HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnson@spectra.com (boyd johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Illusions (was Re: Erich Von Daniken)
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:26:59 GMT
Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation

In article <veale.711901482@coma> veale@Colorado.EDU (Anthony Veale') writes:
>thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Jul23.091433.14378@newshub.sdsu.edu>
[article about prehistoric jeep tracks deleted]
>>---------- enclosure
>
>>My recollection of those "unknown" tracks is that they appeared as depicted
>>below.  The tracks remained parallel even though they were arced and they both
>>curved to the left (which I cannot reproduce with ASCII graphics):
>
>>              |\|        |/|
>>              |\|        |/|
...
>>              |\|        |/|
>
>>---------- end enclosure

This article is not meant to mock the previous posts and should probably
be in rec.humor, but the previous articles reminded me of an old Steve
Martin segment paraphrased something like this:

"I saw a fossil in the museum that was incredible."
"It was a giant zipper from millions of years ago."

"The guide tried to downplay it and told me it was just a fossil of a
fern, but I knew better than that."
"After all, what would a fern be doing wearing a zipper?"

-- 
======== Boyd Johnson    nosc!spectra.com!johnson  San Diego, Ca. ========
From: andrea@deakin.OZ.AU (Andrea Todkill)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Speed of Thought -was Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence
Date: 28 Jul 92 04:44:59 GMT
Organization: Deakin University, Victoria, Australia

In article <62931@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
>Some people may wonder how I'm going to get from one 
>place to another so fast. This Astral Convoy will be traveling at the 
>speed of thought.  I'll need 8 seconds or less for each person visited.

Oh, this is just too good to pass up. John, do you have the vaguest idea of
what you are saying? Here's a few real definitions of the concepts you mangle.
Thought is the electrochemical activity of neural tissue in the brain.
( Oh, you say that thought is _not_ neural activity? Maybe not in your case,
but it is _demonstrably_ the case for the rest of Homo Sapiens! ) 
Such activity has a very precisely documented speed. Pity that it's nowhere
_near_ the trans-relativistic speeds you'd like it to have.
Speed of neural transmission is influenced by the diameter of the axons 
(long strands of neural fibre: the larger the diameter the faster the 
transmission) and by the presence or absence of myelination (fatty sheathing:
transmission is faster in myelinated nerves because the impulse arcs ahead to
gaps in the sheathing).
"The human nervous system contains nerve fibres ranging from about 0.3 to 22
microns in diameter, some of which are myelinated and others not. Conduction
speeds vary from about 0.7 to 120 m/sec, though 60 to 70 m/sec is most common."
Quote from Stern, R.M., Ray, W.J., & Davis, C.M. (1980). _Psychophysiological_
_Recording_ , Oxford: Oxford University Press, (p. 26).

OK, moving from elementary neurology to even more elementary arithmetic:
At its _fastest_, the impulse behind human thought can move at 120 m/sec.
Therefore, during the eight seconds you _say_ you need to "contact" these
"astral" friends of yours, your "Astral Convoy travelling at the speed of
thought" (!) will be able to move a grand total of 960 metres, or a bit less
than one kilometre. Rather less of a distance than you would need to cover in
that time, if your "Astral Convoy" were anything else than yet another piece
of New Age reality-free drivel.

P.S. Why are you continuing to post this drivel to _sci.skeptic_ ? Admittedly,
it was all an absolute scream at first, but after the first few dozen postings,
it's becoming repetitive. Please do sci.skeptic a favour and keep your postings
where they belong, such as alt.alien.visitors, talk.religion.newage,
or better still, /dev/null.
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:32:43 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <1992Jul24.164931.142181@cs.cmu.edu> rudis+@cs.cmu.edu (Rujith S DeSilva) writes:
>Anyway, here's the obligatory anecdote (for the benefit of rec.humor): Some
>philosopher/theologician, when questioned as to whether he believes in God,
>replied, [paraphrased] ``Either God exists or He doesn't.  Either I believe in
>God or I don't.  Of the four possibilities, only one is to my disadvantage.
>To avoid that possibility, I believe in God.''

>BTW, could someone tell me who said the above?

I don't know who said it in that form, but the argument is basically
the same as that put forward by Pascal, and is generally known as
Pascal's Wager.  See the alt.atheism FAQ for more details and a
refutation.

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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken)
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:19:43 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., U. of Iowa

In article <21JUL199211250753@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>,
lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

[my previous post deleted]

> From what you've said above, I see no indication that you really have any
> disagreement with Susan Blackmore.  She accepts the reality of "psychic
> experiences" (and has herself experienced an OBE), but she rejects the
> paranormal explanation of such experiences.  It is interesting that you
> also bring up lucid dreams and Stephen LaBerge (deleted from the above),
> because Blackmore's article "Lucid Dreaming: Awake in Your Sleep?"
> (_Skeptical Inquirer_ vol. 15, no. 4, Summer 1991) is essentially a
> very favorable look at LaBerge's work.
> 
> Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
> Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
> University of Arizona
> Tucson, AZ 85721
> 
> 

But I do have a disagreement, if she rejects the paranormal explanation.  The
point of my example of lucid dreams is that for years researchers rejected the
idea that lucid dreams were exactly what lucid dreamers said they were.  
Instead, the researchers and theorists concocted various theories that more
closely conformed to their own model of the mind and the brain.  Those who
claimed that they actually could be conscious while dreaming were
patronizingly told that the researchers and theorists knew more about what was
going on in their heads than they themselves did.  But lucid dreamers were
finally vindicated, and the researchers and theorists were shown that they
were the ones who did not know what they were talking about.

So, when the same people who used to tell me that I wasn't really having
lucid dreams also tell me that I didn't really have a paranormal experience,
I tend not to believe them.  To me, the simplest explanation is that I and
others do know what we experience, that we do know what we're talking about.
We don't need anyone patting us on our heads and telling us that what we
experience is not what it seems to be, especially when the people doing the
head patting have been wrong before about something similar.

*****        _My_ views, no one else's--except those I plagiarize         *****
Karl Boyken, system programmer |
Department of Computer Science | It's so easy to slip, it's so easy to fall and
The University of Iowa         | let your memory drift into nothing at all.
boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu      |                        -- Lowell George
From: rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: spont. human combustion
Date: 21 Jul 92 04:16:48 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

You know, all this talk about spontaneous human combustion really burns me up!

   Robert

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (alan smith)
Subject: Re: Garlic - the wonder herb ??
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: garlic
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 18:35:28 GMT

In article <9220123.25217@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergu
 James HENDERSON) writes:
>My flatmate and I have been arguing about the benefits of garlic as "a g
od
>tonic for the blood" and for "general health".
>
>Is there any evidence that garlic has any beneficial effects other than 
he
>placebo effect?
Gets rid of vampires pretty good.  (Not to mention people you don't like)
>--
>Fergus Henderson             fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU      
>This .signature VIRUS is a self-referential statement that is true - but

>you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your 
wn
>.signature file!



Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13371 talk.origins:8905
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Search for Noah's Ark
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:58:56 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon

In article <1992Jul27.211851.20754@acuson.com> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.192652.2650@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul20.230347.8366@acuson.com> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>As far as facts go, there is no evidence that humans DID evolve from
>other primates, only that they COULD HAVE.  As science, this is fine.
>Likewise, there is no evidence that Noah DID NOT make an arc.  Since
>there is no evidence that he did, it would be poor science to say that
>hi did.

A few years back, the soviets were manufacturing chips copied from
U.S. designs. how can I be so sure they were copied? Easy - the
lazy engineers had also duplicated a nonfunctional trademark symbol!
Exactly the same sort of evidence is available here, in the form
of shared pseudogenes between man and chimp. There is plenty of
evidence that man and chimp have a recent common ancestor. Followups
to talk.origins.


>There is a great deal more to life than what science can demonstrate.
>There is no scientific evidence that chocolate tastes good or that
>women are beautiful, but I'm not waiting for science to tell me that it
>is acceptable to have these views.

Nonsense. I experiment with chocolate and a woman nearly every day,
and these results never fail to be confirmed! :)

>As for your "cleartext," I have no problem with the facts.  I simply do
>not place the same interpretation on them that you do.

Fascinating. I have yet to hear a single creationist put forth any
interpretation at all of radioisotope dating results, unless you
count: "Well, all 10 of the ice-core dating techniques agree because
... uh ... God just made it look that way! Yeah, that's the ticket!".

I cannot even find a creationist that can harmonize the first
two chapters of genesis without mangling both or either account.
Did birds come first, or man (for example)?

>
>As for mind control, yours seems to be firmly in the grip of those who
>hold that all truth is quantifiable and value neutral.  Who
>indoctrinated you?

Bullshit. I rest secure in the knowledge that, though I often make
mistakes, I practice techniques that allow me to eventually detect them.
Since you feel comfortable discarding 150 years of biological investigation
by just _choosing to believe_, how do you plan to detect the mistakes
you make?

>-- 
>Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
>lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13333 alt.conspiracy.jfk:2721
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Song for sci.skeptic.
Date: 29 Jul 92 08:08:45 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <4618@daily-planet.concordia.ca> gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca (Gary Katch) writes:
>[Sung to the tune of "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"]
>
>Because I wasted so much time with rn reading news,
>I had to unsubscribe most groups, not knowing how to choose,
>But then one day I read a group, a welcome antiseptic:
>The smartest group I ever read and it was called sci skeptic!
>
>[Chorus]
>Super-scientific skeptics expose all that's bogus:
>Randi sees through Geller fraud, exposes hocus-pocus
>Poor John_-_Winston's cabalistic texts are quite atrocious
>Super-scientific skeptics expose all that's bogus!
>
>Hum, di-de-lum di-de-lum, di-de-li
>Hum, di-de-lum di-de-lum, di-de-li
>
>I know those U.F.O's in NASA's videos look nice
>But they're really only sublimating particles of ice;
>And when we make a pilgrimage to see Greys in Mt. Shasta
>We'll stay at home in bed and go by O.B.E. -- it's fasta!
>
>[Chorus]
>Super-scientific skeptics expose all that's bogus:
>Cattle eating all our grain with appetites ferocious;
>Global warming melting polar ice and raising oceans --
>Super-scientific skeptics expose all that's bogus!
>
>Hum, di-de-lum di-de-lum, di-de-li
>Hum, di-de-lum di-de-lum, di-de-li
>[Modulate]
>Hum, di-de-lum di-de-lum, di-de-li
>Hum, di-de-lum di-de-lum, di-de-li
>
>Now hyper-weak dilutions give us medicines holistic
>But given facts, practitioners appear to be autistic.
>Let's dowse our way to San Jose and emanate our auras
>But keep that J.F.K. stuff out, and join our skeptics' chorus!
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
          I love it!!!

>
>[Chorus]
>O, super-scientific skeptics expose all that's bogus
>The Rev'rend counters Maximus's patriarchal focus
>And if you post before you think, you're only braggadocious
>Super-scientific skeptics expose all that's bogus!
>
>-- gk
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: There are no atoms!
Date: 21 Jul 92 21:05:49 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Jul21.124435.27008@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes...
> 
>I was more amused by the theoretical underpinnings that an isolated quark
>CANNOT exist, not that merely it has not been observed.  They do present a
>nice mathematical model that allows the behavior of more gross matter to
>be modeled, though.

This is not an accurate characterization of QCD.  The best we can tell
(QCD is quite mathematically intractible) quarks can and do exist free
under certain conditions of high pressure and temperature.  They may
exist in the centers of neutron stars and supernovae, and might even
exist at the center of some normal stars.  Certainly the early universe
had conditions suitable for quark deconfinement, immediately
after the Big Bang.

Your claim is rather like saying that isolated water molecules can't 
exist.  You can't just look at ice.

There is supposed to be a phase transition from the "confining" phase of 
QCD to a deconfined phase in which there are free quarks and gluons (known
as a QGP, or quark-gluon plasma.)  The details are unclear because the QCD
calculations are all highly complicated computer simulations (aka lattice-guage 
calculations) and the experimental situation is not a great deal better.

But there are experiments at CERN, and a new round are planned at a new
machine in New York called RHIC (the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) which
will attempt to bash nuclei together at sufficient energy to produce the
hot dense phase necessary to drive the system over the deconfinement phase
transition barrier.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: pensyl@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: ex
Date: 27 Jul 92 09:28:41 EST

Has this been simulated with a watermelon?
JP
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Get Off John's Back Please!
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:40:58 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Jul29.221310.8432@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> rosch@cpdw.enet.dec.com (Ray Rosch) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul29.185219.29352@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, timpson@acetek.enet.dec.com () writes...
>>
>>>
>>>I am amazed that fully half of the traffic of this newsgroup is comprised
>>>of your three-line messages ("I'm having an astral wank, everybody!"),
>>>empty posts (" "), and one-screen text dumps.
>>>
>>>Call me a skeptic, but I would think an intelligent life form who
>>>wanted information distributed would get in touch with someone who had
>>>a clue.
>>>
>>
>>
>>>   Come on guys! Give the guy a break. I know John and he's a really
>>>   nice man. If you don'l like his posts then skip them. But geeze
>>>   why so hostile? Freedom of speech is for everyone not just the
>>>   people you agree with!
>>
>>>                                  Denise
>>
>>      It's not a question of freedom of speach it's the quality/quantity
>>      of John messages.  It is rediculous and should be tempered.
>>
>>
>>      Steve Food_for_the_Grays
>
>
>       What is missing here is an appreciation for the attitude & beliefs
>       of sci.skeptic readers.  The reason why this group is sci.skeptic
>       is - surprise! - we are skeptical of paranormal claims.  This 'forum'
>       provides an objective, skeptical view of extra-ordinary claims.
>

Since when did skeptic=hostile ???????
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund)
Subject: Re: alt.close.minded.ninnies
Keywords: go back to sleep
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:46:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.232011.11239@odin.corp.sgi.com> rodb@slugo.corp.sgi.com (Rod Beckwith) writes:
>Hear no evil,speak no evil,see no evil & bury your head in sand.
>
>	How long did it take us to fly?
		Assuming you mean controlled heavier than air manned flight,
about 10 years after all the enabling technology was there.  In this case the
last piece of enabling technology not directly flight related was the internal
combustion engine.  I am excluding here the Wright's contribution which was
the technique of control,  the essence of the problem.  
>	How long did it take to prove the Earth was round?
	What do you mean by prove?  Erosthenes got a good figure for the 
dimensions of the earth reasnably soon after the tools (geometry and the  
concept of mathematical proof) were invented.
	Of course,  previous to that the educated Greeks already thought that
the earth was round from the usual evidence of lunar eclipse shadows,  horizon
effects, etc.
>	How long did...............I think you all get the POINT!
>	(if you don't,go back to sleep)
>
	They laughed at Galileio,  but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. 
>You SKEPTICS keep the rest of us striving for greatness....THANKS!:*]
>
	You're welcome.
>R.I.P.
>
>Rod
>
>-- 
>Rod Beckwith     |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 
>Datacom I/S      |"The great obstacle of progress is not ignorance,
>rodb@corp.sgi.com|but the illusion of knowledge."
>                 |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
>
>			


-- 
Larry Headlund  lmh@world.std.com    Eikonal Systems (617) 482-3345
From: rosch@cpdw.enet.dec.com (Ray Rosch)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Thought Experiment Participation Asked
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:50:01 GMT
Organization: Alpha Zeta Reticule IIb


Ok skeptics -here's a proposal for testing Astral Projection, Spontaneous Com-
bustion  and Telepathy.

On Friday, August 7 at 06:00 GMT everyone do the following: Obtain an inner
wrapper - the foil - of a specific, well-known American cigarette package.
The first part of this experiment is that you can 'sense' the brand I'm talking
about. In other words Marboro's won't work - do you get my drift...

Holding this foil in your hands I want you to concentrate on a flying body of
a male subject.  Think of it a spiritual rather than an actual body... When
you have this thought I want you to think of this "aura" somehow typing at
a terminal and messages flowing to all routers on the USENET.  Don't worry
what the messages say - think of it as drivel if you want. When you get
this thought think of FLAMES - like the body bursting into combustable gases.
Think of the body melting like the bad guys in Raiders of the Lost Ark...
[Those of you sensitive to violence think of the subject as being politely
cautioned to refraine from cross-posting to which the subject readily agrees]

Possible Outcomes:
1. It works. Much less cross-posted network drivel into sci.skeptic. We
recognize a new power. Sadam Hussine is next. Dan Quale resigns and becomes a
house-father in a homeless/battered shelter in the south Bronx. The salutation
of "Dear" is no longer used in sci.skeptic. talk.religion.new-age reforms into
alt.rand.objectivism. "Smokey" finally gets the message...

2. It fails. We disprove astral projection, telepathy, spontaneous combustion.
Cross-posted drivel continues. USENET police need to be called in to help stem
drivel-tide. "KILL" commands are developed which are literal.

****
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed do not in any way reflect those of my employer
****
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Self doubt?  I doubt it.
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:49:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.183755.21783@donner.SanDiego.NCR.COM>, kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>You didn't reply to my assertion that true debate should involve attacks
>on a person's logic, not the person. Personal attack is lazy.

True, but it DOES get somewhat tiresome keeping track of the file where I saved
your admission that you couldn't tell a con artist from a genuine psychic, for
example.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.