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