HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Warnke and Stratford
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Sep 21 1992
Date: 26 Sep 92  17:18:56

Tag: James J. Lippard (lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu)
 
JJL> "Mike Warnke travels the country billing himself as 'Former
JJL> Satanist High Priest -- Now Christian Comedian.' He is the
JJL> author of _The Satan Seller_, a book from the early seventies
JJL> which anticipated much of the more recent hysteria over satanic
JJL> [sic] cults engaging in ritual abuse of children, human sacrifice,
JJL> etc. Warnke claimed that the group he was in engaged in human
JJL> sacrifice, but has never made any reports to the police. Just
JJL> recently, _Cornerstone_ magazine, the Christian publication which
JJL> exposed Lauren Stratford's _Satan's Underground_ as confabulation
JJL> by a very disturbed woman, published an expose of Warnke.
JJL> _Christianity Today_, in its August 17, 1992 issue, also made
JJL> some note of this. Is there anyone out there who has copies of
JJL> either or both of these articles? I would like to see them."
 
I have the article of Stratford, in ASCII. It is 50,000+ bytes.
Shall I break it into nine or ten aticles and post it here? I am
limited to 99 lines per article, do to gating into usenet. Or
I will US Mail it via floppy diskette if you like. 714-458-6000
  
I also have the Warnke file.

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Creationism
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:39:12 GMT

wjc@guardian.austin.ibm.com (Bill Collum) writes:

>Maybe I missed something, being neither a devout "beliver" nor an
>avowed "skeptic" (well, maybe more skeptical than most), but is 
>"Scientific Creationism" really taught in public schools? With
>tax-payers dollars? Tell me it's not true. It's no wonder we're well
>on our way to becoming a third-world nation when children are
>taught "beliefs" and "superstitions" rather than "evidence" and 
>"facts" in schools that are intended to prepare them for life as
>productive citizens. 

Arkansas *had* a law requiring the teaching of Scientific Creationism in
public schools, but it was struck down.

My original question arose from a conversation I had with a friend. Neither
of us knew the date the law was signed, so I mmade a fairly general query.
I've since been informed that the was passed under a previous (Republican)
administration in the state.

At least one other state had a similar law, but I can't remember which
one right now.
-- 

Anson Kennedy                                                  anson@netcom.com
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

"If you don't watch the violence,   \           "If I had been the Virgin Mary,
you'll never get desensitized to it." \                I would have said 'No.'"
-Bart Simpson                           \  -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: "Jehovah" TRIBE OF RENEGADE SPACE CANNIBALS!
Summary: Say NO to $10 Billion
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:12:14 GMT

In article <80392@ut-emx.uucp> yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu (Yaron Sheffer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.144132.4700@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>The people in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon etc. did NOT
>>originate from Saudi Arabia even though they are all called Arabs.
>
[etc ... article deletd to save space]
>
>What a joke. Why would I care about life of those who stole my land,
>still occupy it, and try to kill me first?? I guess I should feel sorry
>for dead  WW II Nazis, too, right?

Now isn't this a trip! Here we have "Ronny", a typical
homeboy(?) who is willing to fight and die protecting his turf.
What a joke...what a laugh....and this is the reason why all
thinking voters should get rid of George Bush or anyone else for
that matter who is willing to fund conquest and expansionism at
the expense of one or more other cultures.

Stole your land...this is a joke.....your so called land is
rented to YOU by the government bankers. You dont own squat
anymore unless you live in the wilds of Australia, Canada, or
South America.

JUST SAY NO! TO THE 10 BILLION DOLLAR AID PACKAGE!
>
>Ronny
Len

--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
From: huber@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (Eric Huber)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Sightings (UFOs)
Date: 26 Sep 92 06:19:26 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

I made the mistake of watching Sightings on Fox tonight (It just makes me
mad).  For those of you who missed it, they showed shuttle films that showed
Disputedly-identified Flying Objects.  NASA claims that the strange objects
are bits of the shuttle that had come unattached (his calmness at this idea
was disturbing!) while other people claim they were alien ships.  The first
shot was off I guess the nose of the shuttle near one of the reaction jets.
Several particles are seen drifting at an indeterminant distance.  There is
a flash (from the reaction motor) and the particles scatter.  Some fly up, 
some sideways, some down.  The next is a blob floating against the earth.  
Two grey lines streak towards it and one of the streaks appears to hit the
blob.  

The first shot is explained as ice scattering from the reaction motor.  
Several people claim that the fact that some of the particles fly in motions
opposed to the reaction jet indicate that they are alien spacecraft.  Further,
the fact that the horizon does not move indicates that NASA is lying about
firing the reaction motor.  The second is easily explained by having someone
go and try to push start a locomotive.  As for the others, they dredged up
some physicist who admits to believing to have seen lights in the sky that
were not airplanes or meterologic phenomenom (Can you say biased witness?
I knew you could!) to explain that the laws of Newtonian physics could not
explain their motion.  Well, I must admit that I am having a hard time after
seeing it for a minute, but the only explanations I can think of real 
quick-like is uneven heating and such.  Comments?

As for the second clip, Sightings begins alluding to advanced Star Wars 
research shooting down an alien as an explanation.  Their ideas seem to
center on particle beam weapons.  OK, first, particle beams in space are
invisible, the energy is not scattered so the beam cannot be seen from the
side (the Shuttle's angle).  This rules out particle beams.  Projectile 
weapons seem to have been discouted as being too mundane.  Now it does
appear that their is debris from a glancing blow, but to me it looks more
like ice breaking than some sort of vessel.  There is no outgassing, no
trailing bits of componets, etc.  

All in all, I think they have a long way to go.  Any other comments or 
observations?

--huber@soliton.physics.arizona.edu
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Crop Circles and Spiritual Healing
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:47:45 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Recently I received through the mail a very shoddily printed
(photocopies of the output of a stone age typewriter) news sheet
titled "Spiritual Healing" .
It was addressed to: J.W. Nienhuys, Eindhoven University of Technology,
The Netherlands (Just like that, and it arrived!).

It came from England (U.K.).  No address of sender on it.
But inside I was very surprised to find about two pages 
with addresses of Crop Circle organisations, and an urgent
request to communicate any cropcircle to one of the addresses,
but preferably to T. Meaden, per address T.O.R.R.O. .

I had no idea that "the interactive intelligences" that are supposed
to make those circles (according to Mr. Michael Green of the
Centre for Crop Circle Studies) are also the study object of
"spiritual healing" enthousiasts.  On the other hand, knowing that
the principal research tools of crop circlers are the dowsing rod
and the pendulum, one might expect anything.

JWN
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:31:46 GMT

In article <1a4mdaINNf10@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Sep20.170657.20792@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes:
>>>The claim is "Because the spirit is nonphysical, we cannot observe it
>>>scientifically."  This claim is false; it's conceivable that the spirit
>>>produces a physical change which lets us observe it scientifically.
>>
>>Interjecting here...You observe the change, not the non-physical
>>entity.
>
>Fine.  When's the last time you observed an atomic nucleus, rather than some
>effect caused by an atomic nucleus?
>
>>I think the claim was that the spirit itself cannot be
>>scientifically observed *directly*.  Because of this, no amount of
>>scientific explanation will *prove* it's existence.
>
>By the same argument, we can't *prove* the existence of atoms.  The evidence is
>overwhelming, but it doesn't constitute *proof*.

I think you're a little outdated here.  20 years ago, this was
true and there was some debate about the actual existence of
the atoms.  However, I seem to remember that scientists have been
able to directly photograph atoms.  As a matter of fact, I quite
clearly remember seeing their pictures.  Do you know of a way to do
this for the soul? 

Even if this wasn't true, I don't think the two cases are analogous since
there is nothing in the definition of atoms that would preclude them from
being directly observed.

>
>True.  However, it certainly does seem to be a better analogy to the claims
>made by those who insist that a soul *MUST* exist.

IMHO, the second analogy more closly fits the the biochemical activity of
the body.

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

-- 
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: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Scud rockets hit Israel
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:22:45 GMT
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden

snggab01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:

>Sorry for those friendly skeptics out there who have already replied to my
>previous request last week but our netnews service was shut down by the 
>powers that be so I did not get to see any replies.

>I have received an earful from Jewish and Christian bible punchers about the
>scud missiles hitting Israel during the Gulf War of 1991,the fact that 39
>missiles hit Israel,slamming into crowded apartment blocks and only one person
>was killed directly by the attacks,that individual supposedly owning a pork
>factory.ie.that this was all a miracle tallying in with biblical prophecies.

>I am extremely skeptical about this miracle theory.Can anyone out there 
>tear this miracle theory apart eg.from the point of view of a ballistics 
>analysis.

Ok, I'll repeat myself :->
Almost all of the population were in shelters. The purpose of said shelters 
being to protect the lives of those inside, it's no surprise that few died.
The scud is a primitive missile with horrible accuracy ( it's pretty much a
re-vamped V-2 missile). When used as it was during desert storm (i.e. fired
without the rather lengthy preparation needed) you can be reasonably sure of
hitting a middle-sized city.

I've got more info if you need it.
--
Erik Svensson			Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division		National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm			Sweden

net.address: 	eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"I've got LOT's of common sense. I just choose to ignore it." -- Calvin
From: dternes@duke.cdc.com (David Ternes)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:50:29 GMT
Reply-To: dternes@mips.COM (David Ternes)
Organization: Advanced Product Development

In article <5639@tuegate.tue.nl# wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
#In article <10872@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
#
#[on the discussion of whether 37.0 degrees Celsius or 36.8 degrees Celsius
# is the correct body temperature]
##
##First human body temperature.  Body temperature is an inherently imprecise 
##variable.  At any given point in time, different parts of your body 
##maintain different temperatures.  Which part are you going to call body 
##temperature?
#
#Better make that a time integral as well, as body temperature varies 
#up and down by about 1 degree Celsius, typically 36.5 in the morning and
#37.4 in the late afternoon (rectal).
#
Since the discussion above is about temperature differences of body parts
and temperature differences during the day a couple of questions came to
mind.

Is there any significant difference in body temperature between the sexes?
Is there any significant difference in body temperature athletic and
non-athletic individuals?

E. David Ternes                                       dternes@udev.cdc.com
          Goal: To live either in obscurity or in competance.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Paying Attention (was: Reincarnation)
Date: 4 Oct 1992 00:19:17 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct2.091006.26276@netcom.com>, obrien@netcom.com (Robert O'Brien) writes:
>
>Uh, excuse me, I'm new to this group, but I'd like to point out that
>the following is seriously at odds with any definition I've heard of
>for the concept of "luck"
>
>That is, I think "bring good luck" and "ward off bad luck" are, in fact,
>synonymous in any definition.

Oh?  Let's try one:
	Bring good luck:  Cause normally random events to be decided in your
		favor more often that would be statistically likely.
	Ward off bad luck:  Ensure that normally random events aren't decided
		in your favor less often than would be statistically likely.
Example:
	I make a bet with you in which we flip a coin 100 times.  Each time it
	comes up heads, you pay me $1.  Each time it comes up tails, I pay you
	$1.

	Good luck (for me) is if I end up making a lot of money on the bet. 
	Bad luck is if you make a lot of money.  Indifferent luck is where we,
	as expected, both break even, to within a few dollars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17117 talk.religion.misc:17358
From: mmcgreg@uswnvg.com (Mark McGregor)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus and the Moneychangers (was: What did Judas betray?)
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:50:11 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5


Some other thoughts regarding "moneychangers" and Jesus "driving" them
out of the Temple.

From what I understand, the "moneychangers" includes those who were
selling animals for sacrifice in the temple.  The problem was that these
guys were running a scam.  They would sell an animal to the person who
would deliver it to be sacrificed, and instead of being sacrificed, it
would be led back around to the guys selling the animals, and the process
would be repeated.  I believe that other historic documents indicate that
the animals were also "less than prime stock", and had various blemishes
and other problems, and so they were not lawful animals to use for a 
sacrifice.

Again, from what I understand, the person was supposed to bring their
best first-born animal to be sacrificed in the temple, based on the income
of the person (rich people were supposed to use bulls, poorer people could
get by with sheep, birds, grain (yes grain!)).  The sacrifice was not
to be purchased in the temple, but brought from home, and then sacrificed
by the priest with the help of the person bringing the sacrifice.  From 
what I understand, this whole system had been greatly perverted by the
time of Jesus, which probably explains His great indignation over the
abuse in the temple.  The temple was supposed to be the place where the
people met with God, and not a market place.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark McGregor

mmcgreg@uswnvg.com

Standard Disclaimer -- All babbling is solely my own.  All intelligent
statements probably came from someone else.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Soul
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:35:41 GMT

ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
: >
: >Also, when does the 'soul' enter the body?  At conception?  If so, I have
: >a major problem with that!
: >
: >Sue
: 
: Just curious, but why would you have a problem with that?  Is the
: exact date important to the understanding of the soul?  Would the
: definition of the soul change if it was infused at conception
: rather than day 2 or day 5?

If the soul enters the "body" at conception, that would be when the
ovum combines with a sperm, right?  Now that single cell, which has a
soul, undergoes mitosis and splits into two cells.  If we physically
separate these two cells they will each develope into a complete
organism.  Which of the two organisms got the soul?  Does each have
half a soul?

The identical tiwns of the world want to know.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  FOOLED you!  Absorb EGO
Rosemount Inc.                                |SHATTERING impulse rays,
                                              |polyester poltroon!!
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Scud rockets hit Israel
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:16:19 GMT
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden

lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

>I had the impression quite a few broke up in the air, just falling scrap metal

You're quite right. The iraqies tried to increase the range of the missile by
decreasing the payload and installing more fuel. The workmanship was quite bad
and the missile had a tendency to disintegrate during the final phase.

>Of course the scuds with intact warheads are a quite a bit worse :-) but you

Not all that much with a conventional warhead. It's a couple of hundred kilos,
not all that much. The combat use of the scud prior to DS has been a general
failure.

--
Erik Svensson			Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division		National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm			Sweden

net.address: 	eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"I've got LOT's of common sense. I just choose to ignore it." -- Calvin
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 5 Oct 92 11:12:37 EST

In article <1992Oct2.224843.24013@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.152133.8992@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct1.030539.14018@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>[...]                  NOTE MODIFICATIONS
>>>
>>> Actually, the (superstition,religion) can probably be objectively tested.
>>> That is, a study could be done to determine if (knocking on wood, religion)
>>> statistically changed the presence of what we think is (good luck, whatever).
>>> The control group would, of course, have an object that felt like
>>> (wood, religion) but was not.  If the study was scientific and conclusive, I'd
>>> bet you'd start the practice of (knocking on wood, religion)... :)
>>
>>Reads the same way.......
> 
> It might read the same way, but it sure falsifies the statement and makes
> it totally meaningless.  Let's say that your "whatever" that you substituted
> for "good luck" is eternal salvation.  Just how do you go about scientifically
> testing it?
A study could be done to determine if knocking on wood statistically changed
the number of lottery tickets won by those knocking on wood as opposed to the
control group.

A study could be done to determine if religious beliefs changed the cure rate
for a series of terminal diseases.  (This has been tried, I believe.)

Of course, you are correct in saying that eternal salvation cannot be tested
for.  I agree with that.  But there are a number of issues that could be tested
for.  Study the correlation between the size of the bank accounts of
televangelists, who claim to save people, and the size of their television
audience.  

You were proposing a scientific study of superstition.  If you limit yourself
to proposing tests of religion in which no data can be collected, well of
course the test is meaningless, which means we are dealing in opinion again. 
Are you ready to  agree with that?

GXKambic
sd
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Date: 26 Sep 92 19:29:55 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1a0jrsINNqp7@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ak104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert Clark) writes:
>  Critics have attacked this by saying you need tremendous amounts
>of mass to detect these _differential_ effects and by using statements
>like "the weight of the doctor has a greater gravit. effect on you
>at birth than the moon does." I've always bought these arguments.
>HOWEVER, the recent autumnal equinox has given me pause. I was looking
>at a picture of an egg balanced on its end and reading the caption to
>the picture which stated that only during the vernal or autumnal equinox
>may a fresh egg be balanced on its end, when I started wondering
>how such a small amount of mass can detect this effect.

The answer is simple.

It _can't_ detect this effect.

You can balance a fresh egg on its end every day of the year.  I've done it
when not on an equinox.
--
"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: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Some Real Physics (Was: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology)
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:02:35 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <30SEP199211494188@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>>Yes, we can be sure-- when the gravitational pull of the doctor/midwife
>>who delivered you is greatly exceeds the total gravitational pull of the
>>other planets.
>Come on. This is just not true.  Have any of you gugs who believe this
>actually tried to work out the numbers?   Geez.

Do you know what tides are?

The tidal forces are indeed greater from the doctor than the sun.  Tides are
caused by the difference in gravitational forces between the front and the
back.  Although the sun's gravity is strong, all of a person is essentially
the same distance from it, which is not so for nearby things.
--
"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)