HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Unidentified Flaming Objects -- ball lightning?
Date: 15 Dec 1992 23:23:53 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <2933271227.0.p00168@psilink.com>, "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>I can make nothing of your last sentence.  Why would anyone's skepticism,
>merited or not, be ammunition for pseudoscientists?

Apparently you've missed McElwaine's (or however you spell his name) posts that
start out with quotations from various people expressing skepticism about
powered aircraft and spaceflight.  He then uses the fact that aircraft and
spaceflight both ended up being feasible to defend his perpetual claim to the
existence of perpetual motion machines.  E.g., The "They laughed at ..."
syndrome.

>Are you suggesting
>that to doubt a given theory or fact would allow charlatans to make a claim
>such as "Scientists doubt theory of evolution." in order to put their
>own doubly-doubted nonsense at the same level?

No.  It'll just be one more case they can list in the "They laughed at ..."
litany.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21443 alt.folklore.urban:31397 alt.atheism:23823 alt.feminism:6139
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.urban,alt.atheism,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Hypnosis and Repression (was Ritual Abuse Taskforce....)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 20:56:24 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <rlewis.724193757@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>, rlewis@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca (Robert Lewis) writes:
=I believe that I have heard that most/all purported cases of satanic
=ritual have been 'discovered' via hypnosis and that the are memories
=which are claimed to have been repressed due to the supposedly horrific
=nature of the events.  Two questions:
=
=1)  Is there any 'objective' evidence for the repression of horrific
=memories?  I wonder about this because it seems that only certain sorts
=of events (like ritual abuse) come up in the context of such repression
=whereas others, such as having been in a concentration camp (which
=surely is at least as horrific) never do.

Unless I'm mistaken, hysterical amnesia is an uncommon, but by no means
unknown, affliction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: Hoagland?  What's the deal?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University Cyclotron Facility - Bloomington, Indiana
Distribution:  world
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:26:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.145633.15270@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>, mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes...

>(Weren't these called Ley Lines once upon a time?).

Yes.

> 
>I actually bought his book a couple of months ago.  I figured if I

What is the title of his new (updated) book?

>He also claims that the only reason the Mars Observer has a camera
>is too investigate the "face" and that NASA knows something but
>is keeping the public in the dark.

Does Hoagland present any "evidence" as to why he believes this?

> 
>Anyway, to answer your question, there's no new information unless you
>consider the ratio of angles from groups of rocks to other groups of
>rocks to be significant.  We have two pictures of something that
>looks similar to face.  We'll just have to wait and hope that the MO
>gets a shot of it.

What I dread is that NASA/JPL may claim that they could not get a shot
of the Cydonia region.  This is entirely possible.

The unfortunate part of this is that their failure to image that region
with MO will be taken as further fuel to the conspiracy of silence.

So, I would think that it would be in their best interest, if there
is no conspiracy, to go out of their way to get images of the region.

>Ed McCreary                                               ,__o

Jim Graham 

        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
                          Neither do they speak for me.
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
|           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
|            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:29:25 GMT
Subject: Re: Tunnels #1.
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic

Yeah, John....

Like Plan 9 from Outer Space?
From: James Randi <geller-hotline@ssr.com>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: RESENDING: Recent stuff...
Date: 14 Dec 1992 08:31:48 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu
Posted-By: xx029 (aa387 - Jim Kutz)

[NOTE: This message was originally sent on Nov 22, and then several
times after that. Do to problems at uunet.uu.net, it did not make it
to many (perhaps all) of the readers of this list. Please accept our
apologies. If any of you missed Randi on the King show because you
didn't get this note, feel free to drop a note to
postmaster@uunet.uu.net suggesting that it's good business to deal
with subscribers problems in a timely fashion.

ownwer-geller-hotline@ssr.com (Scot Ballantyne)]


I'm told that UG did not show up for a scheduled deposition in Miami last
week for the Prometheus case, the reason given being that his lawyers were
suddenly too busy with another important case of theirs.  The notice was
delivered 24 hours before the arranged hour, by fax.

There has been a further important development that is not yet complete. 
I will report on that as soon as I have further information.  This item is
very encouraging indeed.

I just returned from Russia, where I was filming tests of "psychics."  I
have to report that the "psychics" there are no more "psychic" than those
here, and the parapsychologists are just as naive as you might suspect. 
"Biogravity" is the big discovery for them.  It takes place when spoons
stick to their faces.  I kid you not.  Real scientists are agog over this
wonder.  Spoons seem to figure very largely in parapsychology, don't they?

On Thanksgiving Day (Nov. 26, for our overseas friends) I'll be seen on
the Larry King Live show.  Do tune in.
							JR

-- 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.med
From: dmimi@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Miriam Clifford)
Subject: Re: Hearing aids
Followup-To: poster
Summary: Both Miracle Ear and MD are wrong
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 13:11:18 GMT


As a person with fairly severe 'nerve' hearing loss, who uses two aids, I'd
like to comment on the original message.  The MD who said that hearing aids
wouldn't work was wrong.  They can't restore normal hearing, but they sure
as the devil help many with nerve deafness hear better.  They do need to be
fitted to the individual's loss and, therefore, chosen carefully.

The Miracle Ear salesperson represents one of the 'rip-off' hearing aid outfits.
The goal of Miracle Ear appears to be to sell the most expensive aid possible,
with little attention to how well it does the job for the person being
fitted.  One apparently gets the aid that costs, not the aid that works well 
for him/her.

I would suggest that you consult a good audiologist--preferrably one in a
University or medical school speech and hearing clinic.  Excellent information
about aids (and other information about hearing loss) can be obtained from
Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, 7800 Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda, MD.  Or
query me via e-mail or phone if you wish.


dmimi@ecsvax.uncecs.edu  dmimi@ecsvax.bitnet
Miriam (Mimi) Clifford; 2535 Sevier St, Durham, NC 27705; 919-489-4821
-- 
dmimi@ecsvax.uncecs.edu  dmimi@ecsvax.bitnet
Mimi Clifford, 2535 Sevier St, Durham, NC 27705, 919-489-4821
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Uri's Magic
Date: 16 Dec 1992 22:23:23 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <3062@israel.nysernet.org>, warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein) writes:
=In <gdavis.723949216@griffin> gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis) writes:
=
=> If Uri Geller is the psychic he professes,why doesn't NASA hire him
=>immediately to unstick Galleo's main antenna before it gets out of
=>range?
=
=I translated (from Hebrew to English) parts of an article last October
=and posted it here.  It appeared on p. 14 of Yediot Achronot of Oct
=11, 1991.  Here's what he was quoted as saying about Galileo:
=
=    "They invited me to come quickly to NASA's control center.  They have
=    a problem with the space probe Galileo, which was sent to Jupiter.  It
=    cost the a lot of money, has already traveled millions of kilometers,
=    but its antenna has not opened.  They called me, and I will try to
=    help them.  I will stand in the control center, I will concentrate,
=    and by means of my mental power, I will try to open the antenna.
=
=    "The Americans have a practical approach.  They have already tried
=    everything else and failed.  So one of the senators connected to the
=    space project has now turned to me..  What do they have to lose?

Their credibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Unidentified Flaming Objects -- ball lightning?
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:56:04 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Edinburgh University

Quoting p00168@psilink.com (James F. Tims) in article <2933271227.0.p00168@psilink.com>:
>It's a dirty job, but somebody has to snicker until something
>better than my flimsy testimony is available -- it's _de rigueur_ 
>for skeptics with a cynical disposition.

If this were true, we'd snicker at everything; I'd snicker at someone
who said that you posted that article.  It's the very nature of the
claims themselves that causes us to snicker; the accompanying flimsy
testimonials and lack of evidence have to do with the fact that they
aren't true.  While I suppose ball lightening might not really exist,
it isn't a matter of great significance if it is, unlike telepathy.

>I can make nothing of your last sentence.  Why would anyone's skepticism,
>merited or not, be ammunition for pseudoscientists?

The pseudoscientists I know (and among part of my circle of friends I'm
surrounded by them) are constantly quoting the mistakes that "the
skeptics" made as some sort of evidence for their claims.  Recently I've
been told that lots of cures that were dismissed by "the scientific
establishment" turned out to work, and this is somehow supposed to back
up astrology and dowsing.  I get very irritated when I realise the part
I've been assigned in the theatre of mystics;  stage one I pour scorn
on all of their claims, stage two I see some bits of evidence and
dismiss them but my skepticism is unsettled; stage three I see some
extraordinary bit of evidence (Death popping round to tea or something
like that) that blows my mind and stage four I become a mystic like
them.  They keep hinting that they have powers I wot not of and expect
me to half believe them; they get very irritated when I point out that
these powers haven't stopped them from being very poor.

Sorry, maybe this should have gone in alt.peeves.
  __                                _____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \\ //
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul."  \X/ 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Wwy is the sky blue? (was Re: Daytime Stars - Not Donahue or Oprah)
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:58:29 GMT

> The frequency dependence of the scattering, at least for things like air
> molecules, doesn't depend much (if at all) on the size of the molecule doing 
> the scattering. Scattering's caused by the electrons in the molecule and the 
> frequency dependence falls out of the equations relating the interaction of
> the e- with the light wave.  

Again not quite.  FREE electrons scatter neutrally, but the electrons in 
a molecule are bound.  (Many molecules show a slight polarizability in the
electric field of EM radiation, but that's a second-order effect.)  The
size parameter is usually written

  x = 2 pi a / lambda

where a is the radius of the scattering particles.  For small neutral particles
the scattering efficiency goes as x^4, whether you are varying a or lambda. If
you made the molecules twice as big, they would scatter more efficiently, but
of course the sky would still look blue.

Ben

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dfox@quack.sac.ca.us (David Fox)
Subject: re: criticize islam!?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 12 Dec 1992 22:56:13 UTC

>     I dare anyone to write a book criticizing Islam! (Ever heard of
>Salman Rushdie? <G>). From what I've heard, it is one very intolerant
>religion. Plus the problem that many adherents are ill-educated and

Certain _members_ of the religion of Islam are intolerant, just as
certain _members_ of the Christian religion is.  In my opinion, the
religion of Islam is just as valid as Christianity; and is no more
intolerant as a _whole_.

>comparable to the general European populance of a few centuries ago.
>Religion, and the leaders who use it, can easily manipulate an ignorant
>population. If I ever want to be a suicide, I will then criticize Islam

That's true in (fundamentalist) Christianity, and has been historically
true of certain Christian denominations.  We all remember Karl Marx saying
"Religion is the opiate of the masses", but consider for a moment the
climate of religion (specifically Western, i.e., Christianity) at the
time Marx lived.  For instance, the Inquisition was a recent memory.

In my view, many leaders of Christianity today (especially fundamentalist
Christianity) are fascistic.  Also, the Catholic Church is historically,
and as an institution, one of the worst human-rights abusers of all time;
except for Nazi Germany and the Stalinist regime, of course.

Islam generally seems to be in a time-frame similar to the Western
late medieval era.  If we view that with the concept that religions
evolve, and go through a life cycle, Islam being 'medieval' at present
does make some sense.  Islam is approximately 600 years younger than
Christianity.

But 600 years ago, the major visible groups of Christianity
(Catholicism, for instance) were essentially as intolerant as the
major visible groups seem to be in Islam today.  However, this
strictly applies to those in power, not the average member of the
religion in question, IMHO.

Also 600 years ago, and even earlier, Islam was at its height of
civilization.  Islam was a major civilizing force whilst Westerners
were practically living in caves.
--
David E. Fox
dfox@quack.sac.ca.us
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Testability
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 08:26:23 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   11 Dec 92 10:12:12 EST
>FROM:   Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo <kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
>
>In article <Bz1vLC.2G6@unx.sas.com>, sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>[...]
>> 	    is no "magic step" by which a hypothesis turns into
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Here we see correct English use of the article "a" before aspirated aitch.
[...]

>
>I agree with you that you cannot find a hard line to say exactly when an
                                                                       ^^
>hypothesis becomes a theory.  However, I would also contend that it is not
^^^^^^^^^^^
[...]
Here we see incorrect use of the article "an" with the aspirated aitch.

 >George Kambic
>sd
>

Other tediously common misconstructions include:
 an historical
 an hypothetical
 an heretical
 an holistic
 an holographic
 an so forth  8^)

For those who prefer the hyperpedantic "an hypothesis", you are in good 
company.  George Bush,  J. Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, and 
Robert Novak are especially emphatic in dragging out the "nu moveable" 
and aspirating the aitch.  (Among their least offensive stylistic qualities, 
really. :-)  

My primitive link to the net does not avail me of the opportunity to 
set follow-ups, but if I could, this discussion would probably head for,
uhm .. uh .. I don't know...alt.sports.darts?  I don't think this is
worthy of discussion, actually, and the only reasons I'm even bringing
it up are that 1) "an hypothesis" and "an historical" appear so frequently
in these newsgroups that I occasionally feel suicidal, 2) I'm a little 
wasted, here, at 4 A.M., and 3) this aspirated aitch thing has started
to unhinge my mind. 

I will spare sci.philosophy.tech, but all you skeptics that don't already
have me in your kill file will be given one more opportunity to remedy
that:  /Semper Excelsior/h:j

-jim tims





Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: hathaway@stsci.edu
Subject: What is qat? 
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:11:14 GMT

Info please! 

Reports on the operation in Somalia mention a plant chewed by many 
Somalias called 'qat', usually described (as in today's Washington Post) 
as "a mildly narcotic leaf" used "as a stimulant".  A speaker on a TV 
news also recently described it as "a narcotic, a stimulant".  

Although this substance is reportedly legal in Somalia (if a region 
with no laws can be said to have legal and illegal things), the recent 
relief operation has effectively cut off the trade in this, distressing 
many users.  

My question is on the use of the two words "narcotic" and "stimulant". 
How can something that stimulates be considered a narcotic which 
presumably indicates narcosis, numbness, stupor or sleep.  Seems to 
me to be incompatible. 

I've heard the word narcotic abused this way by the crime industry - as 
in "Cocaine is a narcotic!", but it seems so wrong.   So, are there some 
medical, pharmological, or chemical classification reasons this word is 
being used for stimulants (Uppers are Downers?), or has it (as I suspect) 
been deliberately misused as a loaded word for political purposes for so 
long that it has become accepted usage?  

Any experts on this?  

Thank you,  WHH 

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Hypnosis and Repression (was Ritual Abuse Taskforce....)
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:38:54 GMT

In article <DLB.92Dec18143616@fanny.wash.inmet.com>, dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes in part:
|>
|> There is a fair amount of evidence that hypnotic memories (memories
|> recovered with the aid of hypnosis) can indeed be influenced by the
|> language and requests of the hypnotist.  I know of no evidence that
|> this happens to a greater extent than with any memory elicited in
|> conversation, in response to prompting.

What is the basis for this last claim?

As far as I recall, one of the key features of the "hypnotised"
state is susceptability to suggestion.  There is PLENTY of evidence
that people who are hypnotized respond to suggestion much more
easily and compliantly than even the same people when not 
hypnotized.   That's how you tell they are hypnotized.

Perhaps I am mistaken in this recollection.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.philosophy.misc
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Miracles
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:34:27 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Thu, 10 Dec 92 04:01:29 EST
>FROM:   Stimpson J. Katz <siphon@momad.li.ny.us>
>
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>
>> In article <MMEYER.92Dec9082244@m2.dseg.ti.com> mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark M
>> >> A bunch of us doing some "quality" work for our organization came up with
>> >> the variation
>> >> That which is hateful to your neighbor, do not do to your neighbor.
>> >> (We worded it "I will treat my fellow employees just the way they want to
>> >> be treated").
>> 
>> My biggest beef with either Golden Rule phrasing is that to treat someone in
>> "the same way" is a rather ill-defined concept.  Suppose my idea of fair
>> treatment is to follow algorithm X:
>>      if (person is Ken Arromdee) then
>>          give person $100;
>>      else
>>          do_nothing;
>> It follows that by the Golden Rule, I would want to apply X to my neighbors, 
>> they should apply it to me.

My biggest beef is that the Golden Rule is at least as old as Aristotle,
and, for some reason, that Jesus or the Jews (I doubt that Aristotle had 
a lot of contact with early Jewish writings) get the (dubious) credit.

>> 
>> Of course, this is nonsense, but if you try to spell out the rule in such a
>> way as to omit all the nonsense possibilities, you'll find it's not so easy.
>
>    The claim has worse failures. As an Objectivist my objection to the
>claim that one "should" treat others as they would like to be treated is
>that it makes a person a slave to the wants of others, rational or not.
>
>    I cannot see any legitimate reason why a person should do this.
>Why should the random whims of other people be a primary claim on your
>life?
>
>Siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US
>Stimpson J. Katz
>
>     I swear, by my life and my love of it, never to live for the
>sake of another man, nor to ask another man to live for mine.
>
Hmmm.  Let's really get far afield.  Was it Hume or Locke (or somebody
else) that said, "We are not what we think we are, rather, we are what other
people perceive us to be."?  That's not the exact quote, but in concrete
terms I take it to mean that if you are the only one who knows you didn't
commit a murder, but you are convicted and executed, you will be known
as a murderer.  For everybody but you, that will be reality.  Other
examples less extreme will surely occur to you.

-jim tims
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Goodbyes
Date: 20 Dec 92 00:41:05 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

I will not be reading "Goodbye" messages anymore.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     If our behavior is strict, we do not need fun!
 |warren@      
/ nysernet.org