HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:08:56 GMT

In article <1ij9ndINN48o@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.060050.9321@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>|> In article <1iatk6INNij4@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?

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Rising sea level-- Yes, it's happened many times.
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 04:44:52 GMT

batman@apple.apple.com (Ken Laws) writes:

>Part 2: my friend said he'd heard of "geological evidence" of the ocean level
>rising a couple hundred feet sometime during humanity's existence. Sounds
>like creationist pseudo-science to me. Anyone know where this idea came from?

During each ice age, a significant portion of the Earth's water is trapped
on the northern continents, enough to lower sea level just a bit.
Shorelines move outward, and the Berring "Straight" becomes dry land.  This
is how humanity first came to the Americas.  During each interglacial,
the ice melts and the sea level rises.  Evidence of this includes phenomenon
like fjords (valleys carved by glaciers, now filled with sea water) and
estuaries (much the same thing, only a river valley is invaded by the sea).
These features would not have formed while the sea was at its present
level.  I'm sure a geologist could give better examples.

Paul Ciszek                      When we are planning for posterity, we
                                 ought to remember that virtue is not
pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu            hereditary.     --Thomas Paine
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,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: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:26:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.134633.1868@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <C0D4Au.Cqr@ecf.toronto.edu> vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:
>>Your last statement is of the worst type of argument- diversionary and
>>misleading.  There is no mention or need to mention 'balance' or 'politically
>>incorrect' or 'bigotry'.  The point is being made about how fucked up and 
>>pathetic the Catholic Church is/has been.  Why the hell would anyone want
>>to balance this with how fucked up and pathetic the Soviet Union was.  Where
>>is the connection?  Take a vallium.  The point here was about the CATHOLIC
>
>If someone is trying to make the claim that the evils in the world
>are the result of the Christian religion itself, then it makes
>sense to point out that similar evils have been committed by
>people who do not espouse such religious views.  Thus it is very
>relevant.
>

N O . Two wrongs don't make it right. I agree with you a bit if somebody
is saying religion is _the_ cause of 'evil', but if you're saying
religion isn't to be blamed of anything just because something else can
be blamed too, you really are twisted.

>>the two popes.  Then the Catholic Church of Canada ( or whatever proper 
>>name ) covered up that child abuse ( MANY cases ) in the 60's and in some
>>cases even left the priests in positions of trust ( and preaching ) where
>>the destroyed more children's lives.  I think its fair to say the CHURCH is
>>fucked up and pathetic, and considering this, I would put little
>>trust or better yet 'faith' in anything they say.  And a final point.  I don't
>
>Perhaps you have never heard that ad hominem arguments are a
>logical fallacy?  This old argument that Christianity is flawed
>because some of its members erred is false.  Quoting misdeeds of

That is not the point. The point is that Christianity, or some other
religion, guarantees _nothing_ in terms of behaviour.

Finally, does this thread really belong in sci.skeptic?

	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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:57:44 GMT

In article <1il19uINN22m@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>Well, if it isn't about morals, and if we don't think much of your
>supernaturalism, what's left for you to post to alt.atheism about?
>
>jon.

I'm sorry if I was posting to alt.atheism.  I ran across this thread
in sci.skeptic and didn't realize it was being sent to alt.atheism.  I 
think it would be pretty dispicable to upload pro-Christian messages to
alt.atheism and I'll see if I can figure out how to stop doing that.
Sorry.

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jb8285@medtronic.COM (Jeffrey R. Brown)
Subject: Re: Dvorak faster than QWERTY?
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:33:53 GMT

Mark Schnitzius (schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu) wrote:
> I heard there is some doubt as to whether using a
> Dvorak keyboard actually makes any significant impact
> on typing speed.  Can anyone confirm or deny that it
> is actually faster? [I am currently reading a Stephen
> Jay Gould article called "The Panda'a Thumb of Tech-
> nology", about the QWERTY keyboard].

I had read (sorry - I don't remember where) that much of the
experimental evidence had been falsified.  Apparently there was some
financial reason for Dvorak and others to make fraudulent claims of
vast increases in speed.

On the other hand, I have used a Dvorak keyboard, and I type faster
using it.  But I don't type very fast anyway.  

It may be that the Dvorak keyboard does permit faster typing but that
the increase is not significant, or that for professional typists, or
those who type a great deal, the speed difference is less than for
beginners or amateurs.

--
"The comments and opinions expressed above are mine and do not necessarily
represent the official position or views of Medtronic, Inc."
Jeffrey R. Brown
Internet: jeffrey.brown@medtronic.com             Voice: 1-612-574-4698
UUCP:     uunet!medtron!jb8285                    FAX:   1-612-574-6150
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Psychics' Predictions Fizzle For 1992
Summary: It was a hoot!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:24:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.231655.12160@cs.unca.edu>, kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
> >do you really think people actually believe this obvious entertainment?
> 
> I'd say they do.  Aren't "psychics" sometimes used by the police or
> is that bull*** dished out by the cons who call themselves psychics?
> 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.

marc colten

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN)
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:46:47 GMT

In article <C0LwJ6.4K7@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[A repost from dnelson@icaen.uiowa.edu (David Nelson) in
>alt.sexual.abuse.recovery. I posted a note in
>alt.sexual.abuse.recovery suggesting that sci.skeptic is the best
>place for a debate on this topic.]
>===================================================
>[dnelson@icaen.uiowa.edu (David Nelson) writes:]
>
>Jean Riseman <agape@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
> ...
> I am a ritual abuse survivor. I am 55 years old, and have been miserable all 
> all my life. I had these weird thoughts and reactions and no
> explanations for them. No therapist put thoughts in my head in 
> 1945, I can tell you. Of course, after all thewse years, I have no "proof"
> that the atrocities were committed, exccept for my symptoms and memories.
>
>And that may be all the proof that ever is available, but it *is*
>enough to convince me.  We aren't talking about a court of law here,
>we're talking about validating a fellow survivor's pain.
  
  I think there's something in the first posting about anecdotal evidence.
>
>
>People are afraid to admit (1) that humans are capable of such
>atrocities and (2) that it might happen in their very own hometown.
>Those who are quick to disbelieve ritual abuse survivors are (a)
>sweeping aside the weight of psychological principles, and (b)
>filtering the evidence to support a version of reality that creates
>the least discomfort.
>
>
>I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, but I *am* certainly jaded
>after having witnessed account after account from friends who had been
>raped by parents, other relatives, husbands, and dates.  Having seen
>that quantity and intensity of pain, I no longer am capable of
>disbelieving in ritual abuse and the like.  And I am keenly aware of
>the human need to deny the dark side of human nature.
>
>
>Infer motivations by observing behavior!  *Why* do people need to
>disbelieve in ritual abuse?  And what purpose is served supposing that
>the survivors *did* concoct the stories?  Think!!
  
   Why do people seem to want to believe in the stories?  Skepticism doesn't
try to serve any purpose except the pursuit of truth.
   People as often look for the bad as the good in people.  Sick things will
be accepted without thought as often as nice things

From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:52:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Satans E-mail.
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic

John...I'm your friend too..  

Please send my letter:


Dear Satan:

	 I need money.  Please send me lots.

			       Thank-you.



Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:37:09 GMT

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.

>
>jon.


-- 
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
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: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:51:59 GMT

In article <93004.025534U16244@uicvm.uic.edu> David James Alexander Hanley 
<U16244@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:



 >  Also mentioning how the churches were allowed to survive under
 >German control reminds me of these interestign stories I heard about
 >priests divulging confessional information to the secret police
 >that might get people killed.  Niiiiccceee.

Quite possibly this did happen.  On the other hand, to balance the picture a 
bit, let me quote Elie Wiesel:

	Within the system of the concentration camp, something very strange 
	took place.  The first to give in, the first to collaborate -- to 
	save their lives -- were the intellectuals, the liberals, the 
	humanists, the professors of sociology, and the like.  Because 
	suddenly their whole concept of the universe broke down.  They 
	had nothing to lean on.  Very few Communists gave in.  There were
	some, but very few.  They had their own church-like organization -- 
	a secular church, but very well organized.  They were the 
	resistors.  Even fewer to give in were the Catholic priests.  
	There were very few priests who, when the chips were down, gave in 
	and collaborated with the torturer.  Yet there were exceptions.  
	But you could not have found one single rabbi -- *I dare you* -- 
	among all the *kapos* or among any of the others who held 
	positions of power in the camps. 

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.  
-- 
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,alt.atheism
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: California to be Destroyed May 8, Nostradamus Says
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:11:21 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.

>at that point they started checking the verse with some questions/names
>they thought they could be involved with, and got some text, which
>surprisingly looked like language of today.

Funny, isn't it: start with medieval French and get modern colloquial 
German/English/whatever. Now you must deal not only with Nostradamus'
nonsense, but also with whatever slant the translator put into it.

Remember back in the late '60s and '70s? Everyone was sure that old
N. had predicted that first Bobby (until he died, oops) and then
Teddy Kennedy would become President of the U.S. Funny how those 
"predictions" don't get mentioned anymore...



Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 13:02:50 GMT

In article <2935160933.4.p00168@psilink.com> "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>>>|> 
>>>|> His regime and his government, however, were not founded on
>>>|> Christian values.  That is the point that was being made (although
>>>|> I agree that Hitler's "religion" can cloud the issue).  I don't
>>>|> know of any Christian denomination at the time of Hitler that
>>>|> espoused the killing of non-Christians as even remotely following
>>>
>>>So the Pope was not a Christian? (You deleted my line "- Pope Pius IX (?) 
>>>was the first one to make contracts with Hitler.")
>>
>>What do you mean by making contracts with Hitler?  Do you mean the
>>the Pope made a contract with Hitler to kill non-Christians or to
>>espouse the superiority of the Aryan race?
>>
>>>
>>>|> Christ.  I won't even mention the superiority of one race over
>>>|> another, etc.  Therefore the beliefs and actions of his regime are
>>>|> in direct contradiction to the faith he claimed to have as well
>>>|> the teachings of Christ.  Quoting his belief in a God doesn't
>>>
>>>Probably _any_ beliefs or actions  ar in contradiction to "the(sic!) teachings
>>>of Christ" because these teachings are contradictive by itself and/or subject
>>>to contradictive interpretation. Hence, nobody is a Christian.
>>
>>Sorry, this is pure nonsense.  Hitler's actions were not only in
>>direct violation of Jesus's teaching but also against the law and
>>norms of the RC Church in his day as well as today.  If you would
>>like Scriptural and/or RC canon law references, I would be happy
>>to do so, although we probably should continue such an exchange in
>>another forum such as Email.
>>
>>-- 
>>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
>
>Sorry, this is pure quibbling.  What in the world does violation of 
>JC's or the RC's teaching have to do with Pope Pius IX making deals with 
>Hitler?  Though it would be a surprise to see anything of substance 
>from your side of the aisle, this particular tack supports one of the arguments  
>raised against you, i.e. that Xians do not follow the teachings of JC 
>and that we cannot look to the New Testament for a definition of Xian. 

Go back and read what this "quibling" was in response to.  I
believe that you are not following the thread very closely.

>
> /666;    ',    jim tims



-- 
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,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
From: kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:40:55 GMT

In article <63321@mimsy.umd.edu> 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.

I have my doubts about it too, but I'm not really sure I'm qualified
to make the judgement.  I don't think therapy would do *me* any 
good <grin>, but I don't know enough about it to dismiss it completely.
You do need to recognize that even if the therapists are wrong and
bad scientists, most of them (I think) are at least trying to do
their work in a scientific manner.

On the other hand, even though I think Freud's methods have ended
up to be pretty much a waste of time, I still think Freud was a 
valuable thinker and I agree with many of his thoughts.

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN)
Subject: Re: Characterization of quack theories
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Distribution: sci.sceptic
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:56:23 GMT

   As a student, I've got to say that most of the science education
I recieved, especially at the lower levels, was totally facts and
regurgitation, and very little critical thought.  Most of even the
best science and engineering students around couldn't give you a good
explanation of the scientific method or the general philosophy of 
science.
   I've also recieved some of the best education around (or I like to
think so), and, while I've learned a lot more about real science than 
your average student, I've mainly been rewarded for memorizing fact and
not thinking about what it means.  So the "bad" teachers are hardly a small
subset.
  Solutions?  I wish I had some.

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: Re: California to be Destroyed May 8, Nostradamus Says
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:57:39 GMT

In article <C0rCI2.1JL@brunel.ac.uk>, cs89ssg@brunel.ac.uk (Sunil Gupta) writes:

|> yup and if you look closely in one of the quatrains theres a rhyme about some
|> prince of Persia who is defeated in a war, only to seek revenge two years
|> later. I wouldnt call Sadders a prince, but it is two years later and he has
|> just put made his SAMs operational.

	I also wouldn't call him a Persian.

-- 
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
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Robert Jahn
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:09:18 GMT

In article <1611@rand.mel.cocam.oz.au>, pjd@cocamrd.mel.cocam.oz.au (Pat Dooley) writes:
|> I recently saw a bit of a TV program on a Robert Jahn of Princeton who claimed
|> to be able to demonstrate that people could influence random events. THe show
|> showed a couple of experiments, one involving beads (?) and another involving
|> some electronic kit. My recollection is hazy but I wonder if anyone can tell me
|> more about Jahn?
|> 
|> 

This sounds somewhat garbled.  I, too, would welcome more authoratative
comment on any significant recent Jahniana.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism