God Damned Fundies!
|From: Julie Presson
|To: David Bloomberg
|Sub: Re: DOWSING
|Date: 25 Feb 96 07:08:08
EID:0477 20593900
-=> Quoting David Bloomberg to Julie Presson <=-
DB> In a msg to Scott Laroche on , Julie Presson of
DB> 1:203/163 writes:
JP> Lots of people are gone...no more Steve Chong or David Brown either.
DB> Steve is gone? So who's the token skeptic over in UFO now? I've been
DB> popping in and out, but haven't really been reading much.
I do not know who is as Don has clamped down on the flaming and such to
a great degree.
JP> Even Pat Perinello is gone from Fidonet.
DB> No loss there.
I would have to agree with you on that...
Beyond the Mists of Time...I AM Moranaa
... Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they AREN'T after you.
--- Arf! ---
* Origin: Gates Of Delirium - US 916/339-9043: (1:203/163.0)
SEEN-BY: 1/141 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 163 289 500 535 726 821 2019 7707 8055 206/2711 209/720
SEEN-BY: 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200
SEEN-BY: 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104
SEEN-BY: 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10
SEEN-BY: 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225
SEEN-BY: 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777
SEEN-BY: 3805/3
PATH: 203/163 8055 15 270/101 218/801
|From: William Lipp
|To: Rod Speed
|Sub: Re: Age Of Sun.
|Date: 26 Feb 96 18:31:02
EID:c5c1 205a93e0
REPLY: 1:100/435 1b018c0b
MSGID: 1:141/1111.0 313242b6
-=> Quoting Jack Brannan to Rod Speed <=-
RS> the TINY problem that its completely TRIVIAL to show that
RS> fusion is going on RIGHT NOW.
JB> Then perhaps you wouldnt mind doing something trivial and show
JB> how fusion is going on right now?
Rod - I hope you take up this challenge, although it really belongs
on a Science echo. I'm interested in adding this tidbit to my
working tools, and wondering what the methodology will be. Spectral
analysis?
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- Maximus 3.01
* Origin: this space available bbs (1:141/1111)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 141/1111 1135 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: William Lipp
|To: S. T. Gedkin
|Sub: Re: DOWSING
|Date: 27 Feb 96 10:22:02
EID:318c 205b52c0
REPLY: 1:203/2019.0 12feb76f
MSGID: 1:141/1111.0 3133219a
-=> Quoting S. T. Gedkin to William Lipp <=-
WL> The only conclusion based
WL> on the inadequacy of your tests is that it does not provide
WL> sufficient evidence to reopen the issues presently considered
WL> settled by better designed tests. Of course science is not a group
WL> activity
STG> I'd like to agree with you, but the hysteric responses by supposed
STG> skeptics in this echo is evidence to the contrary.
We seem to have people on both sides of these discussions whose greatest
joy is trying to make the other side angrily hysterical.
STG> Someday someone will design and perform those tests.
STG> If those tests prove conclusively there is no dowsing capability, then
STG> I've wasted a bit of speculative time, and there's no harm done.
STG> If those tests prove conclusively there is dowsing capability,
STG> ... many of the people here will be unable to accept that
STG> proof if it ever did come.
I would expect a somewhat different outcome. If Science or a journal of
similar stature published an article proving dowsing, and it was confirmed
by independent investigators of similar stature, I think everybody here
would quickly accept it. On the other hand, I don't think any amount
of scientific evidence will convince the people the feel the rod wiggle
that are deluded.
For my personal beliefs, I'll go a little further. This isn't big science.
This doesn't even require the sophisitication that Ben Franklin needed
to show the lightning is electricity, and he did that over 200 years ago.
The perception of dowsers is not some subtle effect that needs to be
very carefully filtered from the noise - the subjective experience is
clear and strong. It seems to me that if it was real it would have been
well established long ago. But if it isn't real, it's never going to
go away because it feels so real to the people doing it. It seems to me
to be similar to the Ouija Board experience - it seldom feels like you
are guiding the pointer when you do it, but I'm convinced you are.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- Maximus 3.01
* Origin: this space available bbs (1:141/1111)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 141/1111 1135 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: William Lipp
|To: Fredric Rice
|Sub: Re: Does HIV 'Cause' AID
|Date: 27 Feb 96 10:33:04
EID:bae2 205b5420
REPLY: 1:102/890@FidoNet 1b8fccd6
MSGID: 1:141/1111.0 31332430
-=> Quoting Fredric Rice to Terry Parker <=-
FR> I'm merely curious if your particular band of unsalted nuts
FR> think that HIV was manufactured in a government lab to wipe-
FR> out blacks. ... (Or was it the United Nations?
Ohhh! This belongs on Urban Legends. AIDS was created to wipe out
the United Nations! I love it.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- Maximus 3.01
* Origin: this space available bbs (1:141/1111)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 141/1111 1135 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: Ross Sauer
|Sub: evidence
|Date: 25 Feb 96 13:25:28
EID:36b5 20596b20
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
RS> The fundys can be quite remarkably loony. There is one I email to
RS> in another echo who claims that a 400 mile by 200 mile chunk of
RS> California will break off and sink beneath the waves sometime between
RS> now and 2000. He literally warns everyone who posts with an origin
RS> line from california that they should be leaving quick. Apparently
RS> some loon called Branham proclaimed that in 63 or something.
RS> Corse he is literally barking mad too, claims the holocaust
RS> never happened, and that there is a monstrous conspiracy
RS> between the jews, the roman catholic church and the pope
RS> specifically, and the UN, to rule the world and subjugate us all.
RS> One thing you have to give these rabid religious
RS> loonys, they can be a tad spectacular at times |-)
RSa> I just wonder, what's going to happen when the year
RSa> 2001 rolls around and nothing "predicted" happens?
Yeah, that appears to have been a hell of a slipup on his part. When
he was silly enough to put a firm date on it, I pointed out to him that
I had saved his prediction and would rather enjoy rubbing his nose in
it on 1-Jan-2001. He has been VERY quiet about the date ever since |-)
He does actually appear to be a classic example of the sort of person
who really does have some quite severe mental illness and is one of
those interesting examples of how you can sort of manage to get thru
life with that sort of problem anyway. Corse many of the saints are
just as bad too. Joan of Arc actually heard the 'voices' which just
happens to be one of the absolutely classic symptoms of mental illness.
I actually know another one personally. He always was rather strange, and
then one day his boss, who I also know quite well, thought he looked rather
odd walking across the workshop towards him, small engineering business.
Turns out he had taken the biblical injunction, 'if thine hand offends
thee, cut it off', very literally indeed, and did so, with a radial arm
saw.
Which explained why he looked a tad odd with no hand on the end of his arm.
The boss has a VERY black sense of humour and recons they
should have sewed it on backwards to teach him a lesson |-)
RSa> I've heard of people in Korea who when the "predicted end of
RSa> the world" didn't happen, a lot of them committed suicide.
Yeah, it does tend to blow a tad of a hole in their credibility.
RSa> And remember that weirdo cult in Canada and Europe?
RSa> The one where a lot of them killed themselves?
Yeah, its a fascinating view into the weirdness of
the human mind. If you've got a rather strong stomach.
RSa> As to his "conspiracy" theories, where does he get his
RSa> "evidence" for this? The local Loonys-R-Us hate bookstore?
He's basically got the entire collection the ultra lunatic fringe
conspiracy theory stuff, most of its online on his BBS. Much of it
rabidly anti semitic, running the most bizarre conspiracy theory
line that literally every single civil war, revolution or full war
in the last 500 years in europe and america has been deliberately
cooked up in smoke filled rooms by jews.
Quite interesting in many ways what you can do to take the undoubted
involvement of a few jews in say financing some of the english civil
war and the french revolution and comprehensively mangle from that
into claiming to prove jews engineered those deliberately. The american
civil war, WW1 and WW2 as well. Corse the russian revolution is even
easier when there were quite a few jews involved early on.
His BBS was discovered by a journalist working for one of our
'journal of record' newspapers and the whole thing exploded in
the media in the MOST spectacular fashion. Corse that person
happens to have a rather jewish type name, which the loony
just takes as compelling evidence that jews are out to get him |-)
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941
SEEN-BY: 123/1 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204
SEEN-BY: 202/1207 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910
SEEN-BY: 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82
SEEN-BY: 280/1 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 620/243
SEEN-BY: 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407 515 517
SEEN-BY: 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: S. T. Gedkin
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 25 Feb 96 15:42:54
EID:6cf6 20597d40
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
STG> No, my tests weren't double blind.
DB> If they weren't double blind, which should be the basis
DB> of a good scientific test, then I know *I* certainly
DB> wouldn't have given you a scholarship. If they aren't
DB> double blind, no true conclusions about the skill can be made.
STG> I agree that double blind tests have their place, and are needed in
STG> many areas of science to eliminate the experimenter's bias. But to
STG> say that "no true conclusions ... can be made" without double blind
STG> tests is to ignore the history of science. Double blind tests are a
STG> recent invention within the scientific method. Galileo never used
STG> them, but I doubt you'd reject his discoveries because of that.
DB> Galileo wasn't doing dowsing tests, either. There is quite a difference.
STG> Why? What's the difference? He was investigating things which were
STG> totally outside the accepted knowledge base of his time. So was I.
Thats not the criterion used to decide if double blind tests are
appropriate ST. We dont bother with those on the proposition that if
you jump over a cliff without a parachute or glider, there is a very
significant risk of getting a tad broken. Or if you play russian roulette.
In the case of dowsing we are trying to decide if the dowser really
can determine where the water is, and it should be rather obvious
that the only real way to work that out is to ensure that the dowser
doesnt know in advance where the water is, and see if he can do
better than chance in finding it when its not everywhere.
Surely you can grasp this simple stuff ? If you cant,
you CERTAINLY shouldnt qualify for any scholarship.
STG> Unfortunately the High School situation doesn't give one
STG> enough time to adequately pretest, design, prepare, and
STG> execute a good double blind situation for this type of thing.
DB> Then you cannot make any conclusions based upon it.
STG> I disagree.
Doesnt help, the fundamentals of whats rigorous science
dont change based on your agreement or disagreement ST.
STG> Based on the studies I've done I can make one very solid conclusion:
STG> There's enough implication that there's something here to warrant
STG> designing and conducting serious double blind experiments in the area.
Crap, you didnt reach that conclusion, it was always obvious
that was the only way to work out if dowsers can dowse or not.
DB> Seeing the need for more study is not really a conclusion.
STG> It's as much of a conclusion, IMO, as those who "conclude" there
STG> is no such thing as dowsing based on the inadequacy of my tests.
You really are completely out of your tree ST.
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941
SEEN-BY: 123/1 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204
SEEN-BY: 202/1207 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910
SEEN-BY: 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82
SEEN-BY: 280/1 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 620/243
SEEN-BY: 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407 515 517
SEEN-BY: 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: Fred Hatfield
|Sub: PATTERSON CELL
|Date: 25 Feb 96 15:55:56
EID:fc24 20597ee0
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
FH> Joe Newman has re-arisen!
FH> I see in the newspaper that he is going to start up his
FH> 'energy machine' stuff again. Some years ago, he said he
FH> would settle the controversy by driving his automobile from
FH> Lucedale, Mississippi to New Orleans on just a single penlight
FH> cell. We've been awaiting his arrival here for quite a while.
FH> He claims now that attention was diverted from
FH> his miraculous creation by the press concentrating
FH> on his marriage to an 8-year old girl and her mother.
Guess thats one way to avoid having to prove your claim, do an
axe murder on prime time TV and then say they keep locking you up |-)
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941
SEEN-BY: 123/1 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204
SEEN-BY: 202/1207 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910
SEEN-BY: 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82
SEEN-BY: 280/1 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 620/243
SEEN-BY: 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407 515 517
SEEN-BY: 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Bob Bain
|To: Rod Speed
|Sub: Creation? evolution
|Date: 24 Feb 96 17:12:21
EID:1314 20588980
MSGID: 3:712/392 28540c6b
Rod,
On 16 Feb. 96 09:18 Rod Speed wrote to Bob Bain...
> Fraid not Bob, thats the hoary old line the wooly minded attempt.
> If you can provide some decent rigorous evidence that the current
> philosophical background is wrong, say with the question of the
> atomic theory of matter, science is quite happy to dump the old
> background when the evidence shows its got some major problems.
Which says in effect. "We got that wrong. As a consequence of
observations we are now subtly redefining the philosophical base
against which we will continue to collate and evaluate evidence".
Science does this reasonably often, which is why the name "natural
philosophy" is still appropriate.
> You claim that people can turn into animals on occasion, you had
> better have some damned good evidence that they can, just proclaiming
> that they can or that your holy book says they can aint good enough
I have never suggested people turn into animals. I'm not religous,
hence I don't have a holy book.
RS> Thats waffle Bob. In fact that question of gravity was
RS> CRUCIAL to the question of why, if the earth was roughly
RS> round, and rotating, everything didnt just fall off.
How can things fall "off" ? The only direction things could possibly
fall from a theoretical round world is "down" (the direction the soles
of the feet point when standing). Even the ancients noted that
"things" rarely fall into the sky. "Things" it had been noted have a
marked tendency to fall towards the ground in the ratio of "lots and
lots" for the ground, to "as close to zero as makes no difference" for
the sky. Theories as to roundness or flatness wouldn't alter these
documented facts.
Evidence collated over the centuries noted this was so.
Giving gravity a name explains nothing. Let me say I have a hunch
there's an enormous dragon at the centre of the Earth. This dragon is
a mean son of bitch, breathing heavily, sucking air from the central
cavities of the planet, and in so doing creates a vacuum in the pores
of the Earth, resulting in suction on things at or near the surface.
We can call this effect 'gravity' if we wish, speculating that there
are lots of similar dragons scattered throughout the universe. We
could alternatively propose that our dragon theory is wrong and that
gravity is the cumulative effect of the universe pushing. Science has
a philosphical belief that gravity is primarily a force of attraction,
however let me propose for the sake of this discussion that the
universe pushes.
---------------------------- oOo-------------------------------
Bain's law of gravitational repulsion: - "The volume of matter
in the universe attempts to crush things on smaller surfaces."
-----------------------------oOo-------------------------------
"Force of attraction" or "the big dragon" or "the universe pushing" ?
What the hell, let's call whatever it is 'gravity'. Regardless the
mathematical and observed effects are the same regarless of the
philosophical base.
Newton's laws hold.
We haven't via observation established what gravity is. Is it the bad
breath of a noble dragon or the attraction of subatomic particles or
the pushing effect of heavy matter ?
I have no idea. Likewise I have no idea what an atom looks like. Even
if I saw an atom and "believed" what I saw, it's appearance would tell
me little about the "why" of "the why" it "is". Nor would it's
appearance indicate to me the way atoms in the past may have behaved
nor the potential of the atom to behave in the future.
I use the statement "potential to behave". Springs have the potential
to release energy. Rusty worn out "springs" on the other hand are
saggy, and despite a spring like appearance lack the essence which
defines a "spring"; ie that of "springiness".
Why is it that we continue to call a "spring" which has lost the
essence of "springiness" a "spring" when by logic it has lost it's
ability to be so defined.
> Waffle Bob. Doesnt alter the fact that its ALL about funky stuff called
> rigorous evidence to substantiate claims that say the earth rotates
> around the sun, and why everything doesnt fall off in the process.
One can never explain why things don't fall off. One can via
observation note that things (more often than not) don't fall off; but
noting that they don't and having an rigorous explanation as to why
they don't are two entirely different things. You can summarise
observations and glamourise them with the name 'gravity' if you wish,
attributing the collected observations a name ('gravity') for the sake
of convenience, but using this name recursively as an explanation :-
"gravity explains what gravity is" is in my opinion unsound.
You can bring into the equation the observed behaviour of particles and
matter, non matter, or the ebbing and flowing of the tides; noting
complex patterns of seemingly and possibly inter-related behaviour, but
in my opinion the recording and tabulating of such complexity does not
of itself provide explanations.
> Says nothing useful at all about whether it makes the slightest
> sense to be rabbiting on about a series of 'I believes' without
> bothering with any evidence to substantiate those claims tho.
Would a certificate sealed by Zeus - the almighty god of thunder and
rain help ? I don't have a big book of "evidence" handy right now.
> Yes, which just goes to show how UTTERLY useless appearances can be
> Bob.
You are saying that we should collate evidence, but that we have to be
wary of it given that what it appears to be may not be what it actually
is ? Useful point to remember !
> What matters is what can be PROVEN with that funky evidence stuff.
But Rod, you can't PROVE anything with this funky evidence stuff !!
It may give you some sense of reassurance as to future possiblity, but
possibility and truth are not necessarily the same, assuming there is a
universal and unchanging 'truth' that is..
Perhaps we should check with the gods. The gods from my understanding
created everything, and in a hurry from what I hear ( 7 days or so at
best ).
Botched job in my humble opinion......
Evidence ???
We both exist.
I rest my case !! :-)
Bob
--- Xenolink 1.95, XQwk 1.6 [REG 10062]
* Origin: Archer BBS +61-2-371-0347 ArcherNet International (3:712/392)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 711/808
SEEN-BY: 712/311 392 407 411 505 506 515 517 613 704 816 2430/1423 2433/225
SEEN-BY: 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777
SEEN-BY: 3805/3
PATH: 712/392 517 515 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: Shane Coleman
|Sub: Astrophysics
|Date: 23 Feb 96 08:14:02
EID:efea 205741c0
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
SC> hey, Rod. i see your beloved scientists have released yet another plague
SC> apon the earth, that rabitt virus in S.A. that can cross over to humans.
No evidence that it can infect humans Shane. In fact that particular
question has rather better evidence than we usually have, because that
virus is imported from europe and its also seen in china. In both those
areas there has been extensive opportunity to move to humans, because
of their rabbit industrys, and even people eating infected rabbits.
SC> & they even said something about hepatityse (sp) C hmmm wasn't it a
few
SC> years ago there was on A B C types of hep. now it goes all the way upto
E.
Yes, we have discovered new hepatitis viruses. Pity that has SFA to do
with the question of the rabbit calici virus you are talking about Shane.
You are welcome to stick with witchdoctors and herbal 'remedys' if
you like Shane. Be a bit careful tho boy, if you do get a virulent
strain of malaria on a trip to asia, you may very well end up dead
if you just trot around to the local herbalist up the road.
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941
SEEN-BY: 123/1 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204
SEEN-BY: 202/1207 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910
SEEN-BY: 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82
SEEN-BY: 280/1 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 620/243
SEEN-BY: 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407 515 517
SEEN-BY: 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Seismic Activity and Magn
|Date: 24 Feb 96 17:12:40
EID:622e 20588980
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
WS> There are tons of skeptics in the geological field.
WS> They are a hard bunch to convince.
JP> And there should be. As we get closer to figuring out how this
JP> weird 'sixth sense' works and doesn't work, and why and how,
JP> we're finding that we need to be extremely skeptical and careful.
Pity we dont actually have a SHRED of rigorously proven evidence
of ANY 'sixth sense' with humans and dowsing John. NOT A SHRED.
JP> "It seems so hard to believe that one can't help being
JP> skeptical about it," said Terry Tullis, a geology
JP> professor at Brown University in Providence, R.I.
WS> The magnetic idea is one of the best explanations
WS> of why the local animals get in tizzies...
JP> Yes, and now alter that with the animal being a conscious and
JP> intelligent human and that 'tizzy' becomes something very interesting.
Nope, not if you havent been able to demonstrate with rigorous
science that humans can detect anything like the John. One obvious
good stating point is to see if humans can reliably even detect
the earths magnetic field which we know damned well is a real
effect coz we have these funky compass thingos that use it.
JP> It's enough to give a geologist an ulcer. And it's enough
JP> to make Fraser-Smith think twice before telling the world
JP> about magnetic signals he's seeing at Parkfield.
WS> In predicting earthquakes, you have to be right everytime.
WS> As long as you say, "I don't know," you'll never be wrong.
JP> Its odd that we have such strict expectations
JP> of science and technology, but you're right.
We dont actually, the most obvious example is weather forecasting.
We can do usefully better than chance. So we keep doing that.
JP> This is what makes the non-technology version (human mind detecting
JP> and responding to magnetic fields) so difficult to deal with.
Nope, we have developed reliable statistical techniques which can be
used to work out if we are seeing better than chance. That allows us
to do funky stuff like work out that smoking really does cause lung
cancer, when we cant even do randomised double blind trials easily.
JP> Personally, I don't see this as something that can be
JP> exploited or as something we can learn and subsequently use.
You havent even established there is a real
effect John. You have to do that FIRST.
JP> I think it'll always be less reliable than current and future technology.
Sorry John, we dont do rigorous science like that, if you havent even
proven there is a real effect, you dont get to pontificate like that.
JP> However, the potential to learn more about human
JP> consciousness and about various anomalies is significant.
Nope, not if you havent even established there is real effect at all.
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941
SEEN-BY: 123/1 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204
SEEN-BY: 202/1207 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910
SEEN-BY: 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82
SEEN-BY: 280/1 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 620/243
SEEN-BY: 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407 515 517
SEEN-BY: 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Magnetics...
|Date: 24 Feb 96 17:28:42
EID:d483 20588b80
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
JP> "Do we have magnets in our brains? Yes, according to California
JP> Institute of Technology researcher Joseph Kirschvink, who this
JP> week will announce his discovery of microscopic magnetic crystals
JP> in human brain tissue. This is significant because other species
JP> use such crystals - called magnetite - to orient and navigate like
JP> an internal compass. So people who have 'a good sense of direction'
WS> Though I realize that many animals are sensitive to things
WS> humans aren't, I am skeptical of human's ability to detect
WS> magnetic fields as weak as those of the earth's strength.
JP> That's why the current model specifically makes
JP> the distinction between detecting magnetic fields
JP> and detecting relative variations in magnetic fields.
Thats waffle John, its quite trivial to create some artificial
relative variations in magnetic fields and do a proper rigorous
double blind trial to see if humans can actually detect those.
You aint got a SHRED of evidence that humans actually can.
JP> I know it sounds like an insignificant distinction at
JP> first but I think it makes more sense postulated that way.
WS> As soon as they do a double blind survey of people in
WS> the dark aligning up with the north I will believe it.
JP> Hahahahahha!!!!
Great line in rational argument John, pity thats precisely whats
needed to actually prove that humans can detect those magnetic fields.
JP> There are easier ways to do the work but they're
JP> expensive and unlikely to get grant money.
Its not expensive to create some artificial magnetic fields and
see if humans really can detect them John, using decent randomised
double blind trial. You dont need grant money, its not expensive.
This grant money story is just faking away the rigorous
testing of the proposition. Pity the faking is so transparent.
JP> For example it would be entirely possible to wire a (so-called) dowser
JP> and detect microelectric impluses to muscles versus something like a
JP> more overt muscle action. Or, simply wire up somebody and watch the
JP> brain of a (so-called) dowser at work during the hits and misses.
Its a hell of a lot simpler to use artificial magnet fields or to put the
purported dowsers in a situation where there are no visual clues and see
if they can do better than chance finding the water John. No grant required.
JP> It isn't even necessary to do this as fieldwork.
Fraid so.
JP> Persinger has accomplished a lot in the lab.
Pity hasnt proven a damned thing John.
JP> HIs focus was on proving that alien abductions aren't
JP> but his results have nailed forever the link between
JP> ambient magnetic fields and human conscious responses.
Nope, fraid not.
JP> Taken in a slightly different direction he could probably
JP> establish the link between magnetic field detection and
JP> microelectric impulses to various muscle groups.
Thats not rigorous science John, thats faith.
JP> Even so, what would still be missing is the most important element.
Nope.
JP> How did the conscious wishes of the (so-called) dowser get sent
JP> to that which turns 'On' the magnetic field detecting portion.
You havent even established that a human CAN detect anything John.
JP> The conscious link to the functional ability, that's what's missing.
JP> And I think that's going to be a _lot_ more difficult to nail down.
Its fairys sitting on their shoulders whispering in their ears John.
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941
SEEN-BY: 123/1 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204
SEEN-BY: 202/1207 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910
SEEN-BY: 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82
SEEN-BY: 280/1 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 620/243
SEEN-BY: 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407 515 517
SEEN-BY: 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Dowsing hax continues unabaited
|Date: 27 Feb 96 17:16:03
EID:dbca 205b8a01
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 1d113722
REPLY: 1:261/1201.0 3131ec46
PID: FM 2.02
JP> You're slack and I know it.
DB> Let's see here. You make a claim and refuse to back it up -- so *I*
DB> am slack? Nice try at diverting the issue, but like I said, this
DB> isn't your usual stomping ground and most of the people here aren't
DB> nearly as gullible as, say, the BAMA echo.
jp> Hahahha! Nice try. Yes, you're slack, I've provided
jp> plenty for anyone who wants to do the research themselves
jp> (who knows how to do research).
It would seem that the mystical evidence you posted can only been seen by
believers. Is there, by chance, any evidence you might have -- or even
references -- which the, um, intellectually honest might be able to see?
If so, please at least offer some references to same so that we might review
it.
Thanks in advance.
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Stewart Draper
|To: Some
|Sub: True Facts
|Date: 23 Feb 96 20:51:00
EID:e3fa 2057a660
PID: RA 2.02 147
MSGID: 3:712/619 56ccc64a
EID: eaba 057a69c1
TID: xMail 1.01.0324 001176-043
That the brain=all your consciousness is the most blatantly
false and fallacious claim to ever have been made by anyone let alone
reasonable and responsible pseudo-scientists.
It takes 'real intelligence' and 'real observation' and ¨'real experience'
and 'real awareness' to break this fallacy to ¨shards and pieces it deserves
to be in.
What then if we are not 'brain=all consciousness' are you?
These are the undeniable questions that pose such a mystery to man ¨and
skeptical monkey-man alike. These questions are the root ¨causality of
all 'the problems we face here on Earth and beyond.' ¨Without a true solution
to these problems we are and always will be ¨mere subjugated apes leading
the lives of savages and slaves to ¨unpredictable malice and torment under
the sun, moon and stars, gods ¨and goddesses, angels and devils.
This question of 'what is consciousness' is the question ¨that will not
go away no matter how many muddy mouthed skeptics have ¨not to say about
nothing at all. These questions remain, no matter ¨how many dead and dying,
ill, sick and diseased skeptic materialists ¨seek to fake answers. The
truth is the truth and won't go away for ¨any fightened, fearfull and afraid
skeptic personality to assumes ¨logic but fails in math.
Happy dreams sorrowfull and pitifull skeptical sausages who ¨die and yet
still live a lie.
--- xMail/beta
* Origin: Cross Facts BBS Russell Lea +61-2-712-3910 (3:712/619)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 711/808
SEEN-BY: 712/311 392 407 411 505 506 515 517 613 619 704 816 822 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1
SEEN-BY: 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 712/619 506 517 515 270/101 218/801
|From: Tim Epstein
|To: Grant Farrington
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 24 Feb 96 16:52:01
EID:33d8 20588680
MSGID: 3:632/329 1b8fb150
REPLY: 3:800/857 311de8fa
G'day Grant,
> GF>> Over here in Oz a local businessman setup an experiment. He placed
> GF>> some large pipes filled with water underground & covered them up.
> GF>> Then he got a whole host of dowsers to try & find the pipes. Not
one
> GF>> of them did.
That's not true, Grant. Some of the dowsers DID find water. Its important
when acting as a skeptic that your posts are kept as scientific and accurate
as possible, otherwise your claims are of no greater value than those you
are trying to debunk.
In the above case that you refer to (Dick Smith and the Australian Skeptics,
1989), 12 pipes were placed
underground. Two of them were filled with water and the other 10 remained
empty. The position of all the pipes was marked on the surface.
12 well renouned water diviners were invited to detect which pipes contained
water, using their rods. Only 2 of the diveners correctly picked one pipe
containing water;
none picked both. This result is slightly less than a predicted
random outcome.
Regards,
Tim
--- FMail/386 1.02+
* Origin: The Eppycentre (3:632/329)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 620/243
SEEN-BY: 624/300 632/329 635/503 544 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809
SEEN-BY: 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5
SEEN-BY: 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 632/329 50/99 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Ross Sauer
|To: Larry Meyering
|Sub: Re: [1/2] WATER, WATER, E
|Date: 26 Feb 96 05:23:00
EID:7794 205a2ae0
MSGID: 1:154/169 00067193
LM> -=> Quoting Ross Sauer to David Sparrow <=-
LM> DS>Institute for Creation Research
LM> DS> Dr. Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
LM> RS> (remaining BS deleted)
LM> RS> Considering the source, a funnymentalist with a phony Ph.D, it doesn't
LM> RS> surprise me that he would publish nonsense like this. I read it,
and
LM> RS> it didn't change my opinion of Morris. He's still an idiot.
LM>I agree with you that Morris is an idiot among other things, however,
LM>the Ph.D is not phony. He really does have a Ph.D from the University
LM>of Minnesota in hydraulic engineering.
THIS gives him the qualifications to make judgements on evolution??
Boy, is he out of his field! (And out of his tree too!)
* SLMR 2.1a * Having problems with DOS? Call 1-900-WHAAAAA, $9/minute.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 2
* Origin: Sheboygan Wi's Only FIDO node (1:154/169)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 154/169 77 222 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Ross Sauer
|To: Fred Hatfield
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 26 Feb 96 05:23:00
EID:2eb4 205a2ae0
MSGID: 1:154/169 00067195
FH>In a message of <23 Feb 96 05:41:00>, Ross Sauer (1:154/169) writes:
FH> RS>This Sunday there's a show on opposite 60 minutes, that according
to the
FH> RS>TV guide blurb says man and dinosaurs lived together at the same
time.
FH> RS>Betcha any money the "evidence" they use will be these dinosaur tracks
FH> RS>near Paluxy, TX that some of which at first looked a little human,
but
FH> RS>later on were proven to be a therapod's tracks.
FH>That goes along with the dead silence we have gotten from the creationists
o
FH>the echo when I asked about the dinasours on the Ark.
I was right, they used the Paluxy "man tracks" as "evidence." In fact,
the whole show was warmed-over creationist and Von Daniken bullshit.
BTW, it's spelled "dinosaur." Just thought you'd want to know.
* SLMR 2.1a * Kamikaze Tutor: "Watch closely, I do this only once!"
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 2
* Origin: Sheboygan Wi's Only FIDO node (1:154/169)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 154/169 77 222 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Dowsing=Fraud
|Date: 27 Feb 96 12:39:08
EID:c16a 205b64e0
> I've provided everything anyone capable of doing the research would
> need to do the research.
>
Bzzz. Wrong. The only thing you have given us concerning your take on the
superstition known as dowsing is that some studies have proven it to work.
But when pressed to name those studies, you draw a blank.
> I'm not going to do anyone's work for them.
Try doing your own work on the issue before asking other to believe you,
then.
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Dowsing=Fraud
|Date: 27 Feb 96 12:42:00
EID:c16a 205b6540
> Y'know, maybe some of you are so busy dreaming up new tactics and
> new accusations that you don't have time to do the research...
That may be the way it works on the I-UFO conference, John. But it really
isn't too much to ask you to prove your claims. The silly "I'm not gonna
do your work for you" excuse just ain't gonna fly here.
Just humor us. You're convinced dowsing works. Prove it.
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Moderator
|To: David Sparrow
|Sub: CSICOP cooking the books
|Date: 27 Feb 96 06:57:00
EID:b4ce 205b3720
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 62c9b973
REPLY: 3:690/613.8 312c1919
In a msg to Moderator on , David Sparrow of 3:690/613.8 writes:
DS>> You'll learn. Oh, speaking of learning, yes Mr Moderator, I think
DS>> you would be quite correct in judging this message as being one of
DS>> those "flame" things.
M> Yes, I would.
DS> Hey, you already had my vote. Glad to be of assistence.
Replies to Moderator messages belong in Netmail.
David Bloomberg,
SKEPTIC Co-Moderator
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1 2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: David Bloomberg
|To: John Powell
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 27 Feb 96 06:59:00
EID:b758 205b3760
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 62c9be57
REPLY: 1:261/1201.0 312f74f0
In a msg to Scott Laroche on , John Powell of 1:261/1201 writes:
JP> Y'know, what was originally intended to be a simple series of short
JP> messages exchanged with one or two individuals has turned into a
JP> _very_ revealing conference-wide incident...
It did reveal two things: That you absolutely refuse to back up your claims,
and that you cannot hold a rational discussion.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1 2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: David Bloomberg
|To: Ross Sauer
|Sub: Randi
|Date: 27 Feb 96 07:00:50
EID:fe14 205b3800
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 62c9c5a1
REPLY: 1:154/169 0009716d
In a msg to All on , Ross Sauer of 1:154/169 writes:
RS> I saw the "Dateline: NBC" piece on James Randi yesterday. Pretty good,
RS> except they edited it in such a way as to make it look like he's one
RS> of those people like Phil Klass, you know, "It's all nonsense!" That
kind
RS> of attitude.
I don't think so, really. They showed him saying, several times, that he
is willing to be proven wrong -- it's just that he hasn't been yet.
RS> The other gripe I had was when they interviewed the director of that
RS> paranormal research place in No. Carolina, they left out that many times
RS> other scientists caught them cheating.
Yup. It seemed like they almost felt they had to put in some "balance,"
so they threw in this interview without really much investigation. It was,
IMO, the one bad part in an overall pretty good segment. (Look at it this
way: Usually it's a short interview with a skeptic that is thrown in for
"balance.")
RS> When conditions were tightened up so people couldn't cheat, the
RS> "psychics" being tested flopped miserably. Notice how often that happens?
Indeed, how very strange...
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1 2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: Ryan Shaw
|To: Richard Morrison
|Sub: [1/2] Enigmatisms Again
|Date: 27 Feb 96 16:18:53
EID:0237 205b8240
MSGID: 1:152/67.0 133756b0
REPLY: 1:280/26 540d87db
CHRS: ibmpc 2
TID: FastEcho 1.45a 8548
Richard Morrison wrote in a message to Ryan Shaw:
RS>JM> Homosexuality is genetic and hormonal for the most part and is
RS>JM> a natural thing. You may not agree with it, but that's
RS>JM> immaterial.
RS>Please provide evidence to the contrary.
RM> why Ryan?
RM> Why should I provide something like that when you don't do so with
RM> proving that God doesn't exist? Is this just another one of your
RM> double standards? Thought so... :)
You cannot prove a negative. When _are_ you going to learn. You are making
the assertions, you are responsible for the evidence.
rshaw@gladstone.uoregon.edu
---
* Origin: [ zoo station . . . eugene, oregon ] (1:152/67)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 152/8 67 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 152/67 8 270/101 218/801
|From: Ryan Shaw
|To: Richard Morrison
|Sub: [1/2] Enigmatisms Again
|Date: 27 Feb 96 16:19:40
EID:0237 205b8260
MSGID: 1:152/67.0 133756b1
REPLY: 1:280/26 540d87ec
CHRS: ibmpc 2
TID: FastEcho 1.45a 8548
Richard Morrison wrote in a message to Ryan Shaw:
RS> RM> -1963 Only 3% of the population is atheists. Minority rules.
RS>Would you care to take this debate,
RM> No. This isn't debatable... Those are actual stats and quotes. We
RM> also need to drop it in this conf as it is off topic and I don't
RM> want moderation...
I was not speaking of the `facts' that you presented, I was speaking of
the 'minority rules' clause that you included. It has nothing to do with
that and everything to do with the US Constitution.
Let's take this to CHURCH&STATE.
rshaw@gladstone.uoregon.edu
---
* Origin: [ zoo station . . . eugene, oregon ] (1:152/67)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 152/8 67 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 152/67 8 270/101 218/801
|From: Fred Hatfield
|To: Fredric Rice
|Sub: "Patterson Cell"
|Date: 28 Feb 96 05:14:41
EID:d605 205c29d4
In a message of <25 Feb 96 08:30:46>, Fredric Rice (1:102/890) writes:
FR>fh> Maybe you should try "Patterson Cell"...
FR>
FR>A type-o. I did search for "Patternson cell" and variations on that.
FR>I'm not surprised that I didn't find anything on it. I can't even
FR>hazard a guess at what percentage of the web is accessed when
FR>performing a search yet I would guess it's a small percentage of what's
FR>really out their.
Maybe we can get Lanny Goldfinch to post what information he has.
There does seem to be a shortage of perpetual motion machines the last few
years. I kinda miss Joe Newman and his pseudo-engineering capabilities.
However, I did run across a local handyman that told me he is working on
a project to charge the batteries in a golf-cart by attaching a generator
to the axles. That way, the batteries could be recharged from the motion
of the wheels while the battery is running the cart.
I suggested he would have more luck doing this on a downhill grade.
Fred.
--- QM v1.00
* Origin: The Digital Cottage in New Orleans 504-897-6614 (1:396/65.0)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 396/65 45 2 1 270/101 218/801
|From: Fred Hatfield
|To: Rod Speed
|Sub: PATTERSON CELL
|Date: 28 Feb 96 05:38:06
EID:55e5 205c2cc3
In a message of <25 Feb 96 15:55:56>, Rod Speed (3:711/934.2) writes:
RS>FH> Joe Newman has re-arisen!
RS>
RS>FH> I see in the newspaper that he is going to start up his
RS>FH> 'energy machine' stuff again. Some years ago, he said he
RS>FH> would settle the controversy by driving his automobile from
RS>FH> Lucedale, Mississippi to New Orleans on just a single penlight
RS>FH> cell. We've been awaiting his arrival here for quite a while.
RS>
RS>FH> He claims now that attention was diverted from
RS>FH> his miraculous creation by the press concentrating
RS>FH> on his marriage to an 8-year old girl and her mother.
RS>
RS>Guess thats one way to avoid having to prove your claim, do an
RS>axe murder on prime time TV and then say they keep locking you up |-)
Or get tied up as a bigamist trying to get a divorce.
He's the first guy I know that ever married his own mother-in-law.
Fred.
--- QM v1.00
* Origin: The Digital Cottage in New Orleans 504-897-6614 (1:396/65.0)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 396/65 45 2 1 270/101 218/801
|From: Fred Hatfield
|To: Ross Sauer
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 28 Feb 96 05:24:41
EID:398d 205c2b14
In a message of <26 Feb 96 05:23:00>, Ross Sauer (1:154/169) writes:
RS>FH> RS>Betcha any money the "evidence" they use will be these dinosaur
RS>FH> RS>tracks near Paluxy, TX that some of which at first looked a little
RS>FH> RS>human, but later on were proven to be a therapod's tracks.
RS>
RS>FH>That goes along with the dead silence we have gotten from the
RS>FH>creationists on the echo when I asked about the dinasours on the Ark.
RS>
RS>I was right, they used the Paluxy "man tracks" as "evidence." In fact,
RS>the whole show was warmed-over creationist and Von Daniken bullshit.
RS>BTW, it's spelled "dinosaur." Just thought you'd want to know.
Thanks for the corrrection. I should have double-checked the spelling.
Ferd. :-)
--- QM v1.00
* Origin: The Digital Cottage in New Orleans 504-897-6614 (1:396/65.0)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 396/65 45 2 1 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: Absence of Evidence
|Date: 28 Feb 96 11:04:37
EID:b930 205c5880
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 31347d19
-=> Quoting Scott Laroche to John Powell <=-
>FH> I could claim any kind of psychic phenomenon whatever if I was allowed
>FH> to reject the requirement for extraordinary proof for extraordinary
>FH> claims.
> What requirement? That isn't a "requirement" it is simply a little
> catch-phrase mouthed years ago. Nonetheless, I happen to agree with
> it but nowhere in what I've written have I stated or even suggested
> that I "reject" it.
SL> As a catch-phrase, it's a heck of a lot more valid than "The absence
SL> of evidence is not evidence of absence."
As a catch-phrase it isn't any more or less "valid" than any other
catch-phrase - unless you've developed some scientifically tested
objective criteria for catch-phrase evaluation that nobody knows
about...
Which, more than anything, skirts the original point of the attempt to
place a "requirement" as if it were a restriction.
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: Dowsing=Fraud
|Date: 28 Feb 96 11:04:37
EID:300d 205c5880
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 31347d1a
-=> Quoting Scott Laroche to John Powell <=-
>>jp> Did we forget that?
>>FR> Did _you_ manufacture that?
>> Whoa... Jump into this discussion late and accuse me of being a
>> liar and of fabricating information???
>> Fred - Fuck you.
>SL> Whoa!
>SL> That's quite an insult.
> I usually consider the accusation of being a liar and of fabricating
> information as a serious insult. Don't you?
SL> Never enough to use the "F" word. You use suggests desperation.
I have no control over how you perceive the written word.
>SL> Perhaps a better way for you to handle this
>SL> would be to cite your evidence. Names of the credible TV shows or
>SL> articles and dates. A partial transcript would be of help.
>SL> Such evidence would further your cause here.
> I have no "cause" to further. Do your own research, do your own
> homework, I'm not doing it for you (or anyone else)...
SL> So forgive us if no one believes your silly dowsing claims.
What's to forgive? I never suggested that anybody believe anything.
Again, your perceptions are not my responsibility.
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Fred Hatfield
|Sub: Dowsing
|Date: 28 Feb 96 11:04:37
EID:6625 205c5880
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 31347d1c
-=> Quoting Fred Hatfield to John Powell <=-
JP> FH> Why do you consider yourself exempt from the rules of the conference?
JP>I'm not bound by any Conference rules to _prove_ anything to you or
JP>anybody else. There is no such "rule" that I'm aware of. I'm not
JP>doing anyone's research or homework for them.
FH> You are unaware of how Fidonet conferences work?
No, I'm not.
FH> I hear you pleading ignorance as your motivation, but most people
FH> don't prefer to stay in that state.
Yes, I'm not aware of any "rules of the conference" that require me to
prove anything to you or anyone else.
Feel free to post or quote from such a rule...
JP> FH> I could claim any kind of psychic phenomenon whatever if I was
JP> FH> allowed to reject the requirement for extraordinary proof for
JP> FH> extraordinary claims.
JP>What requirement? That isn't a "requirement" it is simply a little
JP>catch-phrase mouthed years ago. Nonetheless, I happen to agree with
it
JP>but nowhere in what I've written have I stated or even suggested that
I
JP>"reject" it.
FH> Good. Then do it.
Do what? Do your research for you? Not gonna happen....
JP> FH> Of course, if you can't support your claims, this is the easiest
JP> FH> way out.
JP>Accusing people of that which they didn't say (or do) appears to be the
JP>easy way out if you can't do the research, eh?
FH> Hardly makes sense to interject yourself into the discussion and then
FH> claim that you are specially privileged over everybody else.
Since when have I claimed to be special? What in the world are you
talking about? I didn't interject myself in the discussion, I started
it, where have you been???
FH> Why would you even want to waste your own valuable time? :-)
I could just not reply to these silly messages but that would be rude...
It amazing the lengths to which some folks will go to get others to do
their work for them...
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Fredric Rice
|Sub: Dowsing: Some people still believe it
|Date: 28 Feb 96 11:04:38
EID:48e6 205c5880
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 31347d1d
-=> Quoting Fredric Rice to John Powell <=-
jp> Did we forget that?
FR> Did _you_ manufacture that?
jp> Whoa... Jump into this discussion late and accuse me
jp> of being a liar and of fabricating information???
jp> Fred - Fuck you.
FR> Your resentful response would tend to indicate that my supposistion
FR> wasn't entirely mistaken.
I'm not responsible for your perceptions or the tendencies they produce
in you. Resentful? I suppose I dislike such unsubstantiated
accusations as much as anybody else does.
By your reasoning above my negative reaction to your unsubstantiated
accusations causes you to think that they are true. So, therefore, had
I welcomed your unsubstantiated accusations you would have then assummed
that they were inaccurate??? And you think that makes sense???
FR> Case in fact is that no scientifically
FR> conducted test for "dowsing" has ever yielded anything greater than
FR> chance or digging anywhere would indicate.
Nope.
FR> I find it telling that no scientific peer-reviewed journal is being
FR> cited by you. I would expect to at least be given the name of
FR> individuals working within a group who conducted these scientific
FR> tests which yielded positive results.
FR> Strange. I don't see any in your messages.
You came in late. I've already provided enough info for anybody to go
and do their own research.
What is "telling" is that you and others continue to ask me to do your
research for you...
jp> Coming in late perhaps you missed a couple of points:
FR> I seem to have missed seeing your facts as well.
Yes, that's one of the points you missed.
jp> - This isn't a debate,
FR> Yes it is. You claim that water "dowsing" has been shown to be
FR> successful beyond chance, didn't you? You claimed that water
FR> "dowsing" has been shown on television to "pass." If you're engaged
FR> in word games, you could simply state what "pass" means to you in
FR> reguards to testing for "dowsing."
FR> Didn't anyone ever tell you that television is mostly entertainment
FR> and that it shouldn't be taken all that seriously?
No, this isn't a debate. Yes, those are essentially the claims.
However, you can believe whatever you want. And no I won't do the
research for you.
Again, no, it isn't a debate. I'm replying to silly messages from
slackers who refuse to do the research themselves and who demand that I
do it for them, and/or demand that I prove something to them. By no
conceivable definition does that constitute a debate.
jp> - I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone,
FR> For obvious reasons: you can't.
No, not because I can't, because I won't. However, you can believe
anything you want.
jp> - I'm not going to do anyone's homework or research for them.
FR> You're also not going to provide any references for scientifically
FR> conducted research which supports your contention.
I have already provided enough references for anyone who knows how to do
research to go do that research. Coming in late you probably missed
that. Ask someone who didn't come in late about it. Or, check my
conference message archive after the first week of March.
jp> I presented a tentative functional explanation
jp> for the phenomenon of (so-called) dowsing.
FR> Before you can provide "explanations" for a phenomena, you must first
FR> provide reasonable evidence that the phenomena you are attempting to
FR> explain exists.
I am already certain of the existence of the phenomena. I've already
provided enough info for anybody who wishes to do the research to prove
it to themselves.
I am under no requirement to provide _YOU_ with anything, nor will I.
I am under no requirement to do anything for you, or to prove anything
to you. No, I will not help you beyond what I've already done nor will
I make any attempt to 'prove' something to you.
You can do the research or you can not do it, it doesn't matter to me.
You can believe whatever you want, that doesn't matter to me either.
jp> I don't care if you like it or if you don't like it.
FR> You don't care whether it's scientific or nonsense.
Are you still making things up that I didn't write and then attributing
them to me? You should spend less time with your adolescent tricks and
more time doing real research.
jp> I mentioned a few sources where folks could
jp> go to do their _own_ research on this anomaly.
FR> You claimed that water "dowsing" has "passed" on television. That's
a
FR> pretty solid "source" to do "research" on, huh?
Well, coming in late you apparently missed the other information.
However, I would consider TV to be among a number of sources to start a
research project. Say, for example, last night's NOVA program in which
a number of respected professionals and scientists were interviewed.
Their names and organizations were provided and one could (if one wanted
to) contact those individuals for more information. Or were not aware
that it was possible to do that?
So, yes, TV programs can be a source for research information.
jp> I don't care if you like that or not.
FR> You seem to want to believe this one for some strange reason. I'm
FR> sure that if you had some solid references which would tend to support
FR> your assertion, you would have simply offered them. Instead I see a
FR> pretty emotional response.
Hahahahahah!!! I'm not responsible for what you "see."
I don't know how you can be "sure" that I'd do your research for you if
I'd already done it for myself. Perhaps you have special psychic
abilities we don't know about (or, perhaps your full of BS and have
enough free time to play on bulletin boards but not enough to do real
research)? But you are free to believe whatever you like...
Is it clear yet that this isn't a debate?
Is it clear yet that I won't do your research for you?
Is it clear yet that I don't care _at all_ if you like that or not?
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: Ross Sauer
|To: All
|Sub: new "therapy"
|Date: 27 Feb 96 05:07:00
EID:bbf8 205b28e0
MSGID: 1:154/169 000622c4
Jay Leno mentioned there's a conference going on (he didn't say where)
that is called "Auto Urine" or something like that.
According to this group, they get health benefits from drinking their
own urine. BLAGHHHHH! (sound of barfing)
If that's what they drink, I wonder what they eat?
It seems any yo-yo makes a claim about some "therapy" or health gadget
or vitamin combination, and the sheep follow him or her.
* SLMR 2.1a * Drugs, crime, sex and money... I just LOVE Congress!!!
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 2
* Origin: Sheboygan Wi's Only FIDO node (1:154/169)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 154/169 77 222 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Langston Goldfinch
|To: Ryan Shaw
|Sub: [1/2] Enigmatisms Again
|Date: 28 Feb 96 16:01:47
EID:85e4 205c8020
MSGID: 1:396/17 31347cbf
REPLY: 1:152/67.0 133756b0
PID: GED3 2.5.a918 1048
Hello Ryan!
Tuesday February 27 1996 16:18, Ryan Shaw wrote to Richard Morrison:
RS>JM>> Homosexuality is genetic and hormonal for the most part and is
RS> making the assertions, you are responsible for the evidence.
The evidence here seems straightforward:
I am a homosexual.
I have genes and hormones.
Therefore Homosixuality causes genes and hormones.
Or something like that?!
I would like to see the evidnece that idiocy is genetic?
Regards
Langston
---
* Origin: N.O.P.C. BBS- Fax/BBS (504)-486-7249 New Orleans, LA. USA (1:396/17)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 396/17 2 1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: Fredric Rice
|Sub: DOWSING=FRAUD
|Date: 28 Feb 96 08:55:33
EID:02f1 205c46e0
> I searched Internet for anything which would tend to support a
> scientifically evaluated, scientifically conducted test for
> "dowsing" and didn't find anything. In fact had there been any
> validity to these claims, I would have expected them to be published
> and made readilly available to the general public.
Yup. I looked also. I found dowsing societies, but no hard scientific articles
proving the validity of the dowser's claims.
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: Fredric Rice
|Sub: DOWSING=FRAUD
|Date: 28 Feb 96 08:57:03
EID:02f1 205c4720
> sl> Now it's $528,000.
> sl> Oh dowsers, come on. That's a lot of money! Surely you can pass
> a
> sl> simple test and collect the loot, since your science is so
> valid.
>
> Water "dowsers" don't even have the cop-out that "psychics" do --
> claim that it's a debasement of their "gift" to do it for money
> then, when asked to demonstrate for free, claim it's not worth their
> time. }:-}
My favorite claim when they fail is that "previously undiscovered underground
rivers" have interferred with the results. Those darned unexpected discoveries!
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: David Bloomberg
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 28 Feb 96 18:26:19
EID:7149 205c9340
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 3134e49b
-=> Quoting David Bloomberg to John Powell <=-
JP> Y'know, what was originally intended to be a simple series of short
JP> messages exchanged with one or two individuals has turned into a
JP> _very_ revealing conference-wide incident...
DB> It did reveal two things: That you absolutely refuse to back up your
DB> claims, and that you cannot hold a rational discussion.
I'm not responsible for your perceptions. I never refused to back up my
claims, I simply refused to do other people's research for them.
I'm astonished that you would expect that of anyone, but as a slacker I
guess you have no alternative.
And you're also wrong on the second item as well. It was a rational
discussion between myself and one or two others until another group
began making _IRRATIONAL_ demands of me...
Speaking of irrational, do you plan on addressing the _OTHER_ questions
in that message or do you plan to ignore them?
I am particularly interested in whether or not accusing someone, without
any evidence whatsoever, of being a liar and of fraudulently passing
along known false information is a behavior that you condone. (The
archives are waiting for your answer and/or action. I think it will be
a fitting end to this otherwise silly thread...)
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: Dowsing=Fraud
|Date: 28 Feb 96 18:26:19
EID:300d 205c9340
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 3134e49c
-=> Quoting Scott Laroche to John Powell <=-
> I've provided everything anyone capable of doing the research would
> need to do the research.
SL> Bzzz. Wrong. The only thing you have given us concerning your take on
SL> the superstition known as dowsing is that some studies have proven it
SL> to work. But when pressed to name those studies, you draw a blank.
I haven't drawn a blank, I never said I wasn't aware of them. I simply
refused to do _your_ research for you. I gave you several names and
leads over three weeks ago. How far have you gotten or are you still
waiting for someone to do your work for you, slack???
In several cases you were given names/places to call. Have you
telephoned _ANY_ of them yet slacker???
> I'm not going to do anyone's work for them.
SL> Try doing your own work on the issue before asking other to believe
SL> you, then.
Hahahahah!!! I've done _my_ work...
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Rod Speed
|Sub: Seismic Activity and Magn
|Date: 28 Feb 96 18:26:19
EID:cd23 205c9340
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 3134e49e
-=> Quoting Rod Speed to John Powell <=-
WS> There are tons of skeptics in the geological field.
WS> They are a hard bunch to convince.
JP> And there should be. As we get closer to figuring out how this
JP> weird 'sixth sense' works and doesn't work, and why and how,
JP> we're finding that we need to be extremely skeptical and careful.
RS> Pity we dont actually have a SHRED of rigorously proven evidence
RS> of ANY 'sixth sense' with humans and dowsing John. NOT A SHRED.
Wrong.
JP> Its odd that we have such strict expectations
JP> of science and technology, but you're right.
RS> We dont actually, the most obvious example is weather forecasting.
RS> We can do usefully better than chance. So we keep doing that.
But it has to be extremely frustrating to see the Farmer's Almanac beat
current technology. That will turn around over time but with the
Farmer's Almanac going at about 80% to 85% and the National Weather
Service going at about 15% to 20% I still check the Farmer's Almanac.
That's not a terribly fair comparison because the NWS makes very general
preditions only for a few months ahead whereas the FA makes rather
detailed predictions for up to an entire year ahead. But then the FA
doesn't make near-term predictions at all and the NWS is usually
extremely accurate with very near-term weather predicting.
JP> This is what makes the non-technology version (human mind detecting
JP> and responding to magnetic fields) so difficult to deal with.
RS> Nope, we have developed reliable statistical techniques which can be
RS> used to work out if we are seeing better than chance. That allows us
RS> to do funky stuff like work out that smoking really does cause lung
RS> cancer, when we cant even do randomised double blind trials easily.
You missed the point. Statistical techniques aren't going to address
the variable of human consciousness-based testing. Have you ever
misplaced your car keys? Statistical analysis on how often you
misplaced your car keys isn't going to tell us anything about why you
mispaced your car keys...
Suppose we place people at one end of a stadium and at the other end we
flash regular sized playing cards. Suppose further that most people get
a slightly worse than chance score (because they couldn't see a damned
thing and were guessing) and that sometimes some folks scored way better
than chance. They claim they actually saw the cards. Suppose we test
those folks again and we get similar results. Statistics isn't going to
tell us anything about the person's _vision_, only about what seems to
be the use of that sense. Statistics won't tell us anything about the
observing conditions, about the observer's mood (etc.).
In the case of the so-called dowsing phenomenon the field testing has
already yeilded enough to go into the lab to try to eliminate the things
that field testing can't eliminate. And in the lab the research has
clearly shown that humans can detect and respond to relative variations
in ambient magnetic field strength.
Now, if you were any kind of real skeptic you'd be asking this
important question: How do we know that the positive field results,
that brought us to where we have positive lab results, are directly
connected or directly related? Maybe the field results can be
prosaically explained _and_ some other anomaly was detected in the lab?
That question is important because it hasn't been answered yet. It
requires taking the lab gear out into the field and that requires
funding which is not overly likely to occur in the near future.
JP> Personally, I don't see this as something that can be
JP> exploited or as something we can learn and subsequently use.
RS> You havent even established there is a real
RS> effect John. You have to do that FIRST.
No, to bother having this discussion _YOU_ have to do that for yourself,
as I've done for myself, or you're simply wasting my time and your time.
JP> I think it'll always be less reliable than current and future technology.
RS> Sorry John, we dont do rigorous science like that, if you havent even
RS> proven there is a real effect, you dont get to pontificate like that.
Pontificating?? Well, blessed be !
I'm certain the 'effect' is real, if you do the research you'll likely
come to the same conclusion.
You're not another one of those who expected me to prove something to
you, or expected me to do your research for you are you???????
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Rod Speed
|Sub: Magnetics...
|Date: 28 Feb 96 18:26:20
EID:b062 205c9340
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 3134e49f
-=> Quoting Rod Speed to John Powell <=-
WS> Though I realize that many animals are sensitive to things
WS> humans aren't, I am skeptical of human's ability to detect
WS> magnetic fields as weak as those of the earth's strength.
JP> That's why the current model specifically makes
JP> the distinction between detecting magnetic fields
JP> and detecting relative variations in magnetic fields.
RS> Thats waffle John, its quite trivial to create some artificial
RS> relative variations in magnetic fields and do a proper rigorous
RS> double blind trial to see if humans can actually detect those.
Its not a waffle. I never claimed that humans can detect the Earth's
magnetic field. Just because I didn't correct you earlier when you
snuck that in is no excuse to assume you got away with sneaking that in
and then subsequently inaccurately attributing it to me .
I don't know if humans can detect the Earth's magnetic field but I don't
know that they (or some) can't. Moreover, I don't know that it has
anything to do the phenomenon.
The distinction "relative variations" exists to keep things from getting
silly, as with your inaccurate attribution...
RS> You aint got a SHRED of evidence that humans actually can.
Don't you feel silly realizing that I never claimed humans could detect
the Earth's magnetic field?
Would it have been easier if I had caught you sneaking that in earlier,
or would it have been easier if you hadn't snuck it in at all?
JP> There are easier ways to do the work but they're
JP> expensive and unlikely to get grant money.
RS> Its not expensive to create some artificial magnetic fields and
RS> see if humans really can detect them John, using decent randomised
RS> double blind trial. You dont need grant money, its not expensive.
I've already posted a name to check with on that.
RS> This grant money story is just faking away the rigorous
RS> testing of the proposition. Pity the faking is so transparent.
Its already been established that humans can detect relative variations
in magnetic fields but that alone is not terribly significant. To do
more, to take it farther, takes funding.
JP> For example it would be entirely possible to wire a (so-called) dowser
JP> and detect microelectric impluses to muscles versus something like a
JP> more overt muscle action. Or, simply wire up somebody and watch the
JP> brain of a (so-called) dowser at work during the hits and misses.
RS> Its a hell of a lot simpler to use artificial magnet fields or to put
RS> the purported dowsers in a situation where there are no visual clues
RS> and see if they can do better than chance finding the water John. No
RS> grant required.
This has already been done. It shows that humans do detect relative
variations in ambient magnetic field strength - but it doesn't really
tell us _more_ than that, and obviously _more_ than that is what the
whole point is. You'll _never_ figure out the actual mechanism in the
field since the actual mechanism is (is occurring) in the brain/mind.
JP> It isn't even necessary to do this as fieldwork.
RS> Fraid so.
JP> Persinger has accomplished a lot in the lab.
RS> Pity hasnt proven a damned thing John.
Sure it has. You're not familiar with his work are you?
JP> Taken in a slightly different direction he could probably
JP> establish the link between magnetic field detection and
JP> microelectric impulses to various muscle groups.
RS> Thats not rigorous science John, thats faith.
The word "probably" in my sentence should have been a _hint_ that I
wasn't trying to recount rigorous science... No, it wasn't faith, as I
at no time expressed a belief in him doing it or it happenning. It was,
get ready - here comes a new word for you - speculation.
Persinger's work has already produced physical effects and actions.
That just happens not to be what he's looking for and the
effects/actions are not confined to microelectric impulse types.
JP> How did the conscious wishes of the (so-called) dowser get sent
JP> to that which turns 'On' the magnetic field detecting portion.
RS> You havent even established that a human CAN detect anything John.
Uh-oh! You _ARE_ another of those who expected me to do the research
for you!?!?!
JP> The conscious link to the functional ability, that's what's missing.
JP> And I think that's going to be a _lot_ more difficult to nail down.
RS> Its fairys sitting on their shoulders whispering in their ears John.
That's what the beneficiaries of successful (so-called) dowsing used to
think in decades and centuries past but I'm surprised to find someone in
this decade still believing in fairies...
I have to apologize, I didn't realize that you expected me to do the
research for you, or that you expected me to prove anything to you. (Of
course, I didn't expect you to sneak in a claim I never made, attribute
it to me, then demand that I prove it either - but I'm getting used to
that occurrence in this Echo...)
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Fredric Rice
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 28 Feb 96 21:40:24
EID:0196 205cad00
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 31351217
-=> Quoting Scott Weadon to Fredric Rice <=-
FR> The ages old cry of the believer: "Do you own homework." I would
FR> love to had I recieved a solid reference.
Oh really??? Well, I posted several. Do you need it handed to you on a
silver platter... The age old cry of the Slacker...
FR> An Internet search failed to
FR> find any scientificly peer-reviewed journal article which supports the
FR> contention being made.
An Internet search? The one you performed in your dreams???
I have a very serious problem here Slacker-Freddie. I _could_ promptly
conclude that you are a *_LIAR_*, which would clearly be substantiated
by Scott having quickly and easily found such a reference. Or, perhaps
I should consider that possibly in your feebleness you mistyped
something, or clicked the wrong place, or any of a number of common
human mistakes or oddities.
I'm having trouble deciding which course of action I should take...
I think I'll give you the same benefit of the doubt that you gave me:
YOU ARE A LIAR!!! Scott proved it.
You're a stinking DOCUMENTED _LIAR_!
[Oh my. Mr. Slacker Moderator already had a problem addressing
the issue of you accusing me, without any evidence whatsoever,
of being a liar. And _now_ he's confronted with CLEAR evidence
that YOU _are_ a documented LIAR... Well, the last time, Mr.
Slacker Moderator's course of moderatorial action was to play
ostrich, do the buns-up head-in-sand routine. Can't wait to see
how he'll handle this..........................................]
[Uh-oh, it just occurred to me that Mr. Slacker Moderator might
choose to chastise me for using the word "stinking" and ignore
everything else... Oh well....................................]
FR> Had there been anything to John's claims, I
FR> would have expected to find a great deal.
Would you have??? Well, since you didn't do a search, and since you
LIED about doing a search, I think I'll consider that otherwise silly
comment a LIE too.
SW> Which internet were you searching, I found this on the first hit.
Oops!!! Caught red-handed... Documented LIAR... (Yep, this thread is
a keeper...)
Please take it easy on Scott, he's kinda new and doesn't know what its
like to have you guys turn on him...
SW> -------------------------begin
SW> article-----------------------------------------
SW> WATER DOWSING IN ARID REGIONS: REPORT ON A TEN YEAR GERMAN GOVERNMENT
SW> PROJECT (1)
SW> From the Journal of Scientific Exploration Stanford University
SW> Stanford, Ca. Stanford,Ca. USA, March 27, 1995
I'll go prepare Scott for some of the various tricks you'll use to
discredit his work, make him feel about 2" tall, and otherwise fully
ignore the substance of the material and further avoid doing any
research of your own.
But, before I go, I do have a favor to ask?
PLEASE STOP LYING!!!!!!
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahah!!!! Oh my, this is too much fun to be
just a hobby...
Have a nice day, LIAR-Freddie.
Liar, liar, pants on fire....
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Scott Weadon
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 28 Feb 96 21:40:24
EID:2ab0 205cad00
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 31351218
-=> Quoting Scott Weadon to Fredric Rice <=-
FR> The ages old cry of the believer: "Do you own homework." I would
FR> love to had I recieved a solid reference.
Several were posted. I guess he wants it handed to him on a silver
platter... The age old cry of the Slacker...
FR> An Internet search failed to
FR> find any scientificly peer-reviewed journal article which supports the
FR> contention being made.
Well, I had a serious problem. I _could_ promptly have concluded that
Slacker Freddie is a *_LIAR_*, which would clearly be substantiated by
your having quickly and easily found such a reference. Or, I could have
considered that maybe in his feebleness he mistyped something, or
clicked the wrong place, or any of a number of common human mistakes or
oddities.
I was having trouble deciding which course of action I should take and
then I decided that I'd give Slacker-Freddie the same benefit of the
doubt that he gave me:
HE'S A LIAR!!! You proved it. Thank you very much.
FR> Had there been anything to John's claims, I
FR> would have expected to find a great deal.
Hmmm, if he lied about the Internet search he must therefore be lying
about expecting to find something. Dang! TWICE a LIAR!!
SW> Which internet were you searching, I found this on the first hit.
SW> -------------------------begin
SW> article-----------------------------------------
SW> WATER DOWSING IN ARID REGIONS: REPORT ON A TEN YEAR GERMAN GOVERNMENT
SW> PROJECT (1)
SW> From the Journal of Scientific Exploration Stanford University
SW> Stanford, Ca. Stanford,Ca. USA, March 27, 1995
Ok, first the good news: I'm very happy you did _something_. I take
back maybe, approximately, 45% of the bad things I said about you. Now,
the trick is to take this another step. Write some letters, make some
telephone calls. It won't happen overnight, but you _will_ find the
people and the information.
Now, the _bad_ news. I don't want ruin your day but you committed a
HUGE sin among Skeptics - you ratted out a fellow Skeptic!! They hate
it when that happens!
Now is where we (and you) get to see the so-called Skeptics go after
each other like sharks. People will accuse you of all sorts of horrible
things because you ratted out LIAR-Freddie. Even though HE'S the liar,
even though its documented, they will make YOU feel so low and so
uncomfortable that (the hoped for outcome is) you never _ever_ rat out a
fellow Skeptic again.
If you're watching closely you'll see fellow Skeptics pop virtually out
of the woodwork to offer, in the most unsolicited manner, all sorts of
excuses for why LIAR-Freddie made this teensy-tiny little-itty-bitty
mistake and why YOU are the most evil creature since Hitler for having
pointed it out.
But, the best part will be watching LIAR-Freddie totally trash your
work. LIAR-Freddie will claim all sorts of things are wrong with this
Journal to attempt to validate his claim that he meant peer-reviewed and
that's why this article is unacceptable. (Somewhere in his whining
he'll try to get you to forget that he never did diddley for
research...)
Or, maybe he'll complain because its an Internet article and not 'real'
so he can't trust it...
Or, maybe he'll complain because its foreigners doing the research...
Or, maybe because its only 10 years of field research and not 20 or
300...
Or, he'll complain because he doesn't have any of the raw data to
examine for himself! (Then, while trying to get you to forget that he
did squat, and LIED, maybe he'll try to make _you_ be responsible for
his shortcomings!)
Well, I could go on and on but I'd still never think of all the possible
ways that he might try to trash your work and cover his LIE.
Or, having exposed him ahead of time such as I've done, maybe he'll
slink his LYING butt away and pretend it never happenned (but he'll
never forget what you did). And neither will I! Congratualtions, you
just bagged your first LYING Skeptic! Feels _good_ doesn't it!?
Oops! Do you think Mr. Slacker Moderator will moderate me for the word
"butt"!?!?!?!?!
What a country...
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: Karl Schneider
|To: Ross Sauer
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 27 Feb 96 17:51:00
EID:26cd 205b8e60
MSGID: 1:170/309@fidonet.org c789446f
RS>This Sunday there's a show on opposite 60 minutes, that according to
the
RS>TV guide blurb says man and dinosaurs lived together at the same time.
RS>Betcha any money the "evidence" they use will be these dinosaur tracks
RS>near Paluxy, TX that some of which at first looked a little human, but
RS>later on were proven to be a therapod's tracks.
Yep, that's exactly what they claimed. But then, God (oops I mean
Charlton Heston) was the 'host'....
I vomited several times during the program.
---
* OLX 2.2 * If a fundy knew 9 more things, he'd be an idiot.
--- QScan/PCB v1.18b / 01-0067
* Origin: Black Gold BBS-TELNET BGBBS.COM SLIP/PPP 918-272-7779 (1:170/309)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 170/309 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Karl Schneider
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Dowsing
|Date: 27 Feb 96 17:51:00
EID:c3b6 205b8e60
MSGID: 1:170/309@fidonet.org 47854e21
JP> -=> Quoting Rod Speed to John Powell <=-
JP>So, how, scientifically, double blind, etc., are you going to measure
JP>the (so-called) dowser's knowledge of the groundwater in the test
JP>area???
It's pretty simple, John. If it works, it would work every time.
Duh.
---
* OLX 2.2 * Jesus. The same yesterday, today & forever. Dead.
--- QScan/PCB v1.18b / 01-0067
* Origin: Black Gold BBS-TELNET BGBBS.COM SLIP/PPP 918-272-7779 (1:170/309)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 170/309 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Karl Schneider
|To: Julie Presson
|Sub: Re: Evidence
|Date: 27 Feb 96 17:51:00
EID:6c98 205b8e60
MSGID: 1:170/309@fidonet.org 262fe775
JP>Dexter Amand told us we would learn to see the broader view of the universe.
JP>He told us if someone from another planet came to this planet to study
the
JP>humans, they would go back and report the only way you could tell the
JP>difference between the adults and children was by their size.
A better way is by the price of their toys.
---
* OLX 2.2 * If a fundy knew 9 more things, he'd be an idiot.
--- QScan/PCB v1.18b / 01-0067
* Origin: Black Gold BBS-TELNET BGBBS.COM SLIP/PPP 918-272-7779 (1:170/309)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 170/309 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Ryan Shaw
|To: Ross Sauer
|Sub: new "therapy"
|Date: 28 Feb 96 21:55:49
EID:aa7c 205caee0
MSGID: 1:152/67.0 13513a47
REPLY: 1:154/169 000622c4
CHRS: ibmpc 2
TID: FastEcho 1.45a 8548
Ross Sauer wrote in a message to All:
RS> Jay Leno mentioned there's a conference going on (he didn't say
RS> where) that is called "Auto Urine" or something like that.
RS> According to this group, they get health benefits from drinking
RS> their own urine. BLAGHHHHH! (sound of barfing)
RS> If that's what they drink, I wonder what they eat?
RS> It seems any yo-yo makes a claim about some "therapy" or health
RS> gadget or vitamin combination, and the sheep follow him or her.
Sounds like a quick way towards dehydration if that's all they drink. The
eating is another matter. ;)
rshaw@gladstone.uoregon.edu
---
* Origin: [ zoo station . . . eugene, oregon ] (1:152/67)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 152/8 67 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 152/67 8 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: Scott Weadon
|Sub: Journal of Scientific Exploratio
|Date: 28 Feb 96 17:22:16
EID:b637 205c8ac0
> -=> Quoting Fredric Rice to David Bloomberg on 02-27-96 11:53 <=-
>
> [...]
>
>FR> The ages old cry of the believer: "Do you own homework." I would
>FR> love to had I recieved a solid reference. An Internet search failed
to
>FR> find any scientificly peer-reviewed journal article which supports
the
>FR> contention being made. Had there been anything to John's claims, I
>FR> would have expected to find a great deal.
>
> Which internet were you searching, I found this on the first hit.
>
> -------------------------begin
> article-----------------------------------------
>
> WATER DOWSING IN ARID REGIONS: REPORT ON A TEN YEAR GERMAN
> GOVERNMENT
> PROJECT (1)
>
> From the Journal of Scientific Exploration Stanford University
God's honest truth: When I first saw you defending dowsing I wondered, "I
wonder if he got that article from the Journal of Scientific Exploration".
FYI, that particular rag is not very credible. They use the very weakest
of scientific standards, if any. It is "peer" reviewed, in that all the
peers are uncritical of outrageous claims.
How 'bout a valid publication please? Thanks.
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: David Sparrow
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: Pie Plate Attack!
|Date: 26 Feb 96 00:33:49
EID:b455 205a0420
MSGID: 3:690/613.8 31324c5f
>>>> You haven't seen the many minutes of clear footage shot of objects
>>>> hovering and flitting about in Mexico over the last few years ?
SL>>> If the video was valid, it would be plastered all over the network
SL>>> news.
>> At the time, the live sightings were "plastered all over the network
>> news", including live broadcasts by the Mexico City Mayor of the day
>> who confirmed he too had seen what everyone else in the area had.
SL> Oh, I see. The Mayor of Mexico City has his own television network?
I wouldn't know, but I recognised the letters CNN. So would you
too if you ever bothered to get off your bum to do some research
instead of raving out your apparent ignorance.
>> The videos include those broadcasts.
>> That there were many "ufo"s sighted and filmed over many days, there
is
>> no doubt. What the objects were is the question. My question is has
>> any of you alleged "skeptics" viewed the videos and formulated a
>> considered and researched opinion as to what was being filmed. Report
>> back after you have obtained and viewed the videos.
SL> Like I said, I haven't seen it, and I keep pretty up-to-date with
SL> what's going on.
Obviously you have not seen the videos and obviously you are so
slack about the way you allegedly keep "pretty up to date" that
you didn't even notice the dates given in my original messages.
What were they, Mr "Pretty up to date" ?
SL> I can only conclude that this Hub Cap Attack in
SL> Mexico City is not really news, since the media coverage in America
SL> has been nil. This means only one of two things:
SL> * The UFOs you claim have been seen over Mexico City is a typical
SL> example of UFO bunk, or; * The news media is engaged in a conspiracy
SL> of silence.
SL> So which is it?
None of the above. What it does mean is that you're slack and
ignorant, or if you prefer, lazy and lacking in research. The
"flap" I posted about and which the videos document, is from a
number of years ago. Read more carefully next time.
Now, run along and obtain the videos and THEN report back, for
until then you've no informed opinion and so as far as you and
I are concerned, this topic is dead; you have nothing to offer
me as far as my questions go; your current ignorance makes you
worthless to me. Until you've done your homework, go away and
stop wasting our time.
Regards
David
---
* Origin: =EMPIRE= v4.01 - Twits Twonks, Tidies Text. (3:690/613.8)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 690/613 660 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Langston Goldfinch
|To: All
|Sub: Leap Trivia
|Date: 29 Feb 96 00:23:02
EID:0c16 205d02e0
MSGID: 1:396/17 3134f213
Hello All!
OK, so every year divisible by 4 (like 1996) is a Leap Year-
But, did you know- since the year is acutually 365.242 (not .25 exactly)
the leaps get a little ahead so:
only the ?00 years (centuries) divisible by 4 ARE leap years thus
1600 yes
1700 no even though divisible by 4
1800 no
1900 no
2000 yes
but this still is a little off, so those years divisible by 4000 are also
regular years (even though divisible by 400)
4000
8000 etc
in case you are around to care.
source, EB.
Amazing how God set this all up!
Langston
--- GoldED/386 2.50.A0918+
* Origin: N.O.P.C. Club BBS [SDN/PDN] (504-486-7249) (1:396/17)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 396/17 2 1 270/101 218/801
|From: S. T. Gedkin
|To: William Lipp
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 28 Feb 96 20:58:26
EID:9fd7 205ca740
MSGID: 1:203/2019.0 135324e1
REPLY: 1:141/1111.0 3133219a
On Feb 27, 1996,
William Lipp wrote to S. T. Gedkin
re: Re: DOWSING
WL> The only conclusion based
WL> on the inadequacy of your tests is that it does not provide
WL> sufficient evidence to reopen the issues presently considered
WL> settled by better designed tests. Of course science is not a group
WL> activity
STG> I'd like to agree with you, but the hysteric responses by supposed
STG> skeptics in this echo is evidence to the contrary.
WL> We seem to have people on both sides of these discussions whose
WL> greatest joy is trying to make the other side angrily hysterical.
So I've noticed. :-(
STG> Someday someone will design and perform those tests.
STG> If those tests prove conclusively there is no dowsing capability, then
STG> I've wasted a bit of speculative time, and there's no harm done.
STG> If those tests prove conclusively there is dowsing capability,
STG> ... many of the people here will be unable to accept that
STG> proof if it ever did come.
WL> I would expect a somewhat different outcome. If Science or a
WL> journal of similar stature published an article proving dowsing, and
WL> it was confirmed by independent investigators of similar stature, I
WL> think everybody here would quickly accept it. On the other hand, I
WL> don't think any amount of scientific evidence will convince the
WL> people the feel the rod wiggle that are deluded.
I have my doubts. Stepping back a bit, could and would _Science_ and
other journals publish such work? I have my doubts about that also.
I suspect first a) someone with a respected scientific reputation would
need to conclusively prove there's some form of dowsing which does work,
at least sometimes, b) it'd have to be confirmed by other exceedingly
careful tests by other respected scientists, then c) someone would have
to identify the method by which it works and conclusively prove his
theory, before any of these journals would publish anything on such
controversial topics. And getting from the first to the second, or from
the second to the third, is exceedingly difficult without publication in
a peer-reviewed journal.
WL> For my personal beliefs, I'll go a little further. This isn't big
WL> science. This doesn't even require the sophisitication that Ben
WL> Franklin needed to show the lightning is electricity, and he did
WL> that over 200 years ago. The perception of dowsers is not some
WL> subtle effect that needs to be very carefully filtered from the
WL> noise - the subjective experience is clear and strong. It seems to
WL> me that if it was real it would have been well established long ago.
WL> But if it isn't real, it's never going to go away because it feels
WL> so real to the people doing it. It seems to me to be similar to the
WL> Ouija Board experience - it seldom feels like you are guiding the
WL> pointer when you do it, but I'm convinced you are.
I agree with much of what you say. I believe the main reason we have no
scientific analysis of dowsing is that no good scientist has attempted
to examine the subject with an experiment based on what should be
achievable. Instead, all solid "experiments" I've seen reported or
talked about are designed to debunk rather than explore. Eventually
that'll change. I hope to see it.
May you live in interesting times.
S.T. Gedkin
FidoNet: S. T. Gedkin at 1:203/2019
Internet: Gedkin@tefnut.gigo.com
... Oxymoron: A new classic.
___ TagDude 0.87 [Unregistered] with 12691 taglines.
--- timEd/386 1.10+
* Origin: Balance in Opposition - Opposition in Balance (1:203/2019)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 203/289 535 726 821 2019 8055 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100
SEEN-BY: 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103
SEEN-BY: 270/104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70
SEEN-BY: 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25
SEEN-BY: 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001
SEEN-BY: 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 203/2019 15 270/101 218/801
|From: Harold Ehnhuus
|To: Stewart Draper
|Sub: True Facts
|Date: 01 Mar 96 12:34:00
EID:24c9 20616440
SD> It takes 'real intelligence' and 'real observation' and 'real
SD>experience' and 'real awareness' to break this fallacy to shards and
pieces it
SD>deserves to be in.
Please define "real".
Harold
---
ž KingQWK 1.05 ž Think hard now...which one is Shinola?
* Origin: The Nighthawk BBS - West Seneca, NY USA - V.34 (1:260/158)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 260/158 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 260/158 10 270/101 218/801
|From: Ed Mills
|To: William Lipp
|Sub: Does HIV 'Cause' AID
|Date: 27 Feb 96 19:42:16
EID:4091 205b9d40
MSGID: 1:105/40.762 93583d10
REPLY: 1:141/1111.0 31332430
Dessicated, reconstituted verbiage from William Lipp to Fredric Rice ->
27 Feb 96
-=> Quoting Fredric Rice to Terry Parker <=-
FR> I'm merely curious if your particular band of unsalted nuts
FR> think that HIV was manufactured in a government lab to wipe-
FR> out blacks. ... (Or was it the United Nations?
WL> Ohhh! This belongs on Urban Legends. AIDS was created to wipe out
WL> the United Nations! I love it.
Therefore, AIDS was created by the John Birch Society. Well, I'll be
dipped!
Edweird
... I spilled spot remover on my dog. Now he's gone. (S. Wright)
--- PPoint 1.98
* Origin: St. Vitus Dance Studio --> Portland OR (1:105/40.762)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 105/40 50 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: John Powell
|Sub: DOWSING=FRAUD
|Date: 29 Feb 96 08:27:54
EID:c16a 205d4360
>SL> Never enough to use the "F" word. You use suggests desperation.
>
> I have no control over how you perceive the written word.
>
>>SL> Perhaps a better way for you to handle this
>>SL> would be to cite your evidence. Names of the credible TV shows or
>>SL> articles and dates. A partial transcript would be of help.
>>SL> Such evidence would further your cause here.
>> I have no "cause" to further. Do your own research, do your own
>> homework, I'm not doing it for you (or anyone else)...
>SL> So forgive us if no one believes your silly dowsing claims.
>
> What's to forgive? I never suggested that anybody believe anything.
> Again, your perceptions are not my responsibility.
Then you shouldn't react so negatively when so many people doubt your claims.
Funny, but the various claims dowsers make reminds me quite a bit of the
claims a certain well-known psychiatrist is making.
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Dowsing=Fraud
|Date: 29 Feb 96 08:29:29
EID:c16a 205d43a0
>FR> I find it telling that no scientific peer-reviewed journal is being
>FR> cited by you. I would expect to at least be given the name of
>FR> individuals working within a group who conducted these scientific
>FR> tests which yielded positive results.
>FR> Strange. I don't see any in your messages.
>
> You came in late. I've already provided enough info for anybody to
> go and do their own research.
No you haven't.
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Doug Pasnak
|To: David Sparrow
|Sub: [1/2] Water, Water, Ever
|Date: 23 Feb 96 18:19:00
EID:6a6d 20579260
REPLY: 3:690/613.8 3128cc66
MSGID: 1:134/67.0 312e6784
On 02-19-96, David Sparrow wrote to Pete Porro concerning Evolution:
DS> "EVERY CONCEIVABLE OBSERVATION CAN BE FITTED INTO IT. NO ONE CAN
DS> THINK OF WAYS IN WHICH TO TEST IT."
Read "*Creationists* cannot think of ways" to test it. Since they subcribe
to a totally religious world-view without a shred of evidence, they cannot
understand science or the methods it uses, nor do they understand it's
conclusions and how they are derived.
___
* Freddie 1.2.5 * The first full-featured QWK reader for the Mac.
--- Maximus 3.01
* Origin: The Keyboard BBS [Calgary, Alberta 403-229-4858] (1:134/67)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 134/67 1 17 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Doug Pasnak
|To: Gregg Tripp
|Sub: M.A.C.O.S
|Date: 26 Feb 96 20:30:02
EID:61ad 205aa3c0
REPLY: 3:712/407.0 31249780
MSGID: 1:134/67.0 31327aba
On 02-16-96, Gregg Tripp wrote to Doug Pasnak:
GT> But alas, churches are big business, eh?
It's not so much the idea of churches in and of themselves that bother me.
It's that willfull ignorance that some feel is required for salvation.
THAT is where our problem lies, in soteriological sophistry.
Douglas.
___
* Freddie 1.2.5 * The first full-featured QWK reader for the Mac.
--- Maximus 3.01
* Origin: The Keyboard BBS [Calgary, Alberta 403-229-4858] (1:134/67)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 134/67 1 17 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Doug Pasnak
|To: Fredric Rice
|Sub: The Real Reason For Glob
|Date: 26 Feb 96 20:39:04
EID:2abf 205aa4e0
REPLY: 1:102/890@FidoNet 180934cc
MSGID: 1:134/67.0 31327cd8
On 02-17-96, Fredric Rice wrote to Stewart Draper:
FR> I'm curious. Is the reason why you dislike scientific method
FR> because you think it detracts from your deity- oriented
FR> superstitions? If so, perhaps you should do as I suggested and
FR> research what scientific method is.
A post-modernist actually attempting to understand what they comment on?
Don't be silly, David. [:)
They believe their ignorance of subject matter gives them power over it.
Since they don't have a clue they are free to mix and match concepts to
their hearts desire, and since the result is gibberish, they insist that
the basis of what they attack is gibberish as well. What is frightening
is
that this anti-science viewpoint is gaining a foothold in many extreme
(and not so extreme) elements of organisations which are disillusioned
with sciences inability to *immediately* solve all the problems we face.
Douglas.
___
* Freddie 1.2.5 * The first full-featured QWK reader for the Mac.
--- Maximus 3.01
* Origin: The Keyboard BBS [Calgary, Alberta 403-229-4858] (1:134/67)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 134/67 1 17 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Doug Pasnak
|To: Stewart Draper
|Sub: Conspiracy To Control Hu
|Date: 27 Feb 96 16:09:06
EID:896f 205b8120
REPLY: 3:712/619 56c36706
MSGID: 1:134/67.0 31338f12
On 02-16-96, Stewart Draper wrote to Some:
SD> And of course there is bio-technology which is real and true in
SD> itself. And the human genes are of 'alien design.' So if and when
SD> the the architecture is fully understood by modern science, then you
SD> will have the next step of 'finding another block, to block the road
SD> of realization of true consciousness as truth.' The conspirators
SD> require blocks in the road, and detour signs to achieve their plans.
SD> This just too much fun!
Yes, we find your regurgittation of X-Files episodes amusing as well.
___
* Freddie 1.2.5 * The first full-featured QWK reader for the Mac.
--- Maximus 3.01
* Origin: The Keyboard BBS [Calgary, Alberta 403-229-4858] (1:134/67)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 134/67 1 17 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Julie Presson
|To: Karl Schneider
|Sub: Re: Evidence
|Date: 28 Feb 96 07:01:07
EID:48e2 205c3820
-=> Quoting Karl Schneider to Julie Presson <=-
JP>Dexter Amand told us we would learn to see the broader view of the universe.
JP>He told us if someone from another planet came to this planet to study
the
JP>humans, they would go back and report the only way you could tell the
JP>difference between the adults and children was by their size.
KS> A better way is by the price of their toys.
I know, I really like the most expensive toys myself....
Beyond the Mists of Time...I AM Moranaa
... A hunch is creativity trying to tell you something.
--- Arf! ---
* Origin: Gates Of Delirium - US 916/339-9043: (1:203/163.0)
SEEN-BY: 1/141 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 163 289 500 535 726 821 2019 7707 8055 206/2711 209/720
SEEN-BY: 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200
SEEN-BY: 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104
SEEN-BY: 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10
SEEN-BY: 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225
SEEN-BY: 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777
SEEN-BY: 3805/3
PATH: 203/163 8055 15 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: David Sparrow
|Sub: PIE PLATE ATTACK!
|Date: 29 Feb 96 20:09:21
EID:54e8 205da120
Hiya Dave!
> Now, run along and obtain the videos and THEN report back, for
> until then you've no informed opinion and so as far as you and
> I are concerned, this topic is dead; you have nothing to offer
> me as far as my questions go; your current ignorance makes you
> worthless to me. Until you've done your homework, go away and
> stop wasting our time.
ROFL.
C'mon, you can do better than that. Mexicans throwing pie plates and videotaping
the results!
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: John Powell
|Sub: DOWSING=FRAUD
|Date: 29 Feb 96 20:13:06
EID:c16a 205da1a0
>> I've provided everything anyone capable of doing the research would
>> need to do the research.
>SL> Bzzz. Wrong. The only thing you have given us concerning your take
on
>SL> the superstition known as dowsing is that some studies have proven
it
>SL> to work. But when pressed to name those studies, you draw a blank.
>
> I haven't drawn a blank, I never said I wasn't aware of them. I
> simply refused to do _your_ research for you. I gave you several names
and
> leads over three weeks ago. How far have you gotten or are you
> still waiting for someone to do your work for you, slack???
>
Why do you keep copping out, John? You haven't presented any research. All
you can do is whine that you won't do "research" for anyone else.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
> In several cases you were given names/places to call. Have you
> telephoned _ANY_ of them yet slacker???
"Slacker"? As a long-timer veteran of Fido conference, I am dissappointed
at your uncreativity at the art of the insult. I figured a True Believer's
imagination was more active than that.
Refresh my memory on these "names/places".
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Dowsing=Fraud
|Date: 29 Feb 96 20:18:48
EID:c16a 205da240
> But, the best part will be watching LIAR-Freddie totally trash your
> work. LIAR-Freddie will claim all sorts of things are wrong with
> this Journal to attempt to validate his claim that he meant peer-reviewed
> and that's why this article is unacceptable. (Somewhere in his whining
> he'll try to get you to forget that he never did diddley for
> research...)
You're becoming unhinged, John. Why, anyone who doubts your claims is a
"slacker" or a liar! Such a knowledge-base you must own - if only everyone
could see the truth like you can!
Fortunately for us "slacker" and "liars", we can look at the "Journal of
Scientific Exploration" objectively. And by looking at such a journal objectively
we can see that the "Journal" is a new-age joke, full of psuedo-science
and wrapped with the "peer-reviewed" label.
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Wicca=Superstition
|Date: 29 Feb 96 20:23:07
EID:63fd 205da2e0
>JP> I think it'll always be less reliable than current and future technology.
>RS> Sorry John, we dont do rigorous science like that, if you havent even
>RS> proven there is a real effect, you dont get to pontificate like that.
>
> Pontificating?? Well, blessed be !
"Blessed be". That's one of those cutesy Wiccan phrases. I'm itching to
start a "fallacies of witchcraft" thread, so if there are any Wiccans here,
I'd like to chat.
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: John Powell
|Sub: OFA
|Date: 29 Feb 96 20:24:44
EID:9411 205da300
>RS> We dont actually, the most obvious example is weather forecasting.
>RS> We can do usefully better than chance. So we keep doing that.
>
> But it has to be extremely frustrating to see the Farmer's Almanac
> beat current technology. That will turn around over time but with the
> Farmer's Almanac going at about 80% to 85% and the National Weather
> Service going at about 15% to 20% I still check the Farmer's
> Almanac.
The Old Farmer's Almanac goes about 80-85% of what? Do you mean accuracy?
If so, where do you get your facts from?
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Dowsing=Fraud
|Date: 29 Feb 96 20:29:16
EID:c16a 205da3a0
>-=> Quoting David Bloomberg to John Powell <=-
>
>JP> Y'know, what was originally intended to be a simple series of short
>JP> messages exchanged with one or two individuals has turned into a
>JP> _very_ revealing conference-wide incident...
>DB> It did reveal two things: That you absolutely refuse to back up your
>DB> claims, and that you cannot hold a rational discussion.
>
> I'm not responsible for your perceptions. I never refused to back
> up my claims, I simply refused to do other people's research for them.
>
> I'm astonished that you would expect that of anyone, but as a
> slacker I guess you have no alternative.
>
> And you're also wrong on the second item as well. It was a rational
> discussion between myself and one or two others until another group
> began making _IRRATIONAL_ demands of me...
As you know, asking for proof of outrageous claims is irrational on a UFO
conference, John. But this isn't a UFO conference.
All you've added here to this discussion is a few vulgarities, juvenile
name-callings, and a cop-out stating that you won't do other's "research"
for them. Since you're not interested in skepticism, why are you here?
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: S. T. Gedkin
|To: Rod Speed
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 01 Mar 96 06:49:58
EID:b4a1 20613620
MSGID: 1:203/2019.0 136f9484
On Feb 25, 1996,
Rod Speed wrote to S. T. Gedkin
re: DOWSING
STG> I agree that double blind tests have their place, and are needed in
STG> many areas of science to eliminate the experimenter's bias. But to
STG> say that "no true conclusions ... can be made" without double blind
STG> tests is to ignore the history of science. Double blind tests are a
STG> recent invention within the scientific method. Galileo never used
STG> them, but I doubt you'd reject his discoveries because of that.
DB> Galileo wasn't doing dowsing tests, either. There is quite a difference.
STG> Why? What's the difference? He was investigating things which were
STG> totally outside the accepted knowledge base of his time. So was I.
RS> Thats not the criterion used to decide if double blind tests are
RS> appropriate ST. We dont bother with those on the proposition that if
RS> you jump over a cliff without a parachute or glider, there is a very
RS> significant risk of getting a tad broken. Or if you play russian
RS> roulette.
RS> In the case of dowsing we are trying to decide if the dowser really
RS> can determine where the water is, and it should be rather obvious
RS> that the only real way to work that out is to ensure that the dowser
RS> doesnt know in advance where the water is, and see if he can do
RS> better than chance in finding it when its not everywhere.
RS> Surely you can grasp this simple stuff ? If you cant,
RS> you CERTAINLY shouldnt qualify for any scholarship.
A double blind test isn't needed to blind the experimental subject (in
this case the dowser), but instead the recording experimenter, to
prevent bias on the part of the experimenter from affecting the results
of the experiment.
Given that all researchers have a bias, being part of human nature, what
criteria do you suggest to determine when a double blind approach is
necessary and when it isn't?
So far all I've seen in this echo is that a double blind approach is
necessary when skeptics feel the subject is garbage, and is not
necessary when they don't question the subject being tested. That's too
subjective a measure for me to accept.
May you live in interesting times.
S.T. Gedkin
FidoNet: S. T. Gedkin at 1:203/2019
Internet: Gedkin@tefnut.gigo.com
... You mean I have to sin to be saved? Run that by me again!
___ TagDude 0.87 [Unregistered] with 12691 taglines.
--- timEd/386 1.10+
* Origin: Balance in Opposition - Opposition in Balance (1:203/2019)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 203/289 535 726 821 2019 8055 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100
SEEN-BY: 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103
SEEN-BY: 270/104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70
SEEN-BY: 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25
SEEN-BY: 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001
SEEN-BY: 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 203/2019 15 270/101 218/801
|From: Paul Michaelson
|To: Karl Schneider
|Sub: Dowsing
|Date: 29 Feb 96 23:58:00
EID:623d 205dbf40
MSGID: 1:267/126@fidonet.org e747f09c
KARL,
KS> JP>So, how, scientifically, double blind, etc., are you going to
KS> measure
KS> JP>the (so-called) dowser's knowledge of the groundwater in the test
KS> JP>area???
KS>
KS> It's pretty simple, John. If it works, it would work every time.
KS>
KS> Duh.
Medicines that are accepted and approved by the FDA do not work every time.
Why use a stronger test requirement for other phenomena?
Take care.
Paul
---
* OFFLINE 1.58 * Sailors curse the rain that farmers prayed for in vain.
--- QScan/PCB v1.18b / 01-0110
* Origin: Telesphere BBS 518-783-7538 Latham, NY (1:267/126)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 267/126 161 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: Scott Weadon
|Sub: Journal of Scientific Nonsense
|Date: 01 Mar 96 08:42:26
EID:8cc9 20614540
> Sigh...just what constitutes an "...valid publication" ? One that
> only agrees with your beliefs?
No. A journal that is accepted by the scientific community. Science, IEEE
Spectrum, The New England Journal of Medicine... those are valid periodicals.
The Journal of Scientific Exploration isn't up to snuff.
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Ron Coates
|To: David Sparrow
|Sub: Pie Plate Attack!
|Date: 01 Mar 96 17:42:29
EID:5102 20618d40
MSGID: 1:170/213.0 31377d55
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Reg]
TID: FastEcho 1.45a 7001
-=> Quoting David Sparrow to Scott Laroche <=-
>>>> You haven't seen the many minutes of clear footage shot of objects
>>>> hovering and flitting about in Mexico over the last few years ?
SL>>> If the video was valid, it would be plastered all over the network
SL>>> news.
>> At the time, the live sightings were "plastered all over the network
>> news", including live broadcasts by the Mexico City Mayor of the day
>> who confirmed he too had seen what everyone else in the area had.
SL> Oh, I see. The Mayor of Mexico City has his own television network?
DS> I wouldn't know, but I recognised the letters CNN. So would you
DS> too if you ever bothered to get off your bum to do some research
DS> instead of raving out your apparent ignorance.
This message, as many others you have posted, goes on and on with
silly name calling and pointless drivel. If you have a point to make,
please make it and defend it with facts. I am new to this echo, and I
certainly do not know who started this juvenile behaviour, but I beseech
you to do your part to stop it. I am surprised a moderator has not
jumped in to put a stop to this.
Thanks,
Ron
--- FE145a
* Origin: The Hurricane Alley in TULSA! HSTerbo/DS (1:170/213)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 170/213 200 400 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Ron Coates
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Dowsing=Fraud
|Date: 01 Mar 96 17:42:29
EID:d08c 20618d40
MSGID: 1:170/213.0 31377d56
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Reg]
TID: FastEcho 1.45a 7001
JP> I haven't drawn a blank, I never said I wasn't aware of them. I
JP> simply refused to do _your_ research for you. I gave you several names
JP> and leads over three weeks ago. How far have you gotten or are you
JP> still waiting for someone to do your work for you, slack???
JP> In several cases you were given names/places to call. Have you
JP> telephoned _ANY_ of them yet slacker???
Gosh, another name caller? How about making rational arguments without
calling names?
Moderator, oh moderator....where fore art thou moderator?
Ron
--- FE145a
* Origin: The Hurricane Alley in TULSA! HSTerbo/DS (1:170/213)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 170/213 200 400 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Julie Presson
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: Re: Wicca=Superstition
|Date: 29 Feb 96 00:17:00
EID:2d25 205d0220
-=> Quoting Scott Laroche to John Powell <=-
>JP> I think it'll always be less reliable than current and future technology.
>RS> Sorry John, we dont do rigorous science like that, if you havent even
>RS> proven there is a real effect, you dont get to pontificate like that.
>
> Pontificating?? Well, blessed be !
SL> "Blessed be". That's one of those cutesy Wiccan phrases. I'm itching
SL> to start a "fallacies of witchcraft" thread, so if there are any
SL> Wiccans here, I'd like to chat.
NOT!!! I AM not into Wicca, however I do know some people who are.
They are secretive about what they do unless you are in their Coven.
Go over to Philosophy (SP?) and leave a post to Michael Gothreau he is
a Pagan and likes to post on Holy Smoke so I AM sure he would be
interesting to debate with. He is alos the Moderator of the Magick Echo.
Beyond the Mists of Time...I AM Moranaa
... Off-topic, yes, but useless knowledge should not be wasted...
--- Arf! ---
* Origin: Gates Of Delirium - US 916/339-9043: (1:203/163.0)
SEEN-BY: 1/141 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 163 289 500 535 726 821 2019 7707 8055 206/2711 209/720
SEEN-BY: 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200
SEEN-BY: 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104
SEEN-BY: 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10
SEEN-BY: 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225
SEEN-BY: 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777
SEEN-BY: 3805/3
PATH: 203/163 8055 15 270/101 218/801
|From: Langston Goldfinch
|To: Fred Hatfield
|Sub: Leap Trivia
|Date: 01 Mar 96 18:13:36
EID:11ff 206191a0
MSGID: 1:396/17 31373e68
PID: GED3 2.5.a918 1048
Hello Fred!
Friday March 01 1996 04:10, Fred Hatfield wrote to Langston Goldfinch:
FH> They insisted they would only follow 'God's time'.
Must be KJV time!
-30-L
---
* Origin: N.O.P.C. BBS- Fax/BBS (504)-486-7249 New Orleans, LA. USA (1:396/17)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 396/17 2 1 270/101 218/801
|From: Moderator
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Dowsing
|Date: 29 Feb 96 22:13:29
EID:a908 205db1a0
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 62ec81e5
REPLY: 1:261/1201.0 3131ec47
In a msg to Moderator on , John Powell of 1:261/1201 writes:
JP> Fred - Fuck you.
Mo> I can't imagine that you could possibly have thought this attack would
Mo> be okay on just about ANY echo, so I must presume you knew you were
Mo> breaking the rules and did it anyway.
Mo> Do it again and you'll be taking a vacation from this echo.
JP> Curious, I found no Moderator message to Fred regarding his
<...>
As you well know, responses to Moderator messages belong in NETMAIL.
Since this isn't NETMAIL, this was an off-topic message.
Do it again, and you'll be on vacation.
David Bloomberg,
SKEPTIC Co-Moderator
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1 2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: David Bloomberg
|To: Julie Presson
|Sub: UFO Echo
|Date: 01 Mar 96 07:13:38
EID:cea8 206139a0
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 630bcc55
In a msg to David Bloomberg on , Julie Presson of 1:203/163
writes:
DB> Steve is gone? So who's the token skeptic over in UFO now? I've been
DB> popping in and out, but haven't really been reading much.
JP> I do not know who is as Don has clamped down on the flaming and such
JP> to a great degree.
I certainly wouldn't have noticed with a couple of Jack Sargeant's latest
messages to me over there...
JP> Even Pat Perinello is gone from Fidonet.
DB> No loss there.
JP> I would have to agree with you on that...
However, I've just heard that he isn't gone voluntarily, but due to a 60-or-so
day suspension. Is that correct?
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1 2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: Jim Panzer
|To: Fred Hatfield
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 01 Mar 96 16:05:06
EID:8e23 206180a0
MSGID: 1:3637/1.0 31376682
FH> That goes along with the dead silence we have gotten
FH> from the creationists on the echo when I asked about
FH> the dinasours on the Ark.
Fred:.....the answer to this is sooooooo
--- Maximus/2 3.01
* Origin: Cumberland BBS -TN- V34 (1:3637/1)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3615/7
SEEN-BY: 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 3637/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: Scott Weadon
|Sub: DOWSING=FRAUD
|Date: 02 Mar 96 08:03:12
EID:02d2 20624060
>SL> Fortunately for us "slackers" and "liars", we can look at the "Journal
>SL> of Scientific Exploration" objectively. And by looking at such a
>SL> journal objectively we can see that the "Journal" is a new-age joke,
>SL> full of psuedo-science and wrapped with the "peer-reviewed" label.
>
> Your 'objectivity' is sorely lacking. Had you bothered to research
> the JSE instead of looking down your nose, you may have realized that
> it is indeed an 'peer-reviewed' journal. You really must stop assuming
> any print media that does not adhear to your own missguided beliefs as
> nothing but 'new age'.
I've seen it. And if it walks like a duck...
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: All
|Sub: Problem with UFO Kooks
|Date: 02 Mar 96 08:19:44
EID:afa3 20624260
Producers of films and movies about alien abduction scenarios, as well as
authors who write such "true" tales (Streiber, Mack, et. al.) are, I am
convinced, a dangerous influence on society. I used to think such nonsense
was merely a piffle, harmless as believing in Santa Claus.
Yesterday I got a fundraising letter from CSICOP. Included was a reprint
of a letter they received:
"Dear CSICOP,
I was hoping you could send me some info on reports, abductions and just
facts about aliens. I am doing a project on OFO[sic] phenomena. I believe
with all my heart. I am 14 years old and live in Louisville KY... I was
convinced that I was a [sic] alien when I was a child. My family told me
I was put in there[sic] home by the government and they get paid to keep
me... My sister says I am part of some big government experiment to see
if aliens can be like humans. I guess that is why I am such a believer..."
This crap is going too far. These producers and writers have the right to
say anything they want. But when they label their nonsense as "non-fiction",
those critics in our newspapers and television programs should make the
effort to expose this nonsense for what it is.
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: David Bloomberg
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Dowsing
|Date: 02 Mar 96 09:42:29
EID:b758 20624d40
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 631a5827
REPLY: 1:261/1201.0 3131ec46
In a msg to David Bloomberg on , John Powell of 1:261/1201
writes:
JP> You're slack and I know it.
DB> Let's see here. You make a claim and refuse to back it up -- so *I*
DB> am slack? Nice try at diverting the issue, but like I said, this
DB> isn't your usual stomping ground and most of the people here aren't
DB> nearly as gullible as, say, the BAMA echo.
JP> Hahahha! Nice try.
Again, yes it was a nice try for me to get you to provide evidence. Unfortunately,
a nice try doomed to failure...
JP> No, I'm not doing your research for you.
No, you're not providing any evidence for your loopy claims.
JP> Hahahahaha!!!! Nice try, slack.
DB> Is "Nice try" all you can say when faced with the facts?
JP> Hahahahha!!!! Have a nice day Slack.
Apparently, the answer is "Yes."
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1 2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: David Bloomberg
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Dowsing
|Date: 02 Mar 96 09:43:21
EID:b758 20624d60
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 631a5cc0
REPLY: 1:261/1201.0 3131ec48
In a msg to David Bloomberg on , John Powell of 1:261/1201
writes:
JP> - I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone,
DB> Then why are you here, in the SKEPTIC echo, making claims you have no
DB> intention of backing up?
JP> I've provided everything anyone capable of doing the research would
JP> need to do the research.
You've provided nothing of substance. Get real.
JP> Why am I here? Since when is a reason for being here required?
Most people have a reason for being somewhere. Most of us (with the exception
of the creationists) are here to have rational discussions. Your reason,
however, appears to be to annoy those who are interested in having rational
discussions.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1 2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: David Bloomberg
|To: Ross Sauer
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 02 Mar 96 11:03:31
EID:636a 20625860
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 631b15f0
REPLY: 1:154/169 00067195
In a msg to Fred Hatfield on , Ross Sauer of 1:154/169 writes:
RS> I was right, they used the Paluxy "man tracks" as "evidence." In fact,
RS> the whole show was warmed-over creationist and Von Daniken bullshit.
I haven't seen it yet, though I taped it and several people have told me
about it. When I heard about the Paluxy tracks, I couldn't believe it.
Even the main creationists don't claim that those are real any more!!
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1 2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: David Bloomberg
|To: John Powell
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 02 Mar 96 11:05:47
EID:b758 206258a0
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 631b1e09
REPLY: 1:261/1201.0 3134e49b
In a msg to David Bloomberg on , John Powell of 1:261/1201
writes:
JP> Y'know, what was originally intended to be a simple series of short
JP> messages exchanged with one or two individuals has turned into a
JP> _very_ revealing conference-wide incident...
DB> It did reveal two things: That you absolutely refuse to back up your
DB> claims, and that you cannot hold a rational discussion.
JP> I'm not responsible for your perceptions.
You're responsible for backing up your claims. You have shed that responsibility
and ignored all such requests.
JP> I never refused to back up my claims,
Nope. You just type "Hahahahaha" and call anybody who asks "Slack." You
don't even have the decency to refuse to do what people are asking you to
do. You just ignore those requests instead.
JP> And you're also wrong on the second item as well. It was a rational
JP> discussion between myself and one or two others until another group
JP> began making _IRRATIONAL_ demands of me...
Yes. You _would_ consider it irrational to have to back up your claims.
That, itself, says volumes about you.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1 2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: Moderator
|To: Langston Goldfinch
|Sub: Leap Trivia
|Date: 02 Mar 96 11:11:05
EID:6c4b 20625960
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 631b26d2
REPLY: 1:396/17 3134f213
In a msg to All on , Langston Goldfinch of 1:396/17 writes:
LG> OK, so every year divisible by 4 (like 1996) is a Leap Year-
This message is completely off-topic.
David Bloomberg,
SKEPTIC Co-Moderator
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1 2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: S. T. Gedkin
|To: Kerry Penny
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 02 Mar 96 23:53:40
EID:2627 2062bea0
MSGID: 1:203/2019.0 1393e47c
REPLY: 1:239/200.0 1081904E
On Mar 02, 1996,
Kerry Penny wrote to S. T. Gedkin
re: Re: DOWSING
ST> A double blind test isn't needed to blind the
ST> experimental subject (in
ST> this case the dowser), but instead the recording
ST> experimenter, to
KP> Don't you notice the significance of "double" blind? It is to
KP> prevent both the experimentor and the subject from giving results
KP> that are based on bias. If the dowser knows where the water is and
KP> the experimenter does, I would expect a 100% success rate. Double
KP> blinding prevents any question of bias. Surely, if dowsing works, a
KP> double blind test would not affect the outcome? Or do you think
KP> that leaving the experimenter in the dark and telling the dowser
KP> where the water is should not somehow be questioned?
Was there something in any of my earlier posts which implied that
the dowser should have prior information in any such experiment???
Every post has mentioned or discussed the blindness requirements for
the dowser. My post that you're responding to simply responded to what
seemed to be an implication that "double blind" applied only to the
dowser, not to the experimenter, and /then/ also claimed /I/ didn't
understand "double blind" experiments!
Double blind means /double/ blind, not single blind on either side of
the question.
Or, actually, in more common usage, double blind means blinding the
experimenter **because** the subject is assumed to be blinded first.
That's why:
ST> human nature, what
ST> criteria do you suggest to determine when a double
ST> blind approach is necessary and when it isn't?
KP> Double blinding is needed when the experimenter and the subject
KP> are sentient beings. That's what made your reference to Galileo in
KP> a previous message so humorous to me. It showed your true ignorance
KP> of proper testing methods used by science.
So you're saying that double blinding isn't required in any
microbiologic medical experimentation where the subject is a bacterium
or virus? Not in animal experiments?
Sorry, but the purpose of double blind experiments is to eliminate
the bias held by the experimenter. If the experimental subject is
sentient, he/she/it also needs to be blinded in order for the experiment
to be valid, but the recording experimenter needs to be controlled in
such a way that he/she/it doesn't have any way of knowing how the
experimental run is "supposed" to turn out. That's the purpose of
double blind experiments, and the common usage of the term.
Or at least, that's how it was taught to me in school and how I've
read about it since. Am I wrong?
May you live in interesting times.
S.T. Gedkin
FidoNet: S. T. Gedkin at 1:203/2019
Internet: Gedkin@tefnut.gigo.com
... Pooh postulated, "Reality is for people who can't handle Star Trek."
___ TagDude 0.87 [Unregistered] with 12691 taglines.
--- timEd/386 1.10+
* Origin: Balance in Opposition - Opposition in Balance (1:203/2019)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 203/289 535 726 821 2019 8055 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100
SEEN-BY: 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103
SEEN-BY: 270/104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70
SEEN-BY: 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25
SEEN-BY: 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001
SEEN-BY: 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777
SEEN-BY: 3805/3
PATH: 203/2019 15 270/101 218/801
|From: Jackson Harding
|To: David Sparrow
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 23 Feb 96 22:47:15
EID:20f6 2057b5e0
MSGID: 3:800/857 312e46af
REPLY: 3:690/613.8 3128d320
Hello David!
In a msg of Monday February 19 1996, David Sparrow was overheard speaking
to Jackson Harding:
JH>> Well, both Dick and the Amazing Randi have never had to pay out. Nor
JH>> has any other group who have made a similar offer.
DS> Who are they that I should respect them ?
Respect has nothing to do with it. They have however tested dowsers (together
and separately on numerous occasions. No one has *ever* done better than
random guessing, often they do much worse. It's a straight statement of
fact.
DS> Have they ever put to personal test the readily available methods of
DS> acquiring a familar spirit ?
Which has what to do with dowsing? A proposed mechanism? Now we have an
extrordinary mechanism being proposed for an extrordinary phenomenon.
DS> Randi and Dicki are particular idols of yours ?
No, again just the *factual* statement. They have tested dowsers *repeatedly*
over many years. No one has ever demonstrated such an ability in any of
their tests, nor in any other test, spirit or no spirit (and most of them
claim some "magnetic" effect, not the supernatural)
DS> Please quote my alleged "extraordinary claim" ... I do not recall making
DS> one, but if you believe I have, then please provide me with a requote
of
DS> my message and highlight the portion you believe to be such a claim.
OK, too easy. You've claimed that dowsing is a real phenomenon. There
is no scientific evidence to the veracity of this statement (and plenty
to the contrary) and no obvious explanation available to current scientific
knowledge, as such it is an extrordinary claim. Please, be the first to
demostrate it, all the skeptics in here are just busting to be proven wrong.
If you can ever substantiate your claim, we'll be the first to admit we
were wrong.
And a few further examples:
Ä [73] International skeptics (3:800/857) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SKEPTIC
Msg : 167 of 478 -160 +168 From : David Sparrow 3:690/613.8
Sun 04 Feb 96 20:37 To : Grant Farrington Subj : DOWSING ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
GF> Over here in Oz a local businessman setup an experiment. He placed
GF> some large pipes filled with water underground & covered them up.
GF> Then he got a whole host of dowsers to try & find the pipes. Not one
GF> of them did.
From what I've read on the subject, there ain't too many water "dowsers"
who can locate stationary water. Apparently there are lots who can find
flowing water and a goodly percentage of them can tell direction of flow
depth, flow rate and even "freshness".
[COMMENT] Clearly an extrordinary claim, for a non-explainable phenomenon.
You cluld have at least given references since your are recounting what
you have read [END COMMENT]
Here in York (WA.) there is an old guy who has been doing it for over 60
years and no doubt saved a lot of farmers a heap on drilling costs. His
success rate is legendary. Regardless of how he does it I'll be getting
him to have a look around my property when I'm ready to put a bore down.
Lets face it, even if he does it just by educated guesses based upon his
familiarity with the area (due to living there for so long) then that is
a useful resource in itself and should not be wasted. He knows the area
and he knows where water has been found before and how good it is and he
knows the conditions and cycles the area goes through over the years. I
would be a fool to ignore/discount his knowledge/experience just because
he thinks he gets his insight from a twig.
Anyway perhaps it comes via a familiar spirit via the twig, and familiar
spirits ARE something that can be put to proper scientific testing (well
so can dowsing actually although not the means by which it is achieved).
[COMMENT] Invoking claims of spirits is clearly invoking an extrordinary
mechanism for the phenomemon [END COMMENT]
BTW, how many of you sceptic types have actually put to the test methods
of obtaining a familiar spirit ? What, none of you ? Why not ? Do try
your local library for the necessary books - follow the formulas, but do
restrain yourselves - I would not want you conjuring up something of the
particularly nasty kind and getting yourselves hurt.
Don't forget to report back ...
Regards
David
--- FMail/386 1.02+
* Origin: =EMPIRE= v4.01 - Twits Twonks, Tidies Text. (3:690/613.8)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 800/857 374/14 98 1000 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Jim Panzer
|To: Fred Hatfield
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 02 Mar 96 08:08:36
EID:8e23 20624100
MSGID: 1:3637/1.0 31384854
FH> That goes along with the dead silence we have gotten
FH> from the creationists on the echo when I asked about
FH> the dinasours on the Ark.
Maybe Noah stored them in digital....perhaps binary......nope, that's Barney....?
--- Maximus/2 3.01
* Origin: Cumberland BBS -TN- V34 (1:3637/1)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 3637/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Jim Panzer
|To: Fredric Rice
|Sub: DOWSING SUPERSTITION
|Date: 02 Mar 96 15:53:26
EID:0417 20627ea0
MSGID: 1:3637/1.0 3138b546
REPLY: 1:102/890@FidoNet 1c081f9e
rs> clues on the surface anymore, that the 'dowsers' cant find them, and
rs> so your claims about 'magnetic fields' are tripe.
FR> More: The act of "dowsing" has been described and explained until the
FR> legend should have died quite a long time ago. If
FR> there was _anything_ to the legend, electronic
FR> equipment would have been designed and developed to
FR> make use of these "magnetic fields" long before now.
Not only that but (as in building a better mousetrap) the world would be
beating a path to the "dowser's" door.......and this hasn't happened......yeah,yeah,
I know......they are going to use the old ploy that they can't personaly
benefit from their actions........but "donations" are greatfully accepted..........Panz.......
--- Maximus/2 3.01
* Origin: Cumberland BBS -TN- V34 (1:3637/1)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 3637/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Jim Panzer
|To: Scott Weadon
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 02 Mar 96 16:08:30
EID:8a43 20628100
MSGID: 1:3637/1.0 3138b8ce
REPLY: 1:109/335 0004df13
SW> Which internet were you searching, I found this on the first hit.
SW> -------------------------begin article------------------
SW> -----------------------
SW> WATER DOWSING IN ARID REGIONS: REPORT ON A TEN YEAR GERMAN GOVERNMENT
SW> PROJECT (1)
Good hit Scott but......when I was in middle Florida....all we had to do
was to stick down a pipe and 100% of the time we came up with water.......I
don't know this is the case in the German bit but if you go to a backward
Nation and figure out the picture, you can then relate it to Science or
Dowsing or whatever and be correct......
--- Maximus/2 3.01
* Origin: Cumberland BBS -TN- V34 (1:3637/1)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 3637/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Jim Panzer
|To: Ron Coates
|Sub: Pie Plate Attack!
|Date: 02 Mar 96 16:22:58
EID:0fde 206282c0
MSGID: 1:3637/1.0 3138bc32
REPLY: 1:170/213.0 31377d55
DS> instead of raving out your apparent ignorance.
RC> This message, as many others you have posted, goes on and on with
RC> silly name calling and pointless drivel. If you have a point to make,
RC> please make it and defend it with facts. I am new to this echo, and
I
RC> certainly do not know who started this juvenile behaviour, but I beseech
RC> you to do your part to stop it. I am surprised a moderator has not
RC> jumped in to put a stop to this.
Ah yes.....but......we have a very good moderator who is VERY moderate and
thus we all have to put up with the (should I say "bird brained") posts
of the Swallow..........Panz.....
--- Maximus/2 3.01
* Origin: Cumberland BBS -TN- V34 (1:3637/1)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 3637/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Ed Mills
|To: Ross Sauer
|Sub: new "therapy"
|Date: 01 Mar 96 23:34:48
EID:b63e 2061bc40
MSGID: 1:105/40.762 1eb5aca6
word salad flung at Ross Sauer by Ryan Shaw --> 28 Feb 96
RS> Ross Sauer wrote in a message to All:
RS> Jay Leno mentioned there's a conference going on (he didn't say
RS> where) that is called "Auto Urine" or something like that.
RS> According to this group, they get health benefits from drinking
RS> their own urine. BLAGHHHHH! (sound of barfing)
RS> If that's what they drink, I wonder what they eat?
RS> It seems any yo-yo makes a claim about some "therapy" or health
RS> gadget or vitamin combination, and the sheep follow him or her.
RS> Sounds like a quick way towards dehydration if that's all they drink.
RS> The eating is another matter. ;)
The inference about eating is closer to the truth than you may think.
Have you ever seen a Kombucha fungus (or "mushroom", as they euphemistically
call it)? This is as close to eating shit... :D ... as you can get, and
it's
all the rage with the Windham-Hill-listening, Birkenstock-wearing Volvo-driving
wind-chime-and-tie-dye crowd. (whew).
A friend of mine has a holeopisstic quackupuncturist who turns her piss
into pills she can take. She's a very bright person, I don't understand
this
a-tall...
Eddie Spaghetti
... Red meat not bad for you. Fuzzy blue meat bad for you.
--- PPoint 1.98
* Origin: St. Vitus Dance Studio --> Portland OR (1:105/40.762)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 105/40 50 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Joseph Keenan
|To: ROSS SAUER
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 02 Mar 96 00:53:09
EID:c9c4 206206a0
RS>AREA:SKEPTIC
RS>This Sunday there's a show on opposite 60 minutes, that according to
the
RS>TV guide blurb says man and dinosaurs lived together at the same time.
RS>Betcha any money the "evidence" they use will be these dinosaur tracks
RS>near Paluxy, TX that some of which at first looked a little human, but
RS>later on were proven to be a therapod's tracks.
When I hear stuff like that I sort of think hat the people who
did the 'research' didn't go any further than watching the Flintstones
on TBS.
---
ž QMPro 1.0 22-7954 ž If it feels good, do it -- to excess.
EVQWK 7.96.03 (Registered)
ÉĶ» É» ÉĶ» ÉĶ * ÉĶ ÉĶ» É» ÉĶ ÉĶ 609-893-2367 SupraFAX 28.8kbps
v34
ĢĶ¼ ŗŗ Ģ¼» ĢĶ¼ŗ ĢĶ Č» ĢĶ¼ ŗ Ģ¹ ŗ ĢĶ An Outhouse In The New Jersey
Pines
ŗ Č¼ ŗ ČĶ ČĶ Ķ¼ ŗ ČĶ ČĶ ČĶ ŪŪŪLegionnaireŪŪŪ @1609901 AC609
DM
--- VFIDO 7.11
* Origin: Chamber Secrets (909) FidoNet <-> LegionnaireNet Gateway (1:207/601)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 207/601 1 2 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: David Sparrow
|To: Fred Hatfield
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 01 Mar 96 03:40:51
EID:c4d6 20611d00
MSGID: 3:690/613.8 31365444
FH> Has anyone calculated how much room two of each dinasour species would
FH> require?
Aside from the learned opinions (deem fossils included) that say
most of the "terrible lizards" types were bird sized (oh, and we
do seem to have a number of folk saying many had warm blood too)
although I don't think they are talking about pigeon sized, just
what size/state of development of the species "God" wanted saved
should He have brought to Noah prior to His sealing up the doors
of the incredible vessel ? Oh, and if as the "SDA"s like to say
the beasties were the result of genetic manipulation/experiments
(with humanity also guilty of the same against it own, which was
part of the reason "God" needed to implement such a heavy-handed
wipe-out program - all humans except 8, and who knows how varied
the genetic makeup up was between them all anyway), then tell me
why "God" should want to bring any of them to the Ark ?
Should "God" deliver to Noah a batch of Komodo dragon eggs, or a
basket of new hatchlings, or maybe just a pair that will reach a
suitable level of maturity within, say a season from leaving the
Ark after a voyage of a year. Dunno, don't care really and Noah
prolly didn't either - he just had to take on board all that was
brought to him/came to him.
Since you appear to be interested, why don't you set up a series
of experiments to establish the best way of ensuring that a good
breeding pair of Komodo dragons get it on after a year at sea.
No dragons ? What about tortoises (or is it tortoi ?)
Regards
David
---
* Origin: =EMPIRE= v4.01 - Twits Twonks, Tidies Text. (3:690/613.8)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 690/613 660 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: David Sparrow
|To: Ross Sauer
|Sub: [1/2] WATER, WATER, E
|Date: 01 Mar 96 03:40:51
EID:a18c 20611d00
REPLY: 1:154/169 00067193
MSGID: 3:690/613.8 31366e57
LM>> the Ph.D is not phony. He really does have a Ph.D from the
LM>> University of Minnesota in hydraulic engineering.
RS> THIS gives him the qualifications to make judgements on evolution??
RS> Boy, is he out of his field! (And out of his tree too!)
Aside from the fact that attaining a Ph.D from a reputable place
of learning demonstrates an ability and desire for learning, and
implies a learning not limited to the chosen field, are you here
suggesting that (a) "evolution" is a particular subject that one
might acquire a Ph.D in, and (b) without a Ph.D, one just is not
qualified to make "judgements" about any topic of study, and (c)
(implied by (b)), those lacking the suitable "qualifications" of
a Ph.D, are required to simply be good little sheep and toe that
all important and oh so right Citadel party line and BOC worship
at its altar enscribed "Orthodoxy is the way, the truth, and the
life - no man can be published in our peer-reviewed journals but
by it" ?
Surely ewe are kidding ? Oooops, wrong species, although in the
Middle-East, it is pretty hard to tell at a glance for the sheep
and the goats look very much alike (much like in here) and so it
is hard sometimes to get the Flock away from each other. 8-)
Regards
David
---
* Origin: =EMPIRE= v4.01 - Twits Twonks, Tidies Text. (3:690/613.8)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 690/613 660 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: David Sparrow
|To: Doug Pasnak
|Sub: [1/2] Water, water, ever
|Date: 01 Mar 96 03:40:51
EID:a515 20611d00
REPLY: 1:134/67.0 312d25cc
MSGID: 3:690/613.8 31366f18
DS>> As for religious dogma, we better first identify a religion. I
DS>> tender the following as a starter - shall "we" agree to mark it
DS>> (identify if you wish) as exhibit A1 ?
DS>> EVOLUTION IS RELIGION, NOT SCIENCE
DS>> Institute for Creation Research
DS>> Dr. Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
DP> This amusing tripe presented by a man who has accepted the below as
DP> true:
Firstly, please present the specific portions you found to
be "amusing tripe", not forgetting to show exactly why and
how you came to the conclusion of amusing tripe about each
of the portions, and also remembering that real science is
about putting things to the test, not attaching the man.
I "tendered" the document, it speaks for itself and should
stand or fall on its own merit ... the author is basically
irrelevent to the nature of the document, so too any other
opinions he may or may not happen to hold.
So set your great learning to task against the document to
show the court just where it is wrong and why it shouldn't
be marked as "religion identifing" evidence, and then that
of it which can' be proved false, should be deemed as true
yes ?
Shall we go through it paragraph by paragraph ? Oh, I get
it - you were just addressing the title, nu ?
DP> "1. The Bible is the Written Word of God, and because it is inspired
DP> throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically
DP> true in all the original autographs. To the student of nature this
DP> means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual
DP> presentation of simple historical truths."
I agree with that. Can you really prove Morris does ? It
is irrelevent to the points raised in the document anyway.
DP> "2.All basic types of living things, including man, were made by
DP> direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in
DP> Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation
DP> Week have accomplished only changes within the original kinds."
Ditto.
DP> "4. We are an organisation of Christian men and women of science who
DP> accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. The account of the
DP> special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and woman and their
DP> subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity
DP> of a Saviour for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only
DP> through accepting Jesus Christ as our Saviour."
Ditto.
DP> Morris is as incapable of defining evolution as he is of admitting his
DP> beliefs have nothing to do with science. As someone who signs a
DP> document stressing his belief in the above, his thoughts concerning
DP> the veracity of evolution as fact and theory are entirely
DP> inconsequential. Morris has assumed all of his conclusions beforehand
DP> and states that nothing can contradict the Christian bible. He has by
DP> this admission forsaken any claim to be able to conduct, analyse or
DP> design scientific tests or theories, as he cannot be trusted to
DP> objectively view any results or predictions of same.
Blah, blah, blah. Your Honour, although my learned friend
appears adept in delivering speeches, perhaps he should be
reminded that sans evidence, it only makes for opinion and
heresay and dare I say, fillibuster. His current outburst
bears no relevence to the document tendered which BOC will
stand or fall by its own merits irrespective of the author
but rather only seeks to denigrate a learned member of the
community who is not here to defend himself ! However, if
the sole strategy of my friend depends on him successfully
invalidating the tendered evidence (if that were possible)
by the method of "argumentum ad hominem" in the attempt to
discredit that author of being one of respectable learning
then indeed I'm happy to take up the court's time in going
through the tendered document paragraph by paragraph, step
by step, so that the "truth" it contains can be referenced
as well as demonstrated to be independant of that author.
DP> Morris allows no other outlook but a religious one, specifically the
DP> Christian fundamentalist bible-worship view. He is singularly
DP> unqualified to speak on matters concerning evolution, or even science
DP> in general.
In relation to the alleged limited outlook of various folk
I would like to remind the court that I have requested the
postal address of my apparently unlearned friend, on quite
an number of occasions, so that I could provide him with a
selection of outlook expanding material that in turn could
help in giving his missives at least a token appearance of
being informed on the subject he is endevouring to attack.
As far as this requested postal address goes, it's still a
case of "no fucking show", your Honour.
Perhaps I should not take him seriously anymore.
Regards
David
---
* Origin: =EMPIRE= v4.01 - Twits Twonks, Tidies Text. (3:690/613.8)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 690/613 660 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: David Sparrow
|To: Doug Pasnak
|Sub: Define Terms
|Date: 01 Mar 96 03:40:51
EID:c2d5 20611d00
REPLY: 1:134/67.0 312d2b70
MSGID: 3:690/613.8 31366f27
DS>> Either you are very mistaken, or extremely obtuse, or a plain and
DS>> out-right liar, for I do not and have not claimed any such thing. At
DS>> most, I have said that:
"DS>>>> I would agree with a claim that there are "no transitional
DS>>>> fossils", but you've offered no proof that Laurie has made
DS>>>> such a claim anyway."
DS>> which at the time of writing, was accurate in that you hadn't yet
DS>> made any kind of effort to show Laurie may have made such a claim
DS>> but certainly no indication that I felt he had not ever made such a
DS>> claim, so if this statement of mine (prompted by your slackness in
DS>> substantiating claims)
DP> Then explain why you were unaware of Appleton's statements in spite
of
DP> your claim you archive Appleton's posts?
"Alleged statements" please, and please, show where you think
I have made such a claim of being unaware or not. I am happy
to repost all our messages to this string if you need them to
assist what appears to be your somewhat ailing (yet creative)
memory.
BTW, I can only archive Laurie in the echos *I* receive.
Regards
David
---
* Origin: =EMPIRE= v4.01 - Twits Twonks, Tidies Text. (3:690/613.8)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 690/613 660 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: David Sparrow
|To: William Lipp
|Sub: Dowsing
|Date: 01 Mar 96 03:40:51
EID:68c3 20611d00
REPLY: 1:141/1111.0 312dfa4e
MSGID: 3:690/613.8 3136715b
DS>> Someone who walks onto a property and says "flying fairies tell me
DS>> the water you need is right over here", and the farmer indeed digs
DS>> there and (eventually even) finds water, then in terms of drilling
DS>> costs a "heap" has been saved compared to say a method of multiple
DS>> drillings performed in a strict adherance to a grid plan involving
DS>> trial/error/testing of all options. BOC, the latter mode would be
DS>> abandoned when water was found in the right place - and perhaps in
DS>> some cases it would even add up to less in drilling costs than the
DS>> flying fairies mode. So what - my statement "no doubt saved a lot
DS>> of farmers a heap on drilling costs" is still valid ...
WL> "No doubt" is clearly false. I offer myself as evidence. I doubt it.
Oh ? Let us put that to the test. is your "doubt" valid or
irrational ? Sure, if the latter, there ain't much I can do
about it, but as you prolly have already read, I've provided
logical path (which you omitted requoting in entirety) to my
statement that negated a need for doubt.
WL> I believe that the two plans - dig where the flying fairies say vs.
WL> dig in a grid plan until you stike water - will be indistinguishable
WL> in their effectiveness.
As far as finding water, I'd mostly agree. As far as saving
farmers a heap, well that's another story. The story that I
was telling, as it were.
Regards
David
---
* Origin: =EMPIRE= v4.01 - Twits Twonks, Tidies Text. (3:690/613.8)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 690/613 660 396/1 270/101 218/801
601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 690/613 660 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Harold Ehnhuus
|To: John Powell
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 03 Mar 96 10:40:00
EID:0075 20635500
JP>
JP> FR> An Internet search failed to
JP> FR> find any scientificly peer-reviewed journal article which supports
the
JP> FR> contention being made.
JP>
JP>An Internet search? The one you performed in your dreams???
JP>
JP>I have a very serious problem here Slacker-Freddie. I _could_ promptly
JP>conclude that you are a *_LIAR_*, which would clearly be substantiated
JP>by Scott having quickly and easily found such a reference. Or, perhaps
JP>I should consider that possibly in your feebleness you mistyped
JP>something, or clicked the wrong place, or any of a number of common
JP>human mistakes or oddities.
JP>
JP>I'm having trouble deciding which course of action I should take...
JP>
JP>I think I'll give you the same benefit of the doubt that you gave me:
JP>
JP>YOU ARE A LIAR!!! Scott proved it.
JP>
JP>You're a stinking DOCUMENTED _LIAR_!
JP>
JP> [Oh my. Mr. Slacker Moderator already had a problem addressing
JP> the issue of you accusing me, without any evidence whatsoever,
JP> of being a liar. And _now_ he's confronted with CLEAR evidence
JP> that YOU _are_ a documented LIAR... Well, the last time, Mr.
JP> Slacker Moderator's course of moderatorial action was to play
JP> ostrich, do the buns-up head-in-sand routine. Can't wait to
see
JP> how he'll handle this..........................................]
JP>
JP> [Uh-oh, it just occurred to me that Mr. Slacker Moderator might
JP> choose to chastise me for using the word "stinking" and ignore
JP> everything else... Oh well....................................]
Stu Draper's ranting are preferable to the above.
JP>
JP> FR> Had there been anything to John's claims, I
JP> FR> would have expected to find a great deal.
JP>
JP>Would you have??? Well, since you didn't do a search, and since you
JP>LIED about doing a search, I think I'll consider that otherwise silly
JP>comment a LIE too.
JP>
Gee, a bias assumption with no basis in fact.
JP> SW> Which internet were you searching, I found this on the first hit.
JP>
JP>Oops!!! Caught red-handed... Documented LIAR... (Yep, this thread
is
JP>a keeper...)
JP>
JP>Please take it easy on Scott, he's kinda new and doesn't know what its
JP>like to have you guys turn on him...
JP>
JP> SW> -------------------------begin
Of course a better question would have been "What search engine are you
using?"
But I guess it's easier for some to flame than think...
Harold
---
ž KingQWK 1.05 ž I am not the reincarnation of Sammy Davis Jr.
* Origin: The Nighthawk BBS - West Seneca, NY USA - V.34 (1:260/158)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 260/158 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 260/158 10 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: David Bloomberg
|Sub: UFO ECHO
|Date: 02 Mar 96 22:16:25
EID:51bc 2062b200
> In a msg to David Bloomberg on , Julie Presson of
> 1:203/163 writes:
>
>DB> Steve is gone? So who's the token skeptic over in UFO now? I've been
>DB> popping in and out, but haven't really been reading much.
>
>JP> I do not know who is as Don has clamped down on the flaming and such
>JP> to a great degree.
>
> I certainly wouldn't have noticed with a couple of Jack Sargeant's
> latest messages to me over there...
Next time you write to Jack, ask him to give you the final conclusion of
the Project Blue Book report. Jack's good at selective quoting.
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Fred Hatfield
|To: Jackson Harding
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 03 Mar 96 06:10:31
EID:68f9 2063314f
In a message of <23 Feb 96 22:47:15>, Jackson Harding (3:690/613.8) writes:
JH>[COMMENT] Invoking claims of spirits is clearly invoking an
JH>extrordinary mechanism for the phenomemon [END COMMENT]
JH>
JH>BTW, how many of you sceptic types have actually put to the test methods
JH>of obtaining a familiar spirit ? What, none of you ? Why not ? Do
try
JH>your local library for the necessary books - follow the formulas, but
do
JH>restrain yourselves - I would not want you conjuring up something of
the
JH>particularly nasty kind and getting yourselves hurt.
JH>
JH>Don't forget to report back ...
It looks like David is close to the edge. "familiar spirits", indeed.
At Mardi Gras here in New Orleans, we invoke the Jack Daniels spirit every
year, but water seems to be the last thing we are interested in.
Fred.
--- QM v1.00
* Origin: The Digital Cottage in New Orleans 504-897-6614 (1:396/65.0)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 396/65 45 2 1 270/101 218/801
|From: Fred Hatfield
|To: Jim Panzer
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 03 Mar 96 06:03:20
EID:aac3 2063306a
In a message of <01 Mar 96 16:05:06>, Jim Panzer (1:3637/1) writes:
JP> FH> That goes along with the dead silence we have gotten
JP> FH> from the creationists on the echo when I asked about
JP> FH> the dinasours on the Ark.
JP>
JP>Fred:.....the answer to this is sooooooo
Yes, yes, yes.... it is sooooo what?
I'm anxiously awaiting that answer!...
Until then, there's still that embarrasing silence.
Fred.
--- QM v1.00
* Origin: The Digital Cottage in New Orleans 504-897-6614 (1:396/65.0)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 396/65 45 2 1 270/101 218/801
|From: Fred Hatfield
|To: David Bloomberg
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 03 Mar 96 06:13:57
EID:992b 206331bc
In a message of <02 Mar 96 11:03:31>, David Bloomberg (1:2430/2112) writes:
DB> RS> I was right, they used the Paluxy "man tracks" as "evidence." In
DB> RS> fact the whole show was warmed-over creationist and Von Daniken
DB> RS> bullshit.
DB>
DB>I haven't seen it yet, though I taped it and several people have told
DB>me about it. When I heard about the Paluxy tracks, I couldn't believe
DB>it. Even the main creationists don't claim that those are real any
DB>more!!
The dinosaur tracks were left by the creatures disembarking from the Ark.
I got this information straight from Alley Oop. :-)
Fred.
--- QM v1.00
* Origin: The Digital Cottage in New Orleans 504-897-6614 (1:396/65.0)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 396/65 45 2 1 270/101 218/801
|From: Julie Presson
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: Re: Problem with UFO Kooks
|Date: 01 Mar 96 13:26:00
EID:9ce3 20616b40
-=> Quoting Scott Laroche to All <=-
SL> Producers of films and movies about alien abduction scenarios, as
SL> well as authors who write such "true" tales (Streiber, Mack, et. al.)
SL> are, I am convinced, a dangerous influence on society. I used to think
SL> such nonsense was merely a piffle, harmless as believing in Santa
SL> Claus.
It is only dangerous if it becomes obsessive (SP?) and out of control.
Frankly I get made when I see fundraising letter and ads for United Way.
SL> Yesterday I got a fundraising letter from CSICOP. Included was a
SL> reprint of a letter they received:
Why did they send you a letter???
SL> "Dear CSICOP,
SL> I was hoping you could send me some info on reports, abductions and
SL> just facts about aliens. I am doing a project on OFO[sic] phenomena.
I
SL> believe with all my heart. I am 14 years old and live in Louisville
SL> KY... I was convinced that I was a [sic] alien when I was a child. My
SL> family told me I was put in there[sic] home by the government and they
SL> get paid to keep me... My sister says I am part of some big government
SL> experiment to see if aliens can be like humans. I guess that is why
I
SL> am such a believer..."
SL> This crap is going too far. These producers and writers have the right
SL> to say anything they want. But when they label their nonsense as
SL> "non-fiction", those critics in our newspapers and television programs
SL> should make the effort to expose this nonsense for what it is.
I would guess this is pure "fiction", if there are parents out there who
are
telling this to their kids someone better send the guys with the white nets
after them!
How can you stop such tripe from being dispensed through the US Mail or
over the modem? Have you thought out a plan of action to counteract these
insane messages???
If this letter is true as stated above, is it the people who sell their
scripts and promote ET tripe who are to blame for this families beliefs
or is it the family who needs some help ASAP?
Most of us as functioning adults do not take 99% of the stuff that is
put out their to heart. However you do have that 1% who is off the wall
to the point they will buy anything to feel "special and different".
So what do we do? Do you have any ideas that protect our Rights (or what
is left of them) of Free Speech and still warn the 1% that what they see
and hear may not be true?
Thanks for reading...and giving me a thougtful answer to this post. :-)
SL> -!- FLAME v1.1
SL> ! Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com
SL> (1:106/235)
Beyond the Mists of Time...I AM Moranaa
... What part of "Thou shalt not kill" did the Crusaders not understand?
--- Arf! ---
* Origin: Gates Of Delirium - US 916/339-9043: (1:203/163.0)
SEEN-BY: 1/141 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 163 289 500 535 726 821 2019 7707 8055 206/2711 209/720
SEEN-BY: 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200
SEEN-BY: 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104
SEEN-BY: 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10
SEEN-BY: 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225
SEEN-BY: 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1
SEEN-BY: 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 203/163 8055 15 270/101 218/801
|From: Ross Sauer
|To: All
|Sub: snicker
|Date: 02 Mar 96 06:25:00
EID:1988 20623320
MSGID: 1:154/169 00078329
I just said a real doozy to my next door neighbor, who's a UFO "true
believer." Here it is:
She was saying comparing channelers to UFO buffs is like comparing
apples to oranges.
I said you're right, by the time they get to someone, they're both out
of their tree!
She needed a transfusion after that cutting remark! :D
* SLMR 2.1a * Space-Time is not only warped, it's bent!
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 2
* Origin: Sheboygan Wi's Only FIDO node (1:154/169)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 154/169 77 222 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Karl Schneider
|Sub: Dowsing
|Date: 03 Mar 96 13:18:54
EID:2368 20636a40
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 3139e28d
-=> Quoting Karl Schneider to John Powell <=-
JP>So, how, scientifically, double blind, etc., are you going to measure
JP>the (so-called) dowser's knowledge of the groundwater in the test
JP>area???
KS> It's pretty simple, John. If it works, it would work every time.
That's ridiculous... Attributing an alleged effect to an alleged
participant's (alleged) knowledge leaves so many interdependent
variables that it would be impossible to discretely separate them.
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Fredric Rice
|Sub: Dowsing hax continues unabaited
|Date: 03 Mar 96 13:18:54
EID:34da 20636a40
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 3139e28e
-=> Quoting Fredric Rice to John Powell <=-
jp> Hahahha! Nice try. Yes, you're slack, I've provided
jp> plenty for anyone who wants to do the research themselves
jp> (who knows how to do research).
FR> It would seem that the mystical evidence you posted can only been seen
FR> by believers. Is there, by chance, any evidence you might have -- or
FR> even references -- which the, um, intellectually honest might be able
FR> to see?
Intellectually honest!?!?!?!
That doesn't include _YOU_, Liar-Freddie!!!!
FR> If so, please at least offer some references to same so that
FR> we might review it.
Why, so you can _LIE_ about checking them out?????
I posted some info weeks ago. Its not in my message base right now
because its been archived off the message base. The February archives
won't be publically available until about the 2nd week of March at which
time you can download it and check for that info yourself.
Beyond that, no, I'm not doing you work for you or provide fodder for
your continued lying.
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: DOWSING=FRAUD
|Date: 03 Mar 96 13:18:55
EID:300d 20636a40
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 3139e28f
-=> Quoting Scott Laroche to Fredric Rice <=-
SL> Yup. I looked also. I found dowsing societies, but no hard scientific
SL> articles proving the validity of the dowser's claims.
OhMyGawd!!! Not you too!!!!!!!!!
Its _easy_ to find....
There we have it: Caught red-handed LIAR!
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Scott Weadon
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 03 Mar 96 13:18:58
EID:2ab0 20636a40
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 3139e29c
-=> Quoting Scott Weadon to John Powell <=-
FR> The ages old cry of the believer: "Do you own homework." I would
FR> love to had I recieved a solid reference.
JP> Several were posted. I guess he wants it handed to him on a silver
JP> platter... The age old cry of the Slacker...
SW> It's amazing what a little intuitive thinking will do. Pretty basic
SW> stuff here.
I thought so too!
And I want to apologize for mistaking you with the other (clearly less
skilled) Scott. That's what I get for computing while under the
influence of Nyquil!
SW> Hmm...it can't get any simplier than typing in the description of the
SW> search, which in this case was "dowsing" and hitting the return key.
SW> Pretty basic.
Pretty basic. _MUCH_ simpler than getting messages from a BBS and
answering them, etc. So, I can only conclude that Liar-Freddie is a
liar!
JP> HE'S A LIAR!!! You proved it. Thank you very much.
SW> Maybe he 'misspoke'. Its common among those who pontificate.
Most humans I know have this sort of self-correcting mechanism that
prevents their fingers from running all over the keyboard typing words
that didn't originate from within their own mind...
SW> WATER DOWSING IN ARID REGIONS: REPORT ON A TEN YEAR GERMAN GOVERNMENT
SW> PROJECT (1)
SW> From the Journal of Scientific Exploration Stanford University
SW> Stanford, Ca. Stanford,Ca. USA, March 27, 1995
SW> Really wasn't much to it. I just followed the logical path to the
SW> 'information superhighway' and let my mouse do the clicking. A couple
SW> of e-mails here, a search there...this really is basic stuff.
Yep, but some around here are content to LIE to further their bankrupt
beliefs...
JP> Now, the _bad_ news. I don't want ruin your day but you committed a
JP> HUGE sin among Skeptics - you ratted out a fellow Skeptic!! They hate
JP> it when that happens!
SW> I don't consider myself a 'fellow skeptic', and besides, I LIKE to
SW> sin, makes life more interesting. And, no, they can't possibly ruin
my
SW> day, in fact haven't had a bad day since those evil little critters
SW> abducted me and did awfull, unspeakable things to me...(the least of
SW> which was to teach me how to search the internet).
Hahahahahahhaha!!! Yes, I apologise again for that! It was supposed to
be a message to the other Scott!!!
SW> I seem to remember that the first sentence in the article in question
SW> did say something about 'peer-reviewed'. But I guess Stanford
SW> Univeristy isn't one of the more well known academic institutions.
I'm sure Liar-Freddie will find all sorts of irrelevant issues to whine
about to distract folks from the fact that he LIED.
JP> Or, maybe he'll complain because its an Internet article and not
JP> 'real' so he can't trust it...
SW> Nope, won't work, its already in print so it must be true.
Hahahah!!!
JP> Or, maybe he'll complain because its foreigners doing the research...
SW> You mean because their intellegence is far beneath ours...
We'll have to see which dodge Liar-Freddie uses...
JP> Or, maybe because its only 10 years of field research and not 20 or
JP> 300...
SW> Hmm...Dr. Betz is still living so it must be nonsense, he didn't die
SW> trying to prove a theory.
Ah-Ha!!! Bingo! Good point!
JP> Or, he'll complain because he doesn't have any of the raw data to
JP> examine for himself! (Then, while trying to get you to forget that
he
JP> did squat, and LIED, maybe he'll try to make _you_ be responsible for
JP> his shortcomings!)
SW> Won't work...is that dogs I hear barking?? A simple e-mail could
SW> overcome that.
Yes, but a simple e-mail is too difficult for these folks. Liar-Freddie
preferred to LIE instead of doing a simple search, as did the other
Scott, (who now claims to have performed a search and failed).
Now, Liar-Scott claims I didn't provide enough for him to do any
research...
JP> Well, I could go on and on but I'd still never think of all the
JP> possible ways that he might try to trash your work and cover his LIE.
SW> You did forget one...he could just ignore it.
That's possible.
JP> Or, having exposed him ahead of time such as I've done, maybe he'll
JP> slink his LYING butt away and pretend it never happenned (but he'll
JP> never forget what you did). And neither will I! Congratualtions, you
JP> just bagged your first LYING Skeptic! Feels _good_ doesn't it!?
SW> I'm clearing a spot on the wall right now.
You're as dastardly and nefarious as I am now... Ooohhhh, we're in
trouble....
Sorry again for confusing you with the other Scott. BTW, the flu is
much better now .
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: Wicca=Superstition
|Date: 03 Mar 96 13:18:58
EID:57fa 20636a40
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 3139e29f
-=> Quoting Scott Laroche to John Powell <=-
>JP> I think it'll always be less reliable than current and future technology.
>RS> Sorry John, we dont do rigorous science like that, if you havent even
>RS> proven there is a real effect, you dont get to pontificate like that.
> Pontificating?? Well, blessed be !
SL> "Blessed be". That's one of those cutesy Wiccan phrases.
Wiccan? Beats me, don't know anything about it. I think Wicca is some
odd religion and I think that silly abductee Whitely Strieber did or
does practice it. And those two items represent everything I know about
Wicca, I don't pay much attention to religions...
SL> I'm itching
SL> to start a "fallacies of witchcraft" thread, so if there are any
SL> Wiccans here, I'd like to chat.
But wouldn't that represent a distraction from the dowsing thread and
from your failure to do any research and, more importantly, a
distraction from your being caught red-handed LYING???????
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: OFA
|Date: 03 Mar 96 13:18:58
EID:0a89 20636a40
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 3139e2a0
-=> Quoting Scott Laroche to John Powell <=-
>RS> We dont actually, the most obvious example is weather forecasting.
>RS> We can do usefully better than chance. So we keep doing that.
> But it has to be extremely frustrating to see the Farmer's Almanac
> beat current technology. That will turn around over time but with the
> Farmer's Almanac going at about 80% to 85% and the National Weather
> Service going at about 15% to 20% I still check the Farmer's
> Almanac.
SL> The Old Farmer's Almanac goes about 80-85% of what? Do you mean
SL> accuracy? If so, where do you get your facts from?
The National Weather Service (with NOAA) had a sort of year-end thing on
(I think) CNN about a year ago. You might want to check with them.
Oops, sorry, I forgot, you don't do research - you just LIE about doing
research.
Well, anyway, if you check with the NWS they can probably help.
Remember, we're talking about VASTLY different approaches to weather
predictions and it isn't even remotely accurate to make direct
comparisons between the two.
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: DOWSING=FRAUD
|Date: 03 Mar 96 13:19:00
EID:300d 20636a60
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 3139e2a8
-=> Quoting Scott Laroche to Fredric Rice <=-
> I searched Internet for anything which would tend to support a
> scientifically evaluated, scientifically conducted test for
> "dowsing" and didn't find anything.
Freddie caught red-handed LYING!
SL> Yup. I looked also. I found dowsing societies, but no hard scientific
SL> articles proving the validity of the dowser's claims.
Scott caught red-handed LYING!
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Ron Coates
|Sub: Dowsing=Fraud
|Date: 03 Mar 96 13:19:00
EID:3e8a 20636a60
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 3139e2aa
-=> Quoting Ron Coates to John Powell <=-
JP> I haven't drawn a blank, I never said I wasn't aware of them. I
JP> simply refused to do _your_ research for you. I gave you several names
JP> and leads over three weeks ago. How far have you gotten or are you
JP> still waiting for someone to do your work for you, slack???
JP> In several cases you were given names/places to call. Have you
JP> telephoned _ANY_ of them yet slacker???
RC> Gosh, another name caller? How about making rational arguments
RC> without calling names?
That's how it started but it quickly changed from rational arguments (as
you called them) to irrational demands upon me.
RC> Moderator, oh moderator....where fore art thou moderator?
Multiple Choice:
- The Moderator is busy ducking the issue of how Freddie got
away with accusing me of being a liar and accusing of posting
fraudulent information - with absolutely no substantiation
whatsoever.
- The Moderator is busy ducking the issue of Liar-Freddie
getting caught red-handed LYING.
- The Moderator is busy ducking the issue of Liar-Scotty getting
caught red-handed LYING.
- The Moderator is busy trying to figure out how he can ban me
or put me on conference vacation.
- All of the above.
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: David Bloomberg
|Sub: Dowsing
|Date: 03 Mar 96 13:19:01
EID:7149 20636a60
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 3139e2ad
-=> Quoting David Bloomberg to John Powell <=-
JP> You're slack and I know it.
DB> Let's see here. You make a claim and refuse to back it up -- so *I*
DB> am slack? Nice try at diverting the issue, but like I said, this
DB> isn't your usual stomping ground and most of the people here aren't
DB> nearly as gullible as, say, the BAMA echo.
JP> Hahahha! Nice try.
DB> Again, yes it was a nice try for me to get you to provide evidence.
DB> Unfortunately, a nice try doomed to failure...
JP> No, I'm not doing your research for you.
DB> No, you're not providing any evidence for your loopy claims.
Follow the leads I've already provided, do your own research.
JP> Hahahahaha!!!! Nice try, slack.
DB> Is "Nice try" all you can say when faced with the facts?
What, you don't appreciate a compliment now and then ?????
JP> Hahahahha!!!! Have a nice day Slack.
DB> Apparently, the answer is "Yes."
Yes. I will not do your research for you.
Anyway, what are we going to do about Liar-Freddie and Liar-Scotty?????
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Harold Ehnhuus
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 03 Mar 96 13:19:02
EID:aa6b 20636a60
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 3139e2b3
-=> Quoting Harold Ehnhuus to John Powell <=-
JP>I think I'll give you the same benefit of the doubt that you gave me:
JP>YOU ARE A LIAR!!! Scott proved it.
JP>You're a stinking DOCUMENTED _LIAR_!
JP> [Oh my. Mr. Slacker Moderator already had a problem addressing
JP> the issue of you accusing me, without any evidence whatsoever,
JP> of being a liar. And _now_ he's confronted with CLEAR evidence
JP> that YOU _are_ a documented LIAR... Well, the last time, Mr.
JP> Slacker Moderator's course of moderatorial action was to play
JP> ostrich, do the buns-up head-in-sand routine. Can't wait to
see
JP> how he'll handle this..........................................]
JP> [Uh-oh, it just occurred to me that Mr. Slacker Moderator might
JP> choose to chastise me for using the word "stinking" and ignore
JP> everything else... Oh well....................................]
HE> Stu Draper's ranting are preferable to the above.
Thank you for sharing that.
JP>Would you have??? Well, since you didn't do a search, and since you
JP>LIED about doing a search, I think I'll consider that otherwise silly
JP>comment a LIE too.
HE> Gee, a bias assumption with no basis in fact.
Gee, you totally disregard the _documented_ lie above and focus on the
assumed lie, for what possible purpose I wonder...
HE> Of course a better question would have been "What search engine are
HE> you using?"
HE> But I guess it's easier for some to flame than think...
Hahahah!!! As predicted...
And its clearly easier for some to demand others to do their research
for them, clearly easier for others to LIE about doing research...
But you seem to ignore those items. To what purpose I wonder???
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1 1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090
SEEN-BY: 261/3900 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: Kerry Penny
|To: S. T. Gedkin
|Sub: Re: DOWSING
|Date: 02 Mar 96 06:38:06
EID:09c9 206234c0
MSGID: 1:239/200.0 1081904E
REPLY: 1:203/2019.0 136f9484
PID: TransAmiga 1.2/g6 7010
ST> A double blind test isn't needed to blind the
ST> experimental subject (in
ST> this case the dowser), but instead the recording
ST> experimenter, to
Don't you notice the significance of "double" blind? It is to prevent both
the experimentor and the subject from giving results that are based on bias.
If the dowser knows where the water is and the experimenter does, I would
expect a 100% success rate. Double blinding prevents any question of bias.
Surely, if dowsing works, a double blind test would not affect the outcome?
Or do you think that leaving the experimenter in the dark and telling the
dowser where the water is should not somehow be questioned?
ST> human nature, what
ST> criteria do you suggest to determine when a double
ST> blind approach is
ST> necessary and when it isn't?
Double blinding is needed when the experimenter and the subject are sentient
beings. That's what made your reference to Galileo in a previous message
so humorous to me. It showed your true ignorance of proper testing methods
used by science.
--- TransAmiga BBS v1.2g6
* Origin: Ancient Heart -Saginaw MI- 1-517-752-3203 (1:239/200)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 180 200 260 245/6910
SEEN-BY: 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82
SEEN-BY: 280/1 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 239/200 1 270/101 218/801
|From: Julie Presson
|To: David Bloomberg
|Sub: Re: UFO Echo
|Date: 29 Feb 96 15:22:03
EID:62cd 205d7ac0
-=> Quoting David Bloomberg to Julie Presson <=-
JP> I do not know who is as Don has clamped down on the flaming and such
JP> to a great degree.
DB> I certainly wouldn't have noticed with a couple of Jack Sargeant's
DB> latest messages to me over there...
Jack is harmless and mild compared to some I have seen.
JP> Even Pat Perinello is gone from Fidonet.
DB> No loss there.
JP> I would have to agree with you on that...
DB> However, I've just heard that he isn't gone voluntarily, but due to
a
DB> 60-or-so day suspension. Is that correct?
Sure is, he was told to say he was sorry to Boylan (I think) or take a 60
day hike in no mans land. He chose the hike, I would have to. ;-)
Beyond the Mists of Time...I AM Moranaa
... Nothing's impossible to those that don't have to do it.
--- Arf! ---
* Origin: Gates Of Delirium - US 916/339-9043: (1:203/163.0)
SEEN-BY: 1/141 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 163 289 500 535 726 821 2019 7707 8055 206/2711 209/720
SEEN-BY: 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200
SEEN-BY: 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104
SEEN-BY: 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10
SEEN-BY: 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225
SEEN-BY: 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1
SEEN-BY: 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 203/163 8055 15 270/101 218/801
|From: Kerry Penny
|To: S. T. Gedkin
|Sub: Re: DOWSING
|Date: 03 Mar 96 20:55:12
EID:09c9 2063a6e0
MSGID: 1:239/200.0 1083AAB0
REPLY: 1:203/2019.0 1393e47c
PID: TransAmiga 1.2/g6 7010
KP>> Don't you notice the significance of "double"
KP>> blind? It is to
ST> Was there something in any of my earlier posts which
ST> implied that
ST> the dowser should have prior information in any such
ST> experiment???
Sorry, I usually skip past your posts and must have totally missed where
you said that. I do apologize.
KP>> Double blinding is needed when the
KP>> experimenter and the subject
KP>> are sentient beings. That's what made your
ST> So you're saying that double blinding isn't required
ST> in any
ST> microbiologic medical experimentation where the
ST> subject is a bacterium
ST> or virus? Not in animal experiments?
Where in my statement do you read that I said it isn't a good idea to perform
double blind tests in these cases? I said it is _needed_ when the subject
and experimentor are sentient (BTW, animals are sentient). I did not say
it was not needed in any other type of experiment.
I do find it hard to believe that viral and bacteriologic testing requires
double blinding, though. Perhaps you could point out a reason for it to
me?
ST> experimental run is "supposed" to turn out. That's the
ST> purpose of
ST> double blind experiments, and the common usage of the
ST> term.
That's what I said. Now, why do you question double blind testing requirements
in regards to dowsing? Why do you make a statement saying that skeptics
still believe Galileo without such tests when we all know such tests aren't
required when the subjects are inanimate objects that will not behave a
certain way due to operator bias?
ST> Or at least, that's how it was taught to me in school
ST> and how I've
ST> read about it since. Am I wrong?
Only in that you apparently think skeptics shouldn't ask for double blind
tests in areas where it is needed.
--- TransAmiga BBS v1.2g6
* Origin: Ancient Heart -Saginaw MI- 1-517-752-3203 (1:239/200)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 180 200 260 245/6910
SEEN-BY: 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82
SEEN-BY: 280/1 282/1 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 239/200 1 270/101 218/801
|From: REX BENNETT
|To: ALL
|Sub: We're Right,They're Wrong
|Date: 03 Mar 96 01:17:00
EID:ca51 20630a20
MSGID: 1:377/77 41d07c11
TID: GE 1.2
"We're Right, They're Wrong," by James Carville,
Random House, Inc., ISBN 679-76978-1, $10.00 Paperback.
183 pages.
This is the book I've been waiting for!
Ever since I saw James Carville being interviewed on CSPAN last
December and he announced that a little book he had written called
"We're Right, They're Wrong" would be out in the Spring, I have
been patiently waiting for it like no other book in recent memory.
For those who don't quite know who James Carville is, he is the
"country-boy, coon-ass" from southern Louisiana who helped put Bill
Clinton in Office. He directed Clinton's campaign and helped to take
Clinton from an obscure unknown all the way to the Whitehouse.
Carville is known as one of the most savvy political campaigners in
Washington. He is a die-hard Democrat who is married to a true-blue
Republican who does the same for the Republicans that he does for the
Democrats.
Carville has appeared on talk shows, political shows, and just about
everywhere you can think of, and he has always proved to be down-right
entertaining as well as insightful as hell about politics. He has a
keen wit that cuts right to the core. I KNEW his book would be good!
I am not disappointed.
I bought his book tonight at Barnes & Noble and have not been able to
put it down. It is hilarious! I sat at the restaurant next to Barnes
& Noble having a late dinner and reading his book, and laughing out
loud. Every page was filled with entertaining stories and the kind of
humor that gives one a belly laugh. And Carville is not against
poking fun at himself!
The book cuts Republicans to the quick and destroys right wing myths
and pokes fun and satire at right wing political figures. Carville
wastes no time in getting down to the meat and potatoes, but does it
in such an entertaining way that one is enthralled with the political
issues he discusses. You see, with him, they are not "political
issues," they are PEOPLE. They are people's lives and people's
futures. They are about Americans from every corner of this country.
If you are a Democrat, you will want to read this book for the true
ammunition and insightful criticism he provides against a failed
Republican policy that is harming this country. If you are a
Republican you will want to read this book to see what he is talking
about. If you are an American, you will want to read this book to
understand what is true and what is not about American politics. If
you are human, you will want to read this book for one of the most
entertaining and funny exposes on human nature you are lucky to find
anywhere!
DO NOT MISS THIS BOOK! RUN...DON'T WALK...TO THE BOOKSTORE NEAREST
YOU. DEMAND IT! AND DEMAND A COPY FOR A FRIEND! You couldn't give a
better present. This is one book the well deserves your time to read
it!
---
* NFX v1.3 [000] Bacteria: The only culture that some people have.
--- WC!/IM!/GE-PRO1.20!
* Origin: Longbow BBS! Tampa, FL (813)961-3653 USR V.34+ DS (1:377/77)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37
SEEN-BY: 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 377/77 51 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Fred Hatfield
|To: Scott Weadon
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 04 Mar 96 22:29:39
EID:85a3 2064b3b3
In a message of <04 Mar 96 01:21:00>, Scott Weadon (1:109/335) writes:
SW> FH> At Mardi Gras here in New Orleans, we invoke the Jack Daniels spirit
SW> FH> every year, but water seems to be the last thing we are interested
SW> FH> in.
SW>
SW> Not even as a chaser??
That's for sissies. We use Jack Daniels on our cornflakes every morning.
Martin Gardner writes a great treatise on dowsing in "Fads And Fallacies
of Modern Science". He tells about one fellow that dips his dowsing rod
in oil and that helps him find those Texas oil deposits.
Fred.
--- QM v1.00
* Origin: The Digital Cottage in New Orleans 504-897-6614 (1:396/65.0)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 396/65 45 2 1 270/101 218/801
|From: Fred Hatfield
|To: Jim Panzer
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 04 Mar 96 22:05:53
EID:aac3 2064b0ba
In a message of <02 Mar 96 08:08:36>, Jim Panzer (1:3637/1) writes:
JP> FH> That goes along with the dead silence we have gotten
JP> FH> from the creationists on the echo when I asked about
JP> FH> the dinasours on the Ark.
JP>
JP>Maybe Noah stored them in digital....perhaps binary......nope, that's
JP>Barney....?
Is it true that Barney turned blue from holding his breath while he was
underwater during the flood?
Fred.
--- QM v1.00
* Origin: The Digital Cottage in New Orleans 504-897-6614 (1:396/65.0)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 396/65 45 2 1 270/101 218/801
|From: Fred Hatfield
|To: David Sparrow
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 04 Mar 96 22:09:02
EID:3958 2064b121
In a message of <01 Mar 96 03:40:51>, David Sparrow (3:690/613.8) writes:
DS> FH> Has anyone calculated how much room two of each dinasour species
DS> FH> would require?
DS>
DS>Aside from the learned opinions (deem fossils included) that say
DS>most of the "terrible lizards" types were bird sized (oh, and we
DS>do seem to have a number of folk saying many had warm blood too)
DS>although I don't think they are talking about pigeon sized, just
DS>what size/state of development of the species "God" wanted saved
DS>should He have brought to Noah prior to His sealing up the doors
DS>of the incredible vessel ? Oh, and if as the "SDA"s like to say
DS>the beasties were the result of genetic manipulation/experiments
DS>(with humanity also guilty of the same against it own, which was
DS>part of the reason "God" needed to implement such a heavy-handed
DS>wipe-out program - all humans except 8, and who knows how varied
DS>the genetic makeup up was between them all anyway), then tell me
DS>why "God" should want to bring any of them to the Ark ?
DS>
DS>Should "God" deliver to Noah a batch of Komodo dragon eggs, or a
DS>basket of new hatchlings, or maybe just a pair that will reach a
DS>suitable level of maturity within, say a season from leaving the
DS>Ark after a voyage of a year. Dunno, don't care really and Noah
DS>prolly didn't either - he just had to take on board all that was
DS>brought to him/came to him.
DS>
DS>Since you appear to be interested, why don't you set up a series
DS>of experiments to establish the best way of ensuring that a good
DS>breeding pair of Komodo dragons get it on after a year at sea.
DS>
DS>No dragons ? What about tortoises (or is it tortoi ?)
Was this supposed to be an answer? Just what is it that you are trying
to say?
Your score for obfuscation can hardly be beat.
Fred.
--- QM v1.00
* Origin: The Digital Cottage in New Orleans 504-897-6614 (1:396/65.0)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 396/65 45 2 1 270/101 218/801
|From: Jim Panzer
|To: Fred Hatfield
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 04 Mar 96 08:00:36
EID:8e23 20644000
MSGID: 1:3637/1.0 313ae974
FH> In a message of <01 Mar 96 16:05:06>, Jim Panzer (1:3637/1) writes:
JP> FH> That goes along with the dead silence we have gotten
JP> FH> from the creationists on the echo when I asked about
JP> FH> the dinasours on the Ark.
JP>
JP>Fred:.....the answer to this is sooooooo
FH> Yes, yes, yes.... it is sooooo what?
FH> I'm anxiously awaiting that answer!...
Sorry Fred but I never got to finish the statement as wife-e-poo came in
and said get off the computer and I pushed ^z instead of Alt-x and the post
got saved........what it was intended to go on to say was said in my later
message about maybe they did it by going "digital" with them........anyway
see my later post if it is still on when you get this.......
--- Maximus/2 3.01
* Origin: Cumberland BBS -TN- V34 (1:3637/1)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 3637/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Jim Panzer
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Dowsing=Fraud
|Date: 04 Mar 96 08:14:04
EID:776e 206441c0
MSGID: 1:3637/1.0 313aec9c
REPLY: 1:261/1201.0 3139e2aa
JP> That's how it started but it quickly changed from rational arguments
(as
JP> you called them) to irrational demands upon me.
RC> Moderator, oh moderator....where fore art thou moderator?
JP> Multiple Choice:
JP> - The Moderator is busy ducking the issue of how Freddie got
JP> away with accusing me of being a liar and accusing of posting
JP> fraudulent information - with absolutely no substantiation
JP> whatsoever.
JP> - The Moderator is busy ducking the issue of Liar-Freddie
JP> getting caught red-handed LYING.
JP> - The Moderator is busy ducking the issue of Liar-Scotty getting
John, I really think that you should take up Golf since they are obcessed
with the "lie" of every shot..........Panz
--- Maximus/2 3.01
* Origin: Cumberland BBS -TN- V34 (1:3637/1)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 3637/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: Julie Presson
|Sub: RE: PROBLEM WITH UFO KOOKS
|Date: 04 Mar 96 17:12:28
EID:282c 20648980
> Most of us as functioning adults do not take 99% of the stuff that
> is
> put out their to heart. However you do have that 1% who is off the
> wall
> to the point they will buy anything to feel "special and different".
>
>
> So what do we do? Do you have any ideas that protect our Rights (or
> what is left of them) of Free Speech and still warn the 1% that what they
> see and hear may not be true?
Not much can be done through the government. Getting the government involved
in telling people what superstitions they are allowed to teach is worse
than these silly beliefs.
I think the only thing that can and should be done is to keep leaning on
the media that spreads these stories. When gibberish appears, write a letter.
Make a phone call.
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: John Powell
|Sub: DOWSING=FRAUD
|Date: 04 Mar 96 17:15:14
EID:c16a 206489e0
> Do you know that being caught LYING is the _worst_ possible thing
> that can do the _most_ possible damage to your credibility? You claim
to
> have done a Web search and failed to find anything. Yet, in truth,
> a Web search that found something was _EASY_ to do. You, like
> Liar-Freddie, have been caught red-handed LYING....
I received seven messages worth of junk from you today, John, and little
of it makes any sense. I suggest you take a break from the modem - you appear
to be losing control.
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: John Powell
|Sub: OFA
|Date: 04 Mar 96 17:18:19
EID:9411 20648a40
>-=> Quoting Scott Laroche to John Powell <=-
>
>>RS> We dont actually, the most obvious example is weather forecasting.
>>RS> We can do usefully better than chance. So we keep doing that.
>> But it has to be extremely frustrating to see the Farmer's Almanac
>> beat current technology. That will turn around over time but with the
>> Farmer's Almanac going at about 80% to 85% and the National Weather
>> Service going at about 15% to 20% I still check the Farmer's
>> Almanac.
>SL> The Old Farmer's Almanac goes about 80-85% of what? Do you mean
>SL> accuracy? If so, where do you get your facts from?
>
> The National Weather Service (with NOAA) had a sort of year-end
> thing on (I think) CNN about a year ago. You might want to check with
them.
>
> Oops, sorry, I forgot, you don't do research - you just LIE about
> doing research.
Your responses are getting very pathetic. CNN and NOAA produce millions
of documents and billions of bytes of information each year, yet all you
can say is "check with them". How 'bout giving me a fast way of checking
- like a web page, a date, a program... or are you gonna cop out again
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Ed Mills
|To: ALL
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 03 Mar 96 23:34:33
EID:81ba 2063bc40
MSGID: 1:105/40.762 db3fccad
REPLY: 1:3637/1.0 31384854
word salad flung at Fred Hatfield by Jim Panzer --> 02 Mar 96
FH> That goes along with the dead silence we have gotten
FH> from the creationists on the echo when I asked about
FH> the dinasours on the Ark.
JP> Maybe Noah stored them in digital....perhaps binary......nope, that's
JP> Barney....?
I REALLY NEED to know how Noah was able to completely circumnavigate the
Earth along every third or fourth minute of latitude (at the very conceivable
least) in the allotted time. This would be required if he were to have had
a
hope of a collection representing the majority of the dry land critters.
Did he do Alaska, Norway, Antarctica, etc., in a separate trip from Texas,
Saudi Arabia, etc..?
What did he do about all those damn dinky little islands in the South
Pacific, each with its own unique ecosystem? What biblical equivalent of
a
STOL aircraft did he have to accomplish this?
What kind of microscope did he use to confirm the identities of the
bazillion varieties of insects, arachnids, etc., which cannot be differentiated
by the naked eye?
How did he transport grizzly bears, rhinoceri, capybaras, aardvarks, great
horned owls, puff adders, emperor penguins, bactrian camels, pubic lice,
wolverines and emus from their respective habitats around the 24,000 mile
circumference of Earth to his Chris-Craft prototype?
What weapons did he use to fend off the more hostile indigenous peoples
where he went? Why is there no record of his visit in the cultural artifacts
of native America or Mongolia or Siberia or Polynesia or Argentina or any
of
the hundred bazillion places he had to have conspicuously visited in order
to
conduct such a comprehensive bio-kidnap operation?
'Scuse me. I have to go get a dislocated leg fixed.
Ed
... St. Peter! I took the Lord's name in vain 3.7 million times? Jesus Chr...
--- PPoint 1.98
* Origin: St. Vitus Dance Studio --> P00DLET0WN! (1:105/40.762)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 105/40 50 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Arie Fraza
|To: Fredric Rice
|Sub: Satan god ignorance.
|Date: 02 Mar 96 05:50:29
EID:ec95 20622e40
Re: "Satan" god ignorance
> > I'm reading a good book, "Satan's Silence" by Debbie Nathan and Michael
> > Snedeker. It goes into great detail about the "satanic" ritual child
> > abuser panic about 10 years ago. The most tragic part of what I'm
> > reading is how many innocent people are still in jail, often times
> > convicted on testimony from outright wackos.
Hmmm I have a book called Bodies under siege... It is about selfmutilation
in
the psychiatry. And it deals with the psychiatric behavor of the victims.
********* The dutch as always....Internet dutch@indy.net
--- VFIDO 7.11
* Origin: Chamber Secrets (909) FidoNet <-> LegionnaireNet Gateway (1:207/601)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 207/601 1 2 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Arie Fraza
|To: Ross Sauer
|Sub: New Therapy
|Date: 02 Mar 96 05:52:21
EID:7fba 20622e80
Re: new "therapy"
> According to this group, they get health benefits from drinking their
> own urine. BLAGHHHHH! (sound of barfing)
> If that's what they drink, I wonder what they eat?
This has been around for thousands of years in India.
I know of a pagan behavior to drink there urine after eating magic mushrooms.
********* The dutch as always....Internet dutch@indy.net
--- VFIDO 7.11
* Origin: Chamber Secrets (909) FidoNet <-> LegionnaireNet Gateway (1:207/601)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 207/601 1 2 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Harold Ehnhuus
|To: John Powell
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 05 Mar 96 17:33:00
EID:0075 20658c20
JP> JP>Would you have??? Well, since you didn't do a search, and since
you
JP> JP>LIED about doing a search, I think I'll consider that otherwise silly
JP> JP>comment a LIE too.
JP> HE> Gee, a bias assumption with no basis in fact.
JP>
JP>Gee, you totally disregard the _documented_ lie above and focus on the
JP>assumed lie, for what possible purpose I wonder...
What documentaion? All I've seen are flimsy assumptions.
JP>
JP> HE> Of course a better question would have been "What search engine
are
JP> HE> you using?"
JP> HE> But I guess it's easier for some to flame than think...
JP>
JP>Hahahah!!! As predicted...
JP>
JP>And its clearly easier for some to demand others to do their research
JP>for them, clearly easier for others to LIE about doing research...
You haven't proven the "lie". You just make the assumption.
JP>
JP>But you seem to ignore those items. To what purpose I wonder???
Learn to read. I didn't ignore those items, I addressed the possibility
that
there might be alternitives to your "liar" scenario.
Harold
---
ž KingQWK 1.05 ž I will not hang donuts on my person
* Origin: The Nighthawk BBS - West Seneca, NY USA - V.34 (1:260/158)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 260/158 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 260/158 10 270/101 218/801
|From: William Lipp
|To: David Sparrow
|Sub: Re: Dowsing
|Date: 04 Mar 96 11:05:00
EID:32c8 206458a0
REPLY: 3:690/613.8 3136715b
MSGID: 1:141/1111.0 313b14ac
-=> Quoting David Sparrow to William Lipp <=-
DS> my statement "no doubt saved a lot
DS> of farmers a heap on drilling costs" is still valid ...
WL> "No doubt" is clearly false. I offer myself as evidence. I doubt it.
DS> I've provided
DS> logical path (which you omitted requoting in entirety) to my
DS> statement that negated a need for doubt.
WL> I believe that the two plans - dig where the flying fairies say vs.
WL> dig in a grid plan until you stike water - will be indistinguishable
WL> in their effectiveness.
DS> As far as finding water, I'd mostly agree. As far as saving
DS> farmers a heap, well that's another story. The story that I
DS> was telling, as it were.
Well, I guess I owe you an apology, David. I assumed someone posting
in the Skeptical Inquiry echo would be interested in clarity and
understanding. I now understand that you are merely interested in
sophistry tricks.
Your point and mine is illustrated by the following example. Suppose
by using dowsers Farmer Alan needs to dig 2 wells before finding water,
while Farmer Bob finds water on the first well. Suppose furthermore
that by using darts in a map, Farmer Alan finds water on the first well
and Farmer Bob needs to dig two wells.
Your point is that dowsers saved Farmer Bob 1 well. My point is that
Farmer Charlie has no reason to believe dowsing works better than
darts. I feel that your point is deliberately misleading through
the use of carefully selected statistics, and has no business in
an echo dedicated to Skeptical Inquiry.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- Maximus 3.01
* Origin: this space available bbs (1:141/1111)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 141/1111 1135 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Stewart Draper
|To: Some
|Sub: FTP Site Not Recommended
|Date: 28 Feb 96 11:25:00
EID:29e0 205c5b20
PID: RA 2.02 147
MSGID: 3:712/619 56d2d940
EID: b161 05c5bad1
TID: xMail 1.01.0324 001176-043
Not recommended for close-minded, narrow-minded, bigoted, ¨egotistical,
foolish, educated skeptical fools. But here it is ¨anyway:- light.lightlink.com
and directory pub/homer/act and then
the file excalrev.scr.
Have you ever wondered at the 'error-count' in popular ¨education today.
Education not about science, but education about ¨theoretical discussions
in consciousness and/or philosophy. Which ¨are by the way often confused
with science and scientific discovery ¨about materials and technology.
You have to be more intelligent to decypher the whole. To ¨take it a part
and inspect it for truth and find out what is, and ¨what is not, and what
is supposed, and what is not. And what ¨education is founded only on an
established professional practise, ¨and not on actual truth or reality.
By the way the 'error-count' is huge. A needle in a ¨haystack! But they
call it information. And you have been trained ¨to consider all information
is equally valuable, now haven't you?
--- xMail/beta
* Origin: Cross Facts BBS Russell Lea +61-2-712-3910 (3:712/619)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 711/808 712/311 392 407 411 505 506 515 517 613 619 704 816
SEEN-BY: 712/822 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 712/619 506 517 515 270/101 218/801
|From: Alex Stirkul
|To: Ross Sauer
|Sub: quadro
|Date: 25 Feb 96 16:05:04
EID:1e7d 205980a0
PID: BWMAX2 3.10 [Reg]
MSGID: 3:632/309.0 31365b28
REPLY: 1:154/169 0008c265
TID: FastEcho 1.45a 15109
RS> Anyone besides me see the piece yesterday (2-14-96) on NBC's Dateline
RS> about the Quadro Tracker! What a hoot! P T Barnum was right, "There's
RS> a sucker born every minute."
Judging from the amount of suckers in our society, it seems to be
more like one every second!
Alex
... And Man said: Let there be God, and there was God!
---
* Origin: Melbourne PC User Group +61-3-9699-6788 (3:632/309)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 620/243
SEEN-BY: 624/300 632/0 107 304 309 329 348 360 525 530 552 998 999 1000
SEEN-BY: 633/371 634/384 635/301 502 503 544 639/252 640/201 711/410
SEEN-BY: 711/413 430 808 809 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225
SEEN-BY: 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1
SEEN-BY: 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 632/309 998 635/503 50/99 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Alex Stirkul
|To: Ken Honda
|Sub: Are you a kook?
|Date: 29 Feb 96 21:05:00
EID:ac98 205da8a0
PID: BWMAX2 3.10 [Reg]
MSGID: 3:632/309.0 31365b30
REPLY: 3:632/309.0 31157b6e
TID: FastEcho 1.45a 15109
KH> OK, so you claim we KNOW HEAPS about how evolution works. What is it
KH> we know? We have a few theories on how life began but we don't know
KH> which if any are how it happened. Basically the theory works through
KH> mutation of DNA and also through adaptive behavior. How much do we know
KH> about DNA? Not heaps compared to what there is to know about it. It's
a
KH> complex system and even though we know more that we did in the 17th
KH> century, we only seem to know "heaps" because we have a lot to know.
Indeed alot is known and alot is still to be discovered, but as to IF
some sort of evolution occured from the first micro-organisms to the
present day, that's not the question...the question is HOW evolution
occurs and by what processes, that's the theory part and it's probably
best left to the evolution echo.
The problem with creationists is convincing them that the evolution
theory is not placed here by Satan, it is possible to be Christian and
accept the evolution theory etc.
AS> It suggests evolution, so please point out these flaws in the theory
AS> that disagree with the evidence. Be *specific*, where is the
KH>
KH> The evolution theory is not necessarily incorrect(the evidence points
KH> to evolution no doubt) but the process through which it happens
KH> probably is considering that we don't know enough about certain things
KH> like DNA. New knowledge is bound to change aspects of the theory and
KH> patched up. Happens to most theories.
It isn't "bound" to.....but I see what you're saying.
AS> evolution theory incorrect? Saying because we weren't there to see it
AS> so we can never know is not good enough.
KH>
KH> That's bullcrap! Do you KNOW how life began? There's a lot of
KH> theories, we don't have enough evidence to support the fact that any
KH> are true.
Hey, you've just used a fundies best argument to "prove" evolution
never occured :)
Alex
... In case of emergency, break glass. Scream. Bleed to death.
---
* Origin: Melbourne PC User Group +61-3-9699-6788 (3:632/309)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 620/243
SEEN-BY: 624/300 632/0 107 304 309 329 348 360 525 530 552 998 999 1000
SEEN-BY: 633/371 634/384 635/301 502 503 544 639/252 640/201 711/410
SEEN-BY: 711/413 430 808 809 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225
SEEN-BY: 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1
SEEN-BY: 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 632/309 998 635/503 50/99 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: Shane Coleman
|Sub: Astrophysics
|Date: 29 Feb 96 07:55:04
EID:efea 205d3ee0
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
RS> You are welcome to stick with witchdoctors and herbal 'remedys' if
RS> you like Shane. Be a bit careful tho boy, if you do get a virulent
RS> strain of malaria on a trip to asia, you may very well end up dead
RS> if you just trot around to the local herbalist up the road.
SC> mulembimbi gold cures malaria.
Fraid not Shane, and if its a particular
virulent strain, you may well end up DEAD.
SC> -btw the point with Hepititis i was trying to make was that there
SC> seems to be a lot of new diseases rearing theiir ugly heads up latley
Its a fantasy Shane. There are a few, but not a particularly large number.
Its no surprise that you do get some more turning up. Pity that your
witchdoctors and herbalists cant actually do a damned thing about stuff
like Ebola tho Shane. The people who get it end up very dead very quick.
And its decent rigorous science that allows us to work out the detail, like
how to avoid getting HIV+ etc. Sure beats your damned witchdoctors Shane.
SC> and that your beloved religion is the cause :)
Fraid not Shane, decent modern medicine cant
possibly have been the cause of Ebola Shane.
SC> i was watchin 4 corners the other night about how anti-biotics
SC> are causing untreatable strains of TB, Hep ect, ect.
Yes, but if you had put your brain into gear while watching that doco
even you should have noticed that they said that the problem was MUCH
worse in the 30s when there were no antibiotics. Sure, antibiotic
resistance is a hell of a problem, but there is the TINY matter
of all those people who didnt die between the 30s and today Shane.
And your silly herbal remedys sure didnt do a
damned thing in the 30s Shane. Ditto for TB Shane.
SC> i know you're the big fan of anti-biotics and look what
SC> it's doing, your beloved religion is going to wipe us all out.
You really are a fool shane.
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941
SEEN-BY: 123/1 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204
SEEN-BY: 202/1207 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910
SEEN-BY: 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82
SEEN-BY: 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/243 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407
SEEN-BY: 712/515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Alex Stirkul
|To: John Powell
|Sub: UFO's on Film
|Date: 25 Feb 96 14:40:12
EID:2389 20597500
PID: BWMAX2 3.10 [Reg]
MSGID: 3:632/309.0 3130bce7
REPLY: 1:261/1201.0 312202d5
TID: FastEcho 1.45a 15109
JP>
Not true.
Alex
... In case of emergency, break glass. Scream. Bleed to death.
---
* Origin: Melbourne PC User Group +61-3-9699-6788 (3:632/309)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 620/243
SEEN-BY: 624/300 632/0 107 304 309 329 348 360 525 530 552 998 999 1000
SEEN-BY: 633/371 634/384 635/301 502 503 544 639/252 640/201 711/410
SEEN-BY: 711/413 430 808 809 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225
SEEN-BY: 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1
SEEN-BY: 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 632/309 998 635/503 50/99 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Alex Stirkul
|To: David Sparrow
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 25 Feb 96 14:43:22
EID:e022 20597560
PID: BWMAX2 3.10 [Reg]
MSGID: 3:632/309.0 3130bce8
REPLY: 3:690/613.8 3122865c
TID: FastEcho 1.45a 15109
JH> can do it for real there's a very large cheque waiting for him. No
JH> one has *ever* been able in a controlled trial to substantiate their
JH> claims.
DS> As for your "no one ever" etc, well it sounds like a wild claim to me.
What JH said is quite correct.
Alex
... Fundamentalism, n.: Fund=give money. Amentalism=without brains.
---
* Origin: Melbourne PC User Group +61-3-9699-6788 (3:632/309)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 620/243
SEEN-BY: 624/300 632/0 107 304 309 329 348 360 525 530 552 998 999 1000
SEEN-BY: 633/371 634/384 635/301 502 503 544 639/252 640/201 711/410
SEEN-BY: 711/413 430 808 809 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225
SEEN-BY: 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1
SEEN-BY: 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 632/309 998 635/503 50/99 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Alex Stirkul
|To: David Bloomberg
|Sub: Creation? evolution #2
|Date: 25 Feb 96 14:46:30
EID:15d8 205975c0
PID: BWMAX2 3.10 [Reg]
MSGID: 3:632/309.0 3130bce9
REPLY: 1:2430/2112 622b45fd
TID: FastEcho 1.45a 15109
DB> You have just tried to use the myth to prove the myth.
That's what creationists are best at isn't it? :) Just like how they
lie to cover their previous lies, then lie that they never lied.
DB> So, Laurie, do you have any actual EVIDENCE?
Alex
... Oxymoron: Religious Fundamentalists.
---
* Origin: Melbourne PC User Group +61-3-9699-6788 (3:632/309)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 620/243
SEEN-BY: 624/300 632/0 107 304 309 329 348 360 525 530 552 998 999 1000
SEEN-BY: 633/371 634/384 635/301 502 503 544 639/252 640/201 711/410
SEEN-BY: 711/413 430 808 809 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225
SEEN-BY: 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1
SEEN-BY: 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 632/309 998 635/503 50/99 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Alex Stirkul
|To: Ken Honda
|Sub: Creationism
|Date: 25 Feb 96 14:48:42
EID:7908 20597600
PID: BWMAX2 3.10 [Reg]
MSGID: 3:632/309.0 3130bcea
REPLY: 3:632/309.0 31157b6f
TID: FastEcho 1.45a 15109
-=> Quoting Alex Stirkul to Ken Honda <=-
KH> What? So we can't kill a rabid dog who's bitten someone?
AS>
AS> V.bad analogy. Firstly we're talking about humans, not dogs, and
KH>
KH> And in God's eyes a human is worth more than a dog? :) If God created
According to the Bible, yes.
KH> man, and we've bred pet dogs, what's the difference? Just cos we're
KH> human we have more rights?
Yes. Though this isn't really the area to be discussing animal rights.
Alex
... What do you mean there is not enough room in this tagline for explaini
---
* Origin: Melbourne PC User Group +61-3-9699-6788 (3:632/309)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 620/243
SEEN-BY: 624/300 632/0 107 304 309 329 348 360 525 530 552 998 999 1000
SEEN-BY: 633/371 634/384 635/301 502 503 544 639/252 640/201 711/410
SEEN-BY: 711/413 430 808 809 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225
SEEN-BY: 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1
SEEN-BY: 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 632/309 998 635/503 50/99 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Alex Stirkul
|To: Ken Honda
|Sub: Enigmatisms
|Date: 25 Feb 96 14:48:42
EID:e146 20597600
PID: BWMAX2 3.10 [Reg]
MSGID: 3:632/309.0 3130bceb
REPLY: 3:632/309.0 31157b70
TID: FastEcho 1.45a 15109
-=> Quoting Alex Stirkul to Ken Honda <=-
KH> I'm not talking about uses. I'm talking about finding it in nature.
KH> Where u find 1+1=2 applicable is mostly in the human thinking. The
KH> human mind looks for simple easy things. Pi turned out to be 3.14etc
KH> not 3.
In OUR decimal number system, yes. Does it matter if it's not 3
exactly?
KH> In a similar sense, if you want to calculate something using laws of
KH> physics and maths in the real world, it is almost impossible to be
KH> exact even though you might be able to do it in theory. Most likely
all
KH> three values in the story were inexact. Still this doesn't mean that
KH> maths isn't useful despite it's inaccuracy. Most innacuracy if you
KH> calculate properly is very minute but if there are inaccuracies and
you
KH> increase the scale the margin of error can get great. What if we
KH> wanted to plot course to a different galaxy?
What you say here's correct, as for traveling round the universe, since
I've never done astrophysics I wouldn't how accurate the calculations
would be....whizzing satelites around our solar system seems "easy"
enough.
Alex
... In case of emergency, break glass. Scream. Bleed to death.
---
* Origin: Melbourne PC User Group +61-3-9699-6788 (3:632/309)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 620/243
SEEN-BY: 624/300 632/0 107 304 309 329 348 360 525 530 552 998 999 1000
SEEN-BY: 633/371 634/384 635/301 502 503 544 639/252 640/201 711/410
SEEN-BY: 711/413 430 808 809 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225
SEEN-BY: 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1
SEEN-BY: 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 632/309 998 635/503 50/99 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: Bob Bain
|Sub: Creation? evolution 1/2
|Date: 26 Feb 96 09:09:02
EID:7b37 205a4920
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
BB> I have no direct evidence. I didn't walk around gathering water
BB> samples in pre historic times. Some scientists apparantly said so.
RS> Scientists dont just 'say so', they cite funky stuff
RS> called evidence to substantiate those propositions Bob.
BB> Against a philosophical background that most of them take for granted.
RS> Fraid not Bob, thats the hoary old line the wooly minded attempt.
RS> If you can provide some decent rigorous evidence that the current
RS> philosophical background is wrong, say with the question of the
RS> atomic theory of matter, science is quite happy to dump the old
RS> background when the evidence shows its got some major problems.
BB> Which says in effect. "We got that wrong. As a consequence of
BB> observations we are now subtly redefining the philosophical base
BB> against which we will continue to collate and evaluate evidence".
Yes, but nothing is 'taken for granted', like I said, if you have
rigorous EVIDENCE that shows the current theory that matter is solid
is wrong, science is happy, indeed eager, to advance the state of
knowledge to the more advanced stuff like the atomic theory. And
in modern times you may well get a Nobel Prize for doing so too.
Its an approach which works Bob. And is a HELL of a lot
better than just waffling away about 'I believe' etc.
BB> Science does this reasonably often, which is why
BB> the name "natural philosophy" is still appropriate.
Its actually about rigorously establishing what really is new knowledge.
This 'philosophical background' waffle is mostly just that, waffle.
The earth revolves around the sun, or it doesnt, its roughly round
or it isnt. The heart is basically a blood pump or it isnt.
RS> You claim that people can turn into animals on occasion, you had
RS> better have some damned good evidence that they can, just proclaiming
RS> that they can or that your holy book says they can aint good enough
BB> I have never suggested people turn into animals.
I never said you did Bob, I listed a series of exotic propositions,
SOME of which were established with rigorous science like radio,
others which were just crap and couldnt be substantiated with rigorous
science. Like the proposition that people could turn into werewolves.
BB> I'm not religous, hence I don't have a holy book.
It was a generic you, not Bob Bain personally.
BB> In Isaac Newton's day what we refer to as
BB> science was called "Natural Philosophy".
RS> No news. Says nothing useful at all about whether decent
RS> rigorous science is about evidence to support propositions,
RS> not just raving on thru a whole series of 'I believes' like
RS> you did, without a SHRED of that funky evidence stuff.
RS> Sorry Bob, we dont do rigorous science like that.
BB> His philosophical viewpoints with regard to gravitation
BB> were based on observation but they say little about the
BB> nature of the beast itself, other than there appears to
BB> be something out there which causes apples to fall.
RS> Thats waffle Bob. In fact that question of gravity was
RS> CRUCIAL to the question of why, if the earth was roughly
RS> round, and rotating, everything didnt just fall off.
BB> How can things fall "off" ?
That was in fact precisely the problem with the concept of a roughly
round rotating earth, it was initially dismissed because there appeared
to
be a problem with things falling off the surface and sliding around on it.
Turns out its gravity which prevents that and its not hard to prove that.
BB> The only direction things could possibly fall from a theoretical round
BB> world is "down" (the direction the soles of the feet point when standing).
Fraid not Bob. You take a decent sized ball, put some stuff on its surface
without actually gluing it on, and you appear to have a problem with a
round rotating object with stuff on its surface. That did in fact cause
a real pause on the question of the earth for quite some time. Its not
hard to show its roughly round, clearly it must be rotating if it rotates
around the sun and we have day and night. For a time that was a problem.
BB> Even the ancients noted that "things" rarely fall into the sky.
Sure, the problem was more with the question of why stuff didnt
slide around on the surface horizontally if the earth did rotate.
BB> "Things" it had been noted have a marked
BB> tendency to fall towards the ground
Yes, but it took some time to notice that everything fell
at the same rate if you eliminate the air drag stuff.
BB> in the ratio of "lots and lots" for the ground, to "as close
BB> to zero as makes no difference" for the sky. Theories as to
BB> roundness or flatness wouldn't alter these documented facts.
Fraid so Bob.
BB> Evidence collated over the centuries noted this was so.
Not on the question of the effect of the round
earth rotating tho. THAT was the problem.
BB> Giving gravity a name explains nothing.
Its got nothing to do with names Bob.
BB> Let me say I have a hunch there's an enormous dragon at the
BB> centre of the Earth. This dragon is a mean son of bitch,
BB> breathing heavily, sucking air from the central cavities of
BB> the planet, and in so doing creates a vacuum in the pores of
BB> the Earth, resulting in suction on things at or near the surface.
Soorree, its a dud, no air rushes into the cavitys Bob.
BB> "Force of attraction" or "the big dragon" or "the universe pushing"
?
Just a silly initial proposition, no evidence of any vacuum effect.
Soorree, it goes into the bin along with Bains other nutty theory that
the primeval watery origins of live turned into Noahs flood in the bible.
I've binned the rest of your rave on, with no evidence of air rushing
into the center of the earth for the dragon, the rest is just waffle.
BB> It's one thing to observe and collate evidence and to
BB> simulate this behaviour via philosophical mathematical
BB> symbols, and yet another to 'know' what the beast actually is.
RS> Waffle Bob. Doesnt alter the fact that its ALL about funky stuff called
RS> rigorous evidence to substantiate claims that say the earth rotates
RS> around the sun, and why everything doesnt fall off in the process.
BB> One can never explain why things don't fall off.
Fraid we can Bob, its the attraction between bodys, which we call
gravity. Readily provable with that funky stuff called experimental
science any time you like, and people learning science do so repeatedly.
RS> Yes, at times like with long distance radio propagation, we did show
(Continued to next message)
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941
SEEN-BY: 123/1 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204
SEEN-BY: 202/1207 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910
SEEN-BY: 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82
SEEN-BY: 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/243 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407
SEEN-BY: 712/515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: Bob Bain
|Sub: Creation? evolution 2/2
|Date: 26 Feb 96 09:09:04
EID:7bc7 205a4920
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
(Continued from previous message)
RS> with some rigorous science that radio waves did do what we thought they
RS> could not, and it was only LATER we were able to explain why they did.
RS> Says nothing useful at all about whether it makes the slightest
RS> sense to be rabbiting on about a series of 'I believes' without
RS> bothering with any evidence to substantiate those claims tho.
BB> Would a certificate sealed by Zeus - the almighty god of thunder and
BB> rain help ? I don't have a big book of "evidence" handy right now.
In which case we toss you 'I believes' in the bin with all the
other superstitious crap and carry on doing decent rigorous science
regardless. Usually with you loons waffling on like mad regardless.
BB> but to me right now the Earth appears not to move, despite
BB> reassurances that it is "known" to revolve around the Sun.
RS> Yes, which just goes to show how UTTERLY useless appearances can be
Bob.
BB> You are saying that we should collate evidence, but that
BB> we have to be wary of it given that what it appears to be
BB> may not be what it actually is ? Useful point to remember !
Bullshit it is, this is just more silly waffle. Appearance aint
rigorous evidence Bob. You can appear to have seen an alien, pity
that doesnt count as rigorous evidence of an actual alien Bob.
RS> What matters is what can be PROVEN with that funky evidence stuff.
BB> But Rod, you can't PROVE anything with this funky evidence stuff !!
Fraid we can Bob, funky stuff like the question of whether the
earth is roughly round or not, and the earth revolves around the
sun. You can waffle on about philosophical background till you go
puce in the face, doesnt actually change a damned thing Bob. Soorree.
BB> It may give you some sense of reassurance as to future possiblity,
BB> but possibility and truth are not necessarily the same, assuming
BB> there is a universal and unchanging 'truth' that is..
Waffle Bob.
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941
SEEN-BY: 123/1 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204
SEEN-BY: 202/1207 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910
SEEN-BY: 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82
SEEN-BY: 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/243 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407
SEEN-BY: 712/515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: Jack Brannan
|Sub: AGE OF SUN.
|Date: 26 Feb 96 09:12:06
EID:4d6a 205a4980
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
JB> Many feel the heat of gravitational collapse is sufficient for fusion
but
JB> its very possible that the heat of GC is the sole source of this energy.
RS> Fraid not, that doesnt give anything like enough energy for the life
RS> we have already established and then there is just the TINY problem
RS> that its completely TRIVIAL to show that fusion is going on RIGHT NOW.
JB> Then perhaps you wouldnt mind doing something
JB> trivial and show how fusion is going on right now?
You'll have to get off your bum and check that out for yourself
Jack, just like you will on the question of the roughly round
earth and the question of the earth revolving around the sun.
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941
SEEN-BY: 123/1 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204
SEEN-BY: 202/1207 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910
SEEN-BY: 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82
SEEN-BY: 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/243 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407
SEEN-BY: 712/515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: Ross Sauer
|Sub: CREATION VS. EVOLUTIO
|Date: 26 Feb 96 09:40:08
EID:9bfd 205a4d00
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
RSa> Until that time, most years the Russian farmers made more than enough
to
RSa> feed it's people. However, in the '20s, a fellow named Lysenko came
up
RSa> with a theory, one he couldn't justify scientifically, but politically
RSa> it looked great to Stalin. As a result, Lysenkoism became law.
RS> There isnt any evidence that that was what was the main problem with
RS> the productivity of russian agriculture tho. There were just a few tiny
RS> problems with a massive civil war, and then forced collectivisation
RS> which is what completely buggered russian agriculture, PARTICULARLY
RS> in the high productivity part of russia, in the Ukraine.
RSa> It was Lysenko who gave a "scientific" gloss to the collective farm
system
Yes, but the problem with the crippled productivity wasnt due
to that, it was the organisational problem that approach suffers
from. Quite a bit of the problem was just plain simple seizure
to 'encourage' people to join the collective farms, with massive
starvation and even cannibalism. It wasnt the mangled science.
Same thing happened in china too, without a Lysenko equivalent.
This claim that bodgy science can ruin a society is VERY hard to
sustain when even the British Empire was positively riddled with it
on medicine most obviously, with all sorts of completely loopy ideas
on how you could avoid infectious disease, like wearing a red flannel
belt etc. Essentially that society worked in spite of that stuff.
Thomas Jefferson had the mental horsepower to really grasp
what a decent society structure was about, AND believed
you could communicate with the dead in seances AS WELL.
JB> What you have done here is compare a system of agriculture
JB> in a pre-communist era to one in a communist era. It wasnt
JB> Stalin but Lenin and agriculture suffered because he killed
JB> so many farmers there werent enough left to produce.
RS> He's got that wrong, Stalin was personally involved in much
RS> of the forced collectivisation, and with Krushchev personally
RS> the main organiser on the ground in the Ukraine doing that too.
RSa> Stalin and Krushcev both were followers of Lysenko's theories
RSa> and used it as the "scientific" basis for their work.
Yes, but you havent actually established that THAT is what stuffed the
productivity of collectivised russian agriculture. In fact it was the
forced collectivisation and the fundamental limitations of collectivisation
in a people/organisational sense which does, not the flakey science.
You can see that very clearly from the fact that the productivity
in chinese and cambodian collectivised agriculture was just as
stuffed, without any Lysenko equivalent.
RSa> research, (like so many creationists do) and the consequences.
RS> You only have to look at the Victorians, in england, during the
RS> vast change in outcome that the industrial revolution produced.
RS> MASSIVE amounts of completely nutty pseudo science, most visible
RS> in medicine. That society managed to do very well ANYWAY.
RSa> The only people it did "reasonably well" for was the
RSa> wealthy and the ruling class. The lower classes got hosed.
Thats a myth too. In fact the empire was primarily done by other than the
wealthy and ruling class. And the lower classes ended up VASTLY better off
than in the third world which hadnt invented the industrial revolution.
And in say america, lots of totally wacky pseudo science, and
a HELL of a viable society anyway, eventually dominating the
world on the full commercialisation of science and technology.
It really is quite interesting how a society can do the full
commercialisation of computing and micros etc, EVEN WITH a hell
of a lot of crackpot stuff like the creationists or the new agers.
In fact there is a sense in which the PCs in the generic
sense are even more riddled with the flakes than most areas.
RS> Even someone like Darwin was quite capable of revolutionising
RS> how we looked at evolution, and yet had the nuttiest
RS> ideas on medicine, particularly his own treatment.
RSa> Darwin had his crazy ideas as well, so did Tesla, Edison, Pasteur,
etc.
Precisely, so there isnt any need to get too hyped up about nutty
ideas like creationism or new age tripe like sitting under crystals.
Darwin did plenty of that sort of thing, and still massively advanced
the knowledge base anyway, as did those others as well.
Even more obvious in the arts, quite a few basically barking mad.
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941
SEEN-BY: 123/1 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204
SEEN-BY: 202/1207 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910
SEEN-BY: 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82
SEEN-BY: 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/243 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407
SEEN-BY: 712/515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Stewart Draper
|To: Fredric Rice
|Sub: The Real Reason For Global Control Of People's Minds
|Date: 25 Feb 96 10:06:00
EID:fbde 205950c0
PID: RA 2.02 147
MSGID: 3:712/619 56ced238
REPLY: 1:102/890@FidoNet 180934cc
EID: cebd 059520a1
TID: xMail 1.01.0324 001176-043
I'm curious. Is the reason why you dislike scientific method because
you think it detracts from your deity-oriented superstitions? If so,
perhaps you should do as I suggested and research what scientific
method is.
* Your discussing scientific method with me. You say I ¨should believe
all that is scientific method - as you understand it
to be - and find reason to assume that is all there is in reality. ¨You
are a close-minded, blind, arrogant fool. Or perhaps another ¨human robot.
--- xMail/beta
* Origin: Cross Facts BBS Russell Lea +61-2-712-3910 (3:712/619)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 711/808 712/311 392 407 411 505 506 515 517 613 619 704 816
SEEN-BY: 712/822 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 712/619 506 517 515 270/101 218/801
|From: Stewart Draper
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: SIGHTINGS ON 7 ON FRIDAY AT 11PM
|Date: 25 Feb 96 10:08:00
EID:a3ba 20595100
PID: RA 2.02 147
MSGID: 3:712/619 56ced2a0
EID: e91d 059520a2
TID: xMail 1.01.0324 001176-043
In a strange sort of way, I feel sorry for you Stewart. I think
you're sincere, and that's rather sad.
* Your reply only shows your reaction to my post. Human ¨reactions are
a funny thing. Most times humans react because they ¨don't want to look.
They are afraid. Maybe you are just another ¨chicken.
--- xMail/beta
* Origin: Cross Facts BBS Russell Lea +61-2-712-3910 (3:712/619)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 711/808 712/311 392 407 411 505 506 515 517 613 619 704 816
SEEN-BY: 712/822 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 712/619 506 517 515 270/101 218/801
|From: Shane Coleman
|To: Rod Speed
|Sub: Astrophysics
|Date: 27 Feb 96 21:04:04
EID:1d2f 205ba880
MSGID: 3:712/613 63d618dd
RS> You are welcome to stick with witchdoctors and herbal 'remedys' if
RS> you like Shane. Be a bit careful tho boy, if you do get a virulent
RS> strain of malaria on a trip to asia, you may very well end up dead
RS> if you just trot around to the local herbalist up the road.
mulembimbi gold cures malaria.
-btw the point with Hepititis i was trying to make was that there seems
to be a lot of new diseases rearing theiir ugly heads up latley and that
your beloved religion is the cause :) i was watchin 4 corners the other
night about how anti-biotics are causing untreatable strains of TB, Hep
ect, ect.
i know you're the big fan of anti-biotics and look what it's doing, your
beloved religion is going to wipe us all out.
Shane
--- Xenolink 1.981
* Origin: Enconn +61-2-524 1584 The Engineering Connection (3:712/613)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 711/808 712/311 392 407 411 505 506 515 517 613 704 816 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 712/613 517 515 270/101 218/801
|From: Stewart Draper
|To: Skeptics Dead And Buried
|Sub: Seal Those Eyes Shut Tight, Don't Let In The Light
|Date: 26 Feb 96 23:26:00
EID:699e 205abb40
PID: RA 2.02 147
MSGID: 3:712/619 56d0df0c
EID: 2e2b 05abbad2
TID: xMail 1.01.0324 001176-043
Skeptics will close their eyes up tight and hold fists to ¨their eyes to
not let in the horrible sight. They will run in ¨fright. I doubt they
can *bring* themselves to read about something ¨that is alien to their 'limited
universal view of life.' Drunk with ¨ego and swaying around with arrogance
they can only think to ¨'negate.' They are entirely negative in their views.
Entirely ¨destructive. Entirely consciously dead!
--- xMail/beta
* Origin: Cross Facts BBS Russell Lea +61-2-712-3910 (3:712/619)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 711/808 712/311 392 407 411 505 506 515 517 613 619 704 816
SEEN-BY: 712/822 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 712/619 506 517 515 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Dowsing
|Date: 27 Feb 96 08:05:04
EID:3d58 205b40a0
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
JP> Its really not proper to call it a theory because they are some gaps.
LE> To date, all I have personally heard is some people saying it's BS
LE> and some people saying it's real. I've never heard any scientific
LE> sort of argument for its plausibility, and hence I've never heard
LE> of nor thought of any scientific rebuttal to such an argument.
JP> The basic problems are twofold. First, the traditional debunking
JP> approach is to demand a near perfect score for dowsing tests and
JP> when that doesn't happen declare they've successfully debunked it...
Crap, use rigorous randomised double blind trials to show that you
can reliably do rather better than chance and that will do fine John.
After all, quite a few modern medicines dont get anything like perfect scores
when tested like that, what matters is if they do have a useful effect tho.
Even say vaccination isnt perfect, a particular vaccination may not raise
the antibodys to a particular infectious diseases in a particular person.
You are just faking away the fact that you cant
show a real effect using rigorous science John.
JP> That approach may work for certain fantastic claims relying
JP> on specificity but it doesn't work for (so-called) dowsing.
Funny that, and NOT ONCE has anyone been able to even demonstrate a
real effect which does better than chance when rigorously tested John.
You cant fake that away, we INVENTED these tests for a
reason John, to separate the bullshit from the real effect.
JP> If we decided to use that approach to prove that
JP> vision or hearing existed the result would be failure...
Crap, its completely trivial to use randomised double blind trials
to prove that a person can hear, by getting them to tell you what
word was said etc. You can even do it in a situation like where
communication is difficult like in a very noisy environment and
PROVE that some particular techniques for stylised communication really
does improve the communications efficiency. Thats used in aircraft voice
communication and your can PROVE it works John. Using rigorous science.
You can also get some very interesting results with morse code
in very high noise environments and PROVE that the human mind
has a quite remarkable capacity to decode it in that situation.
JP> There have been a number properly organized and documented
JP> tests where certain subjects scored well beyond random chance.
Nope, not one, cite the examples you claim that was done.
JP> (And most of those people scored well beyond random
JP> chance most of the time, yet folks wishing to easily
JP> debunk those facts attribute that to coincidence...)
Crap, cite them John.
JP> The successful tests alone demonstrate that some anomaly is occurring.
Nope. Coz there ARE no 'successful tests' with dowsing.
JP> Secondly, the _specific_ problem of how to accurately test
JP> for this (so-called) dowsing ability. Somehow the phenomenon
JP> has links to the subject detecting relative variations in
JP> ambient magnetic field strengths _and_ links to the
JP> subject's consciousness (conscious thought, etc.).
You can claim that if you like John, pity you dont actually
have a SHRED of rigorous science to substantiate that claim tho.
JP> That's a major hint that simple field tests scoring
JP> hits and misses is not the proper test environment.
Oh crap, we have plenty of techniques which can be used in that situation.
JP> We know that humans can detect and respond
JP> to magnetic fields (Persinger, etc.),
We dont, he never established that with rigorous science at
field levels that are anything like whats possible with dowsing.
JP> we know some animals rely on such a specific functional ability,
Says nothing useful at all about whether humans can do it John.
JP> and we know the brain itself is pre-configured
JP> to at least detect magnetic field variations.
Crap, you havent actually established that whatever the brain may
have that can be affected by magnetic fields can have any effect
on the human being able to recognise that happening at the field
levels which are seen with dowsing. You cant even show with rigorous
science that humans can even use the earths magnetic field itself.
JP> I'd suggest that you follow up using some of the stuff I previously
JP> posted, especially talking with the researchers themselves.
We dont do rigorous science like that John, if you really can show with
rigorous science that say humans can detect the earths magnetic field,
we have these funky things called refereed scientific journals etc.
JP> And whatever you do don't fall for the media-hyped version of
JP> (so-called) dowsing which in and of itself is essentially useless.
Thats what all the devotees of the various flake stuff say too John.
And thats why we demand that claims be substantiated with rigorous science.
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941
SEEN-BY: 123/1 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204
SEEN-BY: 202/1207 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910
SEEN-BY: 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82
SEEN-BY: 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/243 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407
SEEN-BY: 712/515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: Langston Goldfinch
|Sub: Creation? evolution
|Date: 27 Feb 96 12:27:32
EID:7df4 205b6360
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
RS> I've been watching Laurie thru various echoes for years now, there
RS> isnt the slightest possibility that he is pretending to be a fundy.
LG> Well, don't let my cat out of the bag, I am pulling his leg.
Welp, you just blew your cover |-)
You cant just make a message private, you have to send netmail instead.
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941
SEEN-BY: 123/1 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204
SEEN-BY: 202/1207 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910
SEEN-BY: 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82
SEEN-BY: 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/243 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407
SEEN-BY: 712/515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Bob Bain
|To: Rod Speed
|Sub: Gravity and stuff..
|Date: 28 Feb 96 22:42:36
EID:2fc2 205cb540
MSGID: 3:712/392 5acbe3e0
Rod,
> This 'philosophical background' waffle is mostly just
> that, waffle. The earth revolves around the sun, or it doesnt,
It doesn't. The Earth is perfectly still. Likewise the sun is also
perfectly still. Place these two bodies in space without a single
external reference point and it would be difficult to determine if the
Sun was revolving around the Earth; the Earth revolving around the Sun
or whether it was simply the observer moving relative to both of
them.
We have a funky convention to determine these things. Given changes in
comparative 'position' (whatever 'position' may be) smaller things are
deemed to 'revolve' around larger things. This doesn't mean it's
correct. It's merely the way we 'see' it. Having said this I ( along
with most other humans as a result of centuries of conditioning ) find
it difficult to visualise the mechanics of a universe where larger
things are deemed to revolve around the smaller; ie the Earth around
the moon, the Sun around the Earth, and all larger things around the
smaller; but I'm sure if we got the philosophy right the maths would
simply take care of itself :-)
We work with a positive "small-endian-centre-of-gravity" philosophy and
having adopted this philosophy the symbols we manipulate are engineered
to reinforce it. I have no acceptance of gravity, only an observance
of it's 'effects'. If as an alternative we accept 'levity' (an idea
the Greeks sadly abandoned ) as the basis of universal dynamics, ie a
universe where "push" is more pertinent than "pull" the mathematics we
consistently use would naturally alter.
> its roughly round or it isnt.
It isn't round at all. It's perfectly flat, but via the optical
illusion created by the sheer volume of space, it appears to bend a bit
at the edges. It's the infinite volume of flat edges which makes it
appear round.
> The heart is basically a blood pump or it isnt.
It has long been established as the philosophical centre of human
emotion. In the middle ages people believed human thought took place
in the stomach. Indeed the heart pumps. I can't argue with this.
However it _may_ have a dual, undisclosed function. After all tree
trunks may be as equally intelligent as human brain tissue. Place a
tree trunk and a human brain on a slab and it would be difficult to
tell which is intelligent. There are no readily observable moving
parts in either.
It's amazing to me how humans are quick to associate intelligence with
motion and a lack of intelligence with the absence of motion. "Quick
to respond" is said to be an "intelligent" reaction. "Slow on the
uptake" the opposite. However arguably slowness is more thorough.
Different creatures ( even of the same species ) live in different time
frames, and intelligence like motion is possibly as "relative" as
anything Albert Einstein may have speculated on.
I speculate that trees think. They don't have blood or brains, but I
argue they think. I don't think they think via brain waves or via any
method similar to that utilised by human beings.
Instead of blood or brain tissue they probably utilise sap and bark.
They are possibly 'slooooow, slooooow, slooooooooooooooow' thinkers;
but boy I reckon they're _thorough_ !
Do I have any evidence ? Not on your nelly ! Have you ever tried
talking to a tree, or asking one to complete a human intelligence test?
Trees would fail, hopelessly. Trees wouldn't even pick up the pen.
However humans, despite their intelligence continue to send radio waves
into space hoping to receive a reply from intelligence, expecting the
majority of life in the universe to exhibit human-like intelligence; ie
intelligence associated with motion and reaction; and in a time frame
similar to human thought.
It is possibly easier talking to trees here on Earth than getting a
response from highly intelligent life on other worlds.
> I never said you did Bob, I listed a series of exotic propositions,
> SOME of which were established with rigorous science like radio,
I thought radio just popped up. Someone discovered electricity via the
twitching legs of a frog, and somebody else discovered that fiddling
with larger amounts of electricity caused side effects they called
radio and magnetism. It wasn't rigorous science in my opinon. Simply
observation and careful recording. We can possibly thank frogs for
computers (which utilise both electricity and magnetism).
> It was a generic you, not Bob Bain personally.
Like "Black and Gold" washing powder ?
> That was in fact precisely the problem with the concept of a roughly
> round rotating earth, it was initially dismissed because there
> appeared to be a problem with things falling off the surface and
> sliding around on it.
The un-noted thing about the gravity on a revolving planet is the sheer
volume of emptiness around it. You can place as many small objects on
a tennis ball and rotate it as much as you like. Is there a force of
gravity on the tennis ball ? I argue otherwise. Gravity arises from
the sheer volume of relative emptiness. It isn't the 'force' of the
Earth which counts. It's the weight and volume of universal matter and
the space over which it permeates.
> Turns out its gravity which prevents that and its not hard to prove
> that.
Levity, Rod. Levity. Not gravity. Why do you dismiss levity ?
> Sure, the problem was more with the question of why stuff didnt
> slide around on the surface horizontally if the earth did rotate.
It does. We call it water. It lives in oceans. We call it air. It
surrounds us. The lateral movement of air combined with the lateral
movement of water creates our weather. Agreed it sort of moves with
the planet. However dunk a tennis ball in a bath and remove it and
rotate it. The water falls off. The difference ? There's an enormous
expanse of emptiness between our water and anything else. It's the
emptiness, not the 'gravity' that does it !! Nothing and emptiness are
two of the prime factors in the behaviour and nature of our universe
but they are mostly overlooked or mistaken for something else.
> Its got nothing to do with names Bob.
But thinking, and the manipulation of symbols via mathematics, requires
names. If something doesn't have a name we often call it "x", until
it's "identified" as a member of a class.
> Fraid we can Bob, its the attraction between bodys, which we call
> gravity.
You may not have noticed, but I dispute gravitational attraction.
Bob
---
ž wsOMR 1.00 ž
--- Xenolink 1.95, XQwk 1.6 [REG 10062]
* Origin: Archer BBS +61-2-371-0347 ArcherNet International (3:712/392)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 711/808 712/311 392 407 411 505 506 515 517 613 704 816 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 712/392 517 515 270/101 218/801
|From: Ken Honda
|To: Doug Pasnak
|Sub: Are you a kook?
|Date: 26 Feb 96 16:56:26
EID:dfee 205a8700
PID: BWMAX2 3.10 [Reg]
MSGID: 3:632/309.0 31322c61
REPLY: 1:134/67.0 310ec80e
TID: FastEcho 1.45a 15109
-=> Quoting Doug Pasnak to Ken Honda <=-
Hi Doug,
DP> Ooooooh, you were doing well until then. A scientific theory describes
DP> facts in a testable framework and only after reliably passing constant
DP> testing does something become a "theory". It is not guess or
DP> conjecture. As well, Creationism is not a theory, it is a religious
DP> assertion based on myth. It has no mechanism (other than... *poof*)
DP> and has no supporting evidence. Evolution is, as well, fact *and*
DP> theory. Evolution theories (nat. sel., punk eek) attempt to describe
a
DP> valid mechanism to explain the *fact* of evolution.
Thanks, that makes it a bit clearer than how I've been putting it. :)
-Ken
---
* Origin: Melbourne PC User Group +61-3-9699-6788 (3:632/309)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 620/243
SEEN-BY: 624/300 632/0 107 304 309 329 348 360 525 530 552 998 999 1000
SEEN-BY: 633/371 634/384 635/301 502 503 544 639/252 640/201 711/410
SEEN-BY: 711/413 430 808 809 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225
SEEN-BY: 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1
SEEN-BY: 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 632/309 998 635/503 50/99 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Ken Honda
|To: Doug Pasnak
|Sub: Enigmatisms
|Date: 26 Feb 96 16:56:26
EID:c5a4 205a8700
PID: BWMAX2 3.10 [Reg]
MSGID: 3:632/309.0 31322c62
REPLY: 1:134/67.0 310ec9b4
TID: FastEcho 1.45a 15109
-=> Quoting Doug Pasnak to Ken Honda <=-
KH> Newton's laws of nature come to mind here
DP> Newton's Laws concerned gravity and they are still valid on our humble
DP> Earthly scale.
Well exactly, they suit our existence and have been practical to whatever
we've ever needed to use them for on Earth but I'm interested to see how
they
function when we start looking at much larger scales.
KH> Pretty straightforward. If you think about it you even have trouble
KH> applying the equation 1+1=2 to much in life.
DP> That's what they say about Creationists.
Hmm, 1 creationist + 1 creationist = ???
-Ken
---
* Origin: Melbourne PC User Group +61-3-9699-6788 (3:632/309)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 620/243
SEEN-BY: 624/300 632/0 107 304 309 329 348 360 525 530 552 998 999 1000
SEEN-BY: 633/371 634/384 635/301 502 503 544 639/252 640/201 711/410
SEEN-BY: 711/413 430 808 809 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225
SEEN-BY: 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1
SEEN-BY: 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 632/309 998 635/503 50/99 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Bob Bain
|To: Rod Speed
|Sub: Gravity and stuff..
|Date: 04 Mar 96 08:01:43
EID:2fc2 20644020
MSGID: 3:712/392 4053f83e
BB> It doesn't. The Earth is perfectly still.
BB> Likewise the sun is also perfectly still.
> I've binned all this silly waffle Bob. This aint the place for silly
> games.
There was once an era when people believed the Earth to be flat. There
was plenty of first hand scientific evidence to support this. Only the
"mad" or "foolish" would have argued otherwise.
In the era of a flat Earth you would have sided with the majority who
condemned anyone who thought or argued otherwise.
You're a "Flat Earther" Rod, or in the current era a "Round Earther"
this being the current fad....
As somone else has pointed out you can only disprove the ridiculous by
investigating the truth of the ridiculous. A few short centuries ago
the world was deemed to be flat; the Sun was deemed to rotate around
the Earth. It was obvious... (!).. and observable...
---
ž wsOMR 1.00 ž
--- Xenolink 1.95, XQwk 1.6 [REG 10062]
* Origin: Archer BBS +61-2-371-0347 ArcherNet International (3:712/392)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 711/808 712/311 392 407 411 505 506 515 517 613 704 816 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 712/392 517 515 270/101 218/801
|From: Ross Sauer
|To: Ed Mills
|Sub: new "therapy"
|Date: 04 Mar 96 05:43:00
EID:aa54 20642d60
MSGID: 1:154/169 0006c724
EM> RS> Jay Leno mentioned there's a conference going on (he didn't say
EM> RS> where) that is called "Auto Urine" or something like that.
EM> RS> According to this group, they get health benefits from drinking
EM> RS> their own urine. BLAGHHHHH! (sound of barfing)
EM> RS> If that's what they drink, I wonder what they eat?
EM> RS> It seems any yo-yo makes a claim about some "therapy" or health
EM> RS> gadget or vitamin combination, and the sheep follow him or her.
EM> RS> Sounds like a quick way towards dehydration if that's all they drink.
EM> RS> The eating is another matter. ;)
EM> The inference about eating is closer to the truth than you may think.
EM>Have you ever seen a Kombucha fungus (or "mushroom", as they euphemistically
EM>call it)? This is as close to eating shit... :D ... as you can get, and
it's
EM>all the rage with the Windham-Hill-listening, Birkenstock-wearing Volvo-driv
EM>wind-chime-and-tie-dye crowd. (whew).
Watch it, I enjoy listening to Wyndham Hill CD's.
As to the mushroom, why do you think I DETEST mushrooms? I can't eat
anything grown in the dark and raised in shit.
EM> A friend of mine has a holeopisstic quackupuncturist who turns her
piss
EM>into pills she can take. She's a very bright person, I don't understand
this
EM>a-tall...
Maybe she needs professional help.
* SLMR 2.1a * DOS Read Error: (A)bort, (R)etry, (G)et the .45...
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 2
* Origin: Sheboygan Wi's Only FIDO node (1:154/169)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 154/169 77 222 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Ross Sauer
|To: Joseph Keenan
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 04 Mar 96 05:43:00
EID:3386 20642d60
MSGID: 1:154/169 0006c726
JK>RS>
JK>RS>This Sunday there's a show on opposite 60 minutes, that according
to the
JK>RS>TV guide blurb says man and dinosaurs lived together at the same time.
JK>RS>Betcha any money the "evidence" they use will be these dinosaur tracks
JK>RS>near Paluxy, TX that some of which at first looked a little human,
but
JK>RS>later on were proven to be a therapod's tracks.
JK> When I hear stuff like that I sort of think hat the people who
JK>did the 'research' didn't go any further than watching the Flintstones
JK>on TBS.
Actually, they're minds are stuck in Genesis, and anything that
contradicts Usher's "calculations" is SATANIC!
* SLMR 2.1a * Virus Scanner: NEWT.COM found. Delete? (Y/y)
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 2
* Origin: Sheboygan Wi's Only FIDO node (1:154/169)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 154/169 77 222 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Ross Sauer
|To: David Sparrow
|Sub: [1/2] WATER, WATER, E
|Date: 04 Mar 96 05:43:00
EID:b2b9 20642d60
MSGID: 1:154/169 0006c728
DS> LM>> the Ph.D is not phony. He really does have a Ph.D from the
DS> LM>> University of Minnesota in hydraulic engineering.
DS> RS> THIS gives him the qualifications to make judgements on evolution??
DS> RS> Boy, is he out of his field! (And out of his tree too!)
DS>Aside from the fact that attaining a Ph.D from a reputable place
DS>of learning demonstrates an ability and desire for learning, and
(remaining crap deleted)
David, I've seen Morris' writings, and the guy has blinders made out of
bibles glued to his head. In other words, he's an UNscientific crapola
spreader. I've seen some of your own posts, and I guess you must have
been frightened by a test tube when little, what else explains your
anti-science attitude?
Even people with higher degrees can get in over their head, the late
Linus Pauling was a brilliant nuclear scientist, but when he stuck his
nose into vitamins he went right off the deep end. In other words, he
had the dammdest time backing up any of his claims. Kinda like you do.
* SLMR 2.1a * Maybe you are crock full of cow excrement?
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 2
* Origin: Sheboygan Wi's Only FIDO node (1:154/169)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 154/169 77 222 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Ross Sauer
|To: David Bloomberg
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 04 Mar 96 05:43:00
EID:7700 20642d60
MSGID: 1:154/169 0006c729
DB>In a msg to Fred Hatfield on , Ross Sauer of 1:154/169
writes:
DB> RS> I was right, they used the Paluxy "man tracks" as "evidence." In
fact,
DB> RS> the whole show was warmed-over creationist and Von Daniken bullshit.
DB>I haven't seen it yet, though I taped it and several people have told
me abo
DB>it. When I heard about the Paluxy tracks, I couldn't believe it. Even
the
DB>main creationists don't claim that those are real any more!!
Don't waste your time watching it, just tape over it. Like I said, the
whole thing was just warmed over creationist and Von Daniken bullshit.
* SLMR 2.1a * ACRONYM: AbbreviatedCodedRenditionOfNameYieldingMeaning.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 2
* Origin: Sheboygan Wi's Only FIDO node (1:154/169)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 154/169 77 222 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Ross Sauer
|To: Jim Panzer
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 04 Mar 96 05:43:00
EID:61bc 20642d60
MSGID: 1:154/169 0006c72b
JP> FH> That goes along with the dead silence we have gotten
JP> FH> from the creationists on the echo when I asked about
JP> FH> the dinasours on the Ark.
JP>Maybe Noah stored them in digital....perhaps binary......nope, that's
JP>Barney....?
BLAGHHHHHH! (sound of puking)
Sorry, I do that whenever that, UGHHHHH! thing! gets mentioned.
If I was Noah and saw him on the ark, I would used an elephant to throw
him overboard and as FAR as POSSIBLE!
* SLMR 2.1a * Dan Quayle's library burned.....both books destroyed.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 2
* Origin: Sheboygan Wi's Only FIDO node (1:154/169)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 154/169 77 222 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Ross Sauer
|To: Laurie Appleton
|Sub: your answer
|Date: 04 Mar 96 05:43:00
EID:0f67 20642d60
MSGID: 1:154/169 0006c72d
Hey Laurie, I'm still waiting......
Or are you unable or unwilling to answer? I tend to think the latter.
* SLMR 2.1a * I'll start a chapter of the Procrastinators club some day
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 2
* Origin: Sheboygan Wi's Only FIDO node (1:154/169)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 154/169 77 222 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Karl Schneider
|To: Paul Michaelson
|Sub: Dowsing
|Date: 05 Mar 96 11:59:00
EID:5c69 20655f60
MSGID: 1:170/309@fidonet.org 15d47e02
PM> KS> JP>the (so-called) dowser's knowledge of the groundwater in the
test
PM> KS> JP>area???
PM> KS>
PM> KS> It's pretty simple, John. If it works, it would work every time.
PM> KS>
PM> KS> Duh.
PM>Medicines that are accepted and approved by the FDA do not work every
time.
PM>Why use a stronger test requirement for other phenomena?
Medicine isn't a phenomenon and the paramaters are different. AFAIK,
water is always H2O...humans have very different chemistries.
I have seen dowsing fail several times. One can find water just as
reliably by throwing darts at a map.
PM> * OFFLINE 1.58 * Sailors curse the rain that farmers prayed for in vain.
I know this is a tagline...but, if they prayed in vain, it didn't
rain...so what were the sailors cursing?
---
* OLX 2.2 * Listen: this is real bizarre: 'datum' is and 'data' are.
--- QScan/PCB v1.18b / 01-0067
* Origin: Black Gold BBS-TELNET BGBBS.COM SLIP/PPP 918-272-7779 (1:170/309)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 170/309 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Langston Goldfinch
|To: All
|Sub: Evolution in Tenn
|Date: 05 Mar 96 17:40:21
EID:4450 20658d00
MSGID: 1:396/17 313c7cb5
PID: GED3 2.5.a918 1048
Hello All!
Seems Scopes is with us again. 70 years, same old routine in Tenn. This
should be evidence against ecolution! =:)
Regards
Langston
---
* Origin: N.O.P.C. BBS- Fax/BBS (504)-486-7249 New Orleans, LA. USA (1:396/17)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 396/17 2 1 270/101 218/801
|From: Ron Coates
|To: Ed Mills
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 05 Mar 96 21:34:40
EID:cd07 2065ac40
MSGID: 1:170/213.0 313cf9c0
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Reg]
TID: FastEcho 1.45a 7001
EM> I REALLY NEED to know how Noah was able to completely
EM> circumnavigate the Earth along every third or fourth minute of latitude
EM> (at the very conceivable least) in the allotted time. This would be
EM> required if he were to have had a hope of a collection representing
the
EM> majority of the dry land critters.
EM> Did he do Alaska, Norway, Antarctica, etc., in a separate trip
EM> from Texas, Saudi Arabia, etc..?
EM> What did he do about all those damn dinky little islands in the
EM> South Pacific, each with its own unique ecosystem? What biblical
EM> equivalent of a STOL aircraft did he have to accomplish this?
Don't be absurd....Noah had divine help, the Lord God Almighty organized
the whole thing for him.....the only thing the omnipotent Lord could not
do, was to build the Ark.
Gosh, you are so silly, the next thing you will ask is how the Easter
Bunny delivers all those eggs in one night! God helps the Easter Bunny,
out of respect for the crucifixion and the resurrection!
Yeah God! Go God go!
--- FE145a
* Origin: The Hurricane Alley in TULSA! HSTerbo/DS (1:170/213)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 170/213 200 400 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: David Bloomberg
|To: Julie Presson
|Sub: Re: UFO Echo
|Date: 03 Mar 96 15:11:20
EID:cea8 20637960
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 632a8cd6
In a msg to David Bloomberg on , Julie Presson of 1:203/163
writes:
JP> I do not know who is as Don has clamped down on the flaming and such
JP> to a great degree.
DB> I certainly wouldn't have noticed with a couple of Jack Sargeant's
DB> latest messages to me over there...
JP> Jack is harmless and mild compared to some I have seen.
Harmless? I suppose so. But then I'd say that most people who flame others
are "harmless" -- unless you allow yourself to be harmed by somebody like
that.
Mild? Again, I suppose so. But still I'm surprised he has managed to get
away with what he has. Then again, tossing insults and avoiding the point
is pretty much the only way he can handle a conversation in which he's been
proven wrong. Kind of like John Powell...
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1 2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: David Bloomberg
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: UFO ECHO
|Date: 04 Mar 96 07:02:30
EID:0823 20643840
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 633345fe
In a msg to David Bloomberg on , Scott Laroche of 1:106/235
writes:
>JP> I do not know who is as Don has clamped down on the flaming and such
>JP> to a great degree.
>
> I certainly wouldn't have noticed with a couple of Jack Sargeant's
> latest messages to me over there...
SL> Next time you write to Jack, ask him to give you the final conclusion
SL> of the Project Blue Book report. Jack's good at selective quoting.
Naw, I'm having enough trouble getting him to back up his simple claims.
He made some idiotic statement about mostly skeptics being the ones who
"insist" that life does not exist elsewhere. I called him on it and he's
been trying to get out of backing up his claim (which he cannot do) ever
since. Jean van Gemert, in an attempt to help Jack, quoted the Skeptics
Society poll, which had a question about that issue. Unfortunately, Jean
backed up ME while trying to back up Jack, as only 0.9% of the people who
responded said there was no possibility, in their opinions, of life existing
elsewhere. By far the largest number of people said they were pretty confident
that there IS life elsewhere. Whoops!
Jack has now totally lost it. In a message I just responded to a few minutes
ago, he is saying something about how I should stick to the FLAME and CIVIL
LIBERTIES echo, saying he knows that's where I normally hang out. I had
to post another news flash for him: I have NEVER gotten the FLAME echo,
and was on the CIVIL LIBERTIES echo for about 2 weeks over 3 years ago!
I don't know where he comes up with this stuff, but man, he's lost it!
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1 2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: David Bloomberg
|To: David Sparrow
|Sub: [1/2] WATER, WATER, E
|Date: 04 Mar 96 07:07:14
EID:b39f 206438e0
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 63334a90
REPLY: 3:690/613.8 31366e57
In a msg to Ross Sauer on , David Sparrow of 3:690/613.8 writes:
LM>> the Ph.D is not phony. He really does have a Ph.D from the
LM>> University of Minnesota in hydraulic engineering.
RS> THIS gives him the qualifications to make judgements on evolution??
RS> Boy, is he out of his field! (And out of his tree too!)
DS> Aside from the fact that attaining a Ph.D from a reputable place
DS> of learning demonstrates an ability and desire for learning, and
DS> implies a learning not limited to the chosen field, are you here
It implies no such thing.
Indeed, in many ways, the higher the degree, the more specialized the education,
not the more BROAD.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1 2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: Moderator
|To: David Sparrow
|Sub: [1/2] Water, water, ever
|Date: 04 Mar 96 07:08:29
EID:41a1 20643900
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 63334c79
REPLY: 3:690/613.8 31366f18
In a msg to Doug Pasnak on , David Sparrow of 3:690/613.8
writes:
DS> As far as this requested postal address goes, it's still a
DS> case of "no fucking show", your Honour.
I just warned somebody else on this echo for using this type of language.
Now I'm warning you.
I don't want to see it here again.
David Bloomberg,
SKEPTIC Co-Moderator
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1 2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: David Bloomberg
|To: Scott Weadon
|Sub: Problem with UFO Kooks
|Date: 04 Mar 96 07:14:13
EID:b320 206439c0
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 63335dcb
REPLY: 1:109/335 0004ca92
In a msg to Scott Laroche on , Scott Weadon of 1:109/335 writes:
SW> I wouldn't expect too much from critics, they make a living from this
SW> too, syndication is coveted almost as much as a true believer's abduction
SW> expierence.
SW> Like it or not, its here to stay.
I disagree -- it doesn't have to be here to stay.
When Sun Pictures was exposed for their lack of research, they went under.
(They were the ones with the Noah's Ark show.) If we could muster that
strength for the people who put out other crap, the same result might occur.
Admittedly it's difficult, because there are so many out there who want
to believe in this BS, but that doesn't make it impossible.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1 2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: Moderator
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Dowsing=Fraud
|Date: 04 Mar 96 12:09:52
EID:bdaf 20646120
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 633610cd
REPLY: 1:261/1201.0 3139e2aa
In a msg to Ron Coates on , John Powell of 1:261/1201 writes:
RC> Moderator, oh moderator....where fore art thou moderator?
JP> Multiple Choice:
JP> - The Moderator is busy ducking the issue of how Freddie got
JP> away with accusing me of being a liar and accusing of posting
JP> fraudulent information - with absolutely no substantiation
JP> whatsoever.
JP> - The Moderator is busy ducking the issue of Liar-Freddie
JP> getting caught red-handed LYING.
JP> - The Moderator is busy ducking the issue of Liar-Scotty getting
JP> caught red-handed LYING.
JP> - The Moderator is busy trying to figure out how he can ban
me
JP> or put me on conference vacation.
JP> - All of the above.
Nope. None of the above. The Moderator is enforcing the rules. Calling
somebody on the falseness of their claims (even calling them a liar) is
not necessarily against the rules. And I'm not here to rule on the validity
of a claim. Thus, I didn't call Fred on it, and I haven't called you on
it.
However, I HAVE called you on your insults and your response to a Moderator
message in the echo. And I am calling you on this. Leave the moderating
to the Moderators.
If you do go on "conference vacation," it will be because you earn it by
repeatedly breaking the rules -- I won't need to "figure out" how to do
it. This makes your third warning in less than two weeks. One might almost
think you WANT to get banned...
David Bloomberg,
SKEPTIC Co-Moderator
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1 2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: David Bloomberg
|To: Julie Presson
|Sub: Re: Problem with UFO Kooks
|Date: 04 Mar 96 12:12:23
EID:4ab6 20646180
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 63361680
In a msg to Scott Laroche on , Julie Presson of 1:203/163
writes:
SL> Yesterday I got a fundraising letter from CSICOP. Included was a
SL> reprint of a letter they received:
SL> "Dear CSICOP,
SL> I was hoping you could send me some info on reports, abductions and
SL> just facts about aliens. I am doing a project on OFO[sic] phenomena.
I
SL> believe with all my heart. I am 14 years old and live in Louisville
SL> KY... I was convinced that I was a [sic] alien when I was a child. My
SL> family told me I was put in there[sic] home by the government and they
SL> get paid to keep me... My sister says I am part of some big government
SL> experiment to see if aliens can be like humans. I guess that is why
I
SL> am such a believer..."
JP> I would guess this is pure "fiction",
What? That they got such a letter, or the letter itself?
JP> if there are parents out there who are telling this to their kids someone
JP> better send the guys with the white nets after them!
It's not really any different than much of the tripe on some of the UFO-related
echos. Heck, some "therapists" charge people to tell them things like this.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1 2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: David Sparrow
|To: Tim Epstein
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 04 Mar 96 11:43:18
EID:5146 20645d60
REPLY: 3:632/329 1b8fb150
MSGID: 3:690/613.8 313ab77e
GF>>>> Then he got a whole host of dowsers to try & find the pipes. Not
GF>>>> one of them did.
TE> That's not true, Grant. Some of the dowsers DID find water. Its
No, Grant was speaking truthfully ... he said "not one of them
did", which could be meant to imply that MORE than one of them
did. Your post confirmed that indeed, not one, but two of the
"diveners" go tit right. There, everyone happy now ? 8-)
Regards
David
---
* Origin: =EMPIRE= v4.01 - Twits Twonks, Tidies Text. (3:690/613.8)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 690/613 660 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Langston Goldfinch
|To: Rod Speed
|Sub: Creation? evolution
|Date: 05 Mar 96 23:39:34
EID:e3e9 2065bce0
MSGID: 1:396/17 313cd0db
PID: GED3 2.5.a918 1048
*** Answering a msg posted in area WIMM (WIMM).
Hello Rod!
Tuesday February 27 1996 12:27, Rod Speed wrote to Langston Goldfinch:
RS> You cant just make a message private, you have to send netmail
RS> instead.
I know, LA hasn't bitten yet, so I was adding fuel.
Seems like Evolution is in the TENN news again- Scopes replay?
Regards
Langston
---
* Origin: N.O.P.C. BBS- Fax/BBS (504)-486-7249 New Orleans, LA. USA (1:396/17)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 396/17 2 1 270/101 218/801
|From: Julie Presson
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: Re: PROBLEM WITH UFO KOOKS
|Date: 03 Mar 96 09:25:07
EID:9ce3 20634b20
-=> Quoting Scott Laroche to Julie Presson <=-
> So what do we do? Do you have any ideas that protect our Rights (or
> what is left of them) of Free Speech and still warn the 1% that what they
> see and hear may not be true?
SL> Not much can be done through the government. Getting the government
SL> involved in telling people what superstitions they are allowed to
SL> teach is worse than these silly beliefs.
I personally see nothing wrong with believing in superstitions as long
as they do not take over your life. Everyone believes in some form of
what you call superstition. After all we are only human. :-)
But this is a little far_fetched to tell you child he was left on you door
step and is an alien. Unless it was a joke by some kid to say this.
SL> I think the only thing that can and should be done is to keep leaning
SL> on the media that spreads these stories. When gibberish appears, write
SL> a letter. Make a phone call.
I feel it needs to be addressed before it gets to the media, when children
are involved.
Beyond the Mists of Time...I AM Moranaa
... Just skinny-dipping in the river of time.
--- Arf! ---
* Origin: Gates Of Delirium - US 916/339-9043: (1:203/163.0)
SEEN-BY: 1/141 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 163 289 500 535 726 821 2019 7707 8055 206/2711 209/720
SEEN-BY: 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137 267/200
SEEN-BY: 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119
SEEN-BY: 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200
SEEN-BY: 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 203/163 8055 15 270/101 218/801
|From: Jim Panzer
|To: Scott Weadon
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 05 Mar 96 08:16:38
EID:8a43 20654200
MSGID: 1:3637/1.0 313c3eb6
REPLY: 1:109/335 00020592
JP> it to Science or Dowsing or whatever and be correct......
SW> There seems to be a misconception here. I am not defending dowsing.
I am
SW> however defending that there exists an article that addresses many
of the
No misconception, I knew you weren't.
SW> I'm not sure I follow your thinking here about 'backward Nation(s)".
The
SW> German study as I read it, conducted these studies in arid dry regions.
SW> Because they happen to be in other less developed
My point was that when something is done using modern day science and done
in an area where the people are not used to science, then it seems magical
to them and they can be made to believe that it was. I didn't want to relate
this to the German Study but just to make a general point.......sort of
like the eclipse bit in the A Conn. Yankee in King Arther's Court bit.........Panz
--- Maximus/2 3.01
* Origin: Cumberland BBS -TN- V34 (1:3637/1)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 3637/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Jim Panzer
|To: Scott Weadon
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 05 Mar 96 08:21:32
EID:8a43 206542a0
MSGID: 1:3637/1.0 313c3fdc
REPLY: 1:109/335 00020596
FH> At Mardi Gras here in New Orleans, we invoke the Jack Daniels spirit
FH> every year, but water seems to be the last thing
FH> we are interested in.
SW> Not even as a chaser??
Nope, in the "Big Easy" the chasing is restricted to the "chickadees".......Panz
--- Maximus/2 3.01
* Origin: Cumberland BBS -TN- V34 (1:3637/1)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 3637/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Langston Goldfinch
|To: Bob Bain
|Sub: Gravity and stuff..
|Date: 06 Mar 96 01:10:27
EID:e7fb 20660940
MSGID: 1:396/17 313ce682
REPLY: 3:712/392 5acbe3e0
PID: GED3 2.5.a918 1048
Hello Bob!
Wednesday February 28 1996 22:42, Bob Bain wrote to Rod Speed:
BB> smaller things are deemed to 'revolve' around larger things. This
BB> doesn't mean it's correct. It's merely the way we 'see' it.
Is it not the case that "things" are best understood to revolve around a
mid point determined by the relative mass? Hence two equally massive bodies
would revolved around a genuine "mid" point; and the greater the mass disparitiy
the closer to the more massive body would be the "center"?
Regards
Langston
---
* Origin: N.O.P.C. BBS- Fax/BBS (504)-486-7249 New Orleans, LA. USA (1:396/17)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 107/941 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353
SEEN-BY: 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201
SEEN-BY: 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 50 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 396/17 2 1 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Scott Weadon
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 05 Mar 96 22:05:34
EID:2ab0 2065b0a0
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 313d0104
-=> Quoting Scott Weadon to John Powell <=-
JP> Most humans I know have this sort of self-correcting mechanism that
JP> prevents their fingers from running all over the keyboard typing words
JP> that didn't originate from within their own mind...
SW> Must've developed a short from all that searching.
OhMaGawd! Do ya think!! Do ya think Liar-Freddie shorted out his
brain!?!?!
JP> Yep, but some around here are content to LIE to further their bankrupt
JP> beliefs...
SW> Well, there is the posibility that Mr. Rice doesn't know how to
SW> properly conduct an internet search and therefore assumed others would
SW> not also.
Its possible that he's Internet ignorant. But he could have asked for
help publically or privately, he didn't have to LIE about it...
SW> Or, that others would blindly follow his comments on the
SW> matter without question.
He must have had some motivation for LYING. He wasn't forced into it, I
never mentioned the Internet, I don't think anyone else did either. You
might very well be right that he thought his personal credibility would
float the LIE. But now we'll never know, and we do know that having
trashed his credibility there is no good reason to take him at his word
for anything ever again...
JP> I'm sure Liar-Freddie will find all sorts of irrelevant issues to
JP> whine about to distract folks from the fact that he LIED.
SW> If he ever presents those issues, I've yet to hear from him.
Perhaps being caught in a LIE has made him timid?
JP> Or, maybe he'll complain because its foreigners doing the research...
SW> You mean because their intellegence is far beneath ours...
Well, of course, didn't you know that only skeptical American folks,
with an active membership in CSICOP, are trusted to publish on these
matters???? (But, that oddly excludes CSICOP's _Skeptical Inquirer_,
which is _not_ a peer-reviewed publication.)
JP> We'll have to see which dodge Liar-Freddie uses...
SW> And, it is written in English and not German, so he can't use that
SW> one.
Ah, good point, he can't claim that he couldn't read it...
JP> Or, maybe because its only 10 years of field research and not 20 or
JP> 300...
SW> Hmm...Dr. Betz is still living so it must be nonsense, he didn't die
SW> trying to prove a theory.
JP> Ah-Ha!!! Bingo! Good point!
SW> Thank god he didn't hang out with Fossey.
Yes! Uh-oh, I just realized that with Betz still living that will
create the requirement for yet another dodge - why no one here has
contacted him...
JP> Now, Liar-Scott claims I didn't provide enough for him to do any
JP> research...
SW> Well, in all fairness, Scott did say he knew of the JSE article, in
a
SW> response to me, but that he doesn't consider it worth the paper its
SW> written on.
I noticed that but I haven't seen a reason why he (or anybody)
considers the peer-reviewed JSE to be any less respectable than any
other similar science-based peer-reviewed journal.
SW> However he could have said so from the beginning. But, if
SW> he had he would also had to admit there was such an article to be
SW> found.
Well, Liar-Scott is fairly new to this having been around BBSes and
email for only about a year so I'd expect him to LIE himself into a
corner like that.
SW> You did forget one...he could just ignore it.
JP> That's possible.
SW> Seems to be the case, I haven't heard a response from him.
Maybe he thinks everybody will forget about is LIE if he keeps his head
down long enough???
JP> Congratualtions, you
JP> just bagged your first LYING Skeptic! Feels _good_ doesn't it!?
SW> I'm clearing a spot on the wall right now.
Hahahahaha!
JP> You're as dastardly and nefarious as I am now... Ooohhhh, we're in
JP> trouble....
SW> Won't be the first, nor I expect the last...
I guarantee it won't be the last.
JP> Sorry again for confusing you with the other Scott. BTW, the flu is
JP> much better now .
SW> At least I know now what to send you for a congradulatory gift...a
SW> case of Nyquil!
SW> ... Flu the rules!
Hahahha!!! Nyquil should be a controlled substance...
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1
SEEN-BY: 261/1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090 3900
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: Grant Farrington
|To: David Sparrow
|Sub: Pie Plate Attack!
|Date: 05 Mar 96 07:51:36
EID:a935 20653e60
MSGID: 3:640/201.3 313bf2c8
REPLY: 3:690/613.8 31324c5f
Hello David.
26 Feb 96 00:33, David Sparrow wrote to Scott Laroche:
DS> Obviously you have not seen the videos and obviously you are so
DS> slack about the way you allegedly keep "pretty up to date" that
DS> you didn't even notice the dates given in my original messages.
Dots in the sky do not an alien space-ship make :)
Grant
... Family values: A euphemism for theological fascism.
--- GoldED 2.50.Beta6 UNREG
* Origin: Wild Magic BBS Hervey Bay Qld OZ (3:640/201.3)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 640/201 270/101 218/801
|From: Grant Farrington
|To: Langston Goldfinch
|Sub: Leap Trivia
|Date: 05 Mar 96 07:53:26
EID:b1cc 20653ea0
MSGID: 3:640/201.3 313bf31d
REPLY: 1:396/17 3134f213
Hello Langston.
29 Feb 96 00:23, Langston Goldfinch wrote to All:
LG> Amazing how God set this all up!
Which god is that ? Allah ? Buddha ? Jehovah ? Thor ?
Grant
... Family values: A euphemism for theological fascism.
--- GoldED 2.50.Beta6 UNREG
* Origin: Wild Magic BBS Hervey Bay Qld OZ (3:640/201.3)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 640/201 270/101 218/801
|From: Grant Farrington
|To: Doug Pasnak
|Sub: M.A.C.O.S
|Date: 05 Mar 96 07:56:44
EID:da08 20653f00
MSGID: 3:640/201.3 313bf430
REPLY: 1:134/67.0 31327aba
Hello Doug.
26 Feb 96 20:30, Doug Pasnak wrote to Gregg Tripp:
GT>> But alas, churches are big business, eh?
DP> It's not so much the idea of churches in and of themselves that
DP> bother
DP> me.
DP> It's that willfull ignorance that some feel is required for salvation.
DP> THAT is where our problem lies, in soteriological sophistry.
Why don't they remove the tax exempt thingy for religions ? That'd sure
bring about their death even quicker !
Fancy our taxes supporting child molesters & lunatics.
Grant
... Family values: A euphemism for theological fascism.
--- GoldED 2.50.Beta6 UNREG
* Origin: Wild Magic BBS Hervey Bay Qld OZ (3:640/201.3)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 640/201 270/101 218/801
|From: Nick Volk
|To: Doug Pasnak
|Sub: N.W.O.
|Date: 29 Feb 96 16:12:00
EID:c6fc 205d8180
PID: RA 2.02 21557
MSGID: 1:2607/506 56d46df6
REPLY: 1:134/67.0 3119525a
NOTE: IceEdit 1.40 [Eval]
TID: FastEcho 1.45a 7925
DP=> Uhhh...yeah, O.K.
DP=> I'll bet you think you're a skeptic as well?
No i`m not a skeptic. I am a realist.
If you doubt me look in the bible in revalations. There is some help in
¨there. I`m not positive where but it`s also in a bunch of other places.
It is ¨n`t labled "N.W.O." just as 666 isn`t labeled as "A small computer
readable ¨bar code placed inside human flesh so the government can controll
all the ¨money because it looses over $90 billion per year in unclaimed
taxes." But it ¨is in there. Sorry if i sound cocky about it cause i`m not
trying to be :)
Also, there is a lot more to it than the bible or society as a whole will
¨say. And i might add the line in this message about "666" has a lot to
do ¨with N.W.O. as of now.....
If i can figure how to get a file to you i`ll send one you might be a bit
¨interested in :)
later
----> Tiger, Hed Net BBS 215-234-0299
--- FastEcho 1.45A+/RA 2.02+
* Origin: The Cemetary Gates (610)754-9354 14.4k Occult/Adult (1:2607/506)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 50
SEEN-BY: 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2607/506 507 401 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Jim Panzer
|Sub: Dowsing=Fraud
|Date: 06 Mar 96 21:10:42
EID:fa63 2066a940
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 313e45a3
-=> Quoting Jim Panzer to John Powell <=-
JP> John, I really think that you should take up Golf since they are
JP> obcessed with the "lie" of every shot.
Hahahah!!
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1
SEEN-BY: 261/1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090 3900
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: DOWSING=FRAUD
|Date: 06 Mar 96 21:10:42
EID:300d 2066a940
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 313e45a4
-=> Quoting Scott Laroche to John Powell <=-
> Do you know that being caught LYING is the _worst_ possible thing
> that can do the _most_ possible damage to your credibility? You claim
to
> have done a Web search and failed to find anything. Yet, in truth,
> a Web search that found something was _EASY_ to do. You, like
> Liar-Freddie, have been caught red-handed LYING....
SL> I received seven messages worth of junk from you today, John, and
SL> little of it makes any sense. I suggest you take a break from the
SL> modem - you appear to be losing control.
Take a break? When I can instead make sure everybody knows that you
(and Freddie) got caught red-handed in a public LIE???
I don't think so...
But feel free to dodge that item, feel free to pretend that it didn't
happen all you want...
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1
SEEN-BY: 261/1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090 3900
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: OFA
|Date: 06 Mar 96 21:10:42
EID:0a89 2066a940
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 313e45a5
-=> Quoting Scott Laroche to John Powell <=-
>SL> The Old Farmer's Almanac goes about 80-85% of what? Do you mean
>SL> accuracy? If so, where do you get your facts from?
> The National Weather Service (with NOAA) had a sort of year-end
> thing on (I think) CNN about a year ago. You might want to check with
them.
> Oops, sorry, I forgot, you don't do research - you just LIE about
> doing research.
SL> Your responses are getting very pathetic. CNN and NOAA produce
SL> millions of documents and billions of bytes of information each year,
SL> yet all you can say is "check with them".
Yep, check with them.
SL> How 'bout giving me a fast
SL> way of checking - like a web page, a date, a program... or are you
SL> gonna cop out again
Hahahha!!! In other words, AGAIN, you want me to do the work for you...
Talk about pathetic...
As I said earlier I _think_ it was CNN but I'm not positive, and I
certainly don't remember an exact date or program name.
Well, if you want to do the work in the seated position, here's a hint.
Do a Web search for the NOAA pages (and don't lie about doing it cause
I'm sure they exist)... After you find the Web pages you'll find e-mail
addresses for various folks and start by sending them e-mail with what
you're looking for and they will either answer you specifically (not
likely) or they will direct you to exactly where to go.
I'm thoroughly amazed that you needed to be told this incredibly obvious
rudimentary research tip.
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1
SEEN-BY: 261/1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090 3900
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Harold Ehnhuus
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 06 Mar 96 21:10:42
EID:aa6b 2066a940
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 313e45a6
-=> Quoting Harold Ehnhuus to John Powell <=-
JP> JP>Would you have??? Well, since you didn't do a search, and since
you
JP> JP>LIED about doing a search, I think I'll consider that otherwise silly
JP> JP>comment a LIE too.
JP> HE> Gee, a bias assumption with no basis in fact.
JP>Gee, you totally disregard the _documented_ lie above and focus on the
JP>assumed lie, for what possible purpose I wonder...
HE> What documentaion? All I've seen are flimsy assumptions.
I'm not going to waste my time arguing this when the actual liar won't
even surface to confront his lie... (As predicted, he's letting others
do it for him...) Its simple, Freddie (and Scotty) said they did a Web
search and said they didn't find anything, that was documented.
Something was there to be found and that was also documented. My
teenager does Web searches and Internet cruising blindfolded. Freddie
either LIED or he's an idiot.
Take your pick. I have no reason to think Freddie is an idiot so the
choice for me was obvious. Perhaps you do have reason to think he's an
idiot and therefore see that as the better explanation...
HE> You haven't proven the "lie". You just make the assumption.
JP>But you seem to ignore those items. To what purpose I wonder???
HE> Learn to read. I didn't ignore those items, I addressed the
HE> possibility that there might be alternitives to your "liar" scenario.
Harold, go whine to someone who cares.
I have an idea. Why don't you whine to Freddie, ask him to explain his
actions, then maybe you wouldn't look so silly.
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1
SEEN-BY: 261/1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090 3900
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Fred Hatfield
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 06 Mar 96 21:10:42
EID:6625 2066a940
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 313e45a9
-=> Quoting Fred Hatfield to Scott Weadon <=-
FH> Martin Gardner writes a great treatise on dowsing in "Fads And
FH> Fallacies of Modern Science".
Should we bother to consider this since it was not published in a
peer-reviewed journal?
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1
SEEN-BY: 261/1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090 3900
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: David Bloomberg
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Bloomberg Travel Recommendation
|Date: 06 Mar 96 06:37:18
EID:9aed 206634a0
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 634d641c
* Reply to message in "UFO"
In a msg to Jack Sargeant on , John Powell of 1:261/1201 writes:
JP> I've just spent a goodly portion of my time for about four weeks arguing
JP> silly witicisms with Mr. Do-My-Research-For-Me Bloomberg, enduring him
JP> allow and encourage others to make unsubstantiated accusations against
JP> me, catching Freddie Rice red-handed publically LYING about a simple
bit
JP> of research, catching Scotty LaRoach publically LYING about a simple
bit
JP> of research, having Mr. I-Whine-For-Sport Bloomberg allow and encourage
JP> LYING, etc., etc., etc.
It's not bad enough that you can't even back up your claims in here, but
you have to whine and lie about it in the UFO echo as well? Gosh, questioning
your claims seems to really upset you...like any True Believer.
(The "lie" part is the "Mr. Do-My-Research-For-Me" claim, just so you don't
whine some more.)
If you would have simply backed up your claims, as is generally expected
in this echo, none of this would have ever happened.
But then, you can't...
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1
SEEN-BY: 2430/2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: Moderator
|To: REX BENNETT
|Sub: We're Right,They're Wrong
|Date: 06 Mar 96 06:42:17
EID:69c7 20663540
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 634d6e0b
REPLY: 1:377/77 41d07c11
In a msg to ALL on , REX BENNETT of 1:377/77 writes:
RB> "We're Right, They're Wrong," by James Carville,
RB> Random House, Inc., ISBN 679-76978-1, $10.00 Paperback.
RB> 183 pages.
RB> This is the book I've been waiting for!
Then you should have waited 'til you were in the appropriate echo to talk
about it.
NOTHING in your discussion of the book dealt with the topic of this, the
SKEPTIC echo. It would have been much more appropriate in, say, the POLITICS
echo.
David Bloomberg,
SKEPTIC Co-Moderator
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1
SEEN-BY: 2430/2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: Moderator
|To: Rod Speed
|Sub: Astrophysics
|Date: 06 Mar 96 16:46:23
EID:48e2 206685c0
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 6352f55e
In a msg to Shane Coleman on , Rod Speed of 3:711/934.2 writes:
RS> You really are a fool shane.
I've warned you about insults once, Rod.
I won't warn you again.
David Bloomberg,
SKEPTIC Co-Moderator
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1
SEEN-BY: 2430/2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: Moderator
|To: Stewart Draper
|Sub: The Real Reason For Global Control Of People's Minds
|Date: 06 Mar 96 16:48:12
EID:edd7 20668600
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 6352f9a8
REPLY: 3:712/619 56ced238
In a msg to Fredric Rice on , Stewart Draper of 3:712/619
writes:
SD> You are a close-minded, blind, arrogant fool.
I've warned you about insults once, Stewart.
I won't warn you again.
David Bloomberg,
SKEPTIC Co-Moderator
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: Let the love of truth shine clear (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1
SEEN-BY: 2430/2 1423 2112 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308
SEEN-BY: 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2430/1 1423 270/101 218/801
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: William Lipp
|Sub: Does United Nations-created HIV 'Cause' AID
|Date: 12 Mar 96 09:33:41
EID:e3ec 206c4c34
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 24096cb9
REPLY: 1:141/1111.0 31332430
PID: FM 2.02
Terry Parker
FR> I'm merely curious if your particular band of unsalted nuts
FR> think that HIV was manufactured in a government lab to wipe-
FR> out blacks. ... (Or was it the United Nations?
wp> Ohhh! This belongs on Urban Legends. AIDS was created
wp> to wipe out the United Nations! I love it.
My use of the English language is at times ambiguous. }:-}
No, the HIV was created BY the United Nations to get blacks into the hospitals
so that they could have biochips imbedded in their brains.
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: Stewart Draper
|Sub: True Superstitions
|Date: 12 Mar 96 09:34:54
EID:b174 206c4c5b
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 24096cba
REPLY: 3:712/619 56ccc64a
PID: FM 2.02
sd> That the brain=all your consciousness is the most blatantly
sd> false and fallacious claim to ever have been made by anyone
sd> let alone reasonable and responsible pseudo-scientists.
For some it would appear to be located a bit South.
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: Dowsing = Silly urban legend (was dowsing = fraud)
|Date: 12 Mar 96 09:40:46
EID:a353 206c4d17
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 24096cbb
PID: FM 2.02
jp> I've provided everything anyone capable of doing
jp> the research would need to do the research.
Cool. "Scientists say it exists" is all the evidence we need to actually
start searching for these unnamed scientists of his and their successfull
research papers -- papers which SHOULD have been published in peer reviewed
journales had the ACTUALLY existed.
sl> Bzzz. Wrong. The only thing you have given us concerning
sl> your take on the superstition known as dowsing is that
sl> some studies have proven it to work. But when pressed to
sl> name those studies, you draw a blank.
CSICOP's publication last month note:
"The history of parapsychology is replete with
'successful' experiments that subsequently could
not be replicated."
John -- IT SEEMS -- is trying to base his beliefs upon tests that support
his beliefs while ignoring the fact that testing under controlled conditions
NEVER find a success greater than chance.
jp> I'm not going to do anyone's work for them.
sl> Try doing your own work on the issue before
sl> asking [others] to believe you, then.
I would accept a couple of names of individuals who conducted scientifically
solid tests which found conclusive evidence -- as he claims exists.
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: David Bloomberg
|Sub: DOWSING beliefs
|Date: 12 Mar 96 09:42:55
EID:3220 206c4d5b
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 24096cbc
REPLY: 1:2430/2112 62c9be57
PID: FM 2.02
JP> Y'know, what was originally intended to be a simple series of short
JP> messages exchanged with one or two individuals has turned into a
JP> _very_ revealing conference-wide incident...
db> It did reveal two things: That you absolutely refuse to back up
db> your claims, and that you cannot hold a rational discussion.
How hard could it be to come up with some names of individuals who conducted
scientifically solid tests and the names and dates of peer reviewed publications
which documented the findings? (Rhetorical question.) If John's claimes
were based in actuality, he would be able to point to published findings
-- scientifically sound published findings.
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: Fred Hatfield
|Sub: "Patterson Cell"
|Date: 12 Mar 96 09:45:58
EID:69a1 206c4dbd
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 24096cbd
PID: FM 2.02
[...cuts...]
fh> However, I did run across a local handyman that told me he is
fh> working on a project to charge the batteries in a golf-cart
fh> by attaching a generator to the axles. That way, the batteries
fh> could be recharged from the motion of the wheels while the
fh> battery is running the cart.
What a great idea! Why hasn't anyone thought of that already and become
rich?! I think I'll work it out on my boat... I'll put TWO waterwheels
dragged behind the boat to power the electric outboard. I'll use the gas
powered engine to get me up to speed and then cut over to the electric motor
to keep me running, switching off the gas engine!
I'll be rich!
fh> I suggested he would have more luck doing this on a downhill grade.
While I'll have to surf down swell after swell to keep going.
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Dowsing: Some people still believe it
|Date: 12 Mar 96 09:50:25
EID:a7f6 206c4e4c
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 24096cbe
REPLY: 1:261/1201.0 31347d1d
PID: FM 2.02
jp> Did we forget that?
FR> Did _you_ manufacture that?
jp> Whoa... Jump into this discussion late and accuse me
jp> of being a liar and of fabricating information???
jp> Fred - Fuck you.
FR> Your resentful response would tend to indicate that my supposistion
FR> wasn't entirely mistaken.
jp> I'm not responsible for your perceptions or
jp> the tendencies they produce in you.
You _are_ responsible for providing at least some references for your outrageous
claims, John -- usually rational people don't spout "fuck you!" when they're
asked for the evidence they claim they have; they simply provide the asked-for
reference.
The resentment you feel is due to the inability to find a scientifically
solid research event which supports your paranormal belief -- which is exactly
the point I made. If there was successful scientific inquery you would
have simply offered the names and dates of peer reviewed journals. Rather
than get resentful and hurt at those of us who are curious about your claims,
you should think about WHY you're resentful and find the solution within
rather than without.
It's not so very strange why you couldn't. You manufactured the whole claim.
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: Dowsing urban legend (was DOWSING = FRAUD)
|Date: 12 Mar 96 09:52:22
EID:3080 206c4e8b
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 24096cbf
PID: FM 2.02
fr> I searched Internet for anything which would tend to support a
fr> scientifically evaluated, scientifically conducted test for
fr> "dowsing" and didn't find anything. In fact had there been any
fr> validity to these claims, I would have expected them to be published
fr> and made readilly available to the general public.
sl> Yup. I looked also. I found dowsing societies, but no hard
sl> scientific articles proving the validity of the dowser's claims.
I _did_ find a great many scientific debunkings of the legend. I'm glad
to see that the rational side of the belief is at least represented on the
networks.
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: Dowsing urban legend (was DOWSING = FRAUD)
|Date: 12 Mar 96 09:56:46
EID:3080 206c4f17
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 24096cc0
PID: FM 2.02
sl> Now it's $528,000. Oh dowsers, come on. That's a lot of
sl> money! Surely you can pass a simple test and collect the
sl> loot, since your science is so valid.
fr> Water "dowsers" don't even have the cop-out that "psychics"
fr> do -- claim that it's a debasement of their "gift" to do it
fr> for money then, when asked to demonstrate for free, claim
fr> it's not worth their time. }:-}
sl> My favorite claim when they fail is that "previously
sl> undiscovered underground rivers" have interferred with
sl> the results. Those darned unexpected discoveries!
Hey, I forgot about those! I can see it, yes. Nearly ANY
place one digs deeply enough one will find water; the Earth has a lot of
it and the Sun picks it up and drops it everywhere. How much nicer for
"dowsers" who fail to claim that there's a river two miles down when no
one's going to dig for it?
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: John Powell
|Sub: DOWSING = Urban Legend
|Date: 12 Mar 96 09:59:21
EID:5e1e 206c4f6a
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 24096cc1
REPLY: 1:261/1201.0 31351217
PID: FM 2.02
FR> The ages old cry of the believer: "Do you own homework."
FR> I would love to had I recieved a solid reference.
jp> Oh really??? Well, I posted several. Do you need it handed to
jp> you on a silver platter... The age old cry of the Slacker...
That's the Second Age Old Cry of the Believer: When pointed out that one
needs REFERENCES for "doing homework," demand that he posted the references
already and that he's not going to "repeat myself."
Just present references on some scientifically peer reviewed journals which
support your assertion, John. That shouldn't be too difficult.
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: Dowsing=Fraud
|Date: 12 Mar 96 10:03:12
EID:7293 206c5066
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 24096cc2
PID: FM 2.02
FR> I find it telling that no scientific peer-reviewed journal is being
FR> cited by you. I would expect to at least be given the name of
FR> individuals working within a group who conducted these scientific
FR> tests which yielded positive results.
FR> Strange. I don't see any in your messages.
jp> You came in late. I've already provided enough
jp> info for anybody to go and do their own research.
sl> No you haven't.
Now he's claiming that because someone else was successful at finding a
positive claim on Internet, he doesn't have to provide his references.
I'm still waiting for my copy of the message with the Internet URL which
was directed to me to arive so I can check it out for myself.
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: John Powell
|Sub: DOWSING = Urban Legend
|Date: 12 Mar 96 10:07:10
EID:5e1e 206c50e5
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 24096cc3
REPLY: 1:261/1201.0 31351218
PID: FM 2.02
FR> An Internet search failed to find any scientificly
FR> peer-reviewed journal article which supports the
FR> contention being made.
jp> HE'S A LIAR!!! You proved it. Thank you very much.
Let's not go postal just yet, John.
Look at this:
SW> Which internet were you searching, I found this on the first hit.
SW> -------------------------begin
SW> article-----------------------------------------
SW> WATER DOWSING IN ARID REGIONS: REPORT ON A TEN YEAR GERMAN
SW> GOVERNMENT PROJECT (1) From the Journal of Scientific
SW> Exploration Stanford University Stanford, Ca. Stanford,
SW> Ca. USA, March 27, 1995
That's all you elected to quote. I find it so very mysterious how you elected
not to quote any section which actually _supports_ your beliefs. My search
on the Internet yielded MANY hits (83) on dowsers which DEBUNK the urban
legend yet none scientifically conducted which support your claims.
Now why didn't you quote the text from this article which supports your
beliefs? Is it possible that the article DOESN'T support your beliefs?
'Guess I'll have to expend the effort to debunk you utterly now.
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: Doug Pasnak
|Sub: The Real Reason For Glob
|Date: 12 Mar 96 10:10:54
EID:604a 206c515b
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 24096cc4
REPLY: 1:134/67.0 31327cd8
PID: FM 2.02
Stewart Draper
FR> I'm curious. Is the reason why you dislike scientific method
FR> because you think it detracts from your deity- oriented
FR> superstitions? If so, perhaps you should do as I suggested and
FR> research what scientific method is.
I didn't get an answer for some reason.
dp> They believe their ignorance of subject
dp> matter gives them power over it.
Doesn't it? An unscientific claim can be modified as needed whereas a scientific
claim can not be so easilly modified.
[...cuts...]
dp> What is frightening is that this anti-science viewpoint
dp> is gaining a foothold in many extreme (and not so extreme)
dp> elements of organisations which are disillusioned with
dp> sciences inability to *immediately* solve all the problems
dp> we face.
Yes, ritual invocation of deity constructs in the public schools, teaching
of mythology Creationism as fact in the public schools, claiming evolution
is "only a theory..." I think there are elements of humanity which understand
that keeping human misery growing is financially defendable.
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: All
|Sub: Dowsing legend on the Internet
|Date: 12 Mar 96 13:15:42
EID:e7f6 206c69f5
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 240d3995
PID: FM 2.02
An Internet search failed to find any scientificly
peer-reviewed journal article which supports the
contention being made. - Fredric L. Rice
SW> WATER DOWSING IN ARID REGIONS: REPORT ON A TEN YEAR GERMAN
SW> GOVERNMENT PROJECT (1) From the Journal of Scientific
SW> Exploration Stanford University Stanford, Ca. Stanford,
SW> Ca. USA, March 27, 1995
HE'S A LIAR!!! You proved it. Thank you very much.
- John Powell
Well, here we go once again. Were believers in urban legends willing
to state their claims without personally attacking the skeptics which
debunk them, they would not be subjected to overwhelming (not to
mention embarrassing) secondary debunkings.
The following is a list of web pages on Internet which include the
keyword "dowsing." There were 84 hits, 80 of which are enumerated
in the list. The (DOWS???.TXT) to the left of the item is the file
name of the page as it exists on The Skeptic Tank. Anyone wanting
a copy of any of these pages can FileRequest them 24 hours a day
or may request them by sending email to frice@stbbs.com.
Tip a glance at the "scientificly peer-reviewed journal articles
which supports the contention being made." My search didn't result
in the hit on the "ten year German project" yet it did give a good
example of the types of people and organizations which believe in
the urban legend of "dowsing" as well as many instances of groups
and individuals which debunk it.
Most of note are the religiously inclined and those who sell
products for "treasure hunting." No web pages, no scientifically
peer-reviewed journal, no _RATIONAL_ scientific investigation into
the urban legend has _EVER_ yielded a positive result beyond chance.
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: All
|Sub: Dowsing list - 1 of 6
|Date: 12 Mar 96 13:15:54
EID:39c1 206c69fb
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 240d3996
PID: FM 2.02
(DOWS001.TXT) Super-Sensor Dowsing Rod
-- http://www.tiac.net/users/johnm/psi-tronic/dowsing-rod.html
Super-Sensor Dowsing Rod . The section below describes Dowsing
and the Super-Sensor Dowsing Rod. The Dowsing Rod can be ordered
(Code 0600) from Psi-Tronics Visions. . Dowsing: To Seek, To
Find that Which is Hidden.
(DOWS002.TXT) Welcome
-- http://www.peg.apc.org/~georgehl/
George's Home page . Hiya to any friends overseas and to any
Net acquaintances I haven't had the chance to personally meet
yet. This page has been written in Sydney, Australia.
(DOWS003.TXT) The Geo Group - Dowsing Earth Energies
-- http://www.geo.org/Dowse.htm
The Geo Group. Finding Places of Power: Dowsing Earth Energies.
Introduction. Water Lines. Ley Lines. Ley-Line Power Centers.
Dowsing. Copyright 1995, Charles
(DOWS004.TXT) Henry Hicks
-- http://www.netshop.net/~nsardy/hicks/hicks.html
From Likely, BC, Canada! . You will likely like Likely so why
not Visit us! . Instinct Therapy Center . Your Nose Knows ! .
A Natural Lifestyle . Will Keep you Healthy. . Health Page .
Dowsing... The Inner Mysteries. . ..
(DOWS005.TXT) ** Ancient Secrets of Dowsing **
-- http://www.sierra.net/sunset/dowsing/
WE WILL SEND YOU THE INFORMATION THAT WILL ENABLE YOU TO FIND
LOST COINS, UNDERWATER OR BURIED TREASURE, GOLD, PLATINUM,
SILVER URANIUM, OR WATER. . METAL DETECTORS ARE EXPENSIVE,
HEAVY, LIMITED IN PERFORMANCE, AND ARE NON DIRECTIONAL WHEN
LOCATING ...
(DOWS006.TXT) BANNISTER RESEARCH & CONSULTING - WORLD WIDE WATER
-- http://users.aol.com/dowser/
Welcome to our Corporate Home Page . Bannister Research &
Consulting(BRC) is a geological consulting firm, specializing
in water supply exploration, development, and testing. Remote
sensing,applied geophysics and dowsing have proven to be a ...
(DOWS007.TXT) General
-- http://www.public.iastate.edu/~edis/skeptic/general.html
Topics . Paranormal Borderlands Of Science Kendrick Frazier,
ed. . 1981, Prometheus Books; 469p. . #psi#, #conjuring#,
#survival#, #biorhythms#, #pseudoscience#, #astrology#,
#geographical#, #dowsing#, #cult-archaeology#,
#creationism#, ...
(DOWS008.TXT) index.html
-- http://www.geomancy.org/sig/
Welcome to Mid-Atlantic Geomancy (MAG) ! Geomancy is the art
of placement of both secular and spiritual structures so that
they are in harmony with both the physical and the spiritual
environment of the place. Geomancers are spiritual ...
(DOWS009.TXT) Michael's Psychic Page
-- http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2280/psionics.html
Please note, this is heavily under construction . A few myths
dispelled . Terms used - these abilities come in many shapes
and forms . Free for all - anybody can do it . My personal
beliefs . Dowsing tutorial . Known psychics on the Net . If
you ...
(DOWS010.TXT) BANNISTER RESEARCH & CONSULTING
-- http://www.sover.net/~dowser/
HOME PAGE . Bannister Research & Consulting(BRC) is a geological
consulting firm, specializing in water supply exploration,
development, and testing. Remote sensing, applied geophysics
and dowsing have proven to be a highly successful ...
(DOWS011.TXT) The Seattle Ley-Line Project
-- http://www.geo.org/Sealey.htm
The Geo Group . The Seattle Ley-Line Map. . Copyright 1988, The
Geo Group. All Rights Reserved. Seattle photo courtesy of Cosmic
Images, Bellevue, Wash. . The Geo Group offers a 4.5 x 7 inch
color photo of the Seattle ...
(DOWS012.TXT) Geopathic Survey Information
-- http://www.geo.org/geopath.htm
The Geo Group . Geopathic Survey Questions & Answers . What
is a geopathic survey? . Earth Energy and Entity Checklist .
What are the benefits of a geopathic evaluation? . Some
comments from clients . How is a geopathic ...
(DOWS013.TXT) THE PHANTOM'S CLOSET, OR WHERE TO LOOK FOR GHOSTS
-- http://www.phantoms.com/~phantom/ghost.htm
WELCOME TO THE PHANTOM'S CLOSET! We present the following page
by Ghost Hunter, Author and Lecturer, Richard Senate. We hope
you will find it interesting. Now...enter if you dare! .
Richard Senate- Premier Ghost Hunter "Welcome to The
Phantom ...
(DOWS014.TXT) Marc's Home Page
-- http://www.ccsi.com/~mlg/marc/marc.html
Marcus L. Gitterle, MD . Welcome to my home page. . I am Vice
Chairman of Emergency Medicine at a San Antonio hospital. My
interests in this regard include: brain resuscitation (acute
stroke management), and the management of acute ...
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: All
|Sub: Dowsing list - 2 of 6
|Date: 12 Mar 96 13:16:03
EID:0ac1 206c6a01
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 240d3997
PID: FM 2.02
(DOWS015.TXT) The American Society of Dowsers
-- http://www.newhampshire.com/dowser/asd.htm
The American Society of Dowsers was founded in 1961. The
organization has helped thousands of people to learn the
ancient art of dowsing . Anyone who has the opportunity
should attend the annual convention and join one of the
local chapters. ...
(DOWS016.TXT) Colin Dipper
http://www.mhs.mendocino.k12.ca.us/MenComNet/
Business/Retail/Larknet/ArtDipperInterview
by Mickie Zekley . MICKIE Colin, how did you get into making
concertinas? . COLIN It's a long story. I bought a couple of
crashed Jeffries concertinas when I was 14 and started working
on them and managed to get them together in some form or ...
(DOWS017.TXT) The Geo Group Welcomes You
-- http://www.geo.org/
Welcome to The Geo Group Home Page . The Geo Group - Questions &
Answers . Finding Places of Power: Dowsing Earth Energies . The
Ellis Hollow Stone Circle . The Seattle Ley-Line Project (107k
graphics file) . Crossing Over - A ...
(DOWS018.TXT) Discovering Your Psychic World
-- http://apollo.co.uk/a/annettem/
by . Annette Martin . Book Reviews . Table of Contents . Example
Chapter - Chapter Two . About Annette Martin . Peaceful White
Light - Meditation Tapes . Annie Sunshine . Order Form . Reviews .
for Discovering Your Psychic ...
(DOWS019.TXT) ARTHUR M. YOUNG: Science, Spirit and the Soul
-- http://www.hypersphere.com/ay/sci-spir.html
Science, Spirit and the Soul . by Arthur M. Young . Intention .
Current science is extremely bold when it comes to saying what
happened nanoseconds after the Big Bang. It has invented some one
hundred particles that haven't been observed to ...
(DOWS020.TXT) Intuition Network - General Information
-- http://www.lh.com/Intuition/
Intuition Network - General Information . Intuition Network . The
Institute of Noetic Sciences 475 Gate Five Road, Suite 300 .
Sausalito, CA 94965 . Phone 415-331-5650, Fax 415-331-5673 .
Email:Jeffrey Mishlove . INTUITION 2000 - A ONE DAY ...
(DOWS021.TXT) 1995-96 Syllabus
-- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/DeptInfo/CST_Syllabus.html
Quick entry points to various parts in the syllabus . Part IA .
Michaelmas . Lent . Easter . Part IB . Michaelmas . Lent .
Easter . Part II . Michaelmas . Lent . Easter . Diploma and
Part II (General) . Michaelmas . Lent . Easter . ...
(DOWS022.TXT) Mokelumne Hill Press
-- http://saturn.netrep.com/home/MHPress/mhcat.html
The best way to explore our collection is to order our two
catalogs and survey the entire library. . In addition to the
annotated bibliography, our Metaphysical catalog includes
author and title indexes, biographies, illustrations and ...
(DOWS023.TXT) Adam's Home Page
-- http://www2.exnet.com/personal/user.s0ajhd.html
(Following the `crap' link from ``Mirsky's Worst of the
Web?'' Here's something even Crapper to grip you. More
stories in a similar vein will appear on my Science and
Technology page soon. Many thanks to those of you who
contributed ...
(DOWS024.TXT) Randi at Caltech
-- http://www.skeptic.com/01.1.randi-paranormal.html
From Skeptic vol. 1, no. 1, Spring 1992, pp. 22-31. . The
following article is copyright (c)1992 by the Skeptics
Society, P.O. Box 338, Altadena, CA 91001, (818) 794-3119.
Permission has been granted for noncommercial electronic
circulation of this ...
(DOWS025.TXT) Circles of Note: A Bibliography of the Crop Circle Phenomenon
-- http://www.tpoint.net/Users/mchorost//circles_biblio.html
Compiled by Michael Chorost . A print version of this document
was published by Dennis Stacy. . This formation was
discovered July 27, 1991, near Silbury Hill, in Wiltshire,
England. It is one of many hundreds of crop circles
discovered in ...
(DOWS026.TXT) Jon Claerbout's office
-- http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/index.html
The Green Professor at Stanford University . Go to Classroom
(free books) or Project or hot list or trash bin or e-mail to
jon@sep.stanford.edu . Progress in reproducible research,
fantastic! A few words to our sponsors. . My offer to the ...
(DOWS027.TXT) Jon Claerbout's office
-- http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/
The Green Professor at Stanford University . Go to Classroom
(free books) or Project or hot list or trash bin or e-mail to
jon@sep.stanford.edu . My offer to the SEG to sponsor an
electronic preprint service. . Progress in reproducible ...
(DOWS028.TXT) The Skeptic's Dictionary
-- http://wheel.ucdavis.edu/~btcarrol/skeptic/dictcont.html
Robert T. Carroll . (c)Copyright 1994 by Robert T. Carroll .
Any part of this book may be reproduced and distributed in
any form whatsoever provided that the author is given proper
recognition and that no part of this book is sold without ...
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: All
|Sub: Dowsing list - 3 of 6
|Date: 12 Mar 96 13:16:11
EID:dbc0 206c6a05
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 240d3998
PID: FM 2.02
(DOWS029.TXT) Vermont's Northeast Kingdom
-- http://www.pbpub.com/~tbpb/vtnek1.htm
A land far, far off in the Northeast corner of Vermont,
marching somewhat to a different tune... . A rural society
that will take you back in time. . If you are looking for
hill top farms, cross country skiing in a true winter ...
(DOWS030.TXT) guru 's Home Page
-- http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/1128/
The Guru Welcomes You . Lesbian Guidance From The Stars . The
GURU is in, and here to offer my services to the
gay/lesbian/bi/ transgendered community. As a Professional
Astrologer accredited by the American Federation of
Astrologers, and ...
(DOWS031.TXT) Home Page for Dowser
-- http://home.aol.com/Dowser
Information About Me . Screen Name: Dowser Member Name: KEN
BANNISTER - BANNISTER RESEARCH & CONSULTING Location: Bridport,
Vermont Birth Date: Sex: No Response Marital Status: No
Response Computers: Pentium 66 Hobbies: e-mail address: ...
(DOWS032.TXT) Coalville Accountancy Services
-- http://www.u-net.com/~caserves/
26 Swallow Dale, . Thringstone, . Leicestershire . England,
United Kingdom . LE67 8LY . Telephone: (01530) 223373 . Fax:
(01530) 223378 . Mobile: 0860 552642 . E-Mail: Ray Stewart .
My name is Ray Stewart and my company, Coalville Accountancy ...
(DOWS033.TXT) Georgia
http://www.treasurenet.com/treasure/calgold/books/subject/statega.html
General Treasure Hunting . Prospecting . Index - On-line order
form - Mail-in order form. . General Treasure Hunting . UP .
B85 GEORGIA'S FABULOUS TREASURE HOARDS - Andrews . Gold, silver,
Indian treasures, slave trader's caches, ...
(DOWS034.TXT) TreasureNet Guestbook
-- http://www.treasurenet.com/treasure/comments.html
Please note this page will soon be deleted. . Please sign the new
TreasureNet Directory instead. . Please be patient, this page is
big... over 150K . mike_lamonds@coastalnet.com . - White's Eagle
Spectrum Beach hunting Civil War relics ...
(DOWS035.TXT) CAT Mail Order: Buildings and energy conservation
-- http://www.foe.co.uk/CAT/Publications/hhold.html
CAT Mail Order: Building Materials . Energy Efficient Lights . A
contribution we can all make to reducing energy demand is to use
energy efficient appliances. If every UK household changed to
bulbs like those following, we would save ...
(DOWS036.TXT) Caldron Crafts; Jewelers Tools and Supplies; For the Occult
Sciences
-- http://goldray.com/caldron/
Caldron Crafts Home Page; The Occult Sciences, Pendants, Psychic
Tools, Jewlery, Jewelers Tools, Supplies and Classes, Beads
(DOWS037.TXT) The 'X' Chronicles
-- http://www.vaxxine.com/xchronicles
The Truth Is Out There. . Minimum Netscape 1.1 enhanced for full
effects. . This page has been visited 6900 times since January 3,
1996. . UFOs, Ghosts, Hauntings, ESP, Animal PSI, Alleged
Government Conspiracies, Demonic Possession, ...
(DOWS038.TXT) Mystical Journeys - IRELAND
-- http://www.newagetravel.com/ireland.htm
IRELAND . Exploring Ancient Celtic Mystery & Magic . Guided by
Michael Poynder, perhaps the foremost expert on Ancient Ireland,
Michael has spent the last 30 years living in the remote
forests of Western Ireland and devoting his ...
(DOWS039.TXT) Laissez-Faire Books: Science
-- http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/lf/blurbs/science.html
Science . Back to Laissez-Faire Catalog . How To Order .
Engines of Creation . The Coming Era of Nanotechnology . by
K. Eric Drexler . "This is the most important book on the
future of technology to be written in our time perhaps any ...
(DOWS040.TXT) Nexus Magazine-Contents-Vol.2, #27
-- http://www.peg.apc.org/~nexus/227.conts.html
NEXUS NEW TIMES MAGAZINE . CONTENTS - Volume 2, Number 27 .
August - September 1995 . LETTERS TO THE EDITOR . GLOBAL
NEWS . A round-up of the news you probably did not see. .
SILENT PARTNERS: THE UKUSA AGREEMENT . By Susan Bryce. A ...
(DOWS041.TXT) Wendell F. Rylander: Consultant, Writer, Trainer & Speaker
-- http://www.islandnet.com/~rylander/homepage.htm
Welcome to my personal information page. Like me, this document
is a perpetual work in progress. . I am an independent
consultant, writer,trainer and speaker. I have an eclectic
range of interests, driven by an insatiable curiosity about ...
(DOWS042.TXT) Section INRIA de Speleologie
-- http://zenon.inria.fr:8003/agos/sis/sis.html
Event: . First Annoncement: . Mandelieu la Napoule, 23 -- 27
May 1996 . 10th INTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL OF UNDERGROUND IMAGE .
(with an International Photo Contest) . & . 22eme CONGRES DE
LA . FEDERATION FRANCAISE DE SPELEOLOGIE . ...
(DOWS043.TXT) Robert's UFO-PAGE
-- http://home.sol.no/rsyverts/ufo_page.htm
The Paranormal-page . Contents of this page: . UFO's . The
Loch Ness monster . Para-links (a lot) . UFO's . Have you
heard about an organization called UFOIA ??? . It is an
organization which collects UFO-reports and investigates ...
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: All
|Sub: Dowsing list - 4 of 6
|Date: 12 Mar 96 13:16:21
EID:6cc1 206c6a0a
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 240d3999
PID: FM 2.02
(DOWS044.TXT) Psychic Phenomena - History and Research
-- http://www.weblifepro.com/pal/psyhist.html
Psychic phenomenon is the frontier which has never been
conquered but is being researched constantly. It has
fascinated people since the beginning of time. Ghosts,
Astrology, Numerology, Palmistry, and Self Healing are
only a few of the ...
(DOWS045.TXT) Faerie Faith
-- http://www.duc.auburn.edu/~kerrlin/ffinfo.html
Our background is a little fuzzy, but I will relate everything
that can be backed up with facts, and leave out the nice
little legends we have about ourselves, on the basis that
they may or may not be true. . The Faerie Faith as we know ...
(DOWS046.TXT) Hillhouse Investigations-Paranormal Detective Agency
-- http://ic.net/~dunstan/hh.htm
Hillhouse Investigations, Inc. . Paranormal Detective Agency .
A subsidiary of Hillhouse International . Offering Advice &
Action Since 1992 . We Kill Ghosts! . MANIFESTO . We, the
members of ...
(DOWS047.TXT) EBSS Introduction.html
-- http://mendel.berkeley.edu/ebss.html
The EAST BAY SKEPTICS SOCIETY . The East Bay Skeptics Society,
Inc. is an all-volunteer, non-profit, member-supported
organization dedicated to the advancement of reason, science
and intellectual responsibility -- and to the exposure of ...
Psych Web list of Commercial Psychology-Related Sites on the Web
-- http://www.gasou.edu/psychweb/resource/commerce.htm
Commercial Psychology Resources on the Internet . Back to
Psych Web Home Page . This page [http://www.gasou.edu/psychweb/
resource/commerce.htm] contains links to sites which (a) have
something to do with psychology, and (b) offer ...
Other Treasure Links
-- http://www.halcyon.com/treasure/links/treasure.html
You can Add a URL to this page. . International Treasure
Hunters Exchange . The Metal Detecting Forum . The Beale
Page . The Gold Room (Stockholm Museum) . Quest for Thunder
Bear . The Armchair Treasure Hunt Club . Guide to Historic ...
The On-Line Treasure Hunter
-- http://cyberatl.net/~infosvc/treasure/html/index.html
Bringing the Excitement of Treasure Hunting to the World
Wide Web! . Your One-Stop Information Source . This site
will be updated on a regular basis and is designed to
provide visitors with a wide variety of information
related to ...
(DOWS048.TXT) New Age Web Works - INNER-VIEWS
-- http://www.newageinfo.com/articles.htm
INNER-VIEWS . The Electronic Magazine For The Open Minded .
Featuring Articles, Interviews, Events Calendar, Poetry,
Essays & Alternative Product Reviews . To contribute your
own writing, see our Writers Guidelines. . ...
(DOWS049.TXT) Methods for Selecting Vibrational Essences
-- http://www.tiac.net/users/bzwax/select.html
Methods for Selecting Vibrational Essences Return to the main
WWES homepage. . Methods for Selecting Vibrational Essences .
This article is by Greg Hernon, Author of FLOWERBASE, a
software package for Flower Essence professionals, and
discusses ...
(DOWS050.TXT) UK Cannabis laws
-- http://www.foobar.co.uk/users/ukcia/prisoner.html
Prisoners of (the drug) War . The hardline anti-drugs attitude
adopted by some politicians and tabloid newspapers in recent
months, may not have had any effect on rates of drug usage,
but it has had an effect on judges sentencing policy. In ...
(DOWS051.TXT) Astrology, Psychic Stuff, and Skepticism
-- http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~pib/astrol.htm
I am not a believer in astrology. I am interested in the
history of astrology because of its importance to astronomy
and religion. Objects and events in the sky have long been
important to humans. I am fascinated by the possibility
that ...
(DOWS052.TXT) TREASURE NET
-- http://www.halcyon.com/treasure/
"A Treasure and Gold Hunting Resource Center" . Search,
Recovery, Preservation . Books, Maps, Magazines . Online
Retailers . Manufacturers . Historical Photos . Treasure
Links . Prospecting Links . ...
(DOWS053.TXT) books
-- http://alpha.mic.dundee.ac.uk/ft/crop_circles/temp/books.html
The Circles Effect and its Mysteries by George Terence Meaden. .
Published by Artetech Publishing Company in 1988. . Circular
Evidence by Pat Delgado & Colin Andrews. . Published by
Bloomsbury in 1989. .The Latest Evidence by Pat Delgado &
Colin ...
(DOWS054.TXT) Staff Information
-- http://newton.sys.uea.ac.uk/Teaching/Staff/
Staff of the School of Information Systems . For your convenience,
entries are divided into the following sections: Central Admin,
Computing and Electronics. . Our address details are also
available. . Dean of the School . Prof. Frank ...
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: All
|Sub: Dowsing list - 5 of 6
|Date: 12 Mar 96 13:16:28
EID:bdc0 206c6a0e
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 240d399a
PID: FM 2.02
(DOWS055.TXT) User Made Steel Panthers Scenarios
-- http://www.annurev.org/~tanker/games/ssi/sp/spscen.htm
Posted with permission from Strategic Simulations Inc. .
PANTHER.ICO-- Windows Icon for SP . Scenario by ??? .
Scen044.zip--On 11 July, 1944 23rd Infantry Reg. of 2nd
Infantry Division started a second attack on the German
lines. The ...
(DOWS056.TXT) No Title Provided
-- http://wings.buffalo.edu/epc/ezines/exper/exper06.html
Welcome to THE EXPERIODDICIST #6. In several instances, as
in Michael Basinki's and Jack Foley's poetry the lines that
were too long to get in the small screen window I have been
forced to indent on the line following. I have tried to do
this in ...
(DOWS057.TXT) Environmental Organization WebDirectory
-- http://www.webdirectory.com/Health/
[ WebDirectory | Write Us | Add Your Web Page | Search | Info ] .
Health . Alternative Medicine . Environmental Health Products .
Indoor Climate Control . Institutes . Nutrition . Red Cross .
Smoking . Vegetarianism . Virus . Associated Radon ...
(DOWS058.TXT) sci.skeptic FAQ
-- http://www.xnet.com/~blatura/skeptic.shtml
(Frequently Asked Questions) . This page has been accessed 4048
times since February 1, 1995. . Archive-name: skeptic-faq .
Last-modified: 95/05/17 . Version: skeptic-faq.text 1.23 .
FAQ Maintainer: Paul Johnson . HTML Revision: Bill Latura ...
(DOWS059.TXT) Frequently questioned answers from sci.skeptic
http://gopher.lysator.liu.se:70/1m/information/Skeptical/sci.skeptic.fqa
sci.skeptic FAQ: The Frequently Questioned Answers . 0.1: What is
sci.skeptic for? . 0.2: What is sci.skeptic not for? . 0.3: What is
CSICOP? What is its address? . 0.4: What is "Prometheus"? . 0.5:
Who are some prominent skeptics? . 0.6: ...
(DOWS060.TXT) Linn Barringer - Woodbridge History
-- http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/square/fv03/wbhist.htm
Woodbridge . In the County of Suffolk, England (UK) . A Brief
History . I hope this History and Tour Guide encourage you to
visit Woodbridge, a delightful East Anglian town nestling on
the banks of the River Deben, a few miles ...
(DOWS061.TXT) Occult
-- http://www.public.iastate.edu/~edis/skeptic/occult.html
, New Age, Satanic Panic . The History Of Magic And The Occult
Kurt Seligmann . 1948, Harmony Books; 342p. . #occult:history#
Worth it for the illustrations alone -- written by an artist.
A fairly comprehensive history of Western occult ...
(DOWS062.TXT) METAPHYSICS
-- http://www.powertech.no/~pleiades/metaphysic.htm
METAPSHYSICS . Welcome to list your URL PLEIADES INDEX - K. H.
Lustrup. You are visitor number: to this page since Jan. 5th
1996. . Energy Master Home Page . (James McConnell) .
Metaphysics, Healing, Meditation, Yoga, ...
(DOWS063.TXT) SECRETS OF THE NORMAN INVASION
-- http://www.cablenet.net/pages/book/index.htm
by Nick Austin . The Landscape Channel . Crowhurst TN33 9BX .
Tel 0424 830688 . Note: This document is a proprietary
copyright (c)document,the copying for anything other than
personal or research use is prohibited without the ...
(DOWS064.TXT) The Victor Alatorre's UFO Homepage
-- http://www.mio.uwosh.edu/~alatorrv/ufo/ufo.html
Welcome to Victor Alatorre's UFO Homepage Enhanced for Windows
95 Internet Explorer and Netscape 2.0. . Welcome to Victor's
UFO Homepage . The Billy Meier Story . This is the coolest
story of all. . Beginning in 1975, ...
(DOWS065.TXT) Independent Discount Psychic Lines--Home Page
-- http://www.greatbasin.net/~storkus/idpl.html
[Notice: Ok, finally THE PHONE NUMBER IS HERE!! You can check
it out below in the document under "How to Contact IDPL". .
Also, one small request to all of you: Please, PLEEEZE (on
my knees here) e-mail me after you read this! Give me
suggestions, ...
(DOWS066.TXT) Council Oak Books
-- http://www.cob.com/
Western History . Children's / Native American . Native
American . Nature / Earth Awareness . Consciousness / New
Thought . Cooking & Entertaining . Memoir / Biography .
Literature/Poetry . Novels . Disributed Titles . Audio ...
(DOWS067.TXT) REFERENCE .
-- http://www.dnai.com/gold/faq1.html
January, 1996 . This file contains the Questions & Answers
found in the . ALT.MINING.RECREATION FAQ. . This file also
contains information about getting started, . contains some
common definitions, and also lists additional . areas on
the ...
(DOWS068.TXT) Frequently Questioned Answers
-- http://www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/stud/Texte/sceptic.html
Introduction . This is the sci.skeptic FAQ. It is intended to
provide a factual base for most of the commonly discussed
topics on sci.skeptic. . Unfortunately I don't have much time
to do this in, and anyway a FAQ should be the Distilled
Wisdom ...
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Fredric Rice
|To: All
|Sub: Dowsing list - 6 of 6
|Date: 12 Mar 96 13:16:46
EID:8ec0 206c6a17
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet 240d399b
PID: FM 2.02
(DOWS069.TXT) Servants of the Light - Recommended Non-Fiction
-- http://www.algonet.se/~sol_swe/nonfiction.html
Recommended non-fiction . A.E. . Candle of Vision . ARGUELLES,
M & J . The Feminine (Shamballa) . ASHCROFT-NOWICKI,
DOLORES . The Forgotten Mage (Aquarian Press) . First Steps
in Ritual (Aquarian Press) . Highways of the Mind (Aq. ...
(DOWS070.TXT) sci.skeptic FAQ: The Frequently Questioned Answers
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/skeptic-faq/faq.html
Answers to questions on paranomal activity from the sci.skeptic
newsgroup. (See also Paranormal sciences, Similar Pages)
(DOWS071.TXT) sci.skeptic FAQ: The Frequently Questioned Answers
-- http://www.lib.ox.ac.uk/internet/news/faq/archive/skeptic-faq.html
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic , sci.answers , news.answers .
Archive-name: skeptic-faq Last-modified: 95/11/27 Version:
@(#)skeptic-faq.text 1.26 The Frequently Questioned Answers
Introduction ============ This is the ...
(DOWS072.TXT) TACHYON HEALING AND THE PHYSICS OF LOVE
-- http://www.community.net/~tachyon/THATPOL.html
copyright 1995 by GERRY WOLKE . This page has been visited
518 times as of January 26, 1996. . ABSTRACT: A new kind of
energy is discovered that has, among other things, amazing
healing properties. It is compared to other subtle energy ...
(DOWS073.TXT) sci.skeptic FAQ: The Frequently Questioned Answers
-- http://www.smartpages.com/faqs/skeptic-faq/faq.html
Posted by Paul Johnson . Newsgroups:
sci.skeptic,sci.answers,news.answers . Subject: sci.skeptic
FAQ: The Frequently Questioned Answers . Archive-name:
skeptic-faq Last-modified: 95/07/23 Version: @(#)
skeptic-faq.text 1.24 The Frequently ...
(DOWS074.TXT) SF Personal
-- http://www.roma1.infn.it/rog/group/frasca/sfpers.html
La mia biblioteca . Pagina personale e hotlist di Sergio Frasca .
Nelle seguenti hotlist i punti interrogativi ed esclamativi spesso
hanno significato scacchistico. . Me . Personal Views . Giochini .
Amici . Rog, G23 and local sites ...
(DOWS075.TXT) Local Calendar of Pagan Events (MD, DC, N. VA)
-- http://www.io.com/~cookec/pagan.d/calocal.htm
Local Calendar of Pagan Events . 8 January, 1995 . Maryland,
Virginia, Washington DC, Delaware . Subscription: $9.00/Yr
MD,VA,DC Events Only,. $16/Yr (in US) with National Calendar .
Published by Larry Cornett 9355 Sibelius Drive, Vienna, ...
(DOWS076.TXT) Treasure Hunting / General
http://www.treasurenet.com/treasure/calgold/books/subject/general.html
Index - On-line order form - Mail-in order form. . B170 A NEW
GUIDE TO TREASURE HUNTING - Carson . Philosophy and stories. .
$12.95 . B4 AMERICA'S LOST TREASURES - Henson . Over 650
authenticated sites within US. Question & Answer format, ...
(DOWS077.TXT) Facilitated Communication
-- http://www.rtd.com/~lippard/skeptic/02.3.green-fc.html
From Skeptic vol. 2, no. 3, 1994, pp. 68-76. . The following
article is copyright (c)1994 by the Skeptics Society, P.O.
Box 338, Altadena, CA 91001, (818) 794-3119. Permission has
been granted for noncommercial electronic circulation of
this ...
(DOWS078.TXT) Index of /~btcarrol/skeptic/
-- http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~btcarrol/skeptic/
Name Last modified Size Description . Parent Directory
02-Feb-96 13:03 - adhoc.html 03-Feb-96 19:57 5K aliens.html
03-Feb-96 19:58 17K althelth.html 03-Feb-96 19:58 25K
amway.html 06-Feb-96 06:30 26K amwaycom.html 20-Feb-96
07:49 41K angels.html ...
(DOWS079.TXT) The Natural Resource Directory Main Headings
-- http://www.itlnet.com/natural/nrd/maindir.html
Environmentally & Socially Responsible Resources .
Health, Fitness & Bodywork . Natural Food Markets &
Restaurants . Natural Remedies & Products . Counseling,
Education & Spiritual Resources . Environmentally &
Socially ...
(DOWS080.TXT) TreasureNet - Calgold Books Complete
http://www.treasurenet.com/treasure/calgold/books/subject/complete.html
Calgold Books By Title . Index - On-line order form - Mail-in
order form. . B10 THE SEARCH FOR TREASURE - Terry . Vol 4 -
Gold prospecting, coinshooting . $4.95 . B101 SUPERSTITION'S
GOLD - Arnold . Reprint of old book . $5.95 . B102 TRUE ...
---
* Origin: This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 213 days (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/890 218/801
PATH: 102/890
|From: Langston Goldfinch
|To: Fred Hatfield
|Sub: Evolution in Tenn
|Date: 09 Mar 96 17:27:12
EID:af1d 20698b60
MSGID: 1:396/17 3141bf8c
PID: GED3 2.5.a918 1048
Hello Fred!
Saturday March 09 1996 00:09, Fred Hatfield wrote to Langston Goldfinch:
FH> It must be a virus -- Pat Buchanan said he wants to get rid of the
Well, a disease of some kind. He now gets to speak at the convention, isn't
that his goal?
-30-L
---
* Origin: N.O.P.C. BBS- Fax/BBS (504)-486-7249 New Orleans, LA. USA (1:396/17)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 50
SEEN-BY: 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 396/17 2 1 270/101 218/801
|From: Harold Ehnhuus
|To: Langston Goldfinch
|Sub: Ingo Swann And Remote Vie
|Date: 10 Mar 96 12:40:00
EID:89f0 206a6500
LG>Hello Harold!
LG>
LG>Friday March 08 1996 08:03, Harold Ehnhuus wrote to Stewart Draper:
LG>
LG> HE> I take it that you have not seen James Randi on 'Nova' where he
LG> HE> completely debunks the soviet psychics. Hate to break it to you,
but
LG>
LG>
LG>I saw the show, and he did show them up. But in fairness, "completely
debunks
LG>the soviet (ALL?) psychics" is more like the kind of statement they make.
The
LG>problem with "psychics" (we are loaded with them here in New Orleans
plowing
LG>their "trade" to tourinsts) is that they really are not affected by Randi's
LG>debunking. I mean the psychics themselves. All Randi can do is offer
some
LG>publicity which MAYBE causes some people to withdraw support.
yes, I am guilty of over-simplifing the situation. Randi merely debunked
some.
To debunk them all would probably require more time than one man has in
a
lifetime... ;)
LG>
LG>It seems to me that the majority of "psychic" customers (say 90%) are
not
LG>"believers" but rather being entertained. Have you ever seen any studies
on
LG>this (I haven't, so maybe I am just optismistic!)
LG>
No, I haven't. It would be an interesting survey (if it could be done in
an
unbiased manner).
LG>I especially like the T.V. ads from one "psychic" network "tired of all
those
LG>phoney psychics........ " !={)
LG>
Did you catch the X-files episode that featured a so-called TV psychic?
It was
TOO funny! :)
Harold
---
ž KingQWK 1.05 ž My homework was not stolen by a one-armed man
* Origin: The Nighthawk BBS - West Seneca, NY USA - V.34 (1:260/158)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 158
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 640/201 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 260/158 10 270/101 218/801
|From: Ed Mills
|To: David Sparrow
|Sub: show on Sunday
|Date: 09 Mar 96 00:08:38
EID:41a6 20690100
MSGID: 1:105/40.762 721148a1
word salad flung at Ed Mills by David Sparrow --> 07 Mar 96
DS> I take it that you're not assuming a world consisting of but
DS> a single continent.
What? Continental drift? Is that allowed in xtianity?
DS> BTW, the animals came to Noah, not Noah
DS> to the animals !
Well, of course! That explains everything. I might have thought of the
obvious, easily explained solution. Animals do that all the time. Well,
pardon moi!
DS> Try reading the historical and eye-witness
DS> account
ROFL!
DS> next time before sticking your foot into your mouth.
My impression of these fictitious events came from Sunday school.
Better to have stuck my foot in my mouth mis-stating that which is already
false than that which is fact. Thanx for the revised info! It's even more
full of humorous possibilities than my version.
DS> While you are in a "lets look it up" kinda mood, try reading
DS> about the contents of various "mixed fossils" beds which are
DS> found all over the place. Even England and France has quite
DS> a respectible representation of them - complete with fossils
DS> of rhinoceri et al. Kinda fuskc up your assumptions about a
DS> need for circumthingies.
I'm never in a "let's look it up" kinda mood when it comes to bad
fiction. So we've figured out a way to incorporate continental drift into
our bible rationale? Since continental drift is a matter of inches and
centuries, I imagine you already know how much it has decelerated since
Noah's time. Must have been a lot of motion sickness back then!
I don't mind having my assumptions about circumthingies being fuskc?
up. The massive animal migration thing is immensely more entertaining than
anything I could have dreamt up.
DS> Oh and what WAS the "alloted time"
DS> you claim was to be adhered to ... there certainly isn't one
DS> given in all of the many translations plus original language
DS> type texts that I've got ... unless you are referring to the
DS> logical requirement of "within your (Noah's) lifetime".
Let's see now: There was a time when Gawd or somebody told Noah to do
the fauna thing. Then, some time later, there was the big douche. If you
don't believe this is time allotted, then you must not believe Gawd is
omnipotent. It's OK! I sure the hell don't!
If one piece of ancient literature says that it is the only road to
"salvation" and another piece of ancient literature says exactly the same
thing, and millions of people have subscribed to both since the beginning
of recorded history (such as it is), how do you decide which book to buy?
A clean shop can survive an occasional meal of shoe leather.
Especially when the retort opens a bigger can of inexplicable worms than
the one it tried to dispel. :D
Sincerely,
Ed weird
... MABONISM: compensatory politics of God-fearing pedophiles in cowboy
boots.
--- PPoint 1.98
* Origin: St. Vitus Dance Studio --> P00DLET0WN! (1:105/40.762)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 50
SEEN-BY: 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 105/40 50 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Ed Mills
|To: David Sparrow
|Sub: And now for something completely different. [1]
|Date: 09 Mar 96 00:19:22
EID:ec52 20690260
MSGID: 1:105/40.762 32a43352
word salad flung at Grant Farrington by David Sparrow --> 08 Mar 96
DS> But anyway - so what - RCism has been considered to be
DS> antichrist for donkeys years. True enough too, but a careful
DS> study of Revelation will show you that as soon as THE
DS> antichrist is able, he will destroy the religious system that
DS> supported him in the onset. The pope and co will go, but the
DS> devil will live on in the flesh for a few years longer.
Christianity will be destroyed? Cool.
DS> What I wonder is how the end-time events will transpire. Jesus is
DS> going to return unexpectantly.
Not like Schwarzenegger in that preggo-guy movie?
DS> If the anti-Christ unites the world
DS> surely we
DS> will know that Jesus is about to return ?
It's a coded message in the Proctor & Gamble logo. No - wait - it's
in the lyrics of "Can't get no satisfaction" played backwards at 78 rpm.
DS> To look at what people have described these Aliens to be like, and to
DS> comare them to Humans. We are such an absolutey magnificent physical
DS> being.
And not the slightest bit narcissistic.
DS> Maybe this UFO thing might be a huge con perpetuated by Satan ? Who
DS> knows what Satan is capable of ?
Look who's running for office on the GOP side. This, I'll concede,
is pretty potent evidence for a Satan. And I ain't talkin' about Dole!
Cheers,
Ed
... "The crows seem to be calling my name", thought Caw.
--- PPoint 1.98
* Origin: St. Vitus Dance Studio --> P00DLET0WN! (1:105/40.762)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 50
SEEN-BY: 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 105/40 50 3615/50 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: John Powell
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 07 Mar 96 08:32:51
EID:4a02 20674400
> Well, Liar-Scott is fairly new to this having been around BBSes and
> email for only about a year so I'd expect him to LIE himself into a
> corner like that.
You know, John, I don't appreciate what you've been saying about me on the
UFO conference. I am aware of the petty, juvenile insults you've been making
about me, and I think it's pretty low considering I'm not even allowed to
defend myself there. I request that you stop.
BTW, I have been around BBSes and email for much longer than a year.
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 50
SEEN-BY: 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: John Powell
|Sub: DOWSING=FRAUD
|Date: 07 Mar 96 19:49:50
EID:c16a 20679e20
>SL> I received seven messages worth of junk from you today, John, and
>SL> little of it makes any sense. I suggest you take a break from the
>SL> modem - you appear to be losing control.
>
> Take a break? When I can instead make sure everybody knows that you
> (and Freddie) got caught red-handed in a public LIE???
>
> I don't think so...
>
> But feel free to dodge that item, feel free to pretend that it
> didn't happen all you want...
Dodge nothing. I just feel embarrassed for you.
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 50
SEEN-BY: 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: SCOTT REED
|To: DAVE EVERETT
|Sub: Re: ROSWELL ARTICLE
|Date: 09 Mar 96 14:04:00
EID:1ECF 829D7080
-=> Quoting Dave Everett to Scott Reed <=-
DE>
DE> Hi SCOTT,
DE> 22-Feb-96 13:50:00, SCOTT REED wrote to ALL
DE> I thought I had saved it, but unfortunately not. It was a 4
DE> part post called 'Saucer Smear'. Try John Powell, I think he
DE> archives these things and has them on his board for DL.
Thanks. I'll repost the message to him.
Scott R.
... "No, I'm not joking, and don't call me Shirley."-Leslie Nielson
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- GOMail v2.0 [94-0017]
* Origin: Origin Line Not Defined In GOEDIT (1:2260/0)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2260/0
SEEN-BY: 2260/110 175 200 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 2260/0 200 175 270/101 218/801
|From: Stewart Draper
|To: Harold Ehnhuus
|Sub: True Facts
|Date: 05 Mar 96 12:46:00
EID:f049 206565c0
PID: RA 2.02 147
MSGID: 3:712/619 56dad52c
EID: 4d85 06567281
TID: xMail 1.01.0324 001176-043
Please define "real".
Any good dictionary should suit. Just run through the list ¨of definitions
for the word used in context; and pick the one that ¨seems to fit into your
mental framework.
It's interesting to note that the English language in itself ¨is *not* a
scientific language, in that it has no accurate/precise
rules/laws relative to scientific methodology itself. And yet this ¨very
same language is used in science. How scientific then is ¨science? Only
as scientific as the individual scientist. Only ¨individuals achieve results.
Groups only communicate about results. ¨Results are obtained by individuals.
And again language is just a ¨group activity. How scientific are groups?
Usually science in ¨groups is about human inter-relationships. Possibly
50% human ¨emotional values and cultural objects and 50% actual real/true
¨results. And then the 50% gets mixed with the 50% and you get after ¨a
time 100% non workability. So is also the downfall of human ¨civilizations
in history and pre-history, and even histories they ¨never taught you about
at school and other places of erroneous ¨intellectual endeavour - 50% that
is.
--- xMail/beta
* Origin: Cross Facts BBS Russell Lea +61-2-712-3910 (3:712/619)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 711/808 712/311
SEEN-BY: 712/392 407 411 505 506 515 517 613 619 704 816 2430/1423 2433/225
SEEN-BY: 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1
SEEN-BY: 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 712/619 506 517 515 270/101 218/801
|From: Bob Bain
|To: Rod Speed
|Sub: Gravity and stuff..
|Date: 07 Mar 96 20:30:43
EID:2fc2 2067a3c0
MSGID: 3:712/392 04c54f89
Rod,
> Thats crap Bob, there was in fact quite a bit of evidence that
> the earth was not flat if you cared to put your brain into gear
> and examine the evidence. The most obvious example of that is
> watching a boat sail away from you, noticing that the top of
> the mast is visible for a lot longer than the hull is.
Could you provide statistics on just how many people lived near oceans
or were in travelling distance of oceans in the era being considered;
ie the era when the majority are deemed to have believed the Earth to
be flat as I've been lead to believe they did ?
If you examine a globe of the Earth, or failing this a flat
representation of it ( a document called a 'map' brought to you by
various forms of mathematical projection ) you will notice that the
area surrounding oceans is infinitely smaller than the other populated
areas of the Earth.
Look for instance at the vast plains of Asia and the area of what was
until recently the Soviet Union. The majority of people did not live
by the sea. Until just a few centuries ago the majority were unlikely
to have ventured much beyond their own village and were unlikely to be
in communication with people who lived in exotic places.
Look again at your map. Notice Greenland. It's huge isn't it ? Not
so. It merely appears that way due to the mathematical contortion
introduced by projection. As Greenland appears to be 'huge' I put it
to you that the Earth simply appears in the often misguided judgement
of human beings, to be 'round'. Huge and 'round' are not absolutes;
merely subjective appraisals.
Despite your assertion that the ancients were of the belief that it
pretty obvious that a boat dipping below the horizon meant that there
was a reasonable liklihood the world is round, let me assure you that
the sailors on the relatively recent voyages of Christopher Columbus
thought they were sailing with a madman, and that the ships would
eventually fall off the edge.
I have flown around (or should I say 'along') the globe. Fortunately
for things within the aircraft it remained on a perfectly straight line
with respect to gravitational forces. Tracing the route from Sydney to
London one cannot say the route was curved. The route from Sydney to
London seen from the aircraft was as perfectly 'straight' as a line
drawn from Sydney to London through the 'centre' of the Earth. I argue
that neither line of straightness has greater claim to validity than
the other. It's simply a matter of human perception and 'relativity'
to quote Einstein.
Having dismissed the ill-considered nature of the projection of
elements of we like to call 'curvature', what can we say about the
nature of our planet ? The answer Rod is that the Earth is as much
'flat' as it is 'round', with 'flatness' or 'roundness' depending
almost entirely on the relative state of the observer.
One can observe the Earth from space and I admit it has a 'roundish'
appearance to human beings, but I argue there _are_ other ways of
contemplating the Earth. I would argue that one could program a
sensory computer to 'view' the Earth in a completely different manner
to that currently seen by human senses using a completely different set
of value judgements and guidelines. Using such a machine to view the
Earth from the moon the Earth could be made to appear both
mathematically and philosophically flat; as indeed much of it's surface
already does to human beings, given that many of the three dimensional
effects disappear on the 'maplike' image presented.
Philosophical shifts regularly take place in human consciousness to
place what is viewed in the 'correct' philosophical light.
If you ever visit the Gold Coast visit the bridge in the Riley's
"Believe it or Not" emporium which plays havoc with a human being's
sense of gravity. We are conditioned to believe what our senses tell
us; in this case a series of moving images inducing a sense of
acceleration. As a result people on the bridge feel heavier, despite
the fact their is no movement and no acceleration and certainly no
reality of increased heaviness. Our senses lie. They are merely a set
of internal conventions to help us cope with the experiences we
regularly encounter.
> Crap. Nothing mad or foolish about noticing the effect with boats.
> Only a fool would just ignore the evidence in fact.
There are plenty of fools and perhaps fewer wise men. Distinguishing
one from the other isn't always as easy as one would imagine.
> That actually riddled quite a bit early science even, particularly
> obvious in medicine. The loons were even silly enough to proclaim
> that men had one less rib than women, coz the bible said so, and
> no one even bothered to do the rather trivial step of actually
> counting ribs on some men and women to see if it was true.
How many ribs do we have Rod ? Count yours. Have you ever asked a
woman how many she has or counted them yourself. I bet that at the
moment you read this you have not the faintest idea how many ribs a man
or woman may have, and rely entirely on what you have been told by
'experts'. I would guess you haven't bothered to comit it to memory.
This is the way individuals operate; especially in an era of
information overload. There is so much information we have to rely on
'experts' even though in some instances their reliability is somewhat
less than perfect. Count your ribs and tell me how many you have and
then count the ribs of an adjacent woman, and then report back your
findings :-) Then take a few more samples to test the universal
validity of these findings.
> Thats sort of proclamation crap bedevilled so much of the medicine
> of madness up until surprisingly recent times, with totally nutty
> stuff like chairs that people were strapped into because their
> mobility was supposed to be producing their madness.
Until last century the universal remedy for almost anything was
'bleeding'.
> And traditional chinese medicine is positively RIDDLED with heaps
> of crap because they never did manage to invent randomised double
> blind trials to separate what worked from what was crap.
Neither did much of 'modern' medicine until recently.
> Crap, I am the sort of person who notices the stuff like the boat and
> the horizon and wonders how that can be when the earth is supposed to
> be flat.
Nonsense. You were told the Earth is round from your very early years
as an infant, just like the rest of us.
> Usual mindless Bob Bain waffle.
Blurgh !
> Fraid not Bob, only if you ignore the evidence that showed it wasnt
> flat. In fact your claim is completely bogus anyway, it was
> rigorously established that the earth was NOT flat 2K or so years
> ago,
Sure Rod, sure. Count your ribs. When you have established with some
degree of certainty how many you have we can reconsider Mercator's
Projection..
> it was only later that we could go right around etc.
Not flying Qantas, Rod. Qantas jets fly in a straight line between
Sydney and London.
Bob
---
WSOMR 1.0 I use my college calculus book everyday, It's under my monitor.
--- Xenolink 1.95, XQwk 1.6 [REG 10062]
* Origin: Archer BBS +61-2-371-0347 ArcherNet International (3:712/392)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 711/808 712/311
SEEN-BY: 712/392 407 411 505 506 515 517 613 704 816 2430/1423 2433/225
SEEN-BY: 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1
SEEN-BY: 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 712/392 517 515 270/101 218/801
|From: Shane Coleman
|To: Rod Speed
|Sub: Astrophysics
|Date: 07 Mar 96 23:00:15
EID:1d2f 2067b800
MSGID: 3:712/613 86111ea3
RS> Fraid not Shane, and if its a particular
RS> virulent strain, you may well end up DEAD.
how would you know mighty morphing mutant boy!
you need some mulembimbi, may enlighten you abit to the realities of the
world.
RS> Its a fantasy Shane. There are a few, but not a particularly large
RS> number.
RS> Its no surprise that you do get some more turning up. Pity that your
RS> witchdoctors and herbalists cant actually do a damned thing about
RS> stuff
RS> like Ebola tho Shane. The people who get it end up very dead very
RS> quick.
RS>
RS> And its decent rigorous science that allows us to work out the detail,
RS> like
RS> how to avoid getting HIV+ etc. Sure beats your damned witchdoctors
RS> Shane.
herbqalits can do as much as science with regards to ebola & hiv+. which
is nothing.
as for avoiding getting aids & rigourous science on avoiding it ? what
does that mean christians who practice abstenance get a mark in your books
? how is have safe sex or astanance got anything to do with science?
RS> Fraid not Shane, decent modern medicine cant
RS> possibly have been the cause of Ebola Shane.
& why is that ? science caused hiv, why not ebola ?
RS> Yes, but if you had put your brain into gear while watching that doco
RS> even you should have noticed that they said that the problem was MUCH
RS> worse in the 30s when there were no antibiotics. Sure, antibiotic
RS> resistance is a hell of a problem, but there is the TINY matter
RS> of all those people who didnt die between the 30s and today Shane.
i was just channel surfing & only watched 5 mins or so. my point is, we
are no better off with anti-biotics than we were in the 30's. it could even
be argued that we are worse off, because if nature had been allowed to take
it's course then sure millions would have died but the rest would have natural
immunity. now from the over use of anti-biotics we have produced a starin
that is so strong that very few of us will survive if it ever takes off.
& all the top knob scientists of the world are starting to panic about these
new strains of malaria/TB/Hep ect.
the same goes for pestasides, we are creating super insects & as well we
are destroying gene diversoty in crops to the point where in USA they only
have 1/2 a dozen strains of wheat over there & if these super bugs destroy
their crops there is going to be mass starvation like the world has never
seen. you go on about the wonders of science but ignore the dangers it puts
us in. with super bugs, super insects, the accumalation of toxins in the
food chain all because of your irrataional hatred of woman herbalists :)
go see a doctor pal.
Shane
--- Xenolink 1.981
* Origin: Enconn +61-2-524 1584 The Engineering Connection (3:712/613)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 711/808 712/311
SEEN-BY: 712/392 407 411 505 506 515 517 613 704 816 2430/1423 2433/225
SEEN-BY: 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1
SEEN-BY: 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 712/613 517 515 270/101 218/801
|From: Paul Murray
|To: John Musselwhite
|Sub: Re: Creation? Evolution?
|Date: 07 Mar 96 19:08:05
EID:9e56 20679900
MSGID: 3:620/243.0 313f33f5
PID: BWRA 3.11 [Reg]
TID: GE 1.12.b2+
On 23 Dec 95 19:13:11, John Musselwhite writing to Paul Murray
About Creation? Evolution? said:
JM> It's physically impossible because it's a story - a
JM> legend like thousands of others...
PM> Doh! You will have to do better than this. For instance: "I drove to
PM> the shops today.". That is a story - I did not in fact do so, but it
PM> being a story does not make it physically impossible for me to have
PM> driven to the shops.
JM> No, but if your story went that you flew to the shops on a
JM> magic carpet then right away you know there are some factual
JM> problems involved. It's the same with any legend. When they
JM> involve things which totally ignore the laws of physics then
JM> immediately we MUST be suspicious of them.
Yes yes yes, but by point is that "It's physically impossible because it's
a story" is bogus logic.
PM> And you even have the theory wrong: you are alluding to the JEDP idea
PM> - which refers to four groups of authours, not four individuals.
JM> In case you aren't aware, the initials represent the "Yahwist",
JM> the "Elohist", the "Deuteronomist" and the "Priestly writer".
I was aware.
JM> It can certainly be argued that they represent "communities" or
JM> groups rather than specific individuals, but if this is such a
JM> critical point then why is it that they are referred to in the
JM> singular rather than plural?
Your right. I was quibbling and I'm sorry. The point is not important.
... and if your not finished by dawn, I'll cut your balls off.
--- GEcho 1.12/beta+
* Origin: The InterACTive BBS - Canberra ACT - (06) 239-7311 (3:620/243)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/202 243 250 252 269 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808
SEEN-BY: 711/809 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001
SEEN-BY: 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777
SEEN-BY: 3805/3
PATH: 620/243 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Paul Murray
|To: Laurie Appleton
|Sub: Re: Hebrew History
|Date: 07 Mar 96 19:08:06
EID:aafe 20679900
MSGID: 3:620/243.0 313f33f6
PID: BWRA 3.11 [Reg]
TID: GE 1.12.b2+
On 24 Dec 95 07:20:00, Laurie Appleton writing to JAMES WILLIAMS
About Hebrew History said:
JW> The Israelites were illiterate until they learned to read
JW> and write when captives of the Babylonians. As a result
JW> their "Bible" is filled with Babylonian mythology, such
JW> as the Gilgamesh epic of the Great Flood, the finding of
JW> the baby in the reeds of the Euphrates who grew up to be
JW> King Sargon II, and the story of Ishtar hebraized as Esther.
LA> That does not sound authentic. Is it your own personal
LA> opinion or are you quoting from some qualified authority?
Or to put it another way: Prove it.
... They're easy to find, just look for a body
--- GEcho 1.12/beta+
* Origin: The InterACTive BBS - Canberra ACT - (06) 239-7311 (3:620/243)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/202 243 250 252 269 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808
SEEN-BY: 711/809 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001
SEEN-BY: 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777
SEEN-BY: 3805/3
PATH: 620/243 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Paul Murray
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: Re: IRIDOLOGY
|Date: 07 Mar 96 19:08:07
EID:d663 20679900
MSGID: 3:620/243.0 313f33f7
PID: BWRA 3.11 [Reg]
TID: GE 1.12.b2+
On 24 Dec 95 15:32:13, Scott Laroche writing to John Musselwhite
About IRIDOLOGY said:
>SL> ------ WHAT EXACTLY IS IRIDOLOGY?
>
> I've seen it done, actually. About twelve years ago (in
SL> Thank you for your story. And I don't believe a word of it. Not about
SL> your wife being ill, but about some quack being able to cure her by
SL> taking a close-up picture of her eyeball.
Which is the basic problem here. Despite all the discussions everyone's
opionons here on this echo are thourougly fixed - mine included. You
_will_not_ admit that there is anything in this iridology business. It
is precisely this brand of skepticism that has on so many occasions
held up the progress of knowledge.
... She's beautiful, she's rich, she's got huge... tracts of land.
--- GEcho 1.12/beta+
* Origin: The InterACTive BBS - Canberra ACT - (06) 239-7311 (3:620/243)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/202 243 250 252 269 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808
SEEN-BY: 711/809 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001
SEEN-BY: 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777
SEEN-BY: 3805/3
PATH: 620/243 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Paul Murray
|To: Stewart Draper
|Sub: Re: Skeptics On Education
|Date: 07 Mar 96 19:08:07
EID:cd73 20679900
MSGID: 3:620/243.0 313f33f8
PID: BWRA 3.11 [Reg]
TID: GE 1.12.b2+
On 27 Dec 95 10:34:04, Stewart Draper writing to JAMES WILLIAMS
About Skeptics On Education said:
SD> Life force is consciouness. Brain alien to body. You
SD> misunderstood what I wrote. Primitive dualistic theory. Science is
SD> objective theory only. Science is not the answer to all. Science
SD> doesn't take into consideration the subjective universe of the
SD> individual, or the subjective reality of the individual. you wrote==
SD> I'll take science. I write== It'll do
SD> most. It is limited although in its present form and is
SD> therefore a limitation. A dangerous limitation.
I'm sorry if this offends you, but are you a native speaker of English,
or is it your second language?
... New Mail not found. Start whine-pout sequence? (Y/N)
--- GEcho 1.12/beta+
* Origin: The InterACTive BBS - Canberra ACT - (06) 239-7311 (3:620/243)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/202 243 250 252 269 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808
SEEN-BY: 711/809 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001
SEEN-BY: 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777
SEEN-BY: 3805/3
PATH: 620/243 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Paul Murray
|To: Alex Stirkul
|Sub: Re: Enigmatical paradigms
|Date: 07 Mar 96 19:08:08
EID:3d2c 20679900
MSGID: 3:620/243.0 313f33f9
PID: BWRA 3.11 [Reg]
TID: GE 1.12.b2+
On 27 Dec 95 06:33:20, Alex Stirkul writing to Ken Honda
About Enigmatical paradigms said:
AS> So there's not one "genuine" pyschic in the world that couldn't use
AS> 1/2 a mill? Or why don't they just prove themselves? Why doesn't just
AS> ONE pyschic get that money and give it to charity? Just *one* is all
AS> it takes Ken, and not ONE has ever shown they can do it repeatedly.
If there is, the last thing he/she would do is _tell_ everyone about it.
I know I'm not.
Oops.
... A little rebellion now and then is a good thing." - Jefferson
--- GEcho 1.12/beta+
* Origin: The InterACTive BBS - Canberra ACT - (06) 239-7311 (3:620/243)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/202 243 250 252 269 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808
SEEN-BY: 711/809 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001
SEEN-BY: 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777
SEEN-BY: 3805/3
PATH: 620/243 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Paul Murray
|To: Alex Stirkul
|Sub: Mass Murder
|Date: 07 Mar 96 19:08:08
EID:cfce 20679900
MSGID: 3:620/243.0 313f33fa
PID: BWRA 3.11 [Reg]
TID: GE 1.12.b2+
On 27 Dec 95 06:33:20, Alex Stirkul writing to Ken Honda
About Creationism said:
AS> Ok, it says God "destroyed" all humans, animals, plants. Bit of PC in
AS> the Bible there. Read Genesis 6:7, 7:23. Why are you questioning me
AS> on this? It's quite plainly written there that he's a mass murderer.
AS> Any creationists feel free to respond, I will be most interested.
I _would_ respond, but it's off topic. Sigh.
... I tried OS/2 once, but I didn't inhale.
--- GEcho 1.12/beta+
* Origin: The InterACTive BBS - Canberra ACT - (06) 239-7311 (3:620/243)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/202 243 250 252 269 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808
SEEN-BY: 711/809 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001
SEEN-BY: 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777
SEEN-BY: 3805/3
PATH: 620/243 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Paul Murray
|To: David Bloomberg
|Sub: Re: My 1995 Predictions
|Date: 07 Mar 96 19:08:09
EID:133d 20679900
MSGID: 3:620/243.0 313f33fb
PID: BWRA 3.11 [Reg]
TID: GE 1.12.b2+
On 26 Dec 95 17:02:21, David Bloomberg writing to All
About My 1995 Predictions said:
So what are your predictions for 96? One year _could_ be just a fluke.
... Ph'nglui mglw'nafh "Bob" D'lyeh Wgah'nagl Dhobbz f'htagn
--- GEcho 1.12/beta+
* Origin: The InterACTive BBS - Canberra ACT - (06) 239-7311 (3:620/243)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/202 243 250 252 269 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808
SEEN-BY: 711/809 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001
SEEN-BY: 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777
SEEN-BY: 3805/3
PATH: 620/243 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Paul Murray
|To: Laurie Appleton
|Sub: Re: Monkeys.
|Date: 07 Mar 96 19:08:10
EID:af2e 20679900
MSGID: 3:620/243.0 313f33fc
PID: BWRA 3.11 [Reg]
TID: GE 1.12.b2+
On 29 Dec 95 02:47:44, Laurie Appleton writing to Fredric Rice
About Monkeys. said:
LA> "Another argument the doctor, who is considered one of the
LA> world's leading experts on primates, uses to support his
LA> theory, is the fact that an ape fetus looks like a human
LA> fetus during the early stages of development before birth.
LA> It is only in the later stages of gestation that the unborn
LA> ape starts developing typical ape-like characteristics.
LA> This means the development of an ape infant recapitulates
LA> his origin; he goes from a human-like to an ape-like animal
LA> in the fetus."
Embyonic recapitulation is bogus Laurie, and has been used to _support_
the theory of evolution for years.
... Illiterate? Write for FREE HELP!
--- GEcho 1.12/beta+
* Origin: The InterACTive BBS - Canberra ACT - (06) 239-7311 (3:620/243)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/202 243 250 252 269 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808
SEEN-BY: 711/809 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001
SEEN-BY: 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777
SEEN-BY: 3805/3
PATH: 620/243 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Paul Murray
|To: Laurie Appleton
|Sub: Debates
|Date: 07 Mar 96 19:08:10
EID:9968 20679900
MSGID: 3:620/243.0 313f33fd
PID: BWRA 3.11 [Reg]
TID: GE 1.12.b2+
On 29 Dec 95 12:20:06, Laurie Appleton writing to Eric Greene
About Not based on evidence! said:
EG> . and the amassed observations of genetics, bio-chemistry,
EG> planetary sciences, astrophysics and all the rest of the
EG> sciences.
LA> Huh! What is there about bio-chemistry that supports
LA> evolution? What is there about Planetry sciences that
LA> supports evolution? What is there about "all the rest of the
LA> sciences" that supports evolution? If there was a shred of
LA> logic in your claims then in open, public, scientific
LA> debates the evolutionists should have made "mince meant" of
LA> the Creation Scientists, shouldn't they?
Not nessesarily. Winning a debate just means that you are a better
debater, not that your position is correct - any high school debater
could tell you this, as could any lawyer.
In all probablility, all that happened here is that the creationists were
aware of the evolutionist's arguments, but the converse was not the case.
have you ever tried arging with a Mormon or a JW? They know their
proof scriptures better than you do, and so they win as long as they can
set the agenda. Doesn't prove a thing.
... The Sexual Revolution was great until it taught men how to say NO!
--- GEcho 1.12/beta+
* Origin: The InterACTive BBS - Canberra ACT - (06) 239-7311 (3:620/243)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11
SEEN-BY: 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15
SEEN-BY: 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/202 243 250 252 269 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808
SEEN-BY: 711/809 712/407 515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001
SEEN-BY: 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777
SEEN-BY: 3805/3
PATH: 620/243 711/808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Seismic Activity and 1/2
|Date: 06 Mar 96 12:17:16
EID:341d 20666220
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
WS> There are tons of skeptics in the geological
WS> field. They are a hard bunch to convince.
JP> And there should be. As we get closer to figuring out how
JP> this weird 'sixth sense' works and doesn't work, and why and how,
JP> we're finding that we need to be extremely skeptical and careful.
RS> Pity we dont actually have a SHRED of rigorously proven evidence
RS> of ANY 'sixth sense' with humans and dowsing John. NOT A SHRED.
JP> Wrong.
You are going to have to do a HELL of a lot better than this
sort of mindless stuff to do other than look damned silly John.
JP> Its odd that we have such strict expectations
JP> of science and technology, but you're right.
RS> We dont actually, the most obvious example is weather forecasting.
RS> We can do usefully better than chance. So we keep doing that.
JP> But it has to be extremely frustrating to see
JP> the Farmer's Almanac beat current technology.
I dont believe it actually does.
JP> That will turn around over time but with the Farmer's Almanac
JP> going at about 80% to 85% and the National Weather Service
JP> going at about 15% to 20% I still check the Farmer's Almanac.
Thats another fantasy John. And in many areas its trivial to make
predictions that superficially look very good. In my own area in say the
summer, if you just predict its going to be hot and no rain, you will be
right most of the time. Proves SFA about anything except whats most common.
JP> That's not a terribly fair comparison because the NWS makes very
JP> general preditions only for a few months ahead whereas the FA
JP> makes rather detailed predictions for up to an entire year ahead.
Yes, its a completely silly comparison
If you predict that summer will be warmer than winter,
you will hardly ever be found to get it wrong. So what ?
JP> But then the FA doesn't make near-term predictions at all and the NWS
JP> is usually extremely accurate with very near-term weather predicting.
So your claim at the top is completely bogus isnt it ?
You havent actually established that the FA is even useful
except as one way of presenting the statistical average.
JP> This is what makes the non-technology version (human mind detecting
JP> and responding to magnetic fields) so difficult to deal with.
RS> Nope, we have developed reliable statistical techniques which can be
RS> used to work out if we are seeing better than chance. That allows us
RS> to do funky stuff like work out that smoking really does cause lung
RS> cancer, when we cant even do randomised double blind trials easily.
JP> You missed the point.
Nope.
JP> Statistical techniques aren't going to address
JP> the variable of human consciousness-based testing.
Corse they can. You can for example do some rigorous science
on the affect of alcohol on driving ability, and even just do
that purely statistically by analysing the accidents when the
drivers are always breath tested after an accident.
Yes, some people can drive better than others with particular
levels of alcohol in their blood, and you can use rigorous science
and statistics in that 'human consciousness-based testing'
And you can with drug treatments for mental illnesses too.
Or even stuff as mundane as testing learning ability in different
circumstances like lack of sleep or say caffeine intake.
JP> Have you ever misplaced your car keys? Statistical
JP> analysis on how often you misplaced your car keys isn't
JP> going to tell us anything about why you mispaced your car keys...
It can actually, tho we normally arent prepared to spend the money
to do that sort of testing coz its not considered worthwhile. Its
quite easy to show for example that in more stressful situations
people have an increased risk of misplacing their car keys.
In fact on the more important problem of forgetting to do particular
actions, thats been very extensively studied because its important when
designing aircraft systems and systems which minimise the risk of you
forgetting to put the wheels down before landing etc. Its quite clear
that if you are worrying about why the engine sounds rough, you may
well be at increased risk of forgetting to put the wheels down etc.
JP> Suppose we place people at one end of a stadium and at the
JP> other end we flash regular sized playing cards. Suppose
JP> further that most people get a slightly worse than chance
JP> score (because they couldn't see a damned thing and were guessing)
JP> and that sometimes some folks scored way better than chance.
You've mangled that for starters. You dont consider if an
INDIVIDUAL result is better than chance, its the OVERALL
result that has to be statistically doing better than chance.
There is always some chance of a perfect guess, even if its only a guess.
JP> They claim they actually saw the cards. Suppose we test those
JP> folks again and we get similar results. Statistics isn't going to
JP> tell us anything about the person's _vision_, only about what seems
JP> to be the use of that sense. Statistics won't tell us anything
JP> about the observing conditions, about the observer's mood (etc.).
Fraid it does John. You clearly know SFA about how you apply statistics
in
that particular situation to decide if they are doing better than chance.
In that particular test scenario you can even quantify just what
visual clues they are getting from not very visible card, being
able to see that the card is a low number card and not a high
number one, even if you cant get the actual number very reliably.
JP> In the case of the so-called dowsing phenomenon the field
JP> testing has already yeilded enough to go into the lab to try
JP> to eliminate the things that field testing can't eliminate.
Nope, there aint any evidence that in the absence of visual clues,
and where you cant just drill anywhere and find water, that the
purported dowsers can do better than chance. NOT A SHRED.
And if you think you can, you had better claim
Randys $550K prize and show up the skeptics.
JP> And in the lab the research has clearly shown that humans can detect
JP> and respond to relative variations in ambient magnetic field strength.
Crap, they have done nothing of the sort.
JP> Now, if you were any kind of real skeptic
JP> you'd be asking this important question:
Soorree, you havent shown that dowsers can do a damned thing yet,
let alone show the claimed capability to detect weak fields.
(Continued to next message)
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/243 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407
SEEN-BY: 712/515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Seismic Activity and 2/2
|Date: 06 Mar 96 12:17:18
EID:34ed 20666220
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
(Continued from previous message)
JP> How do we know that the positive field results,
Soorree, there aint none.
JP> that brought us to where we have positive lab results,
Soorree, there aint none.
JP> are directly connected or directly related?
Not worth worrying about UNTIL you can show those other two. You cant.
JP> Maybe the field results can be prosaically explained
JP> _and_ some other anomaly was detected in the lab?
Not worth worrying about UNTIL you can show those other two. You cant.
JP> That question is important because it hasn't been answered yet.
Nope, not worth worrying about UNTIL you can show those other two. You cant.
JP> It requires taking the lab gear out into the field and that requires
JP> funding which is not overly likely to occur in the near future.
Oh crap, geologists do it all the time, WHEN its been demonstrated with
some
rigorous science that you have a useful advance in exploration geology.
The REASON they havent done that in the case of dowsing
is BECAUSE you havent been able to show ANY effect whatever.
JP> Personally, I don't see this as something that can be
JP> exploited or as something we can learn and subsequently use.
RS> You havent even established there is a
RS> real effect John. You have to do that FIRST.
JP> No,
Fraid so, thats how we do rigorous science John.
JP> to bother having this discussion _YOU_ have to do that for yourself,
Soorree, we dont DO rigorous science like that. I dont need to make
an atom bomb myself to prove that they are possible. I dont need to
develop a vaccine for an infectious disease to prove that vaccination
works, we have various funky techniques which allow it to be proven
using rigorous science and we move on from there to something new instead.
JP> as I've done for myself, or you're simply wasting my time and your time.
Soorree, we dont DO rigorous science like that John. Thats
the way witchdoctors, flakes, charlatans and con men do it.
JP> I think it'll always be less reliable than current and future technology.
RS> Sorry John, we dont do rigorous science like that, if you havent even
RS> proven there is a real effect, you dont get to pontificate like that.
JP> Pontificating?? Well, blessed be !
JP> I'm certain the 'effect' is real,
And plenty were certain that the sun was some god passing over us
daily and we had to keep sacrificing humans to make sure he kept
doing that. Soorree, we dont DO rigorous science like that John.
JP> if you do the research you'll likely come to the same conclusion.
Soorree, we dont DO rigorous science like that John.
JP> You're not another one of those who expected me to prove something
JP> to you, or expected me to do your research for you are you???????
Have you the slightest conception of what an eejut you look doing this ?
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/243 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407
SEEN-BY: 712/515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Magnetics... 1/2
|Date: 06 Mar 96 14:30:36
EID:5066 206673c0
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
WS> Though I realize that many animals are sensitive to things
WS> humans aren't, I am skeptical of human's ability to detect
WS> magnetic fields as weak as those of the earth's strength.
JP> That's why the current model specifically makes the
JP> distinction between detecting magnetic fields and
JP> detecting relative variations in magnetic fields.
RS> Thats waffle John, its quite trivial to create some artificial
RS> relative variations in magnetic fields and do a proper rigorous
RS> double blind trial to see if humans can actually detect those.
JP> Its not a waffle.
Fraid it is John, for the reason I stated.
JP> I never claimed that humans can detect the Earth's magnetic field.
I never said you did John, I said that we can test that claim
you made using some rigorous science, and until we PROVE that
claim, you are just waffling, coz its EASY to test that claim.
JP> Just because I didn't correct you earlier when you snuck that
JP> in is no excuse to assume you got away with sneaking that in
JP> and then subsequently inaccurately attributing it to me .
You are going to have to bullshit more convincingly than this John.
JP> I don't know if humans can detect the Earth's magnetic
JP> field but I don't know that they (or some) can't.
And its TRIVIAL to prove with some rigorous science if they can
or not. So there aint the slightest point in this sort of waffle.
JP> Moreover, I don't know that it has anything to do the phenomenon.
And some decent rigorous science might be handy John.
JP> The distinction "relative variations" exists to keep things
JP> from getting silly, as with your inaccurate attribution...
RS> You aint got a SHRED of evidence that humans actually can.
JP> Don't you feel silly realizing that I never claimed
JP> humans could detect the Earth's magnetic field?
No, coz I recognise people putting up a screen of bullshit when I see that.
JP> There are easier ways to do the work but they're
JP> expensive and unlikely to get grant money.
RS> Its not expensive to create some artificial magnetic fields and
RS> see if humans really can detect them John, using decent randomised
RS> double blind trial. You dont need grant money, its not expensive.
JP> I've already posted a name to check with on that.
Pity it was useless and he didnt do that John.
RS> This grant money story is just faking away the rigorous
RS> testing of the proposition. Pity the faking is so transparent.
JP> Its already been established that humans can
JP> detect relative variations in magnetic fields
Nope.
JP> but that alone is not terribly significant.
Specially not when he never did John.
JP> To do more, to take it farther, takes funding.
Nope. Randomised double blind trials arent expensive.
JP> For example it would be entirely possible to wire a (so-called) dowser
JP> and detect microelectric impluses to muscles versus something like a
JP> more overt muscle action. Or, simply wire up somebody and watch the
JP> brain of a (so-called) dowser at work during the hits and misses.
RS> Its a hell of a lot simpler to use artificial magnet fields
RS> or to put the purported dowsers in a situation where there
RS> are no visual clues and see if they can do better than
RS> chance finding the water John. No grant required.
JP> This has already been done.
Nope. Not once.
JP> It shows that humans do detect relative
JP> variations in ambient magnetic field strength -
Nope.
JP> but it doesn't really tell us _more_ than that,
It doesnt even show THAT John.
JP> and obviously _more_ than that is what the whole point is.
Nope, and its perfectly feasible to use those funky randomised double
blind trials in a situation where there are NO visual clues to see
if people can dowse, and they CANT do better than chance John.
And its doesnt cost anything much to do that.
JP> You'll _never_ figure out the actual mechanism in the field
JP> since the actual mechanism is (is occurring) in the brain/mind.
You havent even shown that there IS an actual mechanism yet John.
AND there are plenty of things that occur in the brain/mind which
are perfectly amenable to the application of rigorous science on
the actual mechanism. We have funky stuff like CAT scans and stuff
that can even show quite a bit of detail about brain activity during
some types of mental activity which give useful insight into how
the brain/mind works.
And its completely TRIVIAL to show that anaesthetics
actually work. We can also do useful work with hypnosis too.
JP> It isn't even necessary to do this as fieldwork.
RS> Fraid so.
JP> Persinger has accomplished a lot in the lab.
RS> Pity hasnt proven a damned thing John.
JP> Sure it has. You're not familiar with his work are you?
Fraid so John, its crap.
JP> Taken in a slightly different direction he could probably
JP> establish the link between magnetic field detection and
JP> microelectric impulses to various muscle groups.
RS> Thats not rigorous science John, thats faith.
JP> The word "probably" in my sentence should have been a
JP> _hint_ that I wasn't trying to recount rigorous science...
No hint needed that thats just faith John. Nothing like rigorous science.
JP> No, it wasn't faith,
(Continued to next message)
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/243 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407
SEEN-BY: 712/515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: John Powell
|Sub: Magnetics... 2/2
|Date: 06 Mar 96 14:30:38
EID:5096 206673c0
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
(Continued from previous message)
Fraid so.
JP> as I at no time expressed a belief in him doing it or it happenning.
JP> It was, get ready - here comes a new word for you - speculation.
It was faith that there is a real effect there. Pity there isnt.
We can use those funky randomised double blind trials to PROVE
that there is no real effect there. Soorree, she's a dud Jim.
JP> Persinger's work has already produced physical effects and actions.
So would kicking the cat John. So what ?
JP> That just happens not to be what he's looking for and the
JP> effects/actions are not confined to microelectric impulse types.
Waffle John. Just waffle.
JP> How did the conscious wishes of the (so-called) dowser get sent
JP> to that which turns 'On' the magnetic field detecting portion.
RS> You havent even established that a human CAN detect anything John.
JP> Uh-oh! You _ARE_ another of those who
JP> expected me to do the research for you!?!?!
Nope, I am saying that NOT ONCE has it been established with
rigorous science that there is a real effect with dowsing once
you remove the visual clues and you cant just find water anywhere.
Or more legalistically, that they can do better than chance.
JP> The conscious link to the functional ability, that's what's missing.
JP> And I think that's going to be a _lot_ more difficult to nail down.
RS> Its fairys sitting on their shoulders whispering in their ears John.
JP> That's what the beneficiaries of successful (so-called) dowsing
JP> used to think in decades and centuries past but I'm surprised to
JP> find someone in this decade still believing in fairies...
Then who left the money for my ex fangs when I was a kid John ?
JP> I have to apologize,
A japanese would do the decent thing and atleast commit harikari.
JP> I didn't realize that you expected me to do the research for you,
I dont, I know how to do rigorous science thanks John, and realise
how pathetic you look trotting out this pathetically silly line.
JP> or that you expected me to prove anything to you.
Thats the way we do rigorous science John, you way is the way
witchdoctors, charlatans, spivs and con men do it. Soorree, we
noticed quite a few centurys ago now that that way doesnt work.
JP> (Of course, I didn't expect you to sneak in a claim I never
JP> made, attribute it to me, then demand that I prove it either
JP> - but I'm getting used to that occurrence in this Echo...)
More mindless bullshit. Fools absolutely no one at all John.
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/243 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407
SEEN-BY: 712/515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Dave Everett
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: Journal of Scientific Exploratio
|Date: 04 Mar 96 23:57:22
EID:e76c 2064bf20
MSGID: 3:712/393.3 57eb2c6c
PID: TerMail 3 PROFESSIONAL
Hi Scott,
28-Feb-96 17:22:16, Scott Laroche wrote to Scott Weadon
>article----------------------------------------- > > WATER DOWSING
>IN ARID REGIONS: REPORT ON A TEN YEAR GERMAN > GOVERNMENT > PROJECT
>(1) > > From the Journal of Scientific Exploration Stanford
>University
SL> FYI, that particular rag is not very credible. They use the
SL> very weakest of scientific standards, if any. It is "peer"
SL> reviewed, in that all the peers are uncritical of outrageous
SL> claims.
Are you claiming the 10-year study was invalid because it appeared
in JSE?
Or are you claiming that the 10-year study is an outrageous claim?
ÄÄÄ> Greetings From Dave Everett
--- Terminate 3.00/Pro
* Origin: Dave's Point (3:712/393.3)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 711/808 712/60
SEEN-BY: 712/311 392 393 401 407 411 457 505 506 515 517 613 704 816
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 712/393 311 517 515 270/101 218/801
|From: Dave Everett
|To: David Sparrow
|Sub: Pie Plate Attack!
|Date: 05 Mar 96 00:01:20
EID:aae9 20650020
MSGID: 3:712/393.3 f7b5f944
REPLY: 3:690/613.8 31324c5f
PID: TerMail 3 PROFESSIONAL
Hi David,
26-Feb-96 00:33:48, David Sparrow wrote to Scott Laroche
SL>> I can only conclude that this Hub Cap Attack in Mexico
SL>> City is not really news, since the media coverage in America has
SL>> been nil. This means only one of two things:
According to Benjamin LeBlanc (a member of mufon who went to Mexico
to investigate this and speak to the relevant witnesses), the whole
thing is a beatup.
As to the lack of coverage in the US, I don't find that surprising
at all. If it didn't happen in America, the US media couldn't give
a shit.
ÄÄÄ> Greetings From Dave Everett
--- Terminate 3.00/Pro
* Origin: Dave's Point (3:712/393.3)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 711/808 712/60
SEEN-BY: 712/311 392 393 401 407 411 457 505 506 515 517 613 704 816
SEEN-BY: 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15
SEEN-BY: 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 712/393 311 517 515 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: S. T. Gedkin
|Sub: DOWSING
|Date: 07 Mar 96 08:53:04
EID:6cf6 206746a0
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
STG> I agree that double blind tests have their place, and are needed in
STG> many areas of science to eliminate the experimenter's bias. But to
STG> say that "no true conclusions ... can be made" without double blind
STG> tests is to ignore the history of science. Double blind tests are a
STG> recent invention within the scientific method. Galileo never used
STG> them, but I doubt you'd reject his discoveries because of that.
DB> Galileo wasn't doing dowsing tests, either. There is quite a difference.
STG> Why? What's the difference? He was investigating things which were
STG> totally outside the accepted knowledge base of his time. So was I.
RS> Thats not the criterion used to decide if double blind tests are
RS> appropriate ST. We dont bother with those on the proposition that if
RS> you jump over a cliff without a parachute or glider, there is a very
RS> significant risk of getting a tad broken. Or if you play russian roulette.
RS> In the case of dowsing we are trying to decide if the dowser really
RS> can determine where the water is, and it should be rather obvious
RS> that the only real way to work that out is to ensure that the dowser
RS> doesnt know in advance where the water is, and see if he can do
RS> better than chance in finding it when its not everywhere.
RS> Surely you can grasp this simple stuff ? If you cant,
RS> you CERTAINLY shouldnt qualify for any scholarship.
STG> A double blind test isn't needed to blind the experimental
STG> subject (in this case the dowser), but instead the recording
STG> experimenter, to prevent bias on the part of the experimenter
STG> from affecting the results of the experiment.
No news, thats what the DOUBLE bit is about. Pity we happened to actually
be discussing if the test needs to be blind at all and why say Galileos
or a test on whether russian roulette can kill you needs to be.
As usual you are just raving on about irrelevancys. We certainly need
rigorous double blind trials of dowsing before we can say that people really
can dowse in the absence of visual clues, when you cant find water everywhere.
STG> Given that all researchers have a bias, being part of
STG> human nature, what criteria do you suggest to determine
STG> when a double blind approach is necessary and when it isn't?
Its rather obvious in some situations. If you are testing
the question of whether russian roulette can kill you, its
rather easy to determine if on a particular pull of the
trigger, the gun went off and blew the persons brains out ST.
Ditto with the cliff jumping, its rather obvious if the
person at the bottom of the cliff is all broken or not.
There really isnt much point in farting
around with double blind trials in that case.
STG> So far all I've seen in this echo is that a double blind
STG> approach is necessary when skeptics feel the subject is garbage,
Nope, its extensively used in the testing of medicines. In fact it was
INVENTED for that, to distinguish between a placebo effect and a real one.
If you are considering if an atom bomb really does
go bang rather spectacularly, there aint much point
if farting around with a double blind trial.
STG> and is not necessary when they don't question the subject being
STG> tested. That's too subjective a measure for me to accept.
Too bad, science essentially doesnt give a damn what ST Gedkin accepts.
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/243 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407
SEEN-BY: 712/515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Rod Speed
|To: Dave Everett
|Sub: Dowsing
|Date: 07 Mar 96 15:24:42
EID:9d7a 20677b00
PID: PQWK 2.5
SOT:
JP> So, how, scientifically, double blind, etc., are you going to measure
JP> the (so-called) dowser's knowledge of the groundwater in the test area???
JP> Gosh, for some strange reason this doesn't sound like the practice
JP> of science to me, sounds more like the practice of (dis)belief...
DE> I'm hearing that too!
You need new batterys in your hearing aid then Dave.
DE> This isn't the first time Rod has pushed
DE> a flawed or impossible experiment.
Nothing impossible about using a decent double blind
trial to test dowsing Dave. Completely routine in fact.
One obvious approach would be to take an area which has just been
landformed so that the visual clues have been obliterated, see if
the purported dowser can do better than chance finding water.
Whats so impossible about that Dave ? Huh ?
EOT:
---
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 50/99 78/0 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1
SEEN-BY: 129/11 147/76 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207
SEEN-BY: 203/15 206/2711 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12
SEEN-BY: 260/10 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1
SEEN-BY: 282/1 4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 620/243 624/300 640/201 711/410 413 430 808 809 934 712/407
SEEN-BY: 712/515 517 713/888 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3 7877/2809
PATH: 711/809 808 712/515 270/101 218/801
|From: Scott Laroche
|To: Kerry Penny
|Sub: RE: DOWSING=FRAUD
|Date: 09 Mar 96 18:51:27
EID:4e72 20699660
> I don't know what your beef with Scott is, but I don't remember
> him saying he couldn't find it. Maybe he did and I missed that
> message.
John keeps saying I said that. I don't know why - perhaps he could re-post
the message he keeps referring to? Of course he'll probably accuse me of
making him do research.
--- FLAME v1.1
* Origin: Visit Our IPAD Web Site: http://www.atomiccafe.com (1:106/235)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1137
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 50
SEEN-BY: 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 106/235 993 2 449 2000 396/1 270/101 218/801
|From: Harold Ehnhuus
|To: Scott Laroche
|Sub: Randi on Nova
|Date: 11 Mar 96 02:06:00
EID:b247 206b10c0
SL> HE> I take it that you have not seen James Randi on
SL> HE> 'Nova' where he completely
SL> HE> debunks the soviet psychics. Hate to break it to
SL> HE> you, but just because the
SL> HE> soviets spent all that money on research, it
SL> HE> doesn't validate the phenomenon.
SL>
SL>I enjoyed the hell out of that show. I wish it was two hours long. My
favorite
SL>part, after the Geller expose, was the astrology test in that classroom.
All
SL>those kids seemed amazed that, gosh, their astrological chart is just
as valid
SL>as the next person's! Then there was that ONE kid who seemed upset that
this
SL>expose crumbled his world. He was very upset that astrology was shown
to be a
SL>fraud.
SL>
SL>I didn't know if I should laugh at the kid or feel sorry for him.
Have pity. Afterall, how would you feel if your strongly held beliefs were
suddenly shown to be very questionable? ;)
Harold
---
ž KingQWK 1.05 ž
* Origin: The Nighthawk BBS - West Seneca, NY USA - V.34 (1:260/158)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 158
SEEN-BY: 261/1137 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1
SEEN-BY: 282/4073 292/876 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105
SEEN-BY: 353/353 362/37 369/110 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253
SEEN-BY: 640/201 712/515 2430/1423 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306
SEEN-BY: 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 260/158 10 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: David Bloomberg
|Sub: Dowsing=Fraud
|Date: 10 Mar 96 13:15:49
EID:bf80 206a69e0
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 31431c57
-=> Quoting Moderator to John Powell <=-
RC> Moderator, oh moderator....where fore art thou moderator?
JP> Multiple Choice:
JP> - The Moderator is busy ducking the issue of how Freddie got
JP> away with accusing me of being a liar and accusing of posting
JP> fraudulent information - with absolutely no substantiation
JP> whatsoever.
JP> - The Moderator is busy ducking the issue of Liar-Freddie
JP> getting caught red-handed LYING.
JP> - The Moderator is busy ducking the issue of Liar-Scotty getting
JP> caught red-handed LYING.
JP> - The Moderator is busy trying to figure out how he can ban
me
JP> or put me on conference vacation.
JP> - All of the above.
Mo> However, I HAVE called you on your insults and your response to a
Mo> Moderator message in the echo. And I am calling you on this. Leave
Mo> the moderating to the Moderators.
Nothing in the above message was Moderating. I was not attempting to
Moderate anyone or anything.
It seems to me, (my personal opinion is), that the Modeator of this Echo
is looking for a reason, any reason, to ban or suspend me. I don't
understand why that is because a Moderator needs no reason.
I do know that the _only_ way to sweep the Freddie-Liar and Scotty-Liar
under the rug is to silence the participants.
Mo> If you do go on "conference vacation," it will be because you earn it
Mo> by repeatedly breaking the rules -- I won't need to "figure out" how
Mo> to do it. This makes your third warning in less than two weeks. One
Mo> might almost think you WANT to get banned...
No, I don't WANT to get banned...
This message from the Moderator is a perfect example. Nothing in the
message attempts to moderate any person or any topic... If the
Moderator wants to give me a vacation then the Moderator should just do
it, and do it without making up false reasons - just do it.
Considering everything else that has transpired, considering everything
that has been exposed, I think an improper suspension would be the
_perfect_ end to this already incredible experience.
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence BBS (1:261/1201)
SEEN-BY: 13/13 102/735 890 103/2 104/821 105/103 330 123/1 129/11 147/76
SEEN-BY: 153/800 920 157/586 161/55 167/92 200/204 202/1207 203/15 206/2711
SEEN-BY: 209/720 218/801 907 234/100 239/1 245/6910 251/12 260/10 261/1
SEEN-BY: 261/1041 1087 1137 1170 1180 1181 1201 1557 2600 3060 3090 3900
SEEN-BY: 267/200 270/101 102 103 104 211 272/82 280/1 282/1 4073 292/876
SEEN-BY: 320/119 328/104 341/70 344/3 346/49 348/105 353/353 362/37 369/110
SEEN-BY: 372/200 379/10 380/25 387/31 396/1 600/253 640/201 712/515 2430/1423
SEEN-BY: 2433/225 2490/3001 2613/5 2624/306 3401/308 3601/15 3615/7 3619/25
SEEN-BY: 3637/1 3653/777 3805/3
PATH: 261/1201 3090 1137 270/101 218/801
|From: John Powell
|To: Rod Speed
|Sub: Dowsing
|Date: 10 Mar 96 13:15:50
EID:fa91 206a69e0
PID: BWRA 3.02 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:261/1201.0 31431c58
-=> Quoting Rod Speed to John Powell <=-
JP> There have been a number properly organized and documented
JP> tests where certain subjects scored well beyond random chance.
RS> Nope, not one, cite the examples you claim that was done.
Do the research yourself.
JP> (And most of those people scored well beyond random
JP> chance most of the time, yet folks wishing to easily
JP> debunk those facts attribute that to coincidence...)
RS> Crap, cite them John.
Do the research yourself.
JP> I'd suggest that you follow up using some of the stuff I previously
JP> posted, especially talking with the researchers themselves.
RS> We dont do rigorous science like that John, if you really can show
RS> with rigorous science that say humans can detect the earths magnetic
RS> field, we have these funky things called refereed scientific journals
RS> etc.
As I suggested, do the research yourself, talk to the folks personally.
Many of these scie