HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Krishnas, Vedas, and all that (was: TM debunking needed)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:28:01 GMT

In article <qViqXB4w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us> system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

: 	Well, I guess it's safe to say that the Hare Krishnas are
: essentially Veda-thumping Hindu fundamentalists. It is not for nothing
: that _Back to Godhead_ is sometimes nicknamed _Back to Blockhead_.

>You heap derision on the Hare Krishnas, but you have not addressed any
>issue. Is this not the trademark of a real blockhead?

	Yes, I know it was snide. And you may believe that I am a
blockhead if you wish. But if _Back to Godhead_ contains lots of
things that seem silly, then one might be tempted to come up with some
unflattering nicknames for the publication.

	But try looking at the Moon through a small telescope sometime
and see if it looks like "cosmic fire".

	See? I _did_ address a relevant issue.

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: does this sound right?
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:56:16 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1993Jan23.4286.31987@dosgate>, "dan mckinnon" <dan.mckinnon@canrem.com> writes:


|>    The "gone forever" part gives me more trouble, unless every acre is
|> on a mountainside and quickly devastated by erosion, or unless third
|> world countries are erecting shopping malls at an alarming rate.
|> 
|>    ANyone have anything useful to add on these claims, or handy sources
|> of info, perhaps my twit filter gave a false alert.

	I have no references, but I have seen reports that suggest that it's 
actually quite difficult to restore rain forest once it's been cut down, at 
least on a time scale that's of any interest to us ("forever" is of course 
hyperbole).  These were just news reports (NY Times?), and I didn't pay much 
attention to them, so you'd be advised to check them out yourself if you're 
really interested.  My recollection is that attempts to restore small areas 
of rain forest (in Costa Rica?  or was that another story about rain forests?) 
showed that the forest soil was too poor in nutrients to start a forest 
growing there again; most of the nutrients had been located in the forest 
canopy, and were lost when it was removed.  


-- 
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: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 06:23:36 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.


>Brokering babies for ritual abuse would explain why some
>anti-choice activists seem so much more interested in
>a baby's being born than in the baby's growing up
>happy and healthy.
>  Are you suggesting that the fundamentalists who want to make
>abortion illegal are themselves the "satanic ritual abusers"?


It would be a good cover, wouldn't it. Heh heh heh. "Save the
unborn", indeed! Save them for WHAT?!? "Save the unborn! Trade
them to SATAN for valuable prizes!" This would also explain
just how the antichoicers manage to get all those photos of
mangled fetuses: they MAKE 'EM THEMSELVES! It further accounts for:
1) parental and spousal notification laws. To make sure that no 
pregnancies slip past SATANIC parents and husbands.
2) waiting periods. Gives time for SATANISTS to find and get to
the "donors"...

Eww, I'd better stop, I'm scaring myself.
From: gibson@crisium.geop.ubc.ca (Brad Gibson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Prometheus Books & Humanist Weddings?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 02:09:14 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Astronomy / Univ. of British Columbia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: crisium.astro.ubc.ca

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

I seem to have misplaced my Prometheus Books catalog ... can someone forward me
their phone number please?  And while we're on the subject ... if you have one
handy, could you check if there's a book covering Humanist Wedding Ceremonies?
I'm sure I've heard of such a book, and can't think of anywhere else I might
have seen it besides there.  Any other info or books regarding Humanist or
atheist, etc wedding ceremony suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,
   Brad

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Brad K. Gibson                           INTERNET: gibson@geop.ubc.ca
  Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy         
  #129-2219 Main Mall                      PHONE: (604)822-6722
  University of British Columbia           FAX:   (604)822-6047
  Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  V6T 1Z4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: hanche@ams.sunysb.edu (Harald Hanche-Olsen)
Subject: Unbelievers and enemies (Was: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media)
Organization: University at Stony Brook, NY
	<C1J9wq.CGC@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:01:37 GMT

>>>>> In article <C1J9wq.CGC@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>,
>>>>> dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:

dmcanzi> *sigh* [...]

Sigh indeed.

dmcanzi> I'm surprised that only scoffers, unbelievers, and vermin like that
                                           *********************************

Hmmm.  Of such statements are flame wars born.

dmcanzi> Perhaps sci.skeptic was the wrong place for my message, even
dmcanzi> though I would still expect true believers to be reading it
dmcanzi> to keep an eye on the enemy.

So skeptics are the enemy, are they?  Gee, and I always thought there
were lots of religious folks who also believe in the scientific method
as a tool for understanding the world.

dmcanzi> Guess I should move on...

It might be good for your peace of mind.  Or maybe you really should
stay, you know, to keep an eye on us enemies?

- Harald
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: does this sound right?
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:29:05 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <C1F8Ht.MMv@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>, sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
|> 	I have no references, but I have seen reports that suggest that it's 
|> actually quite difficult to restore rain forest once it's been cut down, at 
|> least on a time scale that's of any interest to us ("forever" is of course 
|> hyperbole).

Yep, that is so.  In fact no area where rain forest is known to have been cut
has yet completely recovered to its original state.  (The rain forests of Africa
are quite odd - they seem to be entirely secondary forest - no primary forest at
all - guess why?)

|> These were just news reports (NY Times?), and I didn't pay much 
|> attention to them, so you'd be advised to check them out yourself if you're 
|> really interested.  My recollection is that attempts to restore small areas 
|> of rain forest (in Costa Rica?  or was that another story about rain forests?) 
|> showed that the forest soil was too poor in nutrients to start a forest 
|> growing there again; most of the nutrients had been located in the forest 
|> canopy, and were lost when it was removed.  

This is well known.  It has been determined in many ways over the years.
Due to the high rain fall any nutrients in the soil are *quickly* leached out.
Thus tropical soils are acutally amoung the most sterile in the world. A rain
forest can maintain itself only by rapid *recycling* of the nutrients it
contains.  Thus one gets extremely rapid decay, and very shallow roots to
immediately reabsorb the released nutrients.

Now, if a cleared area is allowed to start regrowing in about a year, a new
forest *will* come in - just one that has far fewer species of trees in it,
and one that is less complex in internal structure.

There is also another major problem with tropical soils on cleared land.
The main mineral compponent is the same mineral as is found in china clay
- you know, those fine china dishes in your cabinet.  Guess what ahppens to
it when it is exposed to the hot sun for any length of time?

That's right - it gets fired - voila a giant ceramic plate shaped like a field.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22773 soc.culture.usa:10024 talk.religion.misc:27380
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.culture.usa,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Allan Bloom, Micheal Medved and Jack Chick
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 23 Jan 1993 11:15 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan23.144008.22923@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes...
>In article <P0BLXB6w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K'
>Siano) writes:
>>More recently, Michael Medved has portrayed the film industry as a
>>decadent, soul-sick coterie of dissolute leftists in <Hollywood Vs.
>>America>-- an image that isn't very different from Jack Chick's
>>caricatures of gays, Satanists, and secular humanists.
> 
>Yes, indeed.  Movies!  Micheal Medved hated 'The Cook, The Thief, His
>Wife, and Her Lover', so he is a wacko like unto Jack Chick.

Not quite.  The argument (which Siano makes in another article which
goes into some detail on Medved's book) is more like "Michael Medved
misuses statistics to argue for a number of mutually inconsistent
propositions, so he is a wacko like unto Jack Chick."

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: johnsd2@jec323.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Krishnas, Vedas, and all that (was: TM
Date: 24 Jan 93 19:43:53 GMT
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec323.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.

In article H6gVXB4w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us, system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>
>> In article <TBiqXB3w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us> system@kalki33.lakes.tr
>> >What he said was that the astronauts never went to the moon, and his
>> >reason was that the moon is impossible to reach by mankind's present
>> >technology,
>> 
>> Well, was he right?
>
>The astronauts certainly never went to the planet Chandraloka as it is
>described in the Vedas. This planet, whose name is commonly translated
>as "the Moon," is populated by intelligent living beings in an advanced
>state of civilization, and is not reachable by ordinary mechanical
>means.
>

That's nice.

So where did the astronauts go? We like to call it the "moon", but
this does not seem to coincide with your concept of what the moon is,
and where it is. So what IS that big chunk of rock orbiting the earth,
which astronauts visited and discovered no life upon? THIS satalite
is clearly reachable my mechanical means.

Basically I dont think we're talking about the same celestial body here.

And why would anyone be silly enough to translate "Chandraloka"
as "the Moon", if Chandraloka is a planet?

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
From: edw@distant.uucp (Ed Watkeys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Characterization of quack theories
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 07:59:53 EST
Organization: Distant Software
Reply-To: edw@distant.uucp
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v2


In article <1jgjvkINNmfr@gap.caltech.edu> (sci.skeptic), carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
> In article <schumach.726889263@convex.convex.com>, schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
> >Admittedly, learning ONLY facts and never method leaves one fit only
> >to be a tradesman, but first things first: learning method and never
> >facts leaves one fit only to be a philosopher.
> 
> Hey, wait a minute!  Don't disparage tradesmen like that.  They serve useful
> functions, and Steven Jay Gould, for one, describes himself as a tradesman.

Furthermore, I think you're being awfully unfair to philosophers. Your
characterization may be true of _inept_ philosophers, but I can't think of
any reason why philosophers are _a priori_ ignorant of facts relevant to their
field. What about Jim Lippard? Would you characterize him as being
fact-impaired?

> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

--
Edwin H. Watkeys III                                   edw@distant.uucp
Distant Software                               dsinc!jabber!distant!edw
+1 215 387 7971                                     edw%distant@bts.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson)
Subject: Re: Krishnas, Vedas, and all that (was: TM debunking needed)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 06:15:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.041222.28142@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
	[amplyfying Peter Nelson's suggestions that the research claims
	 of the TM organization are, ah, unsound:]
>
>And the Hare Krishnas are even sillier than THAT. Their publication "Back
>to Godhead" published sometime during 1977 an article titled "Man on the
>Moon, A case of mass brainwashing." The author, Satsvarupa dasa Goswami,
>argues in essence that since the Vedas proclaim space flight to be 
>impossible, therefore the moon landing could not possibly have happened.
>Some quotes:
>
	[some snipped]

>   The Vedic account of our planetary system is already researched,
>   concluded, and perfect. The _Vedas_ state that the moon is 800,000
>   miles _farther_ from earth than the sun. Therefore, even if we
>   accept the modern calculation of 93 million miles as the distance
>   from the earth to the sun, how could the "astronauts" have travelled
>   to the moon - a distance of almost 94 million miles - in only 91
>   hours (the alleged elapsed time of the Apollo 11 moon trip)?...

Sounds like a bad translation.
On the other hand it may be a great translation of bad ideas.
Could even be a mediocre transmigration of metaphor into hogwash.
Who knows?

But it is hardly comparable to claims based on research.  If you want to
vilify the TM proclamations, fine, but if you are skeptical of the
results they say accrue from meditation, it would be more useful to
examine the experimental designs or the analytic strategies.  Having
read many of the papers on physiological effects, and some on
other topics, my impression is that the quality of controls and general
design has greatly increased over the 30 years or so TM has been
sponsoring or collaborating in research efforts.  Furthermore their
claims are hardly extraordinary, and in many respects closely
replicate findings in completely independent research on autonomic
nervous system regulation, hypertension, stress indicators, and more,   
much of which research has nothing explicitly to do with meditation.

I am less familiar with the work that purports to show large scale 
social effects -- e.g., reduction in crime rates in cities, putatively 
correlated with large group meditations -- and have some difficulty
fitting that into a common sense framework, let alone standard
scientific models.  On the other hand, I'd be interested to hear what is
wrong with their data in terms of design flaws, analytic mistakes,
selective reporting, and the like.  

Do you know anything about the research? 

Roger
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Krishnas, Vedas, and all that (was: TM debunking needed)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:26:31 GMT

In article <7VHVXB7w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us> system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>> 	There is no such thing as a planet separate from the Moon that
>> causes eclipses.
>So you say, but this is only your opinion. You cannot see Rahu, but that
>does not mean it doesn't exist.

Eclipses are caused by some things blocking the light from other things.

If something blocks light, by definition you can see it.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: does this sound right?
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:13:06 GMT

"dan mckinnon" <dan.mckinnon@canrem.com> writes:

>        I presume many of us have inborn "twit" filters that make us
>examine everything we read or hear. Mine went off many times with a
>WOrld WIldlife Fund commercial, that is probably played as a public
>service. Its claim - one acre of rain forest is destroyed every second
>(and they claim the destruction is "forever".

>         Well, let's see:365 days*24 hours*60 minutes*60 seconds =

> 5,256,000 acres/year. My dictionary says 1 sq mile = 640 acres.

> So 5,256,000/640 = 8215 square miles, about 90 by 90 miles. Well, that
>starts to become an image I can deal with, and actually is more
>believable to me, 'tho exaggeration is common in activist groups.

I expect the "one acre per second" is only approximate, but
probably not too far off.

>   The "gone forever" part gives me more trouble, unless every acre is
>on a mountainside and quickly devastated by erosion, or unless third
>world countries are erecting shopping malls at an alarming rate.

Actually I believe most of it is used for farming until the soil
is depleted too much to continue growing food. The next piece of
forest is then burned down. Most rain forest soil isn't actually
all that good, and it doesn't take much to damage it.

While "gone forever" isn't completely accurate, the forest isn't going
to grow back on any reasonable human timescale. Plus many of the
plants and animals will become extinct, so what does eventually grow
back will not be thae same as what was originally destroyed.

>   ANyone have anything useful to add on these claims, or handy sources
>of info, perhaps my twit filter gave a false alert.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (David Nash)
Subject: Kalki:  Krishna, or Borg?  You make the call
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:40:39 GMT

In article <7VHVXB7w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us> system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
>lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>> 
>> 	What's the "Bhu-mandala system"?

A group of six planets around a class-M star near the edge of the
Neutral Zo....whoops, wrong science-fiction story.

>
>The Bhu-mandala system is a gigantic disk-shaped region in
>higher-dimensional space. Its 3-dimensional projection is on the
>ecliptic. Ordinary human beings cannot see the physical disk of
>Bhu-mandala, because our senses are not sophisticated enough. But its
>existence has been reported by demigods and advanced yogis.

Now why does this sound so familiar?  Oh.  Yes.  Back when N-rays were
all the rage, Blondlot claimed that the inability of non-French scientists
to see the rays was due to poorer visual acuity.  Gotta love that particular
excuse!

>> >Eclipses are explained as the result of the planet Rahu passing
>> >between the sun and the earth, or the moon and the earth. In modern
>> >astronomy, the planet Rahu is identified as the moon's ascending node,
>> >which is indeed in line with the sun-moon-earth system during an
>> >eclipse.

The ascending node is a POINT.  The Sun is a sphere, which we see as a
disk about half a degree in diameter.  Care to explain how a point can
occlude such a disk?

And why just the ascending node?  Why not the descending node as well?

And why does this planet which we cannot see produce an event that
is very easy to see?



>> 
>> 	There is no such thing as a planet separate from the Moon that
>> causes eclipses.
>
>So you say, but this is only your opinion. You cannot see Rahu, but that
>does not mean it doesn't exist.

Rahu does not cause eclipses.  The little invisible (but very very powerful)
gnomes in my closet take care of that.  Of course, they take great pains
to move the planets so it *looks* like they are obeying Newton's laws
of motion, but this is really an illusion.  Your ideas about Rahu are
only your opinion.  You cannot see the gnomes, but that does not
mean they don't exist.

>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa

Don't forget to chant:

"If you chant it, he will come
If you chant it, he will come
If you chant it, he will come
..."

---> Dave


-- 
David Nash                  | Gradual Student, Chemistry
                            | University of Illinois (Urbana)
(dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)    | This .sig is made of 100% recycled electrons.
(nash@aries.scs.uiuc.edu)   | No binary trees were killed to make it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Kalki:  Krishna, or Borg?  You make the call
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:10:11 GMT

Borg

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand)
Subject: Re: does this sound right?
Reply-To: motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:09:42 GMT

"dan mckinnon" <dan.mckinnon@canrem.com> writes:

[...]

>  31,536,000 /640 (Acres/sq. mile)=  49,275  sq. miles per year

>  So (49,275 / 52,426,000) * 100 = .93989 % of world's land area lost
>permanently each year, and since they are talking about rainforest
>only,out of all the world's land area, are claiming such a high figure
>that it is all gone by now, and what remains is clearly a figment of our
>imagination.

>   Because of my earlier mistake, any checking of figures is welcome.

>   Again, this was based on a World Wildlife Fund ad that says one
>acre of rain forest disappears every second, forever - due to man's
>logging, of course.

Why is this "clearly a figment of our imagination"?
From what I have heard, in some South American countries as much as
50% of their rainforests have already been destroyed.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
motcid!wiegand@uunet.uu.net            uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.