HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:24:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: newshost.1992Nov6.202423.17112
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1992Nov6.033644.21745@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
|> In article <GERRY.92Nov5155324@onion.cmu.edu>, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
|> > [...]
|> > Within our society, children have limited rights.  [...]
|> > [...]
|> So the RKBA is above all laws, except for minors.  Just what I said,
|> it's modifiable under the law.

Fine, let's use *your* logic and see where it gets us.  We claim that
*minors* have restricted rights to guns, and you claim that means we
can restrict everyone else's rights to them too.  OK.  Minors can't
vote - let's extend that to adults too.  In fact, in *all* your
statements, if we replace the "right to bear arms" with the "right
to vote" the absurdity of your logic becomes apparent.

|> [...]
|> >    2)  A violent criminal is released on bail.  His first stop is
|> >        a gun store - can he be forbidden to buy the gun?
|> > 
|> > A convicted felons' right are not the same as a "ordinary" citizen.
|> > They are prohibited from owning firearms, and I, believe from voting.
|> > 
|> So the RBA is above all laws, except you lose that right when you
|> are convicted of a crime.  I can also promise you that there are
|> people who will chime in with the opinion that NOTHING loses you
|> the right to a gun.  So this right is also subject to various
|> opinions.

   So the right to vote is above all laws, except you lose that right 
   when you are convicted of a crime.  I can also promise you that there 
   are people who will chime in with the opinion that NOTHING loses you
   the right to vote.  So this right is also subject to various opinions.

Ok, so you are claiming that people should not be allowed to vote unless
they pass a background check.  They shouldn't vote at all if they live in
a heavy crime area.  I mean, that's the same thing you've said about
gun-control.  If your *justification* for circumventing the second
ammendment is that you can already do so with criminals and children,
then whatever you *do* with that justification can be used equally
on any *other* right that criminals and children are denied.

Meanwhile, gun-control doesn't even *work*.  So why go though the 
effort to pass unconstitutional laws for something which has no
positive effect anyway?

-- 
J. Giles
From: avi@hawk.imagen.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:51:17 GMT
Reply-To: avi@hawk.imagen.com
Organization: none

>>> >2) The talmud is a MUCH more reliable source because despite the many years and
>>> >   hardships, there is ONLY 1 version of it (the Jersualem/Babelonyan being
>>> >   complementary). The New Testament however, has 4 different and often 
>>> >   contradictory versions (the 4 gospels) of the same story of Jesus' life and
>>> >   death.
>>> 
>>> Can we stop this "My book is better than your book" argument?
>>
>>Why? Because he's pointed out that your books (plural) all contradict each 
>>other?

>No, because it doesn't add anything useful to the discussion.

Well, actually it does. The original question was, why should one consider
the Talmud a more reliable source than the New Testament. If you have a
choice between two sources, one that COMMONLY contradicts itself, is written 
by mostly people who NEITHER knew Jesus personally NOR lived in his time 
(i.e. 3 out 4 gosples excluding John), was promoted by VIOLENT means and shoved
down people's throats (i.e. cusaders, spanish inquisition, etc.) and were
often rewritten to accomodate the "current" era - and between one who throughout
THOUSANDS of years did NOT change, although the people of this source went through
untold miseries and suffering incluing the Burning of the Talmud (France 1423)
mostly inflicted by the Christian (Catholic) side - and yet NEVER changed and
remained the same throughout time, I'd side with the latter as being more
reliable !!! Mot to mention that objective (i.e. non-jewish and non-christian
sources) like Josephus Phlavius, a contemporary Historian (of that era) who
commented extensively on this era, and if you compare his notes, and impressions
you'd see he sides with the Talmud's sources much more so.

Another point is that death by Sanhedrin (according to that Mosaic Law) can ONLY
be brought about by ONLY 1 of 4 permissible means: Sword, Strangling, etc. ("Herev, Chenek", etc) 

Every sin punishable by death has a specific MEANS of execution that is to 
be used ONLY for this sin. Crucification is NOT one of those 4 , and you 
can NOT substitute one for the other. So, if the Sanhedrin was involved in
executing Jesus, including handing him over to be executed by the Romans 
via crucification, they would have broken the very law they were trying to protect by supposedly executing him !!!
From: drwho@wpi.WPI.EDU (Eric Ant Von Laudermann)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Jeane Dixon Predicts Bush Victory
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:33:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

In article <BD.92Nov9090751@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>
>By the way - I have heard of this technique for a scam before.  Was it the
>plot of a movie, or something?

This was used as the plot for a PBS "Mathnet" special movie from the
makers of Square One TV (cool show!) a year or two ago.  I believe the
scam has been done before in real life, and is highly illegal.  (But
wouldn't it be fun? :-)

>-- 
>   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
>                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
>             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
>                              DoD # 0698

--E.V.L. (drwho@wpi.wpi.edu)  # Who is this John person, and where does
a.k.a.:  The Eternal Newbie,  # he have to be at 3:16?
The Amazing Tubeman!,         # 
Murphy's Law Incarnate        # 
Any similarities what I say and what I mean are purely coincidental.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: When will K2 grow up?
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:28:33 GMT

p00168@psilink.com ("James F. Tims") writes:

: Speaking of CNN, has anybody predicted a date when their science news
: staff will discover that Mt. Everest isn't the highest mountain on Earth?
: I have actually sent them two letters, referring them to the _Information
: Please Almanac_ and to the _World Almanac_, but I heard about a week
: ago that Mt. Everest still takes the cake at CNN.  I have even tried
: calling their news hotline.  No doubt they thought it was a
: crank call.  I give up.

There was a Nova episode a few months ago about an expidition to
measure the heights of Everest and K2.  It was determined that
Everest's peak was higher than K2's.  I don't believe everything I
hear on CNN, but you aren't suggesting that I doubt Nova, are you?

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I own seven-eighths of
Rosemount Inc.                                |all the artists in downtown
                                              |Burbank!
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne)
Subject: Re: Election Illogic?
Keywords: its_them_not_me_right?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:42:23 GMT

kenl@origami.cc.bellcore.com (Ken Lehner) writes:
>I was listening to WCBS radio yesterday morning during their election
>coverage.  They reported Pres. Busch campaigning heavily in Ohio, and
>the reporter gave two reasons:
>
>1) Ohio has 21 electoral votes.
>
>2) Ohio has voted for the winner in the presidential election for the
>past 20 years.
>
>Now, am I missing something here?  It sounds like somebody (either the
>politicians or the reporter, I'm not sure) thinks that doing well in
>Ohio will somehow affect the national election.  Can someone explain
>what they are thinking so that I can understand it?
>
>I'm skeptical.

Ohio is a "bellweather" state.  For a presidential candidate to win Ohio's
21 electoral votes, he/she must win the votes of the heavily Democratic
blue-collar north (Cleveland,Toledo,Akron,etc); win the votes of the
farming counties of the west; win the votes of the heavily Republican
blue-collar southwest (Dayton to Cincinnati); win the votes of 
white-collar suburbanite central Ohio (Columbus); and finally win the
votes of the Appalachian coal-mining counties of the southeast.
Whew.  

How Ohio votes will not influence any other states, but it's a fairly safe
bet that if you can appeal to the diverse mass of Ohio voters, you're
going to do well everywhere else.

---Bill VanHorne

--------------------------------------------------
Please try to use the word paradigm in every post.
Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: 29
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:59:30 GMT

> From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus
> Duo)
> Message-ID: <1992Nov5.100623.9263@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>

> I believe that this campaign overlaps two groups, not only CSICOP,
> but also the Center for Free Inquiry, or something like that, a
> group I personally like somewhat less than CSICOP.

Council for a Democratic and Secular Humanism (CODESH), the
anti-religious humanist outfit Paul Kurtz founded when he had
his falling-out with the more religion-neutral American Humanist
Association.  CODESH puts out _Free Inquiry_ magazine, while the
venerable AHA organisation publishes _The Humanist_.

> Is this a combined campaign, or not?

Yes, it certainly is.

> I want to know where my money would be going.

Yes, that's part of the problem, isn't it?  Another is the general
difficulty they seem to have had at times over the past few years in
keeping the organisations separate.

I note that Prof. Kurtz, in his humanist appearances (many of which I've
attended), consistently uses the term "skeptic" synonymously with
"atheist".  Although I'm not personally religious, I don't appreciate
that very much, and think that all of this is a substantial problem.
Fortunately, the officers of local skeptics' groups who've spoken out on
this matter almost unanimously think likewise.

Cheers,
Rick Moen
Director, Bay Area Skeptics
Editor, _BASIS_
(not purporting to speak for anyone but himself)

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: CSICOP Announcement
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:06:23 EST

In article <40544@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, dnoelle@cs.ucsd.edu (David Noelle) writes:
[...]
> CSICOP [COMMITTEE FOR THE SCIENTIFIC EXAMINATION OF CLAIMS OF THE
> PARANORMAL] ANNOUNCES BIGGEST FUND CAMPAIGN IN THE HISTORY OF 
> SKEPTICISM!
> 
> 	CSICOP OF AMHERST, NEW YORK, HAS ANNOUNCED A $3,960,000
> FUND CAMPAIGN TO CONSTRUCT AND ENDOW A NEW CENTER FOR INQUIRY.
> 
[...]
I believe that this campaign overlaps two groups, not only CSICOP, but also the
Center for Free Inquiry, or something like that, a group I personally like
somewhat less than CSICOP.  IS this a combined campaign or not?  I want to know
where my money would be going.

GXKambic
sd

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:03:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.181421.11697@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
>Actually, several Talmudic passages, as well as other sources in the
>Rabbinical literature, state that Jesus WAS stoned to death, then
>hanged on a tree (as prescribed in Deut. 21:22-23). 
>
>It is only the Gospel accounts of the trial - that you and I, at least, 
>can agree were fictions composed to promote somebody's political aims -
>that claim Jesus was crucified.

Well, not being an expert in Talmudic passages, I am very curious
if you could quote the passages in question that you are referring
to.  However, this does not change the fact that the most people
agree that Jesus Christ was crucified somewhere around 27 AD.  If
you think that it's only my Christian religion making me biased
and unaccepting of your truth, then let me leave you with the
following observation.  Just for grins, I looked up "Jesus" in my
copy of the "Random House Dictionary" (hardly a Chrisitian
publication).  It's definition is as follows:

Jesus : born 4? B.C., crucified A.D. 29?, the source of the Christian religion.
Also called Jesus Christ.

As a control :) the definition of "Lincoln" is:

Lincoln: 1. Abraham 1809-65, 16th president of the US, 1861-65.

While not definitive proof that Jesus was crucified, it certainly bears out
the contention that it is the historically accepted version which is in
complete agreement with all four Gospels.  It would appear that the onus is
on you to make the opposite case.

>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: 46,500 years ago?
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992
Date: 05 Nov 92  15:10:20

Tag: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
ID: 68828@cup.portal.com
 
JW> "Dear Earthians: I got the year wrong that the pyramid was
JW> made. It was made 45,600 years ago. John Winston"
 
Dear Questionable: what did they use for labor back then,
considering humans were still picking fleas off each other
while hanging in trees?
 
Contemporary humans evolved when, 25,000 to 40,000 years ago.
 
(Note: I do not think "hanging in trees" is correct; I'm stressing
a point with the symbolism.)

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Effects of the Full Moon
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 05:36:04 GMT

mdkline@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Mark D. Kline) writes:

>In article <1d9sm9INNsqf@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Nov3.113533.8927@edinboro.edu>, j724664s@edinboro.edu writes:

>>>My stepfather is a policeman in Washington Twp. NJ. From his experience there
>>>is usually an increase in "radical" behavior during a full moon. i.e.
>>>domestic disputes, fights, abnormal behavior, etc.

>I once worked in the emergency admission area of a state mental 
>hospital, where the staff swore there was an increase in psychiatric
>emergencies and admissions at the time of the full moon.  We went back
>and looked at statistics over the preceeding couple of years.  There
>was something of a trend toward higher numbers of people seen toward
>the end of the month (out of money) but  there was no relation to  
>lunar phase.

The belief that hospital admittance rates are highest during the full Moon
is fairly common.  Although I've never seen figures for it, I think it's
sort of widely accepted.  However, the explanation is that full Moon produces
lots more nighttime illumination, so people are out more.  This may or may not
be true, but it would explain why police officers and hospitals see more cases
but you didn't see more mental cases.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

The only thing worse than writing a program that is constantly crashing on user
     errors is remembering that you're the only one who uses the program.
From: kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Efficacy of Prayer
Date: 13 Nov 1992 01:01:44 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: krusty.caltech.edu
Originator: magney@krusty

In article <1ds1d3INNslq@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl  
J Lydick) writes:
> 	A PHILOSOPHY OR RELIGION THAT CHOOSES TO IGNORE HUMAN NATURE AND  
THAT
> 	IS BASED ON A DENIAL OF COMMON HUMAN BEHAVIOR IS USELESS, BECAUSE  
IT
> 	CAN'T LEAD TO THE OUTCOMES IT PROPOSES.

I just wanted to add a few more logs to the flame.  

It seems to me that the most natural mode of human behavior is to act in
one's own self-interest, without particular concern for others.  If this
is true, any philosophy that requires self-sacrifice for a greater good is
useless to the extent that it requires self-sacrifice.  

I don't like this (though I can't produce a plausible denial of it); I
would prefer a world where everyone makes as great an effort as they can
to help others before themselves.  If you consider this behavior
desirable, then Christianity (as commonly interpreted today) has a lot
going for it; it asks you to give till it hurts, but helps you not to be
overwhelmed with guilt when you fall short.

One more thing:  Some people (I won't speak for others) would like their
personal philosophy to be founded on rationality, and the only way they
can be sure their philosophy is rational is to try to defend it.  Carl,
for such people, and in particular for myself, you perform a valuable
service, by trying to make us think hard about what we believe.  If, as
you have claimed, talk.religion or talk.philosophy don't require grounding
for yd's statements, yd could not get such a service there.

(Yd is my personal choice of gender-neutral third-person pronoun.  [It 
isn't my own idea, but that's a long story.]  I use it because I want to,
and I won't try to argue its merits.)

--
| Michael Agney          | "Well, if we were to build a   |
|                        |           giant badger..."     |
|                        |    - Monty Python and the      |
| magney@cco.caltech.edu |      search for the Holy Grail |
-- 
| Michael Agney          | "Well, if we were to build a   |
|                        |           giant badger..."     |
|                        |    - Monty Python and the      |
| magney@cco.caltech.edu |      search for the Holy Grail |
From: mxmora@unix.sri.com (Matthew Xavier Mora)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: test
Date: 13 Nov 92 23:46:36 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: SRI International

this is a test


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Xavier Mora                                mxmora@unix.sri.com
SRI International                                       (415) 859-5011
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dcpik@ednor.bbc.com (David Pikcilingis)
Subject: Searching for publication
Organization: Boston Business Computing, Ltd.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:35:54 GMT

I recently tuned into the middle of a radio talk show and caught the
end of the host's comments concerning a book about the environment.
I cannot recall the name of the book (or even the radio station or host)
and have been unable to locate anything like it in bookstores.  It was
portrayed as a collection of articles written by 80+ scientists on 
environmental issues.  The host's point was that these articles
described the actual situation regarding the issues rather than the
viewpoint that the public usually gets from the media and politicians.

I would appreciate any information regarding this or similar publications.

David Pikcilingis
Boston Business Computing
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Subject: Re: Plausible Denial (WAS Re: Measurement & Precision)
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 12:44:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.005747.11811@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.233918.29551@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>...
>>Not that I'm in the habit of doing that, but what's wrong with that?
>>...
>>What's makes you think your the moral cop?
>
>Derek, you are going to have to do better than respond to an article where I
>point out that some questions need not be answered, with no arguments except
>for a few questions.

Neatly side stepped.

Hey, this guy is not only a moral cop, he's a politician.
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Effects of the Full Moon
Date: 5 Nov 92 11:49:13 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Nov3.113533.8927@edinboro.edu> j724664s@edinboro.edu writes:
>My stepfather is a policeman in Washington Twp. NJ. From his experience there
>is usually an increase in "radical" behavior during a full moon. i.e.
>domestic disputes, fights, abnormal behavior, etc.

Sorry, `experience' won't do.  There has to be a written record, collected
in such a way that happenings on each day get equal chance of being
recorded. If the `recorder' has to judge `radicality' after having
seen the moon, this equal chance already is compromised.

Even then, it's tricky business. In one research it seemed that more
accidents happened on full moon, but later it turned out that 
disproportionately many full moons fell on a weekend, and after 
correcting for that the effect was gone. 

JWN
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19316 alt.paranormal:2472 alt.alien.visitors:8186
From: chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Jeane Dixon Predicts Bush Victory
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:55:34 GMT
Reply-To: chris@kbsw3.UUCP (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

The scam as you described it is called the inverse pyramid and is
detailed in a story by R. A. Lafferty. In his version the trick was 
picking track winners and then charging for the 5th one.


-- 
Chris Kostanick
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog
it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx
From: pirtle@sri.com (Dave Pirtle)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Innumeracy (Was: Re: Jeane Dixon Predicts Bush Victory)
Date: 14 Nov 92 01:39:40 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: usa
Organization: sri.com

In article <BD.92Nov13081824@fluent.UUCP>, bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice
Dowaliby) wrote:
.> 
.> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
.> 
.> >I heard an education expert interviewed on public radio a while back.
.> >She was a proponent of outcome based educate (OBE).  She talked about
.> >the high rate of illiteracy and innumeracy in graduates of the the
.> >present educational system.  She then stated that with new methods
.> >like OBE, and hard work, and commitment from parents "everybody could
.> >be above average."  She wasn't ripping off Garrison Kiellor's joke
.> >either, she was dead serious.
.> 
.> Was that illiteracy, innumeracy, or just sloppy speech?  Since
.> it's obvious (to me, at least) that she meant everyone could be
.> above the current average, what's the big deal?
.>           ^^^^^^^
.> 
.> -- 
.>    Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
.>                          bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
>              I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
>                               DoD # 0698

It's obvious (to me, at least) that enen she may not know what she meant!
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: A gender neutral prono
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:13:55 GMT

> From: tt@euler.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen)
> Message-ID: <TT.92Nov6153356@euler.jyu.fi>
 
> Why don't you all just abandon English and start using Finnish
> instead. It has a gender-neutral 3rd person pronoun (and no
> gender-specific ones at all -- makes translation interesting at
> times).
 
Ah, yes.  So does Turkish, while we're at it.  The beneficial societal 
effect of this is clearly seen in the enlightened attitude Turkish 
society takes towards women.  <=Sarcasm alert for the humour-impaired.
 
Cheers,
Rick M.

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)