HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Why are we the first?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:24:58 GMT

In article <5967@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> fortuna@cs.man.ac.uk (Armando Fortuna) writes:
}One issue that I sometimes think about is 
}Why is Mankind the only species on this planet to develop technology,
}speech, and so many things that were required for the building of our
}modern society.
}
}Let's put the question in another simpler way, "Why is man the single most 
}developed creature on Earth?"

Because Mankind has a nasty tendency to kill lesser competitors.  Even
those of the SAME species.  Ask the Indians.  And why not check for
the monkey colonies.  They ain't in the wild.  


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,talk.religion.newage
From: davgot@auto-trol.com (David Gottner)
Subject: Re: Saga of the Family of Light I - Pleiadians13
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:17:00 GMT

In article <64745@cup.portal.com> Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com writes:
>RA says
>
>...So this means that our DNA is constructed from
>three sources,  our own past, and our biological parents. The other factor
>involved in this is that past, unresolved emotions survive death and come
>in with us to be embedded in our DNA.  So it is possible that some of our
>biggest emotional problems could have originated in past lives..

Some ET's that I work with told me this also, but I have a hard time
with this one.

According to what we know about genetics, all of your DNA comes
from ones parents.  There is no provision for past life memories
to be recorded in the DNA.

So, how are past memories imprinted on the DNA?
-- 
Amrit Prem			|
davgot@auto-trol.com		| This area is intentionally left blank
{...}ncar!ico!auto-trol!younam 	|
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: God and Drew and Little Green Men
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:02:11 GMT

Disclaimer: no, we do NOT have a creationist saucer nut.  That would be
miscegenation :).

In article <1992Aug27.205119.4618@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.163835.12301@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
writes:
>>>   Finally, having re-read your original post more carefully, I have a bit
of
>>>information for you.  No-one can currently see canals on mars.  The closest
>>>any observation comes is dry watercourses that look like natural features.
>>
>>What about pulsars as clear evidence of extra-stellar intelligence?
>>
> 
> What?  Where is this coming from and what does this have to do with anything?

   Drew is trying to impeach science by giving examples where data were
misinterpreted.  So far both his examples, while containing some historical
kernal of truth, have been worthless.

   When pulsars were discovered one of the _tentative_ ideas advanced (and
later withdrawn) was the L(ittle)G(reen)M(en) hypothisis.  Actually Drew
should be happy that, when faced with a new phenomenon, scientists will
briefly consider even pretty looney theories.  That gives his favorite
theory a sintilla of a chance should some evidence for it ever turn up.

   Drews ideas, while presented in an honest and forthright fashion, form
a stunning demonstration that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. 

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims)
Subject: Re: Why binary logic?
Organization: RL
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 19:32:51 GMT

In article <31AUG199209224286@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.144441.9547@lonex.rl.af.mil>, jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims) writes...
>>In article <27AUG199210063281@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>>It's been done, books and articles have been written on it.  Jan
>>>Lukasiewicz was the first to construct a three-valued logic, I
>>>believe (true, false, indeterminate).  Now there's also fuzzy
>>>logic, which has an infinite number of truth values (real numbers
>>>from 0 to 1).
>> 
>>An infinity of integer values is the same.  Logic base googleplex? 8^)
>>Of course, this can always be reduced to binary, and we're right back
>>where we started. 8^(. 
>
>The same what?  The cardinality of the natural numbers is not the same
>as the cardinality of the reals (between any two real numbers is another
>real).  The number of values there are is distinct from the base they're
>expressed in.
>
>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
>Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721
Pretty sloppy post on my part.  What was spinning through my mind
was the fact that trillions of distinctions (values) are unnecessary
for fuzzy logic, much less an infinity of distinctions.  The real
values have some practical delta between them, which can better
be expressed as an integer in computer implementations.  If the significant
difference is .00000001, then the equivalent integer 
would be 1 with 1.0 expressed as 10e8.  You can say "real number" 
till you're blue, but in the machine it's
still a stepwise, discrete entity, with roundoff at some number of
digits depending on the bitsize of the mantissa and characteristic fields.

Fuzzy logic does, mathematically, have an infinite set of values.  
In practical applications, there is an integer equivalent to the
range of values encountered.  The joke "base googleplex" is that there
would be a unique, single symbol for every actualizeable value in the fuzzy
set.  In sum, I meant that integers would do as well (or better) in
computer applications, not that integer and real inifinities were the
same.  I apologize for the stupid, unfunny joke, for the sloppy thinking,
for... I feel suicidal.



-- 
jft
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15343 talk.origins:10329
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:58:20 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug27.163943@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.151959.11603@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
>writes:

>> True.  I haven't seen any explicit attempts at disproving God's
>> existence.  But I have seen many postings with the attitude of "We have
>> explained this through science, without using God.  So God has nothing
>> to do with it."  That may not have been the intent of the posters, but
>> that is how some of them (the postings) come across.
>
>  If I am discussing the Sylow theorems with a friend and he says "what about
>your car" and I respond "my car has nothing to do with the Sylow theorems" would
>you accuse me of trying to disprove the existence of my car?  You are confusing
>necessity and existance.

Perhaps, but if God is not relevant to the question of the origin of
the world and the life thereon, where is God relevant?

Note:  athiests need not respond that God is never relevant.  I'm aware
       of that view.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15654 talk.origins:10565
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:06:57 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Aug29.100425.23259@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>Humans did not evolve *from* primates; we're still primates ...

It is not contradictory for humans to be primates and for humans to evolve
from primates, since primates may evolve from primates.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS (long)
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 07:49:58 GMT

In article <GERRY.92Aug24100703@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>Okay,
>Is there some one out there who knows what's going on?  If Deusberg is
>legitimate, why is he alone in his view?  Also, why does this article
>seemingly present a one-sided view of the story?

Given the fact that almost all (except for 100?) cases of AIDS are
associated with HIV infection I would have to say that he is full of
s**t. Why don't we see IV drug users who don't share needles coming
down with AIDS?
As usual with the quacks he tries to paint ACT-UP as the bad guys who
are somehow really at fault for AIDS.

Its time that people wake up and get a clue, all the quacks in the
world arn't worth one condom.

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
Subject: Re: Transactional Analysis
Keywords: Psychology, Transactional Analysis
Reply-To: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:17:33 GMT


Sometime ago I posted a request for info about Transactional Analysis 
in sci.psycology and saved all follow up articles and thought that, by 
posting the repplies that I got, might help you people that have been 
talking about  TA.  Right now I am inclined to believe that TA is 
trash *however* why do they teach it at Universities??? 

PS: I do not know whether I am breaking any NET etiquette by 
posting such a long article. If so, sorry folks...


Newsgroups: sci.psychology
From: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
Subject: Is TA real science?
Reply-To: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 14:41:58 GMT

I am sorry if the answer for this question is to obvious for people with 
a background in psychology but, since my background is in Physics, it 
may not be too obvious for me so, here it goes: 

	Is Transactional Analysis, TA, a real science?

I read a bunch of books about TA (Eric Bern et al.) and I got very 
excited about it *however* I noticed thatthe program of psychology at 
Old Dominion University does not have any course entitled 
Transactional Analyses.

Claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov 



Newsgroups: sci.psychology
news.larc.nasa.gov!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.e
du!ux1.cts.eiu.edu!cfaks
From: cfaks@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Alice Sanders)
Subject: Re: Is TA real science?
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 16:05:03 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Jul12.144158.4061@news.larc.nasa.gov> 
claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon) writes:
>I am sorry if the answer for this question is to obvious for people 
with 
>a background in psychology but, since my background is in Physics, 
it 
>may not be too obvious for me so, here it goes: 
>
>	Is Transactional Analysis, TA, a real science?
>
>I read a bunch of books about TA (Eric Bern et al.) and I got very 
>excited about it *however* I noticed thatthe program of psychology 
at 
>Old Dominion University does not have any course entitled 
>Transactional Analyses.
>
>Claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov 
>
>
>
It is a 'model', not a 'science'.  It would be more likely to be presented
as one of several models of intra- and interpersonal dynamics rather 
than
to be presented in a course by itself.  

Alice
news.larc.nasa.gov!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!daffodil!news.cs.odu.edu!
mccla_d
From: mccla_d@aethelbehrt.cs.odu.edu (dennis mcclain-furmanski)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: RE: Is TA Real Science
Date: 12 Jul 92 19:48:33 GMT
Distribution: sci.psychology
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov says:

> Old Dominion University does not have a course entitled 
Transactional 
> Analyses.

There wouldn't be room in the building for all the classes if each 
theory of therapeutic interaction were to have its own course. You 
could call
the office at 683-4439 and see if any of the courses cover it. Be 
forewarned,
you'll get secretaries who'll try to tell you to buy the course catalog 
and
look in there. Simply insist on speaking to someone who can answer 
the 
question.

I can only recall one class here which mentioned it - psych 412: 
theories of
personality. But then I took a good piece of my schooling at Purdue 
and so I
missed out on what they had here.

As for the answer to your question:

> Is Transactional Analysis, TA, a real science?

You'll probably get several different definite answers, all from people 
with
different operating definitions of 'a real science'. The carnage will 
then 
ensue. Even though I usually enjoy it, I'm on vacation and not up to 
form. 
Just expect multiple certainties.

You could also call ODU and speak with Dr. Janet Sanchez in order to 
ask if the
Psy. D. program has anything on TA. She's the contact person at 
ODU. The 
classes are split between here, Norfolk State, William & Mary, and 
Eastern 
Virginia Medical School.


[]  <-- Micro.sig!  Prevent ASCII shortages : get yours today!
state.edu!mips!mips!rtech!ingres!jpk
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Is TA real science?
Date: 13 Jul 92 05:16:57 GMT
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda 
CA 94501

Claudio Egalon asks: "Is Transactional Analysis, TA, a real science?"

To my knowledge Berne did no science, real or faked.

-- Jon
--
Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 13:26:30 PDT
From: acker@tfs.COM (Jim Acker)
Message-Id: <9207182026.AA11527@ts2.TFS.COM>
To: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Is TA real science?
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Organization: TRW Financial Systems


		TA is not a science per se, but rather a personality theory -a
description of how communication styles interact.  It was popular 
when first 
advanced by Berne but has few followers today.  It really doesn't 
further an 
understanding of people.  In order for it to be viewed as science it 
would 
require a validity and predictability that it comes nowhere close to 
having.  
Don't spend money to go to a TA workshop.


					-Pete Caldwell-

					reply through Jim Acker
news.larc.nasa.gov!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!wupost!gum
by!destroyer!ais.org!shl
From: shl@ais.org (Stephen Landman)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Is TA real science?
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:01:36 GMT
Organization: UMCC

In article <1992Jul12.144158.4061@news.larc.nasa.gov> 
claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon) writes:
>I am sorry if the answer for this question is to obvious for people 
with 
>a background in psychology but, since my background is in Physics, 
it 
>may not be too obvious for me so, here it goes: 
>
>	Is Transactional Analysis, TA, a real science?
>
>I read a bunch of books about TA (Eric Bern et al.) and I got very 
>excited about it *however* I noticed thatJthe program of psychology 
at 
>Old Dominion University does not have any course entitled 
>Transactional Analyses.
>
>Claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov 
>
>
>


TA is little more than a form of "pop psychology"; it is not
scientific.  It combines some loose psychodynamic concepts
(ego states) with an emphasis on the nature of a person's
interactions with other people.  While this may help some
people identify, undertand better, and modify some of their
own interpersonal behaviors, most of a person's behaviors,
feelings, conflicts, etc. are not represented in the TA
model.  TA is inadequate as a form of psychotherapy, as are
most simplistic approaches (such as rational-emotive or
strict behavioral models).
barr!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-
state.edu!mips!mips!rtech!ingres!jpk
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Is TA real science?
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:39:15 GMT
<Brq3Aq.614@ais.org>
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda 
CA 94501

Stephen Landman writes:
> TA is inadequate as a form of psychotherapy, as are
> most simplistic approaches (such as rational-emotive or
> strict behavioral models).

How do you define "adequate as a form of psychotherapy"?
What measures of adequacy does TA fall below?  How far?

-- Jon
--
Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com
state.edu!wupost!uunet!tnc!m0054
From: m0054@tnc.UUCP (TERILEE EDWARDS)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Is TA real science?
Date: 22 Jul 92 04:57:09 GMT
<Brq3Aq.614@ais.org> <1992Jul21.053915.19641@pony.Ingres.COM>
Reply-To: m0054@tnc.UUCP (TERILEE EDWARDS)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.

In article <1992Jul21.053915.19641@pony.Ingres.COM> 
jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes:
>Stephen Landman writes:
>> TA is inadequate as a form of psychotherapy, as are
>> most simplistic approaches (such as rational-emotive or
>> strict behavioral models).
>
>How do you define "adequate as a form of psychotherapy"?
>What measures of adequacy does TA fall below?  How far?
>
>Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  

TA is as valid a form of therapy as any other.
It uses mythic and personal relationships as a way to look at what is
happening (nd why) is someone's life.
  Eric Berne was a psychiatrist, well tained.  It is certainly as vali
valid a theory as RET, Rogeran, or any other theories tht started in
the 1950s (or eariler) and gained popularity in the '60s and '70s.
  There is at least one excellent psych joural devoted to TA.
To the person who was looking for graduate courses in TA, 
ranaactional
Analysis was convered in the graduate Systems of Psychotherapy class,
my first year.
Another interesting note is thatA makes references to Joseph Cambee
Campbell and because of t, lad to my interests in reding Jung.
  Hope this sheds some info on the subject.
ciao, Terilee
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - 
Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
news.larc.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!mips!mips!rtech!in
gres!jpk
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: Is TA real science?
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
<Brq3Aq.614@ais.org> <1992Jul21.053915.19641@pony.Ingres.COM> 
<1454@tnc.UUCP>
Date: 23 Jul 92 03:56:11 GMT

TERILEE EDWARDS writes:
> TA is as valid a form of therapy as any other.

Then "valid", "therapy", and "form of therapy" are meaningless.

-- Jon

Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com  







Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:23:54 GMT

alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen) writes:

[on the subject of how to save good people from atheist homosexual communists
 who like anchovies]

>3. Contact the Flat Earth Society (I don't have the address handy, but
>   I posted it a while ago).  They will provide you with materials and
>   show you how to fight the evil humanistic belief that the earth is
>   round with true evidence and Biblical information that shows otherwise.

I've heard of these people, but I always assumed it was a joke.  Do they
_really_ think the Earth is flat?  How many of them are there?
-- 
Josh Hopkins                    Friends don't let friends derive drunk
		     j-hopkins@uiuc.edu
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:07:26 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Aug27.191224.13309@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.202739.12738@lsil.com> gascan@dcst16.dc writes:
>>In article 12915@city.cs, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>
>
>>The two statements above are the most telling proof that the author doesn't have
>>a clue as to what he's talking about.  It is logically and philosophically impossible
>>to prove a theory true.
>
>Far be it for me to defend Lionel Tun (that isn't what I'm doing
>anyway), but what is your response to those who scream that evolution
>is a "proven fact"?

But it *is*. It has been *observed*.

What you are referring to is the theory of evolution which, surprise, is
a theory.

By the way. Do you consider gravity 'just a theory'? Before answering
please think about it a bit.
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   cust_ts@kruuna.helsinki.fi)                  00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15752 talk.origins:10664
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Evolution and God: a true statement
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 01:21:56 GMT

In article <rabjab.58.0@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>
>     The subjects of God and Evolution are partially inaccesible
>     to scientific investigation.  Therefore, we will never have
>     a complete scientific theory of either.

No it isn't!!!

My latest job assignment is writting a truck routing program for a
greenhouse. I'm expermenting with genetic algorithms (evolution in 
a computer), and they work, its not theory, its practical it works
and its paying my rent!
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15604 alt.alien.visitors:6277 talk.religion.newage:4163