HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Xerox Is Satanic!
Date: 14 Oct 92 07:16:36 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992

Tag: Erik Radmall (eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com)
And: James J. Lippard (lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu)
And: David Rice
Re: Lauren Stratford's _Satan's Underground_
 
JLL> "This new edition features cover blurbs from such people
JLL> as Hal Lindsey [...]"
 
DR> Whom I have on audio tape as saying the the Xerox photocopier
DR> was invented by Satan, planted in the sleeping mind of the
DR> human inventor. His proof is that no one is that smart without
DR> infernal help.
    
ER> "This should go over well with my buddies at the office!"
 
What, you mean you're not in on the Conspiracy?! Crap--- I gave
away the secret: they'll roast me in hell for that!
 
When I first listened to Hal's tape, I busted out laughing
so hard I spewed some of the softdrink I was drinking all over 
my desk and inhaled the rest, and spent the next ten minutes 
retching, gagging and laughing my guts out, trying to breathe.
I told another person, who collects and distributes info on
the "Satanic Crime Conspiracy" about it, and she didn't believe
me until I gave her the tape.
 
From the same church that gave me that tape, I also got one
by Mike Warnke, who made so many silly claims one would have
thought he was trying to make all Christians look bad.
 
ER> J. Erik Radmall                    | Xerox Corp.
ER> eradm@brahms.wbst845e.xerox.com    | Knowledge-Based Systems

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: The Psychology of Skepticism (Was Re: Faith and sceptics.)
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:23:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.074959.26981@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes in part:
|> The guy who keeps static and just protects himself, using skepticism as a
|> psychological mask, retards progress.

*Straw man alert*

Give me an example of someone who does this.  Most of the "static" 
people I know of "protect" themselves with absolute ideologies, such 
as religions, which absolve them from any thought at all.  

Show me a person who: 1) "uses skepticism to avoid being wrong", 
2) does so for psycho-dynamic reasons (rather than pragmatic or
institutional ones), 3) "keeps static" (whatever that might mean)
because of this and 4) retards "progress" (whatever that might mean),
and 5) "retards progress" because of their "skpeticism" (rather
than more global reasons such as lack of motivation).

Puh-lease.  Do we really have to have all of this BS pseudo-psychology
here?  What is the point?

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fwd: Astrology: Scientific Research (Was Re: Doubters Of Astrology)
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:51:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com writes:
>that the
>question of belief or non-belief is based entirely on an emotional
>predisposition rather than on any rational thought.

A scientist believes that cause and effect are related through physical laws.

Someone who believes in astrology is not interested in why the supposed
cause is related to the effect.

Therefore, astrology is based on faith and the two sides have nothing to say
to each other.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Focus on Crucifiction (was: Cruxed for Prophecy?)
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:26:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.184446.23437@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
>Then what is? Why were the authors of Matthew and Luke unhappy with
>this passage? I can think of no other plausible explanation. This
>is the only part of Mark's crucifixion narrative they both left out.
>In general, those authors frequently added material, but were reluctant
>to delete (especially Matthew). 
>
>John Ata seems to think that Jesus SHOULD have died this quickly. If so,
>why was Pilate depicted as being surprised?

Maybe time went by fast for Pilate (with the earthquake that just
occurred) and so when this Joseph fellow came to claim the body he
said "Geez, is the man dead already?" Since all we can do is
speculate, then I'm sure you can use your imagination to come up
with some plausible explanations probably better than I could. 

>  
>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Faith Healing (Was: Reincarnation)
Organization: just me
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 18:36:11 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skrptic

In article <1432@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>
>	Once again, our modern skeptic blindly refuses to accept
>the ancient distinction between superstition and piety."Superstitious" was
>always a term of disdain. It is only in recent times that "pious" also became
>a term of scorn.

     Hi Bill!  Being a skeptic myself, and hopefully modern, I wanted to
point out that, while this distinction is reasonable, it is only in the 
last hundred years that science has been accused of being a religion.  This
is nearly the same thing as equating piety with superstition, and may account
for the vehemence found on both sides.

     A disturbing number of people feel that science threatens their right
to believe as they will, and others feel that beliefs necessarily must map
one-to-one with observed reality.  Good thing there is a middle ground.

     I really wonder about the folks who seek to crush science with religion,
or vice-versa.  I personally would not want to live in Khomeini's Iran, or
Khrushchev's Soviet Union.  Before we take too hardline a stance, folks,
it is worth remembering what fanatics have already accomplished in that
direction.

     Just a thought, for all of us.  Kind of like, live and let live, maybe?

	David Pipes
robear@digex.com - email welcomed
Nomex is a trademark of DuPont, right? :-)

>
>	Bill R.
>
>	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
>government agency."
>-- 
>Bill R.


Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:18008 soc.men:17779 soc.women:17775 alt.feminism:2610
From: mason@cco.caltech.edu (Richard Mason)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Repressed Memories, Ruined Lives
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:30:21 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: globie.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct15.033758.20465@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>        Bill  and Kathleen Swan seem  to  be  a  very 
>        typical,  church-going, middle-class American couple. However,  a 
>        day  care  worker who had prviously been fired from  several  day 
>        care  centers because of an apparent obsession with child  abuse, 
>        interpreted  (on  her  first full day  of  employment  there)  an 
>        ambiguous  statement by the Swan's 3 1/2 year-old daughter as  an 
>        indication  of  sexual  abuse by her parents,  and  called  Child 
>        Protective  Services.  Despite  an  absolute  lack  of  any  real 
>        evidence, the Swans were unable to prove themselves innocent, and 
>        are now in prison.

Cf. the incident in the Orkney Islands (north coast of Scotland) a year or
so ago, when a social worker decided that half the inhabitants of a small
island (<1000 people, I think) were engaged in Satanic rituals.  (The
alleged Satanists included the island's elderly minister.)

A number of families first learned that they were under suspicion of
Diabolical Evil when the police knocked on their doors one night and
took away all of their children.  The children were taken away somewhere
and the parents were denied contact with them.

Let me assure anybody who is inclined to believe in ubiquitous sinister
cults that the absurdity of people dancing naked on an Orkney hillside
(approximately the same latitude as Alaska or Leningrad) is alone
enough to render the accusation improbable.

Do any U.K. readers know how that case ended?
                                                    -- Richard Mason
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Subject: Re: Re: Faith and skeptics.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:47:26 GMT
Reply-To: chris@kbsw3.UUCP (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

re reindeer flying, I am told that the US Air Force tracks
Santa and his reindeer in every Christmas Eve. I guess the Sleigh
isn't sufficiently stealth. I also saw a headline in one of the
tablids claiming that the Soviet Union has threatened to 
shoot down Santa Claus. There does seem to be much anecdotal
evidence that some reindeer can fly.

(For the humor impaired, :-) :-) )

Chris Kostanick
"Santa! There's a MIG on our tail! Break left NOW!"
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Date: 12 Oct 92 09:32:12 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <1992Oct11.184801.21526@engage.pko.dec.com> pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson) writes:

>	(Is the Tunguska event on the FAQ list???)

Not yet, but if anyone wants to send me the details then I will gladly
add it.

The FAQ gets reposted next week.

Paul.



-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17674 rec.org.mensa:7234
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Fwd: Astrology: Scientific Research (Was Re: Doubters Of Astrology)
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:13:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Oct8.191346.8475
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <1992Oct8.174014.7047@rhrk.uni-kl.de>, kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes in part:
|> 
|> My anti-skeptic model applies again.  (I used it in another thread already.)
|> The way Eric and others appear to be thinking:
|> 
|>  1) I am right.
|>  2) This skeptic says I'm wrong.
|>  3) Then he must be wrong.
|>  4) What could have induced him to say wrong things?
|>    a) He is closed-minded.
|>    b) He doesn't know anything about the subject.
|>    c) He is part of a conspiracy to hide the truth.
|>    d) In reality he shares my opinion, but peer pressure makes him oppose.
|>    e) Huuii, look at his chart!  (astrologers only)
|>    f) He only wants to have an argument.
|>    g) He is caught in reductionist/rationalist/positivist/... thinking.
|>    h) He thinks science has found everything there is to find.
|>    etc.  (Who knows more?)
|>  5) So I don't have to listen to him.
|> 
|> The paragraph above was an instance of 4b).
|> 
|> >out to be witches. The ignorance of those opposed is no warrant to receive
|> 			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^4b) again.

When faced with a 4b, I often want to quote one of my favorite philosophers:
  "What make you so sure I don't know what I'm talking about?" 
	(quoted from the immortal words of Robert E. McGrath)

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jeffj@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (jeffrey.n.jones)
Subject: Dinosaurs and man co-existed at one time?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:24:04 GMT

A friend of mine and his wife came over to dinner the other night. We got
into a intense discussion on politics and I said to her, that's like saying
that the world was created in 7 days. To which she responded with dead 
serious "Oh but it was!". I said how do you explain dinosaurs. She said 
that there were numerous cases of where dinosaurs co-existed with man and 
mentioned the famous footprint with dinosaur tracks. I told her that has since
been disproven which she shrugged off. Now the obvious question, has there
been any new evidence that could possibly show that we had dinosaurs as
roommates at one time? Always been totally mystified by the creationalists.

Jeff
-- 
 Jeff Jones  AB6MB         |      If we do not succeed,
 jeffj@seeker.mystic.com   |      then we run the risk of failure.
 Infolinc BBS 415-778-5929 |      Vice Pres. Dan Quayle
From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:47:57 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1blbhbINNike@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:

>You seem to be ignoring the fact that the smaller the body, the higher the
>surface/volume ratio, hence the faster the percentage rate of evaporation of

Is this the new math?

>the comet.  I.e., small comets would be expected to have very short lives, so
>it would seem unlikely that there would be very many small comets, compared to
>large comets.

In fact, the observational evidence is that "small" comets greatly outnumber
"large" comets.  But it all depends on your definition of "small" and "large".
It has been many years since a "large" comet like West in 1976 came along,
but dozens of small, telescopic comets are discovered every year.

Furthermore, the cometary fragments responsible for meteor showers are
extremely numerous.  Interpolation would lead one to assume that there
are probably large numbers of bodies intermediate in size between
shower meteroids and the smallest observed comets.

_________________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier					Mitel Corporation
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Need place to stay in Dallas
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:46:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I'm planning to attend the 1992 CSICOP conference this weekend in Dallas
(Friday, Saturday, and Sunday at the Harvey Hotel).  As a starving grad
student, I can't afford to fly there or to stay at a hotel.  Are there any
Dallas-based skeptics reading this group who are willing to let me sleep
on a couch or floor in your home, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and possibly
Sunday nights?  I have my own transportation and will take care of my own
food; all I need is a place to sleep.
   If you're willing to put me up, please contact me ASAP.  For the drive
from Tucson, I'm going to have to leave tomorrow (Wednesday).

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Addiction (Was Re: Soul)
Date: 13 Oct 1992 15:55:50 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct13.145835.19569@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>My point was that the nature of at least some addictions is "I can stop
>>whenever I want to enough.  For the time being, I don't want to stop that
>>badly."
>
>You are attempting to define addiction as a voluntary thing, and as I
>understand it, it is not, regardless of how it started.
>
>If you -can- stop, then by definition, you are not addicted. If you
>cannot, then you are. 

In that case, I must be extremely unusual, having smoked at least two packs of
cigarettes a day for over a dozen years without becoming addicted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Where is it?
Date: 4 Oct 92 07:31:01 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

In <9210021632.AA25744@echidna.swdc.stratus.com> lpb@STRATUS.SWDC.STRATUS.COM (Len Bucuvalas) writes:
>For 2 days now...my site has not received any updated files from sci.skeptic.

Would someone please fix the alt.conspiracy.jfk filter?!?
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     My haircut is totally traditional!
 |warren@      
/ nysernet.org
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:14:28 GMT
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


>One of the interesting things about the Tunguska event is the complete absence
>of solid meteorite-associated debris.  I remember one theory (I don't remember
>the source, or how reputable it was) that the object was made of frozen
>volatiles.

...sometimes called a "comet". Not exactly a bizarre or crazy idea.
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Face on Mars An Other Time
Keywords: Richard owes me $100.00
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:59:47 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Oct7.162610.12487@odin.corp.sgi.com> rodb@slugo.corp.sgi.com (Rod Beckwith) writes:

>Richard,
>I accept your offer. I agree with all conditions to this bet. I hope you
>don't make this bet with too many people.....It could get quite expensive
>for you. 

You're the third. Anyone else out there want to make an easy $100? C'mon!
Put up or shut up, eh?
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: METEOR OVER SIBERIA-1908
Date: 12 Oct 92 10:21:41 EST

In article <n0bb5t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Jean-Francois.Beaulieu@f128.n167.z1.fidonet.org writes:
> In 1908, a meteorite exploded above the siberian toundra and blasted the
> trees below. The way trees were blasted suggest an explosion 100 meters
> above the ground. I believe also that their was something strange with
> the path of the meteor once it came into the atmosphere. I read few
> years ago few different explanations, even including a UFO!, but I don't
> know what's the most convincing explanation up to now. Any idea?
> 
Of course.  It was a time warped Pleiadian space ship who captain was
attempting a hardware interface to the (at that time) nonexistant Internet.  He
miscalibrated his time-o-meter.


GXKambic
standard Tunguska meteorite disclaimer

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Artificial movement of trees
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:15:51 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Oct14.084718.20664@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rberg@nyx.cs.du.edu (rosemarie berg) writes:

>
>(5) by giving the trees an electrical shock?

A sufficiently large electric shock will cause the tree to
explode, thereby causing movement of all the trunk, branches,
and leaves.  Lightning comes to mind.

___________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier				Mitel Corporation
From: bbs.barfeau@GOONSQUAD.SPIES.COM (David Fox)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: May 5, 2000 interesting date?
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:00:31 GMT
Organization: Spies in the wire, information co-op -- (408) 867-7400

I'm new to this newsgroup so I am not sure if this subject has been
discussed before.
 
Sometime back, I recall hearing about a book entitled "5/5/2000." It
proposes significant changes to the Earth's axial tilt on that date
presumably due to a unique alignment of the planets.
 
I haven't read the book - anyone know much more about this?  I think
I might read the book on 5/6/2000, and laugh out loud. :)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17803 alt.alien.visitors:7345
Date: Sunday, 11 Oct 1992 15:17:54 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Travis Walton "Abduction" (was: UFOS and BOOMY IN THE NIGHT)
Distribution: World

someone gave the amazing randy as an example of a close-minded skeptic.
i have only seen him once, but the impression that i got was far from
close-minded.

for example, at the end of the show, he said something like, "what did we
prove here tonight? we did not prove that dowsing does not work.  we did
not prove that people can't see auras.  we did not prove that astrologers
cannot tell what signs people are. [...and so on...]  all we proved tonight
was that under these conditions, with these people, tonight specifically,
these phenomenon did not work.  that is not to say that they will not work
tomorrow, or did not work yesterday."

that doesn't sound all that close-minded to me.



Newsgroups: sci.skeptic