HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 5 Jan 1993 05:03:48 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan5.040946.7937@cs.unca.edu>, kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
|> >>  However, the German Churches *did* recommend Naziism to their
|> >  followers
|>  
|> I am quite sure that you would admit that many, many people in Germany
|> would change their past if they could.  The difference between me and
|> you is that I don't think of Christians as somehow different than the
|> rest of us. 

You have it backwards in two senses.   First, I'm talking about the 
German *churches*, not christians in general.    The claim was that
no major denomination cooperated with Hitler.   That's wrong.  That's
what I am arguing against.

The second thing you have wrong is that I don't assert that these
people are "somehow different".   I'm saying that they are *the same*.

I'm saying that based on their record, they have no special claim
to moral authority, because they are *not* different to the rest of us.


|>       I don't know for certain if you honestly think they have
|> to be above sin or if you just use that as a reason to beat up on 
|> them.

If I thought that, you can assume I would say it.   In fact, I just
think that an organization with a history of craven moral compromise
is in a poor position to preach morals to the rest of us.


|> So what is the point...cuz I only joined the thread due to what I thought
|> was a pretty unfair attack on the Catholic Church (still do)?  That
|> Churches are sometimes wrong?  Of course they are!  But they know that.
|> Have you ever read Benedicts 'Rule' or Martin Luther? 

Benedict and Luther were doing what I am doing.   They were standing
outside churches and pointing out that the churches had lost all
claim to moral authority.

jon.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Dvorak faster than QWERTY?
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:16:36 GMT

In article <schnitzi.726346625@eola.cs.ucf.edu>, schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
|> 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].
|> 
|> 
|> Mark Schnitzius
|> schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu
|> University of Central Florida

I have surely read about many alternate keyboards that have
advantages, although I haven't references at hand.  I have also
read that the QWERTY design was deliberately made awkward to
slow down the typist because the mechanical typewriters were
too slow.  This may be a thechno-myth.

However, no KEYBOARD is "faster" than another, the keyboard + typist
might be.  But a expert on any keyboard will cream a novice on any
other keyboard, and I doubt that most of us are limited by the
keyboard layout anyway.  And, of course, the QWERTY keyboard
is universally available, so you have to know that one anyway.
Learning two incompatible keyboards will probably slow performance
and increase errors on both, at least for a while.

These at least are some reasonable questions to raise.  So
does anybody have any references on THESE topics?

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: Stalinist Attack!
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:00:29 GMT

In article <C0I078.138@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) babbles:
[ some letter to a newspaper or something ]

	Like we care.  What does this have to do with sci.skeptic?

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
      In the land of three-legged men, the man with two legs doesn't date much.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
Subject: Re: Glub Glub... Any Floods in Human History?
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:23:14 GMT

In article <C0r7ID.EHA@cs.uiuc.edu>, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:
|> [...]
|> A more likely hypothesis is that "THE FLOOD" is a concatenation of many
|> real life disasters.  Floods are memorable, but very similar, and tend
|> to run together in memory.  The biblical flood story has so many obviously
|> "instructive" elements that it seems to me more like a moral tale grafted
|> onto generic "flood" themes than any sort of historic or scientific report.

Add to that the fact that ancient people (those involved in agriculture 
anyway) tend to live in wide, flat river valleys which, when flooded, 
appear to be flooded from horizon to horizon.  Finally, taken with 
the human propensity to exaggerate and the finding of sea creatures 
(as fossils anyway) on mountaintops, this leads to whole-world scale 
flood stories.  

|> [...]
|> Humans date back bo the last glaciation, and large changes in water 
|> levels definitely happened at that time all over the world.  There 
|> were at least two catastrophic floods about that time:  the forming of
|> the bad lands in Montana (or is is Wyoming?) and the flooding of the 
|> Mediteranean Sea.  I'm sure there have been plenty of tidal waves, 
|> mud slides, and just plain heavy rains in the history of humans, 
|> especially where humans have deforested highlands.

Actually, the last glaciation only ended about 12,000 years ago and the
flooding of the once-dry Mediteranean was just over 5 million years ago
(or, a couple or three glaciations back).  Humans were Australopithecines
that far back.

The formation of the Washington scablands was about 19,000 years ago (and possibly predates human habitation there - depending on whether you believe
some of the claims for new world human settlements older than about 12,000 
years.  About 15,000 years ago, there was a somewhat smaller flood which
drained the area now occupied by the Great Salt Lake and related salt
flats in Utah.  This latter flood was still huge by any standards - the
rough equivalent of all modern rivers put together.

Interesting sources for laymen on these events are "The Making of a
Continent" by Ron Redfern and "The Ring of Truth" by Phillip Morrison
(both also are available as video documentaries).

-- 
J. Giles
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: rosch@cpdw.enet.dec.com (Ray Rosch)
Subject: Re: Velikovsky Criticisms Wanted
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:50:06 GMT


In article <1993Jan5.182915.10798@psych.toronto.edu>, grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant) writes...
>I'm looking for some criticisms of Velikovsky's _Ages in Chaos_ and
>_Earth and Upheaval_. 
> 
>I found _Scientists Confront Velikovsky_ quite good in dealing with
>_Worlds in Collision_, particularly Sagan's chapter. Can anyone 
>suggest a book that deals with Velikovsky's later stuff?


	Try "Paradigms Lost", 1989, by Cupiel[sic?]  Velikovsky's process of 
	logic and deduction is contrasted to the discoverers of the first
	neutron star in their logic and deduction. Velikovsky is used as the
	example of 'really bad science'.



*
*	Opinions do not represent my employer
*
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: tomj@monster.apd.saic.com (Tom Johnson)
Subject: Re: Dvorak faster than QWERTY?
Organization: SAIC, Reston, VA
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:22:44 GMT

mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:

>I have surely read about many alternate keyboards that have
>advantages, although I haven't references at hand.  I have also
>read that the QWERTY design was deliberately made awkward to
>slow down the typist because the mechanical typewriters were
>too slow.  This may be a thechno-myth.

The way I understand it, the QWERTY layout was designed more to separate
the hammers on a manual typewriter.  Keys that are physically near
one another are more likely to jam when they're operated at nearly the same
time, so the keyboard was arranged to make that less likely.  

This could certainly be myth, too!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:41:00 GMT

	I've been staying out of this thread till now, but I just couldn't pass
this one up.  anyhow,

In <1993Jan6.135858.2042@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:

>In article <C0D77L.7tH@ecf.toronto.edu> vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan5.002733.5359@cs.unca.edu> kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
>>>>  Really?  I thought the catholic church is lead by the pope, who,
>>>>according to catholic doctrine, is infallable.
>>>
>>>Well maybe you can enlighten me about Catholic Doctrine since I'm not
>>>Catholic.  Which doctrine exactly are you talking about?  Which document
>>
>>I'm not up on the specifics, but I do know that as late as about 1979 the
>>Vatican came out with a statement saying that the VATICAN AND POPE WERE
>>INFALLIBLE AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC FOLLOWERS WERE NOT TO QUESTION THEM IN
>>THE LEAST (IE. IT WAS A SIN TO DO SO ).  A big stink occured at about that time

>This is a complete distortion, and the fact that the Vatican has
>admitted error in the Gallelio case proves it.  Please do not
>spread nonsense like this without checking the relevant documents
>and doctrines.

	Yes, and it took them well over 300 years to do it, as well.  Does 
that mean that some time about year 2300 we can look for an official condem-
nation of Hitler by the Catholic church?  That would do one hell of a lot 
for some of the millions of Jews that could have been saved if the Church 
had started mobilizing resources in about 1920 (or hell, even 1940).
	You can't have it both ways: either the Church (and christianity in
general) is made up of normal, fallible people, in which case they have NO 
claim to superior moral, philisophical or divine principles, or you claim 
that the Church is morally superior, in which case examples like above show 
you to be a hypocrit and a liar.

>>-Nick
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com

Ben Dehner

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22063 alt.messianic:3874 alt.atheism:25123
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas 
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 12:35:38 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
> I disagree.  The point I was making is that Hitler and his regime did
> not use Christian or Christ-like values when they devised their Nazi
> state.

Sez you.

Hitler said he was obeying the divine will of the lord in setting up the Nazi
state and putting the unclean and unworthy to death.

Now, who am I to believe?  You or him?

Well, I could look at the Bible.  But if I did, I'd find lots of examples of
God explicitly ordering others to put the unclean and the unworthy to death.

So I'm afraid from my point of view, it rather looks as though you're the
heretic.

> Churches, by their nature tend to be nationalistic and supportive
> of their governemnt.

Another excellent reason to get rid of them.


mathew

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22061 alt.messianic:3871 alt.atheism:25118
From: s0499528@let.rug.nl (R. Dijkhuis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Why does Eire get so much press?
Date: 6 Jan 93 11:05:23 GMT
Organization: Faculteit der Letteren, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, NL

In article <2935339904.1.p00168@psilink.com> "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
>Subject: Why does Eire get so much press?
>Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:56:11 GMT
>>FROM:   Steve Lang <lpzsml@unicorn.nott.ac.uk>
>>
>>In Article 38465 of alt.atheism, U16244@uicvm.uic.edu (David James Alexander Hanley) writes:
>[...]
>>>churches.  If only they could tell their people in Ireland to stop
>>>shooting protestants..
>
>>
>>The Vatican do tell their people in Ireland to stop shooting protestants.
>>And the vast majority of Catholics, like most Protestants in Northern
>>Ireland do not participate in such violent actions.
>>
>>Steve Lang.
>>
>
>Boy!  I'll say they don't participate!  Anybody with some real 
>statistics on the "strife" in Ireland?
>
>Estimating about 1000 violent deaths in Ireland in the last quarter 
>century, this works out to about 40 murders/bombings/whatnots per year, 
>or about 1/100000 population per year.  As one of the safest, least 
>violent places on the globe (relative to really dangerous places, like 
>Atlanta or <Anytown, USA>), where does Ireland get this reputation?
>They ship children from Ireland to Detroit for the summer "to get them away 
>from all the violence" back in Dublin. 


Ah, mr. Tims again. Learn some geography. Ireland != Northern Ireland. 
Dublin, capital of Ireland (which is not Northern Ireland) is safe except if 
you say in public that you want an abortion. Belfast, capital of Northern 
Ireland (I repeat: Northern Ireland, which is NOT, I repeat NOT Ireland) is 
violent. Bombings and other attacks take place in Northern Ireland and on 
the English mainland. 

Reinder
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:59:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.002733.5359@cs.unca.edu> kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:
>>  Really?  I thought the catholic church is lead by the pope, who,
>>according to catholic doctrine, is infallable.
>
>Well maybe you can enlighten me about Catholic Doctrine since I'm not
>Catholic.  Which doctrine exactly are you talking about?  Which document

I'm not up on the specifics, but I do know that as late as about 1979 the
Vatican came out with a statement saying that the VATICAN AND POPE WERE
INFALLIBLE AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC FOLLOWERS WERE NOT TO QUESTION THEM IN
THE LEAST (IE. IT WAS A SIN TO DO SO ).  A big stink occured at about that time
with rogue Catholic theologans who questioned Vatican dictates.  I believe
in one case one priest or theologian was ordered by the church to be silent
for a year.  After the year was up the man's first words were something like
like "Where was I now," or "To get back to what I was saying,".  I don't 
know if this was around the same time as the Vatican statement.  I'll say
though I first heard of the Vatican's statement when I was about fourteen
and spent hours in complete disbelief about how anyone could follow such
a ridiculous instituition.  If anyone knows the specifics of the above cases
please post them because I would love to know more about them myself.

-Nick

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:22:25 GMT

In <C0G4Eo.F2v@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:

... stuff about concentration 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.  

	On a lighter note, these same types of people who sit in little
offices behind keyboards are the type who decide whether or not a nation 
should go to war and kill thousands, if not millions, of people ...

>-- 
>Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu

Ben
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Reminder: Genesis Is Coming to Town Jan. 8-9
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa   
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:56:33 GMT

Creationist Super-Stars Duane Gish, Steven Austin, and Ken Ham will be
featured speakers at a "Back to Genesis" Conference sponsored
by the Institute for Creation Research, to be held in
Fremont, California (San Francisco Bay area) January 8-9, 1993. Registration
begins at 5:30 Friday, the program begins at 7:00. The Saturday
morning session begins at 8:30, the afternoon session at 12:55, and
the evening session at 6:10. Creationist lectures and films will be
featured. Registration upon arrival; check your brain at the door.

Location: Fremont First Assembly, 4760 Thornton Ave., Fremont, CA 94536

Registration: Entire Seminar $20, single sessions $6. Discounts for
              students, seniors, families.

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: Re: Laura Houghteling Murder
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:56:08 GMT

In article <12JAN199311321736@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

|>    A second case in 1980 involved Steve Linscott, a 26-year-old Bible student,
|> who dreamed he saw a man beating someone to death with a blunt instrument,
|> which he reported to the police.  The evening of his dream, a nursing
|> student named Karen Phillips was beaten to death less than half a block
|> away.  Linscott was arrested and convicted of her murder on the basis
|> of some hairs found at Phillips' house, but a retrial was ordered in 1987
|> when an appeals court ruled that prosecutors had distorted the physical
|> evidence.  I don't know the outcome of that case for certain, but I
|> believe I've read somewhere recently that DNA testing cleared Linscott.
|> (This should be taken with a grain of salt.)

	I don't remember if the charges in the second trial were dropped or 
if he was acquitted, but he is indeed now free, based on the DNA test 
results.

-- 
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.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: interminable ad hominem argument
Date: 8 Jan 93 23:33:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

n article <1993Jan8.062342.9487@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
|> In article <1idqqgINNomj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <1993Jan6.043055.29548@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
|> >|>
|> >|> I can't resist :) How about: Some scientists have been known to
:)
|> >|> fradulently report their results which sometimes go undetected for
:)
|> >|> a while, perhaps not at all.  Therefore, any scientific results
:)
|> >|> that are published should not be believed. "What", you say?
:)
|> >|> "These cheaters not "real" scientists"?  What is a scientist?
:)
|> >|> After we get about two or three definitions: Well obviously, it is
:)
|> >|> impossible to define a scientist since we can't make up our minds.
:)
|> >|> Therefore a scientist is anything you define it to be.
:)
|> >|>
|> >|> Does this sound familiar?
|> >
|> >Good grief.    Mr Ata, scientific results *aren't* believed.   Didn't
|> >you notice the name of the newsgroup your are posting to?
|>
|> Good grief.  So you disagree with the statement!  Why am I
|> suprised? :) Of course, this means that "scientific results" can't
|> be defined, right?
|>
|> Enter Tongue-in-cheek mode
|>
|> So scientific results aren't believed, eh?  Well, that's good
|> because I expect you to take up cigarette smoking.  You don't
|> believe all those results reporting that it can give you lung
|> cancer, etc.  It's a conspiracy, I tell you, and because you don't
|> believe anything that's published, you will start smoking, right?
|> Or did you plan on doing some lung experiments in your basement
|> because you don't trust those scientists...
|>
|> Exit Tongue-in-cheek mode

No, Mr Ata, scientific studies are not "believed", they are
checked.

What I was telling you, but you were too busy making jokes to notice,
is that since we don't "believe" scientific results, but we can
check them, the fact that some fraudulent results have slipped through
the system is not a reason to "disbelieve" the rest, but rather a
reason not to "believe" them.

And that's what happens.   We don't blindly "disbelieve" them,
nor do we blindly "believe" them.   We check them.

jon.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Why does Eire get so much press?
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:36:04 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Sun, 10 Jan 1993 16:56:22 GMT
>FROM:   David Conrad <dave@tygra.Michigan.COM>
>
>In article <2935506688.1.p00168@psilink.com> "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>>Since Belfast is about 1/5 the size of Detroit, assuming that all 2000 
>                                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Where did you get this number?  I'm pretty sure that it's high by about
>a factor of 8.  I don't think we've even reached 1 murder per day here
>in Detroit yet, although I realize that's still pretty bad....
>
>David R. Conrad
>-- 

Ok.  New back-of-envelope estimates:  25 years,  Detroit five times the 
population of Belfast.  12000 for Detroit (assuming just under 500/year),  
2000 for Belfast.  Seems about the same, given the sorry precision of 
the data.
-jim


Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22022 alt.atheism:25017
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tuesday, 5 Jan 1993 11:14:22 CST
From: <U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
 <1993Jan3.151154.18933@cs.unca.edu> <12237@scott.ed.ac.uk>
 <1993Jan5.010606.5887@cs.unca.edu>

In article <1993Jan5.010606.5887@cs.unca.edu>, kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
says:
>
>1) There were no Christians killed by the "Jewish Atheists".  That was
>   sarcasm meant to show how absurd it is that the Catholic Church was
>   responsible for what the Nazis did to the Jews.

That's not the point,Brad....the point is that the Catholic hierarchy either
collaborated with the Nazis or did nothing to _hinder_ the Holocaust,even
after they had knowledge of Hitler's real intentions.


>2) If you doubt the murderousness of Stalin, you're behind even the
>   Soviet Communist Party which has admitted it.

Yeah. So? Did anybody replying to you make a statement which contradicted
this rather obvious historical fact? _I_ didn't run into an apology for
Stalin in any of the posts on this subject.....

      ** Chris Krolczyk,esq.  * DISCLAIMER: My opinions are in **
      ** Maniac-at-Large      * no way endorsed by the Univer- **
      ** U19807@UICVM.BITNET  * sity of Illinois at Chicago.   **
      ** u19807@uicvm.uic.edu * So much for frivolous lawsuits.**
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22391 talk.religion.misc:26076