God Damned Fundies!
--------
From: Fredric Rice
To: All
Sub: Ark Hoax Continues, 1 of 2
Date: 29 Nov 93 20:42:49
--------
EID:7748 1b7da558
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet a692ae39
PID: FM 2.02
* Forwarded from "HolySmoke (Religion debunking)"
* Originally by David Rice
* Originally to All
* Originally dated 22 Nov 1993, 19:09
LONG BEACH MAN ADMITS ARK HOAX
Television: The out-of-work actor who claimed on a CBS special to have
located the biblical craft now says it was just a big setup.
By Daniel Cerone
L.A. Times Staff Writer
(Pages F1, F17)
The man who said he discovered the snow-covered location of Noah's Ark
high on Mt. Ararat in Turkey, and who displayed what he claimed to be
an ancient piece of wood from inside the ark as proof on a CBS special
earlier this year, now says it was a hoax.
George Jammal, an out-of-work Israeli actor living in North Long
Beach, admitted in an interview this week that he made up the story to
expose those who produce and broadcast what he considers to be poorly
researched religious propaganda.
Presented with this information by The Times, CBS decided Friday to
scrap two projects that were in development with Sun International
Pictures, the Salt Lake City-based production company that made "The
Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark," which CBS broadcast in February
to an estimated 20 million viewers.
Part of the network's decision not to move ahead with the Sun
programs "Revelations" and "The UFO Phenomenon" stemmed from the
tactics Sun used several months ago to try to pry a confession from
Jammal, including threats that CBS was going to sue him -- which the
network adamantly denies.
"All of this has clearly made us re-examine our business
relationship with Sun, and we won't be going forward with those
projects," network spokeswoman Susan Tick said Friday.
But "Mysteries of the Ancient World," another program from Sun
examining such phenomena as the Sphinx, Nostradamus, the Bermuda
Triangle and the Shroud of Turin, has essentially been completed and
will air on CBS. That program has been carefully reviewed for
accuracy by the network's legal department and program practices
department, Tick said.
"Incredible Discovery" came under strong criticism because its case
for the existence of Noah's Ark, as described in the Bible, was said
to be based heavily on the views of creationists who oppose the
scientific theory of evolution.
"We're a motion-picture producer, and we don't take a point of
view, creationist or otherwise," countered Sun President Allan
Pederson. [Another liar for god. --- drice]
Asked whether Sun planned to revise its research techniques to
prevent similar hoaxes, Pederson said that such safety measures have
always been in place.
"We certainly will be as conscientious as we can and scrutinize
sources as closely as we can in the future," he said. "But frankly,
we took the same due diligence before all this. My stance is that
it's just about impossible to defend against that kind of well-planned
and well-thought-out deception."
From Jammal's perspective, the deception was painfully obvious.
The "sacred wood" from the ark was actually from some railroad tracks
in Long Beach, he said, and he has never set foot in Turkey.
"This is a scam that has been pulled on the American public, and
it's gone too far," Jammal explained from his three-bedroom home this
week, holding the scrap of wood that he hardened by cooking it in an
oven. Referring to Sun and CBS, he said, "They're foisting religious
propaganda on Americans and making them believe it's true. So I
hoaxed the hoaxters."
CBS does not plan to run an on-air correction.
SEEN-BY: 101/1 102/2 138 752 835 850 851 890 943 1006 1302 103/0 105/30
128/1
SEEN-BY: 134/1 147/7 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 710 720 770 218/101 219/302
SEEN-BY: 270/101 273/10 290/627 309/2 379/11 396/1 640/75
---
* Origin: The Skeptic Tank, Holland, tilting at windmills (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/851 890
PATH: 102/890
--------
From: Fredric Rice
To: All
Sub: Ark Hoax Continues, 2 of 2
Date: 29 Nov 93 20:43:02
--------
EID:770c 1b7da561
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet a692ae3a
PID: FM 2.02
* Forwarded from "HolySmoke (Religion debunking)"
* Originally by David Rice
* Originally to All
* Originally dated 22 Nov 1993, 19:10
"A, there's no format to do it, and B, it's just going to attract
more attention to this," Tick said. "Plus the show never purported
the wood was from the ark, only that this person on the show said it
was."
When national news reports first surfaced in June that Jammal might
have been lying, Sun stood firmly behind Jammal, who held to his
story. Jammal's original plan to reveal the stunt in his own time was
ruined when a friend of his who was in on the hoax -- Gerald Larue, a
USC professor emeritus of biblical history and archeology -- began
talking to the press.
Sun producers called Larue the hoaxter, retained a lawyer for
Jammal, presented an eight-page defense to CBS and wrote letters to
Time magazine, The Times and others to defend their production. CBS,
in turn, launched its own internal investigation.
Now, even Sun admits it was wrong.
"We were obviously duped, and all I can do is admit to that,"
Pedersen said. "We'll take the portion that concerned him out of the
picture for any future airings." That won't be on CBS, though, which
will not repeat the program.
Jammal contends that Sun knew all along he was an impostor. After
"Incredible Discovery" was broadcast, numerous scholars and critics of
creation "science," including Larue, wrote to CBS and Sun insisting
that the show was bunk.
"This was a dishonest program," Larue said. "Look at the very
title: 'The Amazing Discovery of Noah's Ark.' They didn't even
discover it."
Robert S. Dietz, a professor emeritus in geology at Arizona State
University, even asked Sun for Jammal's piece of wood so he could run
a Carbon-14 test to determine its authenticity -- something Sun
producers say they did not do, even though Jammal gave them a chip of
the wood. Sun did not provide it to him, and Jammal said that a Sun
researcher told him not to show his wood to Dietz.
"'Do not show him the wood,' I was told," Jammal said. "Doesn't
that mean they know the wood is fake?"
An atheist who was raised by Catholic and Greek Orthodox parents,
Jammal concocted a story about how he visited the ark and then sent a
letter to the institute, riddled with inside jokes, to see if anyone
would believe him.
Jammal resisted admitting the hoax for a long time; he never
returned the calls of CBS attorneys. Nor did he cave in when a Sun
representative kept calling him in June and July, leaving intimidating
messages on his answering machine. One message said: "There's talk of
a serious lawsuit against you, George, and I don't want to see that
happen, because the resources of CBS would just wipe you out."
"We never considered a lawsuit," network spokeswoman Tick said
Friday.
So why did Jammal finally fess up, after all this time?
"When I heard that CBS was going forward with more phony religious
documentary, pseudoscience programs, that's when my volcano erupted,"
Jammal said.
When told Friday that his tactics budged the CBS network, he let
out a belly laugh. "Prof. Larue and many other scholars wrote letters
of protest and nobody listened," he said. "Well. now they're
listening and they're talking. I feel I made a difference."
[picture on page F17. Caption: "George Jammal shows wood that he once
claimed was from the ark."]
SEEN-BY: 101/1 102/2 138 752 835 850 851 890 943 1006 1302 103/0 105/30
128/1
SEEN-BY: 134/1 147/7 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 710 720 770 218/101 219/302
SEEN-BY: 270/101 273/10 290/627 309/2 379/11 396/1 640/75
---
* Origin: The Skeptic Tank, Holland, tilting at windmills (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/851 890
PATH: 102/890
--------
From: Willis Baker
To: David Bloomberg
Sub: Re: 20/20 FMS
Date: 26 Nov 93 14:17:53
--------
EID:42ba 1b7a7220
I saw it...It was a trip.....I wonder how many people went to jail because
the
athorities beleived the child........
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Inner Sanctum - Six Lines & 13 CDs (813) 848-6055 (1:3619/21)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 3619/21 25 3603/20 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Bloomberg
To: Christopher Baker
Sub: Brainwashing by the Feds and Media
Date: 25 Nov 93 06:49:16
--------
EID:7d2f 1b793620
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 3794a007
REPLY: 1:231/110 2CE4720F
In a msg to All on , Linda Thompson of 1:231/110 writes:
LT> I've been observing, interviewing, etc. and have discovered some of
LT> the brainwashing/crowd manipulation techniques used by the feds (it's
LT> actually taught in a school, watch for these, you'll see them for
LT> sure):
Considering the other things I've seen come from Ms. Thompson, I give this
exa
ctly the same amount of credibility that I give her "theory" that the bridge
h
eights aren't posted on bridges to warn trucks and the like, but to instead
ac
t as gauges for artillery to shoot them out when the government begins the
war
on the people.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: The more one knows, the less one believes. (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 2430/1 108/155 220 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Dr Pepper
To: All
Sub: Furphy
Date: 24 Nov 93 18:33:00
--------
EID:23ae 1b789420
TID: IMAIL 1.40G3/l+ PK7-B
MSGID: 1:103/241@FIDONET.ORG a41276d1
PID: FM 2.2.mL OC00007F
Well i am an american, and could not think of the meaning for that word.
But,
unlike my fellow NetTriviaNuts, i not only own a copy of "Brewer's Dictionary
of Phrase & Fable", i read it cover to cover years ago. And i had a vague
memo
ry of having seen the word there. So i got it out and behold:
"In World War I containers for sanitary purposes were suplied to australian
mi
litary camps by the firm of Furphy and Co., whose name appeared on all their
p
roducts. Hence a "furphy" was a latrine rumor or a report of doubtful reliabil
ity."
So there!
10 2
DR PEPPER
4
---
* Origin: Happy days are here again! (1:103/241)
SEEN-BY: 10/227 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 208 227 241
307
SEEN-BY: 103/355 105/30 128/1 147/7 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101
SEEN-BY: 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 103/241 208 0 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Dr Pepper
To: All
Sub: Furphy
Date: 27 Nov 93 05:39:00
--------
EID:23ae 1b7b2ce0
TID: IMAIL 1.40G3/l+ PK7-B
MSGID: 1:103/241@FIDONET.ORG a585a135
PID: FM 2.2.mL OC00007F
Well i am an american, and could not think of the meaning for that word.
But,
unlike my fellow NetTriviaNuts, i not only own a copy of "Brewer's Dictionary
of Phrase & Fable", i read it cover to cover years ago. And i had a vague
memory of having seen the word there. So i got it out and behold:
"In World War I containers for sanitary purposes were suplied to australian
military camps by the firm of Furphy and Co., whose name appeared on all
their
products. Hence a "furphy" was a latrine rumor or a report of doubtful
reliability."
So there!
10 2
DR PEPPER
4
---
* Origin: Happy days are here again! (1:103/241)
SEEN-BY: 10/227 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 208 227 241
307
SEEN-BY: 103/355 105/30 128/1 147/7 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101
SEEN-BY: 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 103/241 208 0 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rick Moen @ 916/1008
To: Charlie Wilson
Sub: Re: Tilting at creationist
Date: 25 Nov 93 11:28:18
--------
EID:640a 1b795b80
MSGID: 8:916/1008 7a27cf1b
> RM@9> Glad to be able to clear that up.
>
> In your _opinion_....and only there. While I find your blithe
> attitude amusing, it's only that....your opinion and in dispute of the
> dictionary.
> Charlie
Actually, if you had bothered to pay attention, you'd find that my
explanation does _not_ contradict your college dictionary. Further,
if you want a truly relevant authority, check a good biology text,
instead of your general-purpose dictionary. I can recommend Keeton's
_Biological Science_, for example. Even better would be a telephone
call to the National Center for Science Education in Berkeley, CA,
510-526-1674. Its director, Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, is a good friend
of mine. You may also wish to check in to the USENET talk.origins
newsgroup, available on my BBS, among many other places.
Cheers,
Rick M.
--- MsgToss 2.0d (beta)
# Origin: Bay Area Skeptics: Doubt on the Prowl Since '82 1:125/27 (8:916/100
8)
* Origin: Gateway System to/from RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1 105/30
SEEN-BY: 106/116 107/33 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 266/22 267/200 270/101 102 211 283/657
SEEN-BY: 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 916/1008 1 8/8 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Bruce Baugh
To: Charlie Wilson
Sub: Tilting at creationist
Date: 27 Nov 93 21:58:26
--------
EID:84c4 1b7baf40
MSGID: 1:105/95 2cf83eb7
BB>> This sounds testable. Please produce citations in the literature of
BB>> biology, geology or archeology which show the confusion between fact
BB>> and theory which concern you. Popularizations don't count, because
CW> Well said. I shall. Give me a little time since my working hours
and
CW> the hours of the campus library usually are in conflict. :)
Great! Thanks - it's a pleasure simply to have an _answer_ to this sort
of pro
dding. Believe me, I know about scheduling problems. As Tom Bodette (sp?)
says
, or rather doesn't say, we'll leave the echo on for you. :-)
CW> Just curious: do you consider Phil Klass' methodology to fall under
CW> this criteria?
Gee, it's been long enough since I've read anything by Klass that I'd hesitate
to express an opinion. I'll just slide him in under my generalization that
_m
ost_ UFOlogists fail to question their own presuppositions adequately. There
c
an be good reasons for holding any given set of assumptions, but it's not
hone
st to act as if they descended from on high or sprung full-blown from the
well
springs of logic.
CW> Thank you for providing a valid challenge and presenting legitimate
CW> criteria.
Certainly. And should an apology from me be in order, you'll get one in
full m
easure.
-=[ Bruce ]=-
--- GEcho 1.00
* Origin: APâ Online, lurking in Portland, OR (1:105/95)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 40 50 95 128/1
SEEN-BY: 147/7 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 105/95 40 30 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Tad Cook
To: TIM NEMEC
Sub: Re: A Reversal of Gravity
Date: 25 Nov 93 18:40:01
--------
EID:42f3 1b799500
PID: BWRA 3.00 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:343/124.0 2cf54774
-=> Quoting TIM NEMEC to TAD COOK <=-
TN> I wouldn't deny that many of the orgs that participate in United Way
TN> do good things and have many truely dedicated people working for them.
TN> But as a group, their strong-armed fund raising tactics leave a sour
TN> taste in my mouth. It devalues and damages the real task at hand.
WHAT strong-armed fund raising? Where I work, contributions are
optional.
TN> I have, and will continue to donate to individual organizations. But
TN> when fund raising becomes THE business, I have little sympathy and no
TN> money.
Thats what United Way does...is raise money for good works in the
community.
TN> As for UW's efficiency, color me highly skeptical.
Why? Look at their expense ratios. Its one of the best in the
field.
TN> When the costs to administer a system exceed the value of the service
TN> produced by that system, collapse is imminent.
HUH? What does this have to do with United Way?
TN> If United Way is one of the most efficient charities (and of that I'm
TN> quite skeptical) then
...Then WHAT? Your message ended here.
... Catch the Blue Wave!
--- Fmail 0.96/RA 2.01+
* Origin: Boone's Farm, Seattle, WA 206-282-2851 (1:343/124)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1 105/30
SEEN-BY: 106/116 107/33 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 267/200 270/101 102 211 283/657 290/627 300/1
SEEN-BY: 396/1 640/75
PATH: 343/124 300 1 138/1 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Tad Cook
To: Craig Helm
Sub: Re: A Reversal of Gravity
Date: 25 Nov 93 19:01:03
--------
EID:7c10 1b799820
PID: BWRA 3.00 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:343/124.0 2cf54776
-=> Quoting Craig Helm to Glen Brady <=-
> "The 64-year-old North Geelong researcher claims that he last month
> uncovered the secret to the scientific principal which underlies
> the flight of UFOs."
> "Future generations of the model will (eventually, he says) spin
> and gyrate around the solar system aided by the Watson theory of
> gravity-defying 'angular momentum'."
CH> This sounds similar to the theories of a New Zealand pilot -
CH> B.Cathie I think - of twenty years ago. He published a couple of
CH> books detailing "power grids" that UFO's tapped into to fly about.
CH> Full of detail with obscure math he promised that soon we would be
CH> able to tap into the source.
Ah yes...Bruce Cathie! I found an amazing UFO book by him in a
local new age bookstore, called something like ENERGY GRID-1990.
He claimed that he mapped out this "power grid" that held UFOs
aloft, and said that when he went to the locations where these
grid lines crossed, he found some strange structures in residential
backyards....structures that sounded to me like cubical quad ham
radio antennas!
Sure enough, further reading in the book revealed that in fact
ham radio operators are part of a worldwide UFO conspiracy!
I wrote up a funny bulletin for the amateur radio packet network
about this, which got quite a reaction. Cathie's weird interpretations
of perfectly normal ham radio activities are hilarious.
... Catch the Blue Wave!
--- Fmail 0.96/RA 2.01+
* Origin: Boone's Farm, Seattle, WA 206-282-2851 (1:343/124)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1 105/30
SEEN-BY: 106/116 107/33 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 267/200 270/101 102 211 283/657 290/627 300/1
SEEN-BY: 396/1 640/75
PATH: 343/124 300 1 138/1 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Steve Quarrella
To: Jackson Harding
Sub: FURPHY
Date: 28 Nov 93 13:45:00
--------
EID:36db 1b7c6da0
MSGID: 1:124/9005.0 2cf8f296
INTL 0:0/0 1:124/9005
With: Dr. Pepper
DP>"In World War I containers for sanitary purposes were suplied to australian
>military camps by the firm of Furphy and Co., whose name appeared on all
>their products. Hence a "furphy" was a latrine rumor or a report of doubtfu
l
>reliability."
Aha! Once again, funny speaking Americans pee in your Wheaties!
* QMPro 1.50 41-8727 * "He has a wife, you know..."
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.00M1
* Origin: Valencia...Steven in THE TIME MEDDLER: "IDBI!" (1:124/9005)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 124/9005 9015 1 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Dan Mckinnon
To: Beverlee Broadlick
Sub: Skeptic
Date: 27 Nov 93 23:35:11
--------
EID:aa86 1b7bbc60
MSGID: 1:229/15@fidonet.org be0068ff
BB>What is a skeptic? A person who questions everything? A person who
believ
es
BB>nothing. I am really interested in your opinion. Beverlee Broadlick
I can only answer as an individual.
I have a mind that seems to spot incongruities faster than many
others, and often in cases where others simply don't. When told
something, I don't accept it as fact if it seems to contradict known
(to me, at least) scientific facts.
I think a skeptic is usually somebody who is quite well-read on all
the oddities of the world, on _both_ sides of the fence. For instance,
in the 60's(I'm 45) I read many books on UFOs, Immanuel Velikofsky, J.
B. Rhine, Chariots of the GOds type, books on psychics, and so on.
I gradually started to read books _critical_ of the above. One of
the reasons that I now think I did that is that I noticed that all of
the books regurgitated the same claims and stories, often many years
old, and that the closer one tried to get to the evidence, the more it
withdrew. I found that suspicious. I also was put off by the attitude of
many practitioners - don't question anything, don't ask me how I do it,
and the vague words with which they described their experiences.
I reccomend books such as CRASH GO THE CHARIOTS, and L.Sprague de
Camp's THE ANCIENT ENGINEERS, books on magic techyniques and tricks,
books on fringe people such as circus performers and con artists,
hoaxes, and books or articles on psychiatry in regards to the ability of
the mind to manufacture its own reality, and distort perceptions and
thought..
Also, I've always read technology-related magazines and books
since the late 50's, when I read my father's Popular Science and
Mechanix Illustrated. And I was reading 2 - 3 books a week since age 10.
I've been a computer programmer in the late 60s, a TV technician, and
even a Jet Pilot trainee briefly in the RCAF in 1966. ANd my IQ was more
than sufficient when I was a member of Mensa.
Many accuse skeptics of being "negative thinkers". I think I'm
just more of a problem solver, and reality is a problem to solve - what
is "real", and what isn't. I'm also old enough to know that people don't
always tell the truth, people may decieve themselve about the truth,
people may not know at all what the truth is, some people are afraid to
know the truth, and many will hate you if you try to make them aware of
a truth which nullifies their beliefs. I believe personally in an
objective reality.
THis is the first time I've ever really written anything about
this, thanks for the opportunity.
Dan
---
* OLX 2.1 TD * Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'e'
* Origin: CRS Online, Toronto, Ontario (1:229/15)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 229/15 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Dr Pepper
To: David Bloomberg
Sub: Brainwashing by the Feds and Media
Date: 28 Nov 93 20:44:00
--------
EID:2e30 1b7ca580
TID: IMAIL 1.40G3/l+ PK7-B
MSGID: 1:103/241@FIDONET.ORG a612dce9
REPLY: 1:2430/2112 3794a007
PID: FM 2.2.mL OC00007F
> LT> I've been observing, interviewing, etc. and have discovered some
of
> LT> the brainwashing/crowd manipulation techniques used by the feds (it's
> LT> actually taught in a school, watch for these, you'll see them for
> LT> sure):
> Considering the other things I've seen come from Ms. Thompson, I
> give this exactly the same amount of credibility that I give her
> "theory" that the bridge heights aren't posted on bridges to
> warn trucks and the like, but to instead act as gauges for
> artillery to shoot them out when the government begins the war
> on the people.
Say what? If i were a government official and had a mind to make war on
the pe
ople, i'd have the marines or the navy Seals apply shaped charges.
Artillery? What kind of self respecting neo facist conspirator would use
somet
hing that crude?
10 2
DR PEPPER
4
---
* Origin: Happy days are here again! (1:103/241)
SEEN-BY: 10/227 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 208 227 241
307
SEEN-BY: 103/355 105/30 128/1 147/7 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101
SEEN-BY: 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 103/241 208 0 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Bruce Baugh
To: Tad Cook
Sub: A Reversal of Gravity
Date: 29 Nov 93 00:13:18
--------
EID:ab90 1b7d01a0
MSGID: 1:105/95 2cf9afdb
REPLY: 1:343/124.0 2cf54774
Slowly but inexorably the insidious (though small) Doctor Amoeba
closed in. Tad Cook only had the time (Thursday November 25 1993) to say...
TC> WHAT strong-armed fund raising? Where I work, contributions are
TC> optional.
Good! In many places I've worked it isn't - in about half of the office
I've t
emped in, failure to contribute to United Way can result in disciplinary
actio
n or even demotion. It gets pretty ugly.
TC> Thats what United Way does...is raise money for good works in the
TC> community.
Yes, but with horrendous overhead. In one case I know of, someone made a
$10,0
00 bequest to be used specifically for muscular dystrophy. A follow-up check
w
ith the MD groups that work with United Way showed that less than $1000
made i
t to them - the rest was "administration". That's unusual even for United
Way,
but last annual report of theirs I saw, they ran about 50% "administrative"
c
osts. The Red Cross runs about 21%, the Salvation Army about 12%. Good intenti
ons are not enough.
-=[ Bruce ]=-
--- GEcho 1.00
* Origin: APâ Online, lurking in Portland, OR (1:105/95)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 40 50 95 128/1
SEEN-BY: 147/7 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 105/95 40 30 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Thomas Kirby
To: DAN MCKINNON
Sub: Re: Skeptic
Date: 28 Nov 93 21:00:00
--------
EID:9b4e 1b7ca800
MSGID: 1:299/299 a6950147
-=> Quoting Dan Mckinnon@1:229/15 to Beverlee Broadlick <=-
DM> I reccomend books such as CRASH GO THE CHARIOTS, and L.Sprague
DM> de Camp's THE ANCIENT ENGINEERS, books on magic techyniques and tricks,
DM> books on fringe people such as circus performers and con artists,
DM> hoaxes, and books or articles on psychiatry in regards to the ability
DM> of the mind to manufacture its own reality, and distort perceptions
and
DM> thought..
However, without cooberating witnesses, assuming that the mind has
manufactured observations is speculative. Even examining forensic
evidence can be quite misleading, even when certain evidence may seem
conclusive.
Do you ever notice the phenomenon of accepting the observations of
witnesses that correspond with pre-conceived notions, while rejecting
any that may conflict? Isn't this a form of self-deception?
I am skeptical about skeptics.
DM> Also, I've always read technology-related magazines and books
DM> since the late 50's, when I read my father's Popular Science and
DM> Mechanix Illustrated. And I was reading 2 - 3 books a week since age
DM> 10. I've been a computer programmer in the late 60s, a TV technician,
DM> and even a Jet Pilot trainee briefly in the RCAF in 1966. ANd my IQ
was
DM> more than sufficient when I was a member of Mensa.
How is it now?
I have read technology-related books and magazines since the late
1960's and have learned some of the underlying mathematics. I am
convinced that scientific "laws" and "constants" are statistical
artifacts that may be mostly true but you can't make strict
determinations based on those laws. There are always unknown
influences, even within the accepted mainstream ideas.
DM> Many accuse skeptics of being "negative thinkers".
Some of them are charlatans and just plain showmen.
DM> I think I'm
DM> just more of a problem solver, and reality is a problem to solve -
DM> what is "real", and what isn't.
Assuming that there is a difference.
DM> I'm also old enough to know that people
DM> don't always tell the truth, people may decieve themselve about the
DM> truth, people may not know at all what the truth is, some people are
DM> afraid to know the truth, and many will hate you if you try to make
DM> them aware of a truth which nullifies their beliefs. I believe
DM> personally in an objective reality.
A belief in an objective reality can lead people to editing their
memories to fit in with "reality" and to bully others into accepting
their own reality. If you try to parse problems much more complex than
"what goes up must come down", you get into areas where the day is
literally carried by the ones who have the most funding and the best
contacts.
Your statement here is just as true of physicists as it is of
fundamentalist Christians.
Are you not skeptical of your reasons to be skeptical?
... I'm not politically correct. I'm ideologically approved!
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
--- MjrFido 2.01
* Origin: Metropolis BBS - 48 lines - Lawrence KS (1:299/299)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 273/10 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 299/299 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Terry Goodman
To: Linda Thompson
Sub: BRAINWASHING BY THE FEDS
Date: 28 Nov 93 08:47:00
--------
EID:9985 1b7c45e0
LT> I've been observing, interviewing, etc. and have discovered some of
> the brainwashing/crowd manipulation techniques used by the feds
> (it's actually taught in a school, watch for these, you'll see them
> for sure):...
Some hand gestures and other body language, as well as certain phrases
and certain speech rhythms, are picked up naturally by public speakers,
while others are learned by careful and deliberate study and practice.
Certain stylistic characteristics can be traced back through various
great speakers of history.
These tools of brainwashing/crowd manipulation are freely and publicly
available, not the secrets of any particular political group.
--Terry
--- TMail v1.31.5
* Origin: Los Angeles Valley College (818) 985-7150 (1:102/837)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 837 850 851 852 890 943 1006 209/209
PATH: 102/837 752 2 851
--------
From: TIM NEMEC
To: FREDRIC RICE
Sub: Re: G.C. Marshall
Date: 25 Nov 93 23:26:00
--------
EID:d457 1b79bb40
Via SLMAIL v3.0 (#0386)
In a college geology class, I was told that you can stand at any point on
the
Earth's surface, and if you dig down far enough, you'll always hit water.
If true, this would seem to stack the deck in the dowser's favor
--- SLMAIL v3.0 (#0386)
* Origin: LIghthouse BBS Filebone Hub 319-366-1985 (1:283/120)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1 105/30
SEEN-BY: 106/116 107/33 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 266/22 267/200 270/101 102 211 273/10 283/657
SEEN-BY: 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 283/120 125 657 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Dominic Tremblay
To: All
Sub: Mr. Mystery BBS
Date: 26 Nov 93 10:35:03
--------
EID:81e9 1b7a5460
PID: RA 2
MSGID: 1:249/132 52947988
Just want to mention that Mr. Mystery BBS, the only BBS for magicians
in Canada has join this echo. This BBS is for conjuror's and magicians.
If you
are skeptic about mysterious effect presented by magicians, you can chat
with
our members. This BBS is also interested by all sort of unsolved mysteries
su
ch as telepathy, telekinesy, tarots cards, UFO, etc...
Dominic Tremblay...
--- GEcho 1.00
* Origin: Mr. Mystery BBS: The only BBS for magicians in Canada (1:249/132)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1 105/30
SEEN-BY: 106/116 107/33 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 266/22 267/200 270/101 102 211 273/10 283/657
SEEN-BY: 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 249/132 200 99 12/12 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Steve Quarrella
To: Chris Shubert
Sub: TAKE IT SOME WHERE ELSE
Date: 26 Nov 93 16:49:26
--------
EID:f6c0 1b7a8620
PID: SX4.00P/5.00M1 BT026
Hwaet, Chris!
13 Nov 93, dixit Fredric Rice ad Chris Shubert:
FR> That's not how Echo Mail works, Chris. And it's probably why
FR> you were asked to leave the Separation of Church and State forum
FR> and will probably be asked to leave the skeptics forum.
FR> (Pendantic whines about persecution are expected.)
But you will NOT be asked to leave HOLYSMOKE, where your comments are
certainly topical. We'll see you there.
... On the other hand, it -is- OK to prick your finger.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P BT026
* Origin: Valencia...Steven in THE TIME MEDDLER: "IDBI!" (1:124/9005)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 273/10 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 124/9005 9015 1 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Steve Quarrella
To: Christopher Baker
Sub: some new claims of subliminals
Date: 26 Nov 93 16:51:08
--------
EID:ca29 1b7a8660
PID: SX4.00P/5.00M1 BT026
Hwaet, Christopher!
22 Nov 93, dixit Christopher Baker ad All:
CB> this time not in commercials but in person.
CB> anyone heard these claims before?
Oh, brother. It looks like Saturday Night Live's Mr. Subliminal is in for
some competition. The catch is, however, that HE is funny.
... Give masochists a fair crack of the whip.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P BT026
* Origin: Valencia...Steven in THE TIME MEDDLER: "IDBI!" (1:124/9005)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 273/10 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 124/9005 9015 1 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Steve Quarrella
To: Rick Moen @ 916/1008
Sub: Subliminal advertising
Date: 26 Nov 93 16:58:06
--------
EID:9f95 1b7a8740
PID: SX4.00P/5.00M1 BT026
Hwaet, Rick!
22 Nov 93, dixit Rick Moen @ 916/1008 ad Steve Quarrell
>> Rick, have you got any good reading on this? I find myself often
>> engaged in the "backwards masking" arguments in HOLYSMOKE, and of
[Appreciate the info.]
RM> even half the time). Further, in the media where "subliminal
RM> techniques" are supposedly used, the quality of the recording
RM> and playback equipment is typically such that this
RM> half-the-time signal is going to be further buried in various
RM> forms of noise.
This has been one of my assertions in the past. However, with regard to
the issue of backward subliminals, well, we never seem to get beyond my
question "And can you furnish me with some evidence that the human brain
can process reversed speech?" One nut in particular started up with
"Well, we can read in reverse, can't we?", which is easily shot down. Then
the usual fits of moral indignance take place, while nut in question goes
off
to spread the disinformation ELSEWHERE.
RM> with a forty-decibel floor of tape noise above the threshold of
RM> human hearing, I get the distinct impression that all the
RM> persuasion is taking place _before_ purchase. ;->
Ye olde placebo effect...
RM> Further, as already noted, the classic "example" of subliminal
RM> persuasion -- at a movie theatre in New Jersey, a couple of
RM> decades ago -- turns out upon investigation to be a publicity
RM> stunt for the theatre.
I take it that the deck was stacked. I've read about this in the writings
of William Poundstone.
RM> Also, if these techniques worked, they
RM> would be Topic A in all advertising courses, and in fact
RM> they're not even mentioned.
This has been brought up previously as well, and damned if all of the
crickets start chirping again. Of course, some will continue to claim that
it's some sort of secret government (or Satanic) plot, but again, without
foundation.
RM> That should give you a little information. Both this topic and
RM> "backward masking" (sometimes included as a tease-the-fundies
RM> joke, as in one Pink Floyd album)
I have a list that goes on for a few pages, enumerating some of the known
examples of backwards masking.
RM> _Skeptical Inquirer_ articles, and you may want to consult the
RM> brief index of issues in the back of any copy, for which issues
RM> to look up.
Will do. Thanks!
... 750 megahertz...or bust!
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P BT026
* Origin: Valencia...Steven in THE TIME MEDDLER: "IDBI!" (1:124/9005)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 273/10 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 124/9005 9015 1 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Dan Mckinnon
To: All
Sub: BELIEVE IT OR NOT SHOW
Date: 25 Nov 93 23:10:11
--------
EID:b5d2 1b79b940
MSGID: 1:229/15@fidonet.org bc971442
COPIED TO: F-Skeptic, R-Strange, U-Skeptic, U-AFLKURBN, Conference Skeptic
At 8:30 EDT on Friday, Nov. 26, WTBS (Ted Turner's Atlanta Super-
Station) will broadcast:
(From Toronto SUn TV GUide)
" The Incredible Life and Times of Robert Ripley: Believe It or Not
Chronicles the life of eccentric cartoonist's expeditions in
search of oddities. "
I know that doesn't scan, I copied it correctly.
(From Toronto Star)
" A youth (Jason Marsden) is whisked into the past to review the
life and discoveries of curiosity collector Robert Ripley
(Richard Portnow) "
JOHN WINSTON, I hope you see this!
Dan "And goodnight Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are." McKinnon
---
* OLX 2.1 TD * With fronds like you, who needs anemones?
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'e'
* Origin: CRS Online, Toronto, Ontario (1:229/15)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 273/10 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 229/15 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Dan Mckinnon
To: Steve Crawford @ 916/1008
Sub: Lotteries
Date: 25 Nov 93 23:10:11
--------
EID:0de8 1b79b940
MSGID: 1:229/15@fidonet.org bc971444
SC@9>I'm with you, Rick. It's funny how someone can spend $50 on tickets
SC@9>and finally get a $5 winner and proclaim themselves a "winner."
SC@9>By my calculations he's lost 90% of his "investment." I guess
SC@9>"lottery logic" and "deficit reduction logic" must be related. :-)
Oh, I have NEVER denied that I am losing some money each year,
unless I win a bigger prize. I've already mentioned I won 61$ on one
draw and 55$ in another, plus a number of subsidiary 5$ and 10$ (for
getting 3 of 6 numbers in 6/49 and 6/39 draws). I'm actually close to
breaking even this year!
Please don't call me stupid or ignorant, or infer so, I'm not.
I don't spend hundreds of daollars a year on smoking or drinking,
because of health reasons, and I would have trouble getting out to a
track (if I liked racing, which I don't). So I buy lottery tickets. It's
discretionary income, and I treat it as such. I don't know what the
problem is with that. You act as if thre is zero chance of winning, and
also you focus on the 14,000,00 odds of getting the main prize, omitting
the subsidiaries. for 3, 4, 5 , and 5 + BONUS. Sure, I may never when
big, but for the 50 - 150 I lose out of the 300 each year, I DO have a
chance, and I know what I'm doing. If I could find a poker game with
non-smokers, I'd enjoy that, too! But the odds on that are even worse
than losing the lottery.
Rick seems to prefer horse races, his right. I mentioned that there
are a lot more costs and time involved in doing that, and have to point
out that the reason the horses pay off, like lotteries, is that there
is a lot of losers.
Even going to a casino has costs and time associated (Rick said
Keno has better odds)
And at the horse race, you have NO chance, unless you can afford
HUGE bets, of winning hundreds of thousands, or even millions. THe odds
are near vanishing in the lottery, but they're there. And you only have
to win it once!
I merely said that buying 300 tickets a year on a number of draws
gives you the same (improved) chances as buying 300 different tickets on
one draw. Rick says I am wrong, what do you say?
I wish you guys would grow up, and stop the snide asides. This is
a Skeptic's conference. Is my assertion in the paragraph above right or
wrong? and if wrong, why?
Dan
---
* OLX 2.1 TD * Reality-o-meter: [E\....F] I thought so!
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'e'
* Origin: CRS Online, Toronto, Ontario (1:229/15)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 273/10 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 229/15 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Macdonald
To: Paul Feonic
Sub: Leading with the left hand
Date: 25 Nov 93 16:47:39
--------
EID:53c4 1b7985e0
MSGID: 1:232/310 10090fdb
PID: VFIDO 6.10.03
Re: Re: Extraordinary.
I was amazed and amused to read those funny posts about hand guestures as
guids to who is lying! Has it it ever occured to anyone that if one is
right
handed, one leads with the left hand in boxing? That is the hand that throws
the jabs. For many a right hander, a left hand lead is very natural. I
have
caught myslef doing the same in my own lectures for a long time. And I
seldom have any reason to lie about Roman history.
--- VFIDO 6.10.03
* Origin: Hermes (1:232/310)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 273/10 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 232/310 302 4 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Macdonald
To: Fredric Rice
Sub: Frefric Rice,
Date: 25 Nov 93 16:47:40
--------
EID:50e8 1b7985e0
MSGID: 1:232/310 1009c3ea
PID: VFIDO 6.10.03
Re: G.C. Marshall
Fredric Rice,
No--I missed the water dowser, but I saw an aracheological dowser (!)
who did much the same thing. She was, i think, completly self-deluded.
When
I showed that my students had similar luck in locating archaeological sites
simply by looking at a good map and predicting on the basis of land forms
where people are likely to have settles--i.e. at the joinings of rivers--she
claimed we were all exercising psychic abilities wihtout knowing it ourselves!
--- VFIDO 6.10.03
* Origin: Hermes (1:232/310)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 273/10 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 232/310 302 4 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Bruce Baugh
To: Rick Moen @ 916/1008
Sub: ...then again....
Date: 26 Nov 93 10:18:04
--------
EID:9cfc 1b7a5240
MSGID: 1:105/95 2cf648ba
REPLY: 8:916/1008 7927d41b
Slowly but inexorably the insidious (though small) Doctor Amoeba
closed in. Rick Moen @ 916/1008 only had the time (Wednesday November 24
1993)
to say...
>> Mellow check, if you please, Rick. The question I read said, in
RM@9> Then I apologise. It's just that I've been hearing this over and
over
RM@9> for about seventeen years or so, and also I misread it as yet another
RM@9> attempt to start long discussions of elementary philosophy in this
RM@9> echo. We used to have one very long-winded fellow doing exactly that,
RM@9> maybe a year ago, until Jackson finally told him to put a sock in
it.
These things happen. Even otherwise reasonably sharp people can degenerate
whi
le riding their favorite hobby horses. It's a perennial problem. It's just
tha
t in _my_ case I'm never wrong. :-)
-=[ Bruce ]=-
--- GEcho 1.00
* Origin: Alpha Rho Gamma Online (1:105/95)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 40 50 95 128/1
SEEN-BY: 147/7 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 273/10 290/627 300/1
SEEN-BY: 396/1 640/75
PATH: 105/95 40 30 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Beverlee Broadlick
To: All
Sub: Skeptic
Date: 26 Nov 93 08:20:28
--------
EID:7c0e 1b7a4280
MSGID: 1:203/726.0 2cf62ccc
What is a skeptic? A person who questions everything? A person who believes
nothing. I am really interested in your opinion. Beverlee Broadlick
--- Maximus 2.01wb
* Origin: Vortex - Sacramento, CA. (916) 332-7141 (1:203/726)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 273/10 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 203/726 529 530 23 1 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Brown
To: Tim Nemec
Sub: Re: Subliminal Advertisin
Date: 26 Nov 93 07:41:00
--------
EID:21dd 1b7a3d20
TN> Still, advertising is a science based not so much on
TN> truth as on perception.
That's a polite way to put it. Maybe "subliminal" persuasion
by biological definition doesn't exist, but "motivating"
someone through irrational associations and dissociations does
exist.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- FMail 0.96g
* Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 (1:202/212)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 203 212 228 335 606 701 1002 1301 1702 209/208 209
SEEN-BY: 209/720 270/101 273/10 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 202/212 203 1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Charlie Wilson
To: Bruce Baugh
Sub: Re: Tilting at creationist
Date: 27 Nov 93 04:23:00
--------
EID:47a9 1b7b22e0
PID: QE 2.76-
I was shocked to see Bruce Baugh saying to Charlie Wilson:
CW> C'mon Rick, we're doing some serious nitpicking here. As soon as
CW> these bio's, geo's and archeo's state _fact_ as _fact_, I'll _happily_
CW> shut-up! You yourself say "body of theory"....when you state this as
BB> This sounds testable. Please produce citations in the literature of
BB> biology, geology or archeology which show the confusion between fact
BB> and theory which concern you. Popularizations don't count, because
BB> they're not peer-reviewed scientific research, just the opinion of a
BB> scientist on his or her own. (Similar situation to that in discussions
BB> of the Bible, in which the opinion of a televangelist is not in itself
BB> proof that something is or is not in the Bible.)
Well said. I shall. Give me a little time since my working hours and
the hours of the campus library usually are in conflict. :)
BB> If you don't know how the peer review process works, go to a
BB> university library and cruise the magazine shelves. NATURE or SCIENCE
BB> would be a good starting place; if memory serves, both discuss the
BB> process. If not, write or call them for information - don't take
BB> anyone else's word for it, get their policies.
Well aware of the process, thanx tho'.
As I said, be patient. About the only opportunity I have nowadays
to get by the library is on my days off.
Just curious: do you consider Phil Klass' methodology to fall under
this criteria?
Thank you for providing a valid challenge and presenting legitimate
criteria.
Charlie Wilson
--- Blue Wave/QBBS v2.12 [NR]
* Origin: Desert Frenzy BBS - Mutual UFO Network (1:209/226.0)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 226 720 724 7211 270/101 273/10 290/627
SEEN-BY: 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 209/226 7211 720 209 102/2 851
--------
From: Chris Shubert
To: Steve Zadarnowski
Sub: VERIFICATION
Date: 26 Nov 93 13:51:28
--------
EID:33cd 1b7a6e60
Mr. Zadarnowski,
> I take it by the above statement that you have substantial facts.
> I'll grant you many _might_ not like it, but we still wanna hear. Make
> it brief as you've probably got 1 chance to say something that doesn't
> sound like a philosophical or religious jaunt in hyperspace before
> the axe falls.
Given my imminent withdrawal from this forum, I suggest that, if you are
actua
lly interested in pursuing this subject, we do so via netmail. I am
gatewaying through 1:104/514.
At your service,
x
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Sound Doctrine BBS (303) 680-7209 Aurora,CO (1:104/514)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1 105/30
SEEN-BY: 106/116 107/33 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 266/22 267/200 270/101 102 211 273/10 283/657
SEEN-BY: 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 104/514 224 1 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Chris Shubert
To: Fredric Rice
Sub: WAY TO GO!
Date: 26 Nov 93 13:56:16
--------
EID:f417 1b7a6f00
Mr. Rice,
Way to go! You post a snide and officious message, receive a reply, ignore
th
e reply without (as you say) reading it, and repost your shamefully obnoxious
message.
You are, without doubt, one of the most thoroughly inquiring minds I have
ever
encountered. (N.B. - Just in case you don't get it, this is sarcasm.)
Of co
urse, any good skeptic would simply ignore any information presented and
go on
about forming whatever conclusion suits their biases. You are an excellent
r
epresentative of precisely the sort of welcome that I have been given, and
a c
redit to your philosophy!
I shake my sandals,
x
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Sound Doctrine BBS (303) 680-7209 Aurora,CO (1:104/514)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1 105/30
SEEN-BY: 106/116 107/33 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 266/22 267/200 270/101 102 211 273/10 283/657
SEEN-BY: 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 104/514 224 1 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Chris Shubert
To: All
Sub: TA-TA
Date: 26 Nov 93 14:07:17
--------
EID:b880 1b7a70e0
Dear Fellow Skeptics,
Given the welcome I have received upon entering this forum, it becomes clear
t
hat I am not likely to receive much of a hearing here. And, given this,
it is
clear that I am past due in taking my leave.
This is not, contrary to the cynical and officious proclamations of some,
beca
use I am unfamiliar with the medium or its proper use. In truth, I have
been
given no opportunity whatsoever to present anything which might merit skeptica
l investigation - and I have several such things whereof I might present.
In
fact, my entire involvement in this echo has been to identify and introduce
my
self, and therefor to be abused.
This phenomenon has not been universal, and I credit many on this echo for
the
ir good natures and welcoming attitudes.
To those, however, who seem so frightened by a literate theist that they
must
immediately and without cause or authority deem me off-topic, allow me but
one
moment more to shake the dust from my sandals. Where there might have been
c
ollaboration, there is division; where there might have been fellowship
of min
ds, there are closed minds; where I might have been of service, I have been
de
clared anathema. So be it.
In any case, and without further dissent, I offer to all a wish of peace
and t
he hope that Good Lord will receive you all.
x
P.S. To Mr. Harding: Fare well, and may we meet again.
--- TBBS v2.1/NM
* Origin: Sound Doctrine BBS (303) 680-7209 Aurora,CO (1:104/514)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1 105/30
SEEN-BY: 106/116 107/33 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 266/22 267/200 270/101 102 211 273/10 283/657
SEEN-BY: 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 104/514 224 1 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Fredric Rice
To: Chris Shubert
Sub: WAY TO GO!
Date: 01 Dec 93 16:39:45
--------
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet a790866b
PID: FM 2.02
> Mr. Rice,
> Way to go!
Please take it to HolySmoke.
---
* Origin: The Skeptic Tank, Holland, tilting at windmills (1:102/890)
ÿ
--------
From: Steve Quarrella
To: James Bryant
Sub: Subliminal advertising
Date: 29 Nov 93 17:12:16
--------
EID:6888 1b7d8980
PID: SX4.00P/5.00M1 BT026
Hwaet, James!
24 Nov 93, dixit James Bryant ad Steve Quarrella:
JB> I read with interest your letter on subliminal advertising.
JB> I have been interested in that particular field for quite
JB> some time (9 years or so).
Well, I'm not "into" subliminal advertising so much as backwards masking.
The latter was just a curiosity interest of mine when I was in high
school and listening to all dem rock and roll records, and of course, when
I studied linguistics in college, I found the "guts" of the issue to be
rather intriguing. Unfortunately, there really isn't much to be found
other than a collection of nuts claiming that their Satan deity is taking
over the planet by playing records backwards. :-\
JB> What I have found is that most subliminal advertising is
JB> reserved for girlie mags. Photographs do the best when
JB> subjected to subliminal messages. Looking closely at
JB> large, one color areas, words can be seen that I can't
JB> reproduce here.
Can you cite some examples of this?
One of the cuter ones I've seen is when you turn the "Dio" logo on
Ronnie Dio's albums upside down...with a bit of imagination, it looks like
"Evil".
But why do people turn this stuff upside down? Geez, hie thee to a baseball
game or something! :)
JB> Of course, some people will see penises in pudding ads, no
JB> matter what.
Or Satan in Proctor and Gamble's logo, yes.
... If you smoke after sex, use a lubricant.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P BT026
* Origin: Valencia...Steven in THE TIME MEDDLER: "IDBI!" (1:124/9005)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 273/10 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 124/9005 9015 1 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Steve Zadarnowski
To: Don Martin
Sub: A REVERSAL OF GRAVITY
Date: 27 Nov 93 23:10:00
--------
EID:334e 1b7bb940
-=> Quoting Don Martin to Steve Zadarnowski <=-
DM> Not necessarily. Get in touch with the TV station. They keep
DM> copies of everything originated and broadcast, both for their records
DM> and in case they get sued, investigated, etc. Now, they may CHARGE
for
DM> a tape or a transcript, but they will be able to provide it. You may
DM> get for free such information as the address of the person interviewed
DM> (if that information was broadcast and not considered private).
Thanks. I find I'm having to keep an eye out more nowadays - I'm getting
even more skeptical - and in my electronic recitations, I'm worrying I
might be speaking from an incorrect orifice!
Bye ..
MrZ
... Stupidity isn't a condition, it's a career!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- TMail v1.31.5
* Origin: MultiLine 40+Lines 17+Gigs & Internet +619 370-3333 (3:690/254)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 273/10 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 690/254 660 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Steve Zadarnowski
To: Tim Nemec
Sub: SUBLIMINAL ADVERTISIN
Date: 27 Nov 93 23:35:00
--------
EID:d020 1b7bbc60
-=> Quoting Tim Nemec to Steve Quarrella <=-
TN> Several years ago (12 or so), I participated in a class project that
TN> looked at the issue of subliminal advertising. It was extremely
TN> difficult at the time to find any credible evidence as to its
TN> effectiveness.
TN> Lots and lots of rumors; especially with respect to movie theatre
TN> concession stands, but no hard facts.
Subliminals must be hard to get by most people. Considering persistance
of vision at 1/10th sec, plus, even a single frame 1/24th or video
half-frame 1/50th (or 1/30 and 1/60 for US viewers), you can still see
information clearly.
Partial or compounding messages, such as parts of it spread over
several frames would be impossible if single letters. Single words
in succession are the most likely to work, and to be consciously
ignored, be overlaid over a clear colour (color for US viewers!)
area with shade lighter or darker. Blatant black on white messages
would only slip by people who are asleep!
MrZ
... Stupidity isn't a condition, it's a career!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- TMail v1.31.5
* Origin: MultiLine 40+Lines 17+Gigs & Internet +619 370-3333 (3:690/254)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 273/10 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 690/254 660 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Charlie Wilson
To: Tad Cook
Sub: Re: A Reversal of Gravity
Date: 30 Nov 93 05:08:00
--------
EID:2916 1b7e2900
PID: QE 2.76-
I was shocked to see Tad Cook saying to TIM NEMEC:
-=> Quoting TIM NEMEC to TAD COOK <=-
TN> I wouldn't deny that many of the orgs that participate in United Way
TN> do good things and have many truely dedicated people working for them.
TN> But as a group, their strong-armed fund raising tactics leave a sour
TN> taste in my mouth. It devalues and damages the real task at hand.
TC>
TC> WHAT strong-armed fund raising? Where I work, contributions are
TC> optional.
I dunno about the rest of world but I remember when I was in the
military. We were _strongly_ encouraged to contribute some bucks, kind
of on the principle of, "Of _course_ you don't have to contribute!
What's your name again?"
Charlie
--- Blue Wave/QBBS v2.12 [NR]
* Origin: Desert Frenzy BBS - Mutual UFO Network (1:209/226.0)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 226 720 724 7211 270/101 273/10 290/627
SEEN-BY: 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 209/226 7211 720 209 102/2 851
--------
From: Charlie Wilson
To: Bruce Baugh
Sub: Re: Tilting at creationist
Date: 30 Nov 93 05:20:00
--------
EID:47a9 1b7e2a80
PID: QE 2.76-
I was shocked to see Bruce Baugh saying to Charlie Wilson:
BB>> This sounds testable. Please produce citations in the literature of
BB>> biology, geology or archeology which show the confusion between fact
BB>> and theory which concern you. Popularizations don't count, because
CW> Well said. I shall. Give me a little time since my working hours
and
CW> the hours of the campus library usually are in conflict. :)
BB> Great! Thanks - it's a pleasure simply to have an _answer_ to this
BB> sort of prodding. Believe me, I know about scheduling problems. As Tom
BB> Bodette (sp?) says, or rather doesn't say, we'll leave the echo on for
BB> you. :-)
Heh...no prob. While I sometimes don't like the "prodding" I see in
this echo, I felt yours simply asked a valid question, to which I hope
to provide some valid answers. One bugaboo that haunts me is the entire
evolution problem. After reams of data the conclusion usually ends with
the point that it's still theoretical. Thanks to you, I've got the spur
in my saddle to re-find these articles and present them.
CW> Just curious: do you consider Phil Klass' methodology to fall under
CW> this criteria?
BB> Gee, it's been long enough since I've read anything by Klass that I'd
BB> hesitate to express an opinion. I'll just slide him in under my
BB> generalization that _most_ UFOlogists fail to question their own
BB> presuppositions adequately. There can be good reasons for holding any
BB> given set of assumptions, but it's not honest to act as if they
BB> descended from on high or sprung full-blown from the wellsprings of
BB> logic.
OK, was just asking since I've seen his name presented in this echo
as valid testimony rebutting assorted questions raised in ufology. I'm
re-reading one his books at the moment and it sure seems to me that he's
as guilty of the "my opinion equals fact" syndrome that the worst of the
holysmokers resort to. Your reply was well said.
CW> Thank you for providing a valid challenge and presenting legitimate
CW> criteria.
BB> Certainly. And should an apology from me be in order, you'll get one
BB> in full measure.
Hopefully, no apologies will be needed in _either_ direction! :)
Charlie
--- Blue Wave/QBBS v2.12 [NR]
* Origin: Desert Frenzy BBS - Mutual UFO Network (1:209/226.0)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 226 720 724 7211 270/101 273/10 290/627
SEEN-BY: 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 209/226 7211 720 209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Bloomberg
To: Jim Atwell
Sub: Groom Lake
Date: 29 Nov 93 19:04:06
--------
EID:0fba 1b7d9880
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 37d014a9
REPLY: 9:1040/16 2ce9fc4c
In a msg to David Bloomberg on , Jim Atwell of 9:1040/16 writes:
DB> Ah, obviously you have not followed the UFOlogical community on this
one.
DB> You see, many of them don't think there is a secret "Aurora" aircraft,
^^^^
JA> Not -all- the UFOlogical community looks at the "Aurora" in that light.
That's why I said "many" not "all".
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: The more one knows, the less one believes. (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 273/10 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 2430/1 108/155 220 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Bloomberg
To: Chris Shubert
Sub: WAY TO GO!
Date: 29 Nov 93 19:12:46
--------
EID:2299 1b7d9980
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 37d029a3
In a msg to Fredric Rice on , Chris Shubert of 1:104/514 writes:
CS> Of course, any good skeptic would simply ignore any information presented
^^^^^^^
CS> and go on about forming whatever conclusion suits their biases.
You have obviously made a terrible typo. The underscored word should obviousl
y be "fundie".
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: The more one knows, the less one believes. (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 273/10 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 2430/1 108/155 220 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Steve Quarrella
To: Chris Shubert
Sub: TA-TA
Date: 30 Nov 93 22:47:26
--------
EID:b3bb 1b7eb5e0
PID: SX4.00P/5.00M1 BT026
Hwaet, Chris!
26 Nov 93, dixit Chris Shubert ad All:
CS> Given the welcome I have received upon entering this forum, it
CS> becomes clear that I am not likely to receive much of a hearing
CS> here. And, given this, it is clear that I am past due in
CS> taking my leave.
See you in HOLYSMOKE, Chris. You're always welcome in there, and we await
you with open arms.
... All I want for Christmas is Santa's list of naughty girls
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P BT026
* Origin: Valencia...Steven in THE TIME MEDDLER: "IDBI!" (1:124/9005)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 273/10 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 124/9005 9015 1 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Steve Quarrella
To: David Bloomberg
Sub: Brainwashing by the Feds and Media
Date: 30 Nov 93 22:48:08
--------
EID:e92d 1b7eb600
PID: SX4.00P/5.00M1 BT026
Hwaet, David!
25 Nov 93, dixit David Bloomberg ad Christopher Baker:
DB> I give this exactly the same amount of credibility that I give
DB> her "theory" that the bridge heights aren't posted on bridges
DB> to warn trucks and the like, but to instead act as gauges for
DB> artillery to shoot them out when the government begins the war
DB> on the people.
Say WHAT?!
... Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.00P BT026
* Origin: Valencia...Steven in THE TIME MEDDLER: "IDBI!" (1:124/9005)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 273/10 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 124/9005 9015 1 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Steve Crawford @ 916/1008
To: Dan Mckinnon
Sub: Lotteries
Date: 29 Nov 93 14:45:00
--------
EID:7294 1b7d75a0
MSGID: 8:916/1008 7e27cd1b
DM> I merely said that buying 300 tickets a year on a number of draws
>gives you the same (improved) chances as buying 300 different tickets on
>one draw. Rick says I am wrong, what do you say?
I'd say it depends on what you mean by "chances" and of what the
chances are. If you're talking about the chances of having at
least one jackpot winning ticket, you're wrong. I'll use as an
example a six-sided die. The idea is the same (1 chance in x)
but easier to follow with six chances than with many million. My
chance of rolling the number I have picked is 1 in 6. Now let's
say I get to pick two numbers and I have to decide whether to
pick two on one roll or one each on two rolls. If I pick two
different numbers on one roll my chances of getting a winning
number are 2/6 or 1/3 (0.33333...) but if I choose one pick on
two rolls then my chances are 0.30556 (1-(5/6)^2) of getting at
least one winner. Continuing on to 6 picks gives us a
probability of 100% if we chose 1,2,3,4,5, and 6 on one roll but
only 66.5% (1-(5/6)^6) if we choose one on each of six rolls.
Balancing that is the fact that if you pick six on one roll you
are assuring yourself that five will be losers while if you pick
one on each of six rolls you could (1 chance in 46,656) get 6
winners. On the other hand you could win nothing. If you play
long enough and nothing goes to the "house" (a winner pays $6)
then you should break even over time no matter which way you
play. Similarly, if you play the lotto enough the odds are
that you'll lose half of the money you play. Of course, the
lotto is rigged even worse than that. If you win a big prize
they pay you over 20 years. Although they say you have won
$20 million, its present value is much lower than $20 million
handed to you in a lump sum.
Some people have figured that when the lotto is up to, say, $80
million they should get a bunch of friends together and buy all
of the combinations so they would be assured a win. What they
fail to consider is that with the crowds the large pots draw,
there is a very good chance that there will be more than one
winner and the prize will be diluted. This is combined with the
disadvantage of the timed payout mentioned above.
The lotto is a much worse bet than almost any other gamble but it
is the only gamble that can completely change your life if you
win which is what draws people to it. No matter how often people
complain that the lottery should have more little prizes instead
of few huge ones, it's the $40 million and up prizes that draw the
crowds. I play on occasion just for fun but if I ever got close
to $300 in a year (an admittedly small amount for any true lotto
addict) it would worry me but I'm not a gambler - I prefer stock
market investing where I can research the companies. So far I've
never lost but I have gained as much as 5.5x in two years. I'll
take that over the lotto.
DM> I wish you guys would grow up, and stop the snide asides. This
is
>a Skeptic's conference. Is my assertion in the paragraph above right or
>wrong? and if wrong, why?
Now let me express a real lotto gripe. There are some new ads
for the California lottery that play heavily on the gambling
mystique and the paranormal. One ad talks about a woman who
wakes up feeling excited and lucky and, sure enough, she wins the
jackpot. The ad ends with the announcer asking "How did she
know? Well, with something that big coming at her how could she
not know." Pretty sleazy advertising - especially for something
with the alleged purpose of improving education in the state.
They also play fast-and-loose with their definitions, ie: someone
who wins "$2 million" gets handed a check for,perhaps, $70,000
(their 100,000 first installment less taxes) but they are
referred to as a lotto millionaire. I doubt that even their
entire winnings, once adjusted for taxes and the time value of
money would make them a millionaire in present value terms.
If the enjoyment you get from your $300 spent on the lotto is
greater than your enjoyment from, say, 50 trips to the movies or
a couple hundred video rentals or some nice meals or trips to
the theater or symphony then go for it. I have other things I
enjoy more so that's where my money goes but others sure love
Vegas and the track. I have nothing against allowing anyone to
spend as he or she desires.
-Steve
* SLMR 2.1a * recursion n: see recursion
--- MsgToss 2.0d (beta)
# Origin: Bay Area Skeptics: Doubt on the Prowl Since '82 1:125/27 (8:916/100
8)
* Origin: Gateway System to/from RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1 105/30
SEEN-BY: 106/116 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 267/200 270/101 102 211 273/10 283/657
SEEN-BY: 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 916/1008 1 8/8 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Gary Posner
To: David Bloomberg
Sub: News From james randi
Date: 01 Dec 93 20:08:24
--------
EID:99FE 85FE0001
David,
This is the first time that I've logged-on since your message to me
of Nov. 7 about my receiving "Hotline" messages directly.
I'm not on CSICOP's list, but I'm on the Randi/Geller Hotline list
thanks to Anson Kennedy's help. There may be some insurmountable gateway
problem with CSICOP (I don't know enough about such things).
Here's my address to which the Randi/Geller Hotline messages are
being successfully addressed to me on the NetMail echo:
Gary.Posner@p0.f33.n377.z1.FIDONET.ORG
I don't know if the "p0" would also apply to you, but otherwise your
corresponding address would simply substitute "f2112" and "n2430" for my
own "f" and "n" numbers.
Does this info help?
Gary
--- WM v2.03/92-0261
* Origin: Electro-Skeptic BBS Tampa FL 14.4 813-831-5706 (1:377/33)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 377/33 15 3603/20 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Donald Wilton @ 916/1008
To: All
Sub: Japanese Magnetic circle
Date: 29 Nov 93 10:27:00
--------
EID:08f3 1b7d5360
MSGID: 8:916/1008 8127d31b
Greetings all,
I would like to know what if any, research has taken place to credit or
discredit the japanese scientist who claimed that the crop circles could
have
been formed by ball lightning. I remember that he showed that ball lightning,
when artificially generated, created patterns in iron filings that were
very
similar to those that appear in crop circles.
... OFFLINE 1.52 "another jeezogrovelling moron for theocracy! :) :) :)
:) :)
"
--- MsgToss 2.0d (beta)
# Origin: Bay Area Skeptics: Doubt on the Prowl Since '82 1:125/27 (8:916/100
8)
* Origin: Gateway System to/from RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1 105/30
SEEN-BY: 106/116 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 267/200 270/101 102 211 283/657 290/627 300/1
SEEN-BY: 396/1 640/75
PATH: 916/1008 1 8/8 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rick Moen @ 916/1008
To: Charlie Wilson
Sub: Re: Well-poisoning redux
Date: 01 Dec 93 00:19:59
--------
EID:cd06 1b810260
MSGID: 8:916/1008 8127d41b
> Heh...Ricky, what you have engaged in is a childish game
^^^^^
[remainder deleted]
Folks, need I say more? ;->
Cheers,
Rick M.
--- MsgToss 2.0d (beta)
# Origin: Bay Area Skeptics: Doubt on the Prowl Since '82 1:125/27 (8:916/100
8)
* Origin: Gateway System to/from RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1 105/30
SEEN-BY: 106/116 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 267/200 270/101 102 211 283/657 290/627 300/1
SEEN-BY: 396/1 640/75
PATH: 916/1008 1 8/8 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Charlie Wilson
To: Fredric Rice
Sub: Re: Tilting at creationist
Date: 01 Dec 93 03:23:00
--------
EID:a3f8 1b811ae0
PID: QE 2.76-
I was shocked to see Fredric Rice saying to Charlie Wilson:
FR> Oh? I never noticed. }:-} Actually, I would wager a lunch that I
FR> have archives from creationists who have been told twenty times what
FR> evolutionary theories are and what they are not and yet they continue,
FR> after two years, to fail to admit that evolutionary theories do not
FR> address the origins of life.
cw> Since when has theory equaled fact? (sigh) You wacky skeptics...
FR> What are you going on about?
I was "going on about" the _fact_ that evolution is a theory, not a
fact (exactly as I quoted). What are _you_ going on about?
Charlie
--- Blue Wave/QBBS v2.12 [NR]
* Origin: Desert Frenzy BBS - Mutual UFO Network (1:209/226.0)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 226 720 724 7211 270/101 290/627 300/1
SEEN-BY: 396/1 640/75
PATH: 209/226 7211 720 209 102/2 851
--------
From: Bruce Baugh
To: Charlie Wilson
Sub: Tilting at creationist
Date: 02 Dec 93 02:25:04
--------
EID:84c4 1b821320
MSGID: 1:105/95 2cfdc428
Slowly but inexorably the insidious (though small) Doctor Amoeba
closed in. Charlie Wilson only had the time (Tuesday November 30 1993) to
say.
..
CW> Heh...no prob. While I sometimes don't like the "prodding" I see
in
CW> this echo, I felt yours simply asked a valid question, to which I hope
CW> to provide some valid answers. One bugaboo that haunts me is the entire
CW> evolution problem. After reams of data the conclusion usually ends
with
CW> the point that it's still theoretical. Thanks to you, I've got the spur
CW> in my saddle to re-find these articles and present them.
Sounds good. I realized the other day, though, that some context is needed.
I'
m 99-44/100% sure you _will_ find instances of people presenting theory
as fac
t. What matters here is tendency - how often does it occur? So a note along
th
e lines of "I looked through 400 articles and found 23 instances of this,
perp
etrated by 5 authors", or whatever, will help.
I also think that you'll find many, many cases in which people say that
their
data are highly suggestive but not in themselves proof. Evolution is, if
you'l
l pardon the expression, an evolving field. But there's a difference between
"
theoretical" and "contingent" - I find much of the latter but little of
the fo
rmer.
CW> OK, was just asking since I've seen his name presented in this echo
CW> as valid testimony rebutting assorted questions raised in ufology.
I'm
CW> re-reading one his books at the moment and it sure seems to me that
he's
CW> as guilty of the "my opinion equals fact" syndrome that the worst of
the
CW> holysmokers resort to. Your reply was well said.
And in the meantime I have gone back and re-read Klass' book on abductions.
It
did indeed have the failings I thought: heaps o' useful data, but his rigid
c
ertainty is unbecoming. I think I understand why it happens to people like
him
and Randi, who do encounter, time and time again, fraud and stupidity trundli
ng along hand-in-hand. But I must say that were _I_ being questioned by
Klass
or Randi, based on what I've seen of them in TV interviews and read in their
b
ooks, I would be tempted to be less than honest with them. Even when I _agree_
with them, which is the vast majority of the time, I simply find their person
alities offensive.
For a fun wade through a lot of this stuff, I commend THE FRINGES OF REASON,
a
Whole Earth catalog of oddities from UFOs to dowsing to crystals. In typical
Whole Earth fashion, there's a very wide range of opinions represented,
all pr
esented soberly, and the most wonderful book reviews in the known universe.
I
particularly enjoy Robert Anton Wilson's little piece about the many categorie
s there are besides unqualified true or false.
CW> Hopefully, no apologies will be needed in _either_ direction! :)
That would be most fun, yes. :-) Here's to the increase of knowledge!
-=[ Bruce ]=-
--- GEcho 1.00
* Origin: APâ Online, lurking in Portland, OR (1:105/95)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 40 50 95 128/1
SEEN-BY: 147/7 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 105/95 40 30 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Kerry Penny
To: Fredric Rice
Sub: Re: Whackos in Russia
Date: 01 Dec 93 06:39:48
--------
EID:7a02 1b8134e0
MSGID: 1:239/200.0 11FA9DB4
REPLY: 1:102/890@FidoNet a1938e0a
PID: TransAmiga 1.11/c 7010
Did Fredric Rice really say something to David Bloomberg, on 19 Nov 93?
FR> That _is_ possible. I seem to recall reading that a
FR> womans egg could start to divide without sperm and
FR> that she may give birth yet the offspring always dies
With half of the genetic material missing? Did you read this in some fem
inist literature? ;)
--- TransAmiga BBS v1.11g6
* Origin: Ancient Heart -Saginaw MI- 1-517-752-3203 (1:239/200)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 239/200 1004 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Bloomberg
To: All
Sub: Demon Barney
Date: 30 Nov 93 12:28:59
--------
EID:deab 1b7e6380
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 37d9ac9c
From the November 26 Chicago Tribune:
Barney a demon?
Barney the dinosaur, preschoolers' favorite foam-rubber prehistoric creatu
re, has been declared a "New Age demon" by a right-wing radio evangelist.
"St
raight out of the New Age and the world of demons and devils," Rev. Joseph
Cha
mbers says of the drippy lizard. "America is under seige from the powers
of d
arkness," Chambers says, adding: "Barney is teaching kids that we must accept
everyone as they are--whether they're homosexuals or lesbians." Or radio
evan
gelists, for that matter. Also we're told that if you play Barney's "I
love y
ou, you love me" theme backwards, it sounds like a garage-band version of
"Lou
ie, Louie."
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: The more one knows, the less one believes. (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 2430/1 159/350 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Dr Pepper
To: Charlie Wilson
Sub: Tilting at creationist
Date: 02 Dec 93 16:03:00
--------
EID:8862 1b828060
TID: IMAIL 1.40G3/l+ PK7-B
MSGID: 1:103/241@FIDONET.ORG a80fbfd9
PID: FM 2.2.mL OC00007F
> FR> Oh? I never noticed. }:-} Actually, I would wager a lunch that
I
> FR> have archives from creationists who have been told twenty times what
> FR> evolutionary theories are and what they are not and yet they continue,
> FR> after two years, to fail to admit that evolutionary theories do not
> FR> address the origins of life.
> cw> Since when has theory equaled fact? (sigh) You wacky skeptics...
> FR> What are you going on about?
> I was "going on about" the _fact_ that evolution is a
> theory, not a
> fact (exactly as I quoted). What are _you_ going on about?
Come on over to the Evolution echo. I have a question i'd like to ask you.
10 2
DR PEPPER
4
---
* Origin: Happy days are here again! (1:103/241)
SEEN-BY: 10/227 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 208 227 241
307
SEEN-BY: 103/355 105/30 128/1 147/7 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101
SEEN-BY: 290/627 396/1 640/75
PATH: 103/241 208 0 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Fredric Rice
To: Rick Moen @ 916/1008
Sub: Well-poisoning redux
Date: 03 Dec 93 17:39:51
--------
EID:60be 1b838cf9
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet a891891c
REPLY: 8:916/1008 8127d41b
PID: FM 2.02
>> Heh...Ricky, what you have engaged in is a childish game
> ^^^^^
> [remainder deleted]
> Folks, need I say more? ;->
"Lucy! I'm home!" "Lucy? What have you been up to?"
---
* Origin: The Skeptic Tank, Holland, tilting at windmills (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/851 890
PATH: 102/890
--------
From: Fredric Rice
To: Charlie Wilson
Sub: Tilting at creationist
Date: 03 Dec 93 17:43:35
--------
EID:43a5 1b838d71
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet a891891d
PID: FM 2.02
FR> Oh? I never noticed. }:-} Actually, I would wager a lunch that I
FR> have archives from creationists who have been told twenty times what
FR> evolutionary theories are and what they are not and yet they continue,
FR> after two years, to fail to admit that evolutionary theories do not
FR> address the origins of life.
cw> Since when has theory equaled fact? (sigh) You wacky skeptics...
FR> What are you going on about?
cw> I was "going on about" the _fact_ that evolution is a theory, not a
cw> fact (exactly as I quoted). What are _you_ going on about?
That's not quite correct. Evolution is a fact not subject to belief or
disbel
ief. It's not even subject to debate. The theory of evolution is subject
to
debate, however. The mode and tempo, that is. It does not entertain the
inqu
iry of the origins of life.
Anyone who would consider evolution to be in question need ask himself/herself
whether gravity is in question; and in fact it is not. Gravitational theory
-
- the exchange of gravitons and gravitrineos and how they propagate is subject
to debate.
Creationists seem incapable of recognizing the difference between fact and
the
theory designed to describe same fact.
---
* Origin: But in your heart you know it's flat. (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/851 890
PATH: 102/890
--------
From: Fredric Rice
To: Kerry Penny
Sub: Whackos in Russia
Date: 03 Dec 93 17:49:32
--------
EID:62b5 1b838e30
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet a891891e
REPLY: 1:239/200.0 11FA9DB4
PID: FM 2.02
FR> That _is_ possible. I seem to recall reading that a
FR> womans egg could start to divide without sperm and
FR> that she may give birth yet the offspring always dies
kp> With half of the genetic material missing?
All of the genetic information required is present for a cell to begin divisio
n and to continue to divide until a baby is born. How the cell begins to
divi
de, I wouldn't know. I read that the child is always female but that it
dies
quickly.
kp> Did you read this in some feminist literature? ;)
There was a discussion about "virgin births" in another forum.
Back
in the dim ignorant daze of the past, virgin births were a dime a dozen
-- any
one who would be stoned for having sex would suddenly experience a "virgin
bir
th" if they caught child outside of marriage. "Gawd did it" is a perfect
excu
se when ignorants will believe it every time.
Yet it seems there are medical conditions (rather than social) for virgin
birt
hs. We have a biologist in the other forum but not in here, alas. All
we hav
e is a geologist.
---
* Origin: But in your heart you know it's flat. (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/851 890
PATH: 102/890
--------
From: Tad Cook
To: David Bloomberg
Sub: Re: Brainwashing by the Feds and Media
Date: 30 Nov 93 15:41:16
--------
EID:e433 1b7e7d20
PID: BWRA 3.00 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:343/124.0 2cfc1f85
-=> Quoting David Bloomberg to Christopher Baker <=-
DB> In a msg to All on , Linda Thompson of 1:231/110
DB> writes:
LT> I've been observing, interviewing, etc. and have discovered some of
LT> the brainwashing/crowd manipulation techniques used by the feds (it's
LT> actually taught in a school, watch for these, you'll see them for
LT> sure):
DB> Considering the other things I've seen come from Ms. Thompson, I give
DB> this exactly the same amount of credibility that I give her "theory"
DB> that the bridge heights aren't posted on bridges to warn trucks and
DB> the like, but to instead act as gauges for artillery to shoot them out
DB> when the government begins the war on the people.
What do you know about Linda? I have been seeing weird stuff posted
by her on the POLITICS echo. She has been claiming that the feds
set fire to the Koresh compound in Waco, among other wild claims.
Who is she?
... Catch the Blue Wave!
--- Fmail 0.96/RA 2.01+
* Origin: Boone's Farm, Seattle, WA 206-282-2851 (1:343/124)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1 105/30
SEEN-BY: 106/116 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 267/200 270/101 102 211 283/657 290/627 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 343/124 300 1 138/1 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Tad Cook
To: Beverlee Broadlick
Sub: Re: Skeptic
Date: 30 Nov 93 15:42:17
--------
EID:ab82 1b7e7d40
PID: BWRA 3.00 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:343/124.0 2cfc1f86
-=> Quoting Beverlee Broadlick to All <=-
BB> What is a skeptic? A person who questions everything? A person who
BB> believes nothing. I am really interested in your opinion. Beverlee
BB> Broadlick
Nope! Only someone who expresses a healthy skepticism of incredible
claims.
... Catch the Blue Wave!
--- Fmail 0.96/RA 2.01+
* Origin: Boone's Farm, Seattle, WA 206-282-2851 (1:343/124)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1 105/30
SEEN-BY: 106/116 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 267/200 270/101 102 211 283/657 290/627 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 343/124 300 1 138/1 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Tad Cook
To: Chris Shubert
Sub: Re: TA-TA
Date: 30 Nov 93 15:46:18
--------
EID:451c 1b7e7dc0
PID: BWRA 3.00 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:343/124.0 2cfc1f87
-=> Quoting Chris Shubert to All <=-
CS> To those, however, who seem so frightened by a literate theist that
CS> they must immediately and without cause or authority deem me
CS> off-topic, allow me but one moment more to shake the dust from my
CS> sandals. Where there might have been collaboration, there is
CS> division; where there might have been fellowship of minds, there are
CS> closed minds; where I might have been of service, I have been declared
CS> anathema. So be it.
Just because you are off topic doesn't mean the rest of us are
intolerant of theists. Its just that theism or atheism is not
part of the SKEPTICAL areas of interest.
Why?
Because skeptics really have no arguement with theists. Belief
in God is a matter of faith. Skeptics have no problem with matters
of faith. Its only when folks make TESTABLE claims that we are
interested.
Matters of faith are non-testable.
... Catch the Blue Wave!
--- Fmail 0.96/RA 2.01+
* Origin: Boone's Farm, Seattle, WA 206-282-2851 (1:343/124)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1 105/30
SEEN-BY: 106/116 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 267/200 270/101 102 211 283/657 290/627 396/1
SEEN-BY: 640/75
PATH: 343/124 300 1 138/1 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Steve Zadarnowski
To: Skip Sanders
Sub: TAKE TWO
Date: 30 Nov 93 22:59:00
--------
EID:cfe1 1b7eb760
-=> Quoting Skip Sanders to Steve Zadarnowski <=-
SZ> I take it by the above statement that you have substantial facts. I'll
SZ> grant you many _might_ not like it, but we still wanna hear. Make
SS> Hey, that's an EASY one. The answer is... DIE. You'll know the
SS> answer. (In a manner of speaking)
Now why didn't I think of that? :-)
MrZ
... Stupidity isn't a condition, it's a career!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- TMail v1.31.5
* Origin: MultiLine 40+Lines 17+Gigs & Internet +619 370-3333 (3:690/254)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75
PATH: 690/254 660 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Bloomberg
To: All
Sub: Demon Barney
Date: 01 Dec 93 17:42:41
--------
EID:deab 1b818d40
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 37f6e2ce
REPLY: 1:2430/2112 37d9ac9c
In a msg to All on , David Bloomberg of 1:2430/2112 writes:
DB> From the November 26 Chicago Tribune:
DB> Barney a demon?
DB> Barney the dinosaur, preschoolers' favorite foam-rubber
DB> prehistoric creature, has been declared a "New Age demon" by a
I just wanted to know if people out there saw this message. We had a hub
cras
h just after I sent it out, and I don't know that it made it to the echo.
Thanks.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: The more one knows, the less one believes. (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 2430/1 159/350 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Tad Cook
To: Bruce Baugh
Sub: Re: A Reversal of Gravity
Date: 02 Dec 93 20:58:03
--------
EID:3b2a 1b82a740
PID: BWRA 3.00 [Eval]
MSGID: 1:343/124.0 2cfeebd7
-=> Quoting Bruce Baugh to Tad Cook <=-
BB> Slowly but inexorably the insidious (though small) Doctor Amoeba
BB> closed in. Tad Cook only had the time (Thursday November 25 1993) to
BB> say...
TC> WHAT strong-armed fund raising? Where I work, contributions are
TC> optional.
BB> Good! In many places I've worked it isn't - in about half of the
BB> office I've temped in, failure to contribute to United Way can result
BB> in disciplinary action or even demotion. It gets pretty ugly.
Yuck! I have heard of this. Never worked for a place that did
it. This is done by the employer, of course...not United Way.
TC> Thats what United Way does...is raise money for good works in the
TC> community.
BB> Yes, but with horrendous overhead. In one case I know of, someone made
BB> a $10,000 bequest to be used specifically for muscular dystrophy. A
BB> follow-up check with the MD groups that work with United Way showed
BB> that less than $1000 made it to them - the rest was "administration".
BB> That's unusual even for United Way, but last annual report of theirs
I
BB> saw, they ran about 50% "administrative" costs. The Red Cross runs
BB> about 21%, the Salvation Army about 12%. Good intentions are not
BB> enough.
Down there around Salvation Army is where United Way averages
nationwide. Where did the 90% go?
... The last thing I saw was this Big Blue Wave!
--- Fmail 0.96/RA 2.01+
* Origin: Boone's Farm, Seattle, WA 206-282-2851 (1:343/124)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1 105/30
SEEN-BY: 106/116 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 267/200 270/101 102 211 283/657 290/627 300/1
SEEN-BY: 396/1 640/75
PATH: 343/124 300 1 138/1 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Steve Rose
To: Fredric Rice
Sub: Ark Hoax
Date: 04 Dec 93 00:06:03
--------
EID:597d 1b8400c0
MSGID: 1:109/601 2d001ae5
REPLY: 1:102/890@FidoNet a692ae39
PID: GED 2.41+ 1039
Hello Fredric!
Monday November 29 1993 20:42, Fredric Rice wrote to All:
FR>
FR> Part of the network's decision not to move ahead with the Sun
FR> programs "Revelations" and "The UFO Phenomenon" stemmed from the
FR> tactics Sun used several months ago to try to pry a confession from
FR> Jammal, including threats that CBS was going to sue him -- which the
FR> network adamantly denies.
FR>
FR> "All of this has clearly made us re-examine our business
FR> relationship with Sun, and we won't be going forward with those
FR> projects," network spokeswoman Susan Tick said Friday.
Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--- FD 2.20mL/Fmail 0.96g+
* Origin: * ABySS BBS * (1:109/601)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 105/30 128/1 147/7
SEEN-BY: 170/400 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 109/601 104 343 25 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Fredric Rice
To: Steve Rose
Sub: Ark Hoax
Date: 05 Dec 93 19:00:47
--------
EID:a760 1b859817
MSGID: 1:102/890@FidoNet a992dd5c
REPLY: 1:109/601 2d001ae5
PID: FM 2.02
sr> Hello Fredric!
Greetings, Steve!
FR> Part of the network's decision not to move ahead with the Sun
FR> programs "Revelations" and "The UFO Phenomenon" stemmed from the
FR> tactics Sun used several months ago to try to pry a confession from
FR> Jammal, including threats that CBS was going to sue him -- which the
FR> network adamantly denies.
FR>
FR> "All of this has clearly made us re-examine our business
FR> relationship with Sun, and we won't be going forward with those
FR> projects," network spokeswoman Susan Tick said Friday.
sr> Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm glad to see that Jammal specifically stated that he decided to "hoax
the h
oaxers" -- otherwise he would be remembered as the "anti-noahian flood guy."
A
s it is he's managed to made CBS realize that some of the Goatshit that
they p
resent as "documentary" is nothing of the sort.
I should send the guy a "well done" (if someone knows an address, please
forwa
rd it?) It has yet to be seen whether his horrid debunking of typical creatio
nists has had any effect at all upon the uncritical populace.
---
* Origin: "I would do any thing for love; but I won't do that." (1:102/890)
SEEN-BY: 102/851 890
PATH: 102/890
--------
From: Marian Starwatcher
To: Steve Zadarnowski
Sub: SOAK-THE-GULLIBLE
Date: 05 Dec 93 05:44:30
--------
EID:20cf 1b852d80
MSGID: 1:203/444.0 2d01bb8e
Hello ....
-=> Quoting Marian Starwatcher to Steve Zadarnowski <=-
SZ> I suppose the whole point of debate is that some activities of some
SZ> people offend some concept of 'sense' some people have. If we didn't
SZ> have different concepts of sense, we'd _all_ be wrong! ;-)
SZ> I'm glad someone out there can criticise me nicely!
Hey, if criticism can't be constructive, what good is it?! :-)
Marian*
--- Maximus 2.01wb
* Origin: *Northern Lights* Citrus Hts CA *V32* (916)729-0304 (1:203/444)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 128/1 147/7 170/400
SEEN-BY: 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 203/444 1 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Jon Strayer
To: David Bloomberg
Sub: Demon Barney
Date: 03 Dec 93 12:09:09
--------
EID:a43d 1b836120
MSGID: 1:201/20.2 076174e2
REPLY: 1:2430/2112 37d9ac9c
On Nov 30 12:28, David Bloomberg of 1:2430/2112 wrote:
DB> Barney the dinosaur, preschoolers' favorite foam-rubber
DB> prehistoric creature, has been declared a "New Age demon"
DB> by a right-wing radio evangelist. "Straight out of the New
DB> Age and the world of demons and devils," Rev. Joseph
DB> Chambers says of the drippy lizard.
I saw a few seconds of a Barney show the other day and I have to agree with
t
he good Reverand. Of course, I hadn't had any coffee yet. :-)
--- msgedsq/2 2.2b
* Origin: Lafayette, IN. (1:201/20.2)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 128/1 147/7 170/400
SEEN-BY: 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 30479/2 201/20 1 11/3 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Jon Strayer
To: Donald Wilton @ 916/1008
Sub: Japanese Magnetic circle
Date: 04 Dec 93 13:32:32
--------
EID:f44b 1b846c00
MSGID: 1:201/20.2 076f6574
REPLY: 8:916/1008 8127d31b
On Nov 29 10:27, Donald Wilton @ 916/1008 of 8:916/1008 wrote:
DW@9> I would like to know what if any, research has taken
DW@9> place to credit or discredit the japanese scientist who
DW@9> claimed that the crop circles could have been formed by
DW@9> ball lightning. I remember that he showed that ball
DW@9> lightning, when artificially generated, created patterns
DW@9> in iron filings that were very similar to those that
DW@9> appear in crop circles.
How much research would it take to show that there are darn few iron filings
in wheat? :-)
--- msgedsq/2 2.2b
* Origin: Lafayette, IN. (1:201/20.2)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 128/1 147/7 170/400
SEEN-BY: 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 30479/2 201/20 1 11/3 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Jon Strayer
To: Charlie Wilson
Sub: Re: Tilting at creationist
Date: 04 Dec 93 13:33:46
--------
EID:fa24 1b846c20
MSGID: 1:201/20.2 076f688d
On Dec 01 03:23, Charlie Wilson of 1:201/20 wrote:
cw> Since when has theory equaled fact? (sigh) You wacky
cw> skeptics...
FR> What are you going on about?
CW> I was "going on about" the _fact_ that evolution is a
CW> theory, not a fact (exactly as I quoted). What are _you_
CW> going on about? Charlie
There is both the fact of evolution and the theories that seek to explain
it.
Many creationsist are confused by this.
--- msgedsq/2 2.2b
* Origin: Lafayette, IN. (1:201/20.2)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 128/1 147/7 170/400
SEEN-BY: 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 30479/2 201/20 1 11/3 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Bloomberg
To: Steve Quarrella
Sub: Brainwashing by the Feds and Media
Date: 03 Dec 93 07:05:08
--------
EID:f85a 1b8338a0
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 380b6a82
In a msg to David Bloomberg on , Steve Quarrella of 1:124/9005
w
rites:
DB> I give this exactly the same amount of credibility that I give
DB> her "theory" that the bridge heights aren't posted on bridges
DB> to warn trucks and the like, but to instead act as gauges for
DB> artillery to shoot them out when the government begins the war
DB> on the people.
SQ> Say WHAT?!
Like I said, I give it exactly the same amount of credibility. :-)
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: The more one knows, the less one believes. (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 128/1 147/7 170/400
SEEN-BY: 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 2430/1 159/350 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Bloomberg
To: Gary Posner
Sub: News From james randi
Date: 04 Dec 93 09:56:20
--------
EID:8b48 1b844f00
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 381a2c15
In a msg to David Bloomberg on , Gary Posner of 1:377/33 writes:
GP> I'm not on CSICOP's list, but I'm on the Randi/Geller Hotline list
GP> thanks to Anson Kennedy's help. There may be some insurmountable
GP> gateway problem with CSICOP (I don't know enough about such things).
Well, it turned out to just be a typo in their address for me. A bunch
of peo
ple wrote messages to Barry K. and he made the switch.
Thanks anyway!
So, any news from the breast hypnotist lately? :-)
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: The more one knows, the less one believes. (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 128/1 147/7 170/400
SEEN-BY: 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 2430/1 159/350 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Bloomberg
To: Charlie Wilson
Sub: Re: Tilting at creationist
Date: 04 Dec 93 09:58:05
--------
EID:9c6d 1b844f40
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 381a311b
In a msg to Fredric Rice on , Charlie Wilson of 1:209/226
writes
:
CW> I was "going on about" the _fact_ that evolution is a theory, not
a
CW> fact (exactly as I quoted). What are _you_ going on about?
Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Here is a file which is frequently posted in the EVOLUTION echo to explain
suc
h things to those who don't understand:
==============================================================================
=
Author: Larry A. Moran (lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca)
Title: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
==============================================================================
=
EVOLUTION AS A FACT AND A THEORY
version 2.1 (January 22, 1993)
When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two
different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question
of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms
or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other
hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes...
how
did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution
to be a FACT. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for
it's occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily
admit
that they are less certain of the exact MECHANISM of evolution; there are
several THEORIES of the mechanism of evolution.
Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else,
"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"
- part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to
theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist
argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages
about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact,
and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then
what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed
this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said
(in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): 'Well, it is a
theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years
been challenged in the world of science - that is, not believed in
the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.'
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories
are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.
Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that
explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists
debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation
replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves
in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like
ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by
some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no
such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of
logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and
achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical
world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though
creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of
argument that they themselves favor). In science 'fact' can only
mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to
withhold provisional consent'. I suppose that apples might start
to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in
physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact
and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always
acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the
mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin
continually emphasized the difference between his two great and
separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and
proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism
of evolution."
Stephen J. Gould "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other
words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a FACT. This is not an
idea
that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate;
"Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond
reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution.
Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of
the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the
evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks
or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring
evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are
no alterantives to evolution as history that can withstand critical
examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts
about evolutionary mechanisms."
Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the
Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol.35 (March 1973)
reprinted in EVOLUTION VERSUS CREATIONISM, J. Peter Zetterberg ed.,
ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
-----------------------------------------------
"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially
those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to
state clearly that evolution is a FACT, not theory, and that what
is at issue within bology are questions of details of the process
and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution.
It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6
billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around
for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular
life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major
life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past.
There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT
that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used
to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is
a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms.
Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that
were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans.
No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world
can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the
earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the
relative importance of various forces in molding evolution."
R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth"
Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in EVOLUTION VERSUS CREATIONISM
op cit.
cont...
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: The more one knows, the less one believes. (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 128/1 147/7 170/400
SEEN-BY: 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 2430/1 159/350 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Bloomberg
To: Charlie Wilson
Sub: Re: Tilting at creationist
Date: 04 Dec 93 09:59:33
--------
EID:9c6d 1b844f60
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 381a3213
cont...
This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used
in
colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For
example, in some of the best such textbooks we find,
"Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact.
The term THEORY is no longer appropriate except when referring to
the various models that attempt to explain HOW life evolves...
it is important to understand that the current questions about
how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact
of evolution."
Neil A. Campbell, BIOLOGY 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p.434
-----------------------------------------------
"Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated
supporting the fact of evolution - that all living organisms present
on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of
earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation
of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of
their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time.
Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important
question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been
whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the
vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still
fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by
which evolution occurs."
Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, BIOLOGY 5th ed. 1989,
Worth Publishers, p.972
One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory
biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment,
"A few words need to be said about the 'theory of evolution', which
most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved
from common ancestors. In everyday speech, 'theory' often means a
hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, 'theory'
means 'a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles,
or causes of something known or observed", as the Oxford English
Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of
interconnected statements about natural selection and the other
processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic
theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies
of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena.
In constrast, the statement that organisms have descended with
modifications from common ancestors - the historical reality of
evolution - is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of
the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar
system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as
the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable
and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today
would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for
evolution"; it simply has not been an issue for a century."
Douglas J. Futuyma, op. cit., p.15
There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious
reasons. In general these readers oppose both the FACT of evolution and
THEORIES of mechanisms although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize
that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see
some
leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution" - they
know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced
of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is
a
waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that
they
understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely
fulfilled.
There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that
evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to
distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the
mechanism of evolution.
We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and
those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily
apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact
that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that
Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this
catagory. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate
evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word
"fact".
In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the
relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also,
the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor
is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing
evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since
there
are reasonable alternatives.
Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact.
Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can
ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument,
the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we
know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution
cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy
class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact",
as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so
highly
probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been
made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.
"The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that
nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100%
certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself,
since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp
line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact,
but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of
probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we
only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high
that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act
accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one,
evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous,
diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established
fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be
directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....
So enormous, ramifying, and consistant has the evidence for
evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should
have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken
as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then,
I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact,
or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or
reading these words."
H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough"
School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted
in EVOLUTION VERSUS CREATIONISM op cit.
In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact but there are various theories
concerning the mechanism of evolution.
Laurence A. Moran (Larry)
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: The more one knows, the less one believes. (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 128/1 147/7 170/400
SEEN-BY: 202/1 209/208 209 720 270/101 290/627 300/1 396/1 640/75
PATH: 2430/1 159/350 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rick Moen @ 916/1008
To: Thomas Kirby
Sub: Re: Skeptic
Date: 04 Dec 93 22:40:56
--------
EID:208c 1b84b500
MSGID: 8:916/1008 8527cd1b
> I am skeptical about skeptics.
Gosh, I can beat that: I'm particularly wary about people who enter
an echo and make facile cheap shots, and ideological pronouncments
we've already heard thousands of times already, as if they were somehow
expected to be new to us.
> I have read technology-related books and magazines since the late
> 1960's and have learned some of the underlying mathematics. I am
> convinced that scientific "laws" and "constants" are statistical
> artifacts that may be mostly true but you can't make strict
> determinations based on those laws. There are always unknown
> influences, even within the accepted mainstream ideas.
>
> DM> Many accuse skeptics of being "negative thinkers".
>
> Some of them are charlatans and just plain showmen.
Well, heck, Thomas, please don't be quite so shy: Go right ahead
and _name_ a half-dozen of these "charlatans" specifically. Please
outline specifically their acts of charlatanism. You know, of course,
that this is a conclusively defamatory claim if you cannot prove it
to the satisfaction of a judge. Therefore, being the responsible
commentator that you are, I assume you won't mind posting your
residential address at which legal process can be served on you.
Also, if you haven't yet retained a good lawyer, I'd advise you to
do so before proceeding.
Cheers,
Rick M.
--- MsgToss 2.0d (beta)
# Origin: Bay Area Skeptics: Doubt on the Prowl Since '82 1:125/27 (8:916/100
8)
* Origin: Gateway System to/from RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1
SEEN-BY: 106/116 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 267/200 270/101 102 211 283/657 290/627 300/1
SEEN-BY: 396/1 640/75
PATH: 916/1008 1 8/8 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rick Moen @ 916/1008
To: Steve Quarrella
Sub: Re: Subliminal advertising
Date: 04 Dec 93 22:44:53
--------
EID:fada 1b84b580
MSGID: 8:916/1008 8527ce1b
> JB> Of course, some people will see penises in pudding ads, no
> JB> matter what.
>
> Or Satan in Proctor and Gamble's logo, yes.
Something always bothered me about people (invariably fundamentalists)
who claimed to be able to do a positive ID on Old Nick. Where exactly
did their expertise on this matter originate? Are we, then, to
understand that they were drinking buddies with His Nibs? If so, how
recently?
;-> ;-> ;-> ...for the humour-impaired
Cheers,
Rick ("just dial 666") Moen
--- MsgToss 2.0d (beta)
# Origin: Bay Area Skeptics: Doubt on the Prowl Since '82 1:125/27 (8:916/100
8)
* Origin: Gateway System to/from RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1
SEEN-BY: 106/116 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 267/200 270/101 102 211 283/657 290/627 300/1
SEEN-BY: 396/1 640/75
PATH: 916/1008 1 8/8 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rick Moen @ 916/1008
To: Charlie Wilson
Sub: Re: Tilting at creationist
Date: 04 Dec 93 22:52:41
--------
EID:640a 1b84b680
MSGID: 8:916/1008 8527cf1b
> Heh...no prob. While I sometimes don't like the "prodding" I see
> in this echo, I felt yours simply asked a valid question, to which I
> hope to provide some valid answers. One bugaboo that haunts me is the
> entire evolution problem. After reams of data the conclusion usually
> ends with the point that it's still theoretical.
You obviously have not been reading good biology books, because the
accumulated evidence for the occurrence of biological evolution
continuously over millions of years -- the fact of evolution, as
opposed to particular theories to account for it -- is absolutely
overwhelming, comparable to that for universal gravitation.
Good leads on additional information can be gotten from the National
Center for Science Education, P.O. Box 9477, Berkeley, CA 94709,
tel. #510-526-1674.
Cheers,
Rick M.
--- MsgToss 2.0d (beta)
# Origin: Bay Area Skeptics: Doubt on the Prowl Since '82 1:125/27 (8:916/100
8)
* Origin: Gateway System to/from RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1
SEEN-BY: 106/116 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 267/200 270/101 102 211 283/657 290/627 300/1
SEEN-BY: 396/1 640/75
PATH: 916/1008 1 8/8 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rick Moen @ 916/1008
To: Steve Quarrella
Sub: Re: Ta-ta
Date: 04 Dec 93 22:57:42
--------
EID:9025 1b84b720
MSGID: 8:916/1008 8527d01b
> 26 Nov 93, dixit Chris Shubert ad All:
>
> CS> Given the welcome I have received upon entering this forum, it
> CS> becomes clear that I am not likely to receive much of a hearing
> CS> here. And, given this, it is clear that I am past due in
> CS> taking my leave.
>
> See you in HOLYSMOKE, Chris. You're always welcome in there, and we
> await you with open arms.
You notice that after about a month, this guy (Shubert) _still_ didn't
get it -- that his religion is not of interest here, pro or con, and
that attempts to pass off religico-philosophical posturing as
"skepticism" weren't going to cut it.
I keep getting the feeling that his I'm-such-a-martyr-being-ejected-
unfairly-from-this-echo speech was practiced and stored up before
he even arrived here -- given his well-known opportunities in other
echos before this one to practice it. Maybe this means I'm psychic.
;->
Cheers,
Rick M.
--- MsgToss 2.0d (beta)
# Origin: Bay Area Skeptics: Doubt on the Prowl Since '82 1:125/27 (8:916/100
8)
* Origin: Gateway System to/from RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1
SEEN-BY: 106/116 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 267/200 270/101 102 211 283/657 290/627 300/1
SEEN-BY: 396/1 640/75
PATH: 916/1008 1 8/8 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rick Moen @ 916/1008
To: Fredric Rice
Sub: Re: Ark hoax continues, 1
Date: 04 Dec 93 23:02:47
--------
EID:138b 1b84b840
MSGID: 8:916/1008 8527d11b
> "We're a motion-picture producer, and we don't take a point of
> view, creationist or otherwise," countered Sun President Allan
> Pederson. [Another liar for god. --- drice]
Actually, that may be the one most provably true allegation in the
entire piece. Sun very likely is fundamentally interested in following
Willie Sutton's Law ("Go where the money is"). It's really quite
plausible that they have no ideological commitment to creationism.
It would, after all, be against their interests to have one.
Cheers,
Rick M.
--- MsgToss 2.0d (beta)
# Origin: Bay Area Skeptics: Doubt on the Prowl Since '82 1:125/27 (8:916/100
8)
* Origin: Gateway System to/from RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1
SEEN-BY: 106/116 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 267/200 270/101 102 211 283/657 290/627 300/1
SEEN-BY: 396/1 640/75
PATH: 916/1008 1 8/8 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rick Moen @ 916/1008
To: Gary Posner
Sub: Re: News from james randi
Date: 04 Dec 93 23:10:01
--------
EID:2002 1b84b940
MSGID: 8:916/1008 8527d21b
> Here's my address to which the Randi/Geller Hotline messages are
> being successfully addressed to me on the NetMail echo:
>
> Gary.Posner@p0.f33.n377.z1.FIDONET.ORG
>
> I don't know if the "p0" would also apply to you, but otherwise
> your corresponding address would simply substitute "f2112" and "n2430"
> for my own "f" and "n" numbers.
Gary, for the record, the "p0" is superflous for both you and David,
since it is assumed by default. The default assumption is correct
in both cases, since neither of you runs a "point" system (p for point).
If by "CSICOP list" you are referring to the Internet "Skeptic" list
run by Taner Edis at Johns Hopkins University, please let me know,
and I'll help you work out how to successfully subscribe. To my
knowledge, CSICOP has no e-mail mailing list as such, just a read-only
display area on the Cleveland Freenet, maintained by Jim Kutz of South
Shore Skeptics on a volunteer basis.
Cheers,
Rick M.
--- MsgToss 2.0d (beta)
# Origin: Bay Area Skeptics: Doubt on the Prowl Since '82 1:125/27 (8:916/100
8)
* Origin: Gateway System to/from RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1
SEEN-BY: 106/116 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 267/200 270/101 102 211 283/657 290/627 300/1
SEEN-BY: 396/1 640/75
PATH: 916/1008 1 8/8 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rick Moen @ 916/1008
To: Charlie Wilson
Sub: Re: Tilting at creationist
Date: 04 Dec 93 23:14:47
--------
EID:640a 1b84b9c0
MSGID: 8:916/1008 8527d31b
> cw> Since when has theory equaled fact? (sigh) You wacky skeptics...
>
> FR> What are you going on about?
>
> I was "going on about" the _fact_ that evolution is a theory, not
> a fact (exactly as I quoted). What are _you_ going on about?
> Charlie
As has already been explained to you, the term "evolution" is used to
refer _both_ to the observed fact of systematic change in biological
organisms over time _and_ to the body of theories used to account for
that observed fact. The claim that "evolution is a theory, not a fact"
is an old, traditional chestnut among creationists, but is made in
_error_.
If you'll explain exactly where your problem lies with this, perhaps
someone here can help on this matter further.
Cheers,
Rick M.
--- MsgToss 2.0d (beta)
# Origin: Bay Area Skeptics: Doubt on the Prowl Since '82 1:125/27 (8:916/100
8)
* Origin: Gateway System to/from RBBS-NET (RBBS-PC 1:10/8)
SEEN-BY: 10/8 12/12 102/2 138 752 850 851 852 890 943 1006 103/0 104/1
SEEN-BY: 106/116 115/439 887 128/1 138/1 147/7 151/1003 170/400 202/1
SEEN-BY: 209/208 209 720 260/1 267/200 270/101 102 211 283/657 290/627 300/1
SEEN-BY: 396/1 640/75
PATH: 916/1008 1 8/8 270/101 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rick Moen @ 916/1008
To: Bruce Baugh
Sub: Re: Tilting at creationist
Date: 04 Dec 93 23:53:52
--------
EID:8c77 1b84bea0
MSGID: 8:916/1008 8527d41b
> For a fun wade through a lot of this stuff, I commend THE FRINGES OF
> REASON, a Whole Earth catalog of oddities from UFOs to dowsing to
> crystals. In typical Whole Earth fashion, there's a very wide range of
> opinions represented, all presented soberly, and the most wonderful
> book reviews in the known universe. I particularly enjoy Robert Anton
> Wilson's little piece about the many categories there are besides
> unqualified true or false.
It's indeed a very fun piece, and Wilson himself is quite a roar in
person. However, in its zeal to moon the scientific establishment,
it takes fire at a non-existent target. Wilson does a great deal of
that, setting up straw men and then shooting them down -- and implying
that people he resents are just like those straw men, without the
troublesome need to actually produce evidence that this is so.
So, Wilson is already firmly on the stump, for example, by paragraph
three:
Personally, I tend to believe Will Shakespeare of Stratford
wrote _Hamlet_, but since I can't prove it scientifically and
am not an expert on Elizabethan conspiracies, I am not 100%
sure, and prefer to listen to the Baconians politely rather
than arouse their (quickly aroused) hostility by dogmatic
denial of their faith.
In only about fifty words, he's already accusing unspecified parties
he disagrees with of dogmatism ("not 100% sure", which by implication
those others would insist on) and congratulating himself on his
open-mindedness and alleged generosity of spirit. One should get used
to it, since it's a one-note tune running through just about everything
he writes.
In paragraph five, he launches into his lecture on different categories
of "truth", which occupies the rest of the article with copious
examples, implying that these unspecified opponents are incapable of
understanding these fundamentals of freshman philosophy -- again,
without the troublesome need to actually _show_ this.
In paragraph nine (water boils at 100 degrees C, yes, but only at Earth
sea-level), he starts his series of tricked-up examples that purport
to show that scientific facts are slippery, but in fact succeed only
in showing that many such statements assume some conditions implicitly,
and you're supposed to be bright enough to recognise when they don't
apply.
In paragraph ten, he describes a version of the Cosmological Principle,
a philosophical statement he incorrectly classes as a claim of modern
scientific fact (by implication). Presumably, Wilson knows that that
"Principle" is empirical, but it doesn't suit his purposes to mention
that fact.
Paragraphs eleven and twelve play the same sorts of dumb games with the
term "believe" that occasionally prove so wonderfully popular in this
echo, wasting everyone's time and creating a big ruckus. Whee!
Paragraph thirteen takes amusing shots at a non-existent school of
philosophy holding that "all propositions are either true or false",
also attibuting this view incorrectly to a scientist Wilson powerfully
resents, Martin Gardner. Whee, again!
(He also mentions forms of non-Aristotelian logic invented by Korzybski,
Brown, and von Neumann, pointing with pride to them being "as valid as
non-Euclidean geometries", without bothering to mention that all three
can be modelled by Aristotelian two-valued logical systems.
Wilson goes on in the same vein for another page and a half, suggesting
with