawyer's science vs. unbiased presentation of the facts
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 01:28:35 GMT
Organization: MTS Univ of Alberta     

 
   Apologies to those of you with intelligent news readers, but my
brain-dead system will only give me the illusion of crossposting. It
shows up locally, but dumps the extra groups when reaching the real 
world. I'll have to do this by hand. (I get a new account on another
machine Real Soon Now.)
 
In article <721@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
In article <1992Jul22.154529.2614@midway.uchicago.edu> rtp1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>|
>|ENSO is a red-herring in this context.  Not only is the resulting
>|warming not global, but since the cycle lasts 3-5 years, the
>|net effects of ENSO average out over the decadal time scale. In
>|contrast, with 2xCO2 warming, we are talking about a warmer climate
>|year-in, year-out.  The fluctuations like ENSO would be superposed
>|(probably not linearly) on top of this generally warmer climate.
> 
>It is true that ENSO is not relevant as a causaive factor in global
>warming, but it may be relevant in estimating the *effects* of such.
> 
 
    ..but much of the earlier discussion claimed that the effects of 
a single ENSO would be similar to the effects of an equivalent global
temperature change. Nick Szabo kept repeating that ENSO happens
in the current climate, and therefore a global change of 2-4C is
not important. ENSO *is* a red herring _in this context_ (as the
earlier posted stated).
 
>ENSO may *not* be superimposed on a warming trend, rather the warming
>trend might 'latch' the ENSO in the El Nino mode more or less permanently.
>(That is if the actual driving force of the El Nino is a West Pacific
>surface water warming).
> 
 
   ...and now the effects are *not* the same as the former ENSO, which
is a transient departure from "normal". The situation you describe
defines a new "normal". A "permanent" El Nino is a subset of previously-
occuring atmospheric circulation patterns, so there doesn't *seem* to
be anything new about it, but the change in frequency does mean the 
climate has changed, and the impact will very likely *not* be analagous
to the effects of periodic El Nino events. Trees survive winter, but
changing to permanent winter will mean the end of trees.
 
>One of the difficulties in figuring out how global warming will effect
>the climate is the fact that the effects may not be *linear*.
>-- 
 
    Global warming *is* the climate. :-)  I think what you mean to
say is that the averaging process implied by "global" and "climate"
(being spatial and temporal averaging respectively) shouldn't be
assumed to be acting on linear phenomena when we look at short term
or local effects. IMHO, it will very likely (rather than may) not be
linear.
 
 
Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Human Parthenogenesis? (Was: Questions from an interested p
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:57:23 GMT

John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
: Dear Grant: I will have to admit that a good deal of what the pulp
: magazines contain is just something to sell papers but sometime they contain
: pearls of wisdom that do come through. I believe that very little can 
: be learned by looking at the headlines of the tabloids as one goes 
: through the checkout line.
: John Winston.

I don't just read the headlines in the WWN.  We have a subscription at
work (paid for with personal money).  The fun part is trying to pick out
the articles that are true (albeit slightly sensationalized) vs the ones
that are complete fabrications.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I'm a GENIUS!  I want
Rosemount Inc.                                |to dispute sentence structure
                                              |with SUSAN SONTAG!!
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal