HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic

Where do these people come from?
I am now 37 years old, have seen a lot of things etc and consider myself
pretty open about other peoples ideas and beliefs.  But I am still quite     
fascinated by these guy who talk about "watch out for the cigar-shaped 
ufo's...my guru says they are the bad guys" and "all the little plants
and things have caretakers you cant see" and "Sure, I can levitate, but
you arent allowed to watch (unless you are willing to pay $$$ to take
lessons etc)"...You know, life if pretty interesting and confusing too..
On the one hand you have UFO's, then there's ghosts and demons, black
holes and all manner of the inexplicable (Nixon's missing 9 minutes of
taped conversations included)....   Some deadhead once tried to convince
me that trees talk to you when you sleep under them at night... No wonder
so many people cant make decisions about religion and truth and justice 
etc.. God just cluttered up the works so bad with all these distractions
that have nothing to do with each other that normal even-tempered level
headed free thinkers cant even say for sure whats real and what isnt..
For example, although I have never experienced what this guy  has seen 
or done, I wont say that its not true..  but come on, if there are people
inside Mount Shasta giving directions to some other voodoo priestess 
and this info is privvy to only those who want to listen, or have paid
enough $$$ to some guru etc, and if this information is supposed to be
for the good of humanity, dont you think its a little bit more clandestine
than it ought to be?  I mean why dont these entities and powers just
fly around and wave the stars and stripes apple pie... why does all this
stuff have to be so secret?  And I'm not just talking about these 
followers of gurus who claim to know it all etc... Theres bigfoot too..
Why with ghosts, gurus, ufo's, lochness, and Elvis, someone throws in
a Bigfoot...

Oh well, as interesting as that kind of stuff is to read, It is still 
really really hard to believe for sure any of it....    

All of you other folks to who talk to trees and men in mountains, 
please dont be discouraged from writing though, It is quite entertaining.

All views are my own, I am only responsible for my own opinions, 
I didnt write this, no one saw me, you cant prove it.


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Pronouns, again
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 09:01:55 GMT

 >> I have noticed that I use the word "they" as a singular, gender unspecified
 >> pronoun.  Example:
 >> 
 >>     I saw someone the other day.  I was to far away to see what they 
 >>	looked like, but something was familiar about them.
 >> 
 >> I know that most people cringe hearing the strange mix of number in
 >> this sentence.  

The problem is that when I hear that, I hear the grammatical error and not
the point that you were trying to make, like a jarring note in a piece of
music, or a blot on a page I'm trying to read.  Or maybe I think you really
do mean two or more people, and thus I have difficulty parsing what you 
just said.

And it's especially jarring when it's done as a circumlocution to avoid 
using the pronoun "he", under the misconception that "he" can only refer 
to a person known to be male.  I hear the misconception, not the meaning.

I checked the Oxford English Dictionary, and "they" has NEVER been used 
with a singular referent in good writing except occasionally when the 
referent has a universal significance, as in "Everyone has a right to their 
own opinions".  The OED is not making value judgements, just reporting 
usage.  Even "good writing" means writing that is widely read and quoted.

Of course language changes, but we should welcome only changes that increase 
the signal-to-noise ratio, not decrease it.

Ben

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Kindred spirits (Vegans)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:34:43 GMT

In article <62032@mimsy.umd.edu> tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!)) writes:
>
>     From a recent discussion in rec.food.veg. Sci.skeptic, please set this
>guy striaght via e-mail...(mail him (avi), not me, if you would please.)
>
>avi@seal.imagen.com writes:
>>>     Uri Geller? Ulp! Yikes! How distressing to learn that I have something
>>>in common with such a charlatan. Ah well. An idea is not responsible
>>>for who believes it.
>>
>>1.Geller a Charlatan ? This is news to me, as I still remember in my childhood
>>before Geller started travelling to the U.K. and the U.S.for demonstrations
>>that he would make broken clocks and watches start ticking again all over the 

      Don't anybody EVER say that about Geller!

      Do you want to get your ass sued, in every country of the Internet?
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 13 Nov 92 20:56:10 GMT
	<1992Nov7.200723.17356@hfsi.uucp>
	<1992Nov9.015251.13517@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
	<1992Nov10.030133.26244@hfsi.uucp> <1992Nov10.215117.25862@imagen.com>
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.

>>>>> On 10 Nov 92 21:51:17 GMT, avi@hawk.imagen.com said:

avi> The original question was, why should one consider the Talmud a
avi> more reliable source than the New Testament. If you have a choice
avi> between two sources, one that COMMONLY contradicts itself, is
avi> written by mostly people who NEITHER knew Jesus personally NOR
avi> lived in his time (i.e. 3 out 4 gosples excluding John), was
avi> promoted by VIOLENT means and shoved down people's throats (i.e.
avi> cusaders, spanish inquisition, etc.) and were often rewritten to
avi> accomodate the "current" era - and between one who throughout
avi> THOUSANDS of years did NOT change, although the people of this
avi> source went through untold miseries and suffering incluing the
avi> Burning of the Talmud (France 1423) mostly inflicted by the
avi> Christian (Catholic) side - and yet NEVER changed and remained
avi> the same throughout time, I'd side with the latter as being more
avi> reliable !!!

At the risk of pulling out my red handkerchief in the midst of the
bull pen, I'll ask a question out of pure curiosity:  What is the
oldest extant copy of the Talmud - 1000 CE or thereabouts?  Or is
there a copy closer in age to the Dead Sea Scrolls?  Also, did the
scribes follow the same procedure of copy-then-destroy-the-original
with the Talmud as they generally did with the Scriptures?

So many areas of research, so little time ...
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "Oh, that my words were now written! Oh, that
Integrated Measurement Systems |  they were printed in a book; That they were
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  graven, with an iron pen and lead, in the 
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  rock forever!" - Job 19:23-24               
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |                                          THUMP!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Religion is great!
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:31:21 GMT

entpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
: >
: >It might be helpful if you stopped reading Karl Marx for a while, and
: >picked up a biography of Martin Luther instead.  Focus especially on
: >the sale of indulgences, and why Luther opposed that practice ...
: >
: 
: And after that focus on Luther's rabid anti-semitism, second, perhaps,
: only to Hitler's.  Apparently his relationship with God demanded that
: he engage in stereotyping, scapegoating and hatred and other typically
: Christian practices.
: 

He's not talking about theological criticisms of Judaism, either.
Luther stated that Synagogues should be burned, Jew's houses should be
destroyed, etc.  The man promoted violence agains the Jewish
community.  I'd be damn embarassed if I called myself a Lutheran.
Actually, I'd be damn embarassed if I called myself a Christian.

Of course, Luther wasn't a _real_ Christian.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  WHOA!!  Ken and Barbie
Rosemount Inc.                                |are having TOO MUCH FUN!!  It
                                              |must be the NEGATIVE IONS!!
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 19 Nov 1992 15:22:07 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 <1992Nov16.234856.20114@imagen.com>, avi@seal.imagen.com writes:
= MANY DIFFERENT yeshuas. Why ? because:
= 
= 1) Yeshua is reasonably common jewish name for that era. Remember, there was
=     a High Priest (Cohen Gadol) name Yeshua, and another man named
=     Yeshua and Prachiah.
=  2) MANY jews were executed daily, many with no appraent reason but the will
=     of the Romans to just crush the moral, and secure the people subdued. 
=     Now purely from a statistical standpoint, there would be MORE (many more)
=     than one Yeshuas in the crowd, just like there would be more than one Jim 
=     or John in any regular crowd on any City street (in the U.S.)
=  3) On the Eve of Passover, a celebration of FREEDOM from OPPRESSION and SLAVERY,
=     the Romans would especially ACCELERATE and INCREASE the crucifixion ratio
=     as they wanted to break the people, spiritually and emotionally and what
=     better time to do that than on a HAPPY Holiday, when people might have 
=     thoughts of doing to the Romans, what their ancestors, led by Moses, did to 
=     the Egyptians...

Hmmm.  For his statistics to make much sense, Pilate must've made Hitler look
like a piker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 13:24:36 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
|>cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea) writes:
|>>G T Clark (gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
|>>> 	The bible is patently not inerrant.Read Leviticus,chapter 18(or
|>>> thereabouts) where it fairly clearly states that insects walk "upon all
|>>> fours... fourfootedly upon the ground".That's quite clearly a mistake,
|>>> no matter what stage it crept in at.
|>>This isn't a mistake, its an idiom.
|>This renders "inerrancy" a nonsense.  Any passage you might previously
|>have argued was an error, you now argue is an idiom.
|>
|>You can be a Christian and believe *anything you want*.

I grant you that it is a common fundamentalist practice to grasp at the
most obscure and silly of straws in order to patch up sagging argument
(consider the "genealogy of Mary's family" fable used to explain away the
differences between the Matthean and Lucan accounts of the ancestry of
Jesus).

On the other hand Bill has shown himself to be usually quite knowledgable
about such things and I, for one, would be interested in hearing a little
more about this.

NICHAEL  
nichael@bbn.com  --  Forward Quarter Guard and Captain, BBN Calvin Ball Team.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
From: cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:06:24 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Alan Moorman (Alan.Moorman@f31.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com) wrote:
> So... how many other things in the bible are idiom?
> 
> And, who is to decide????

I do !!! :-)  Sorry, I couldn't resist.

> Rocky
--
                                                                     ___
Bill Rea                                                            (o o)
-------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre, | E-Mail   b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury,           | or     cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand           | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: European Space Research Institute (ESRIN)
Date: Wednesday, 18 Nov 1992 17:01:17 SET
From: Mike M. Skala <MSKALA@ESRIN.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Innumeracy, humorous ... maybe.
Distribution: world

Back of the envelope:

6/49 * 5/48 * 4/47 * 3/46 * 2/45 * 1/44 =
6! / (49! - 45!) =

( 6
  49 )  = ca. 14 e6

calculator:

49 nCr 6 = 13 983 816


mike

--
Mike M. Skala
mskala@esrin.bitnet
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
	<1992Nov10.173344.13171@bony1.bony.com>
	<1992Nov11.203736.12929@imagen.com>
	<1992Nov17.043358.16082@bony1.bony.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:32:45 GMT

>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 92 04:33:58 GMT, billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) said:

Bill> In article <1992Nov11.203736.12929@imagen.com> avi@seal.imagen.com writes:

>>According to the New Testament they were concerned that some Jews were
>>following Jesus.  It says that many false Messiahs will follow Jesus
>>claiming to be him, where does it say that "there were MANY False
>>Messiahs before Jesus and NONE was crucified"?
>
>First and foremost, it is said in the New Testament (sorry can't remeber the 
>chapter and verse number or even book, but you'd recognize it) that one of the
>members of the Sanhedrin, quieted the others by saying something like: don't
>worry about him there were others before him and they appeared and disapperaed
>and teh Jewish people forgotten about them, so this will also be his fate.

Bill> I only recognize this as the end of a movie often on TV around Easter
Bill> (The Greatest Story Ever Told?), spoken by Martin Landau.  If it's
Bill> actually in the New Testament, I'd like to see a reference.

Acts 5:34-39, wherein Gamaliel addresses the Sanhedrin.  One of the
greatest arguments for the authenticity of the resurrection, by the way.

--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it;
Integrated Measurement Systems |  lest haply ye be found even to fight against
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  God." - Acts 5:39
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |                                         THUMP!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Subject: Re: Religion is great!
Reply-To: kraus@cheers.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:11:44 GMT

In article <n0e91t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>Who: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
>ID: 1992Nov11.030810.1913@hfsi.uucp
> 
>[cut much of my crap here]
> 
>DR> "Is it moral to go on TV and fake hundreds of thousands
>DR> into believing you can heal sick people, with the result
>DR> that the "healed" died later because they did not seek REAL
>DR> help? How do Christians justify that death? Were they doing
>DR> God's work, thus one or two deaths are acceptable? The ring-
>DR> leaders of Christianity are oh so willing to have their
>DR> followers pay the price, in blood, for the leader's sick,
>DR> flawed brand of morality.

Yes this is despicable.
  
>JA-FSO> "If they are causing the death of people who could have
>JA-FSO> sought medical advice, then it would not seem to me to
>JA-FSO> be moral. But you talked about intent. What would be
>JA-FSO> the intent be of such a preacher?
> 
>Hi! Read "Don't Call me Brother."
> 
>The intent is to con people into handing over large sums of money.
>With it goes sex with whores, power over others, political power
>in society, estates to live on, drugs to snort, strings to pull.
>This has always been the intent of the rulers of all religions;
>even though there are sometimes a few genuine followers, one will
>never find genuine leaders in any religion. It is POWER they seek,
>not some "spirituality."
> 
>If you could show some evidence that I am wrong, I will honestly
>look it over. But I won't hold my breath waiting for it (SMILE!).

I look upon people like Ghandi and Mother Theresa as true religious
and spiritual leaders. They embody what religion can be.

>Don't get me wrong. Religion is GREAT. I can't think of any better
>way to control the ignorant, hungry masses. Use religion to keep
>them stupid, ignorant, and in poverty, while the Ruling Class
>lives off of them like parasites. Religion keeps the poor from
>eatting the rich. Since I am one of the rich, I owe a great
>deal to all religions.

 Yes, when religion is used this way it sucks, but millions of people on
earth receive inspiration and solace from religion. To say that they are all
ignorant, deluded, etc, misses the point that millions find religion useful
and necessary. Many are ignorant to the misuses of religion, but many others
are ignorant to its positive effects. 



---------------------------------------------------
Dave.Kraus@SanDiego.NCR.COM                       |
(619) 485-2504                                    |
---------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:28:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.200421.1@cs2.lamar.edu> carlis_jc@cs2.lamar.edu writes:
>If
>nothing else the Bible is a masterpeice of the english language.

Damn straight.  If English was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for
me.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:30:54 GMT

In article <1eev6sINNhgv@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.214752.6782@texhrc.uucp>, someone@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov18.021504.13692@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>|> 
>>|> It also says that pi=3.
>>
>>Where does it say that?  I haven't heard that one yet.
>
>It's where someone is building some sort of font for the temple in the Old
>Testament.  Of course, for pi=3 to follow, one has to assume that the Bible is
>inerrant, literally true, and precise.  Now, that's what a lot of creationists
>seem to claim, but outside the lunatic fringe of the creationists, you seldom
>see claims that the Bible is everywhere precise.

I'm not familiar with that one, but there's another verse which gives
the dimensions of a circular lake.  Calculating pi from these numbers 
give you pi=3.  Of course, it's meaningless to do this unless you
consider the Bible to be 100% inerrant.


--
====
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: SERTEL@ibm.gwdg.de
Subject: Re: Mars effect
Organization: GWDG, Goettingen
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 20:38:13 MEZ

 
My Mars effect messages are about to disappear from
this list. There was no reply. Why?
 
Hypothesis (1) The sci.sceptic forum serves to exchange views
               not research results.
Hypothesis (2) The stuff was too technical
Hypothesis (3) Readers interested in the messages have been
               waiting for a reply by Jan W Nienhuys, the main
               former discussant on that subject. But he did not reply.
Hypothesis (4) The topic has become boring.
Hypothesis (5) Not responding to my message (lack of reinforcement)
               will make me stop sending such nuisance.
Hypothesis (6) ....
Hypothesis (7) ....      (You may continue if you like)
 
S. Ertel
 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 11:38:06 CST
From: Cole Kendall <U48073@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Audis (was Re: Repressed Memories, Ruined Lives)
 <1992Nov7.184010.19924@rosevax.rosemount.com>
 <GERRY.92Nov9123747@onion.cmu.edu>
 <1992Nov15.025813.14801@midway.uchicago.edu>

In article <1992Nov15.025813.14801@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu
(Seventh Circuit Bound) says:
>
>There weren't a "disproportionate number" of accidents until *after*
>the Sixty Minutes report.  Then, suddenly every Audi accident in the
>Americas was the result of "sudden acceleration."
>
Interestingly, the negative publicity regarding Audi 5000s affected
the resale value of Audi 4000s as well, even though there was no
evidence about the performance of these cars; this is discussed in a paper
in the Journal of Business by M. Sullivan ("Measuring Image Spillovers
in Umbrella-Branded Products") 1990, 405-420.

Cole Kendall
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Homosexual Agenda (was: Fundamentalist nightmare)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:11:31 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <n0ea1t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> 
>My question: is there ANY evidence that shows that acknowledging
>the current homosexuals in the millitary their right to be there,
>is going to hurt the millitary? Has there been studies?

    There is no concrete evidence, just the bigotted opinions of some
military and non-military 'phobes.  There have been no studies of which I'm
aware (it would be difficult to design such a study, it seems to me, since
you'd have to do it in order to assess its effect).  There *are* several
studies supporting what you said about your lesbian friend in the military
- that gays are notable in the armed forces for their dedication,
leadership, and hard work.
    Also, gays seem to be much better at behaving themselves sexually than
their straight comrades (remember Tailhook?).  I don't know of a single
instance of a gay soldier being discharged for sexual misconduct - only for
*being* gay.  Pretty silly, and very expensive.


-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ.