God Damned Fundies!
--------
From: James Jenks
To: Don Allen
Sub: Jupiter-Crash
Date: 20 Jul 94 14:18:22
--------
EID:9ad4 1cf47240
MSGID: 1:232/310 100b8d39
PID: VFIDO 6.10.03
DA> * Forwarded from "ASTRONOMY"
DA> * Originally by Patrick Thibault
DA> * Originally to All
DA> * Originally dated 11 Jul 1994, 20:08
DA>
DA> I predict the comet will miss Jupiter! Any takers?
Is it too late to take him up on his bet? :)
---
þ JABBER v1.2 þ
--- VFIDO 6.10.03
* Origin: Hermes (1:232/310)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 232/310 302 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Ken Stuckas
To: Andy Voelkle
Sub: Exogenesis
Date: 19 Jul 94 15:15:11
--------
EID:9d42 1cf379e0
MSGID: 1:112/40@fidonet.org 7a82d1db
-=>While eating a book entitled "Exogenesis",
Andy Voelkle mumbled:
AV> A good friend of mine is a scientist who thinks that human life on
AV> Earth may have had its origins outside the Earth. It's true that amino
AV> acids have been found in meteorite fragments, and that complex organic
AV> molecules have been detected between the stars.
AV> I wonder if there is anything to "exogenesis"?
AV> I'd also like to hear a lot of PRO and CON discussion if there's
AV> interest. Anyone?
Seems as though it would be highly improbable that
life itself was brought to Earth by a meteor. Due to
to heat of atmospheric entry, any living organism
would have perished and there is plenty of evidence
that all the ingredients required for prebiotic
chemical evolution already existed here on Earth
in abundance. All that was needed were the correct
conditions for the appropriate chemical reactions
to take place.
It is not too difficult to create the precursor
molecules in the lab and the mechanisms for creating
more complex molecules are given an opportunity for
taking place in undersea volcanic vents. Also, the
other ingredient, time, was available.
Occam's Razor suggests that if we have a simple
explanation for a phenomenon that fits all the
available facts, then it is silly to invent a more
complex and less probable explanation.
... 90% of the time I'm right, so why worry about the other 3%?
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
* Origin: Shuttle Pad - Jacksonville's Best * Over 13 GIGS * (904) 766-893
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 112/40 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Ken Stuckas
To: Fredric Rice
Sub: ...
Date: 19 Jul 94 15:15:11
--------
EID:d6fd 1cf379e0
MSGID: 1:112/40@fidonet.org 7a82d1dc
-=>While eating a book entitled "...",
Fredric Rice mumbled:
FR> threw the message away. Nine days later he died. In 1987,
FR> the message received by a young woman in California was very
FR> faded and barely readable. She promised herself that she
FR> would retype the message and send it on, but she set it
FR> aside to do it later. She was plagued with various
FR> problems, including expensive car repairs. The letter did
FR> not leave her hands within 96 hours. She finally typed
FR> typed the letter as promised and got a new car.
FR> Good Luck but please remember: 20 copies of this
FR> message must leave your hand.
Oh, puleeeeze, Fredric!
... None of you exists: My sysop types all this in!
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
* Origin: Shuttle Pad - Jacksonville's Best * Over 13 GIGS * (904) 766-893
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 112/40 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Ken Stuckas
To: Kevin Fox
Sub: Re: idiot savants
Date: 20 Jul 94 22:01:11
--------
EID:d521 1cf4b020
MSGID: 1:112/40@fidonet.org 7a82d1dd
-=>While eating a book entitled "Re: idiot savants",
Kevin Fox mumbled:
KF> Personally, I despise the name of this thread...I think that we have
KF> surpassed the term 'Idiot Savant' and realized that 'Autism' was more
KF> suiting. I wish I could have seen the initial post.
You are showing your ignorance, Kevin. The term
idiot savant that I learned in college psychology
is pronounced as the French, "ee-dee-yo savan"
and legitimately refers to a specific kind of
mental talent. Not all autistic people are
idiot savants. It's as if I called my car a
Nova and you argued with me saying that you
preferred the description "Chevrolet." 8*)
... Death is Nature's way of telling us to slow down.
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
* Origin: Shuttle Pad - Jacksonville's Best * Over 13 GIGS * (904) 766-893
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 112/40 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Ken Stuckas
To: David Macdonald
Sub: Sneezing in sunlight
Date: 20 Jul 94 22:01:11
--------
EID:2a2d 1cf4b020
MSGID: 1:112/40@fidonet.org 7a82d1de
-=>While eating a book entitled "Sneezing in sunlight",
David Macdonald mumbled:
DM> Re: Sneezing in Sunlight
DM> I have for a long time sneezed whenever I go suddenly out into
DM> the bright sunlight. I found out about it from a doctor in
DM> realtion to another phenomenon that I experience and which ended my
DM> short boxing career--sympathetic weeping. When I went to the doctor
DM> about it, he asked me immediately if I sneezed when I went out in the
DM> sun. When I said I did, he said the mystery was over and there was
DM> nothing I could do about either. It seems as if there are bundles of
DM> nerves that gather up behind he nose and eyes and run into the brain.
DM> On some people, the sheath is thick and the opening through which
DM> the nerves pass is wide: these people do not sneeze in the sun or
DM> experience excessive sympathetic weeping. On some people the nerve
DM> sheath is thin and the opening narrow; the nerves are crowded
DM> together.
DM> Sometimes there are even small inter-nerve links. The electrical
DM> activity of one nerve excites the inadequately isolated neighboring
DM> nerve. The overstimulated eye nerve bleeds electricity into the
DM> nerve which controls sneezing, the nose nerve excites the nerve that
DM> controls weeping--or so I remember his explanation, as given to me
DM> some years ago.
DM> Whenever I run into a boxer now, I ask if he sneezes when he goes out
DM> in the sun. I get a lot of strange looks, and have never found one
DM> who does.
Thanks for the info, David. I was accused of being
weird when I tried to explain my "sun sneezing" to
someone. You explanation indicates that it is genetic.
My mother did it too. I have her nose. I have also
noticed that I can do it deliberately by staring up
at any strong light source like a fluorescent light.
... When I die, I'm leaving my body to science fiction.
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
* Origin: Shuttle Pad - Jacksonville's Best * Over 13 GIGS * (904) 766-893
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 112/40 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Darr Hoag
To: Jeff Freeman
Sub: Jupiter-Crash
Date: 20 Jul 94 10:10:01
--------
EID:b82a 1cf45140
PID: T.A.G. 2.7 Beta
REPLY: 1:124/1014.5121 aaa8b8f6
MSGID: 1:2330/4@fido 2e2cf81d
*** Quoting Jeff Freeman to Don Allen dated 07-16-94 ***
> The folks on "Gods News" (a show on our local all-god TV station) are
> predicting the end of the world, meaning the return of Christ, may be
> begun by this comet hitting Jupiter. They are supposing that Jupiter
> may ignite when the comet hits it, becoming a second sun.
And all this time I thought they were into 'Son' worshipping. (*8
... Those who'd sacrifice Liberty for Security, deserve NEITHER!
--- FMail 0.99a+
* Origin: The Hideaway! - Tompkins MI USA - (1:2330/4)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 2330/4 169 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Gary Steinweg
To: Tim Epstein
Sub: Sneezing in Sunlight
Date: 20 Jul 94 16:42:12
--------
EID:9c79 1cf48540
MSGID: 1:202/344.0 2e2db654
TE> > Sneezing in the sunlight: I sent a L O N G reply about it;
TE> > did you get it?
TE> No I didn't David. Looks like it didn't make it to
TE> Australia. I'm very interested in your comments. Would you
TE> mind resending it if you still have it?
Sorry to but it, butt ....... If the topic is why does sunlight
cause sneezing, that's easy. It's because sunlight causes dust
particles to swirl around. If you pull the shade down in your
house, the dust stops swirling around in the air and goes away.
Simple, huh?
___
X SLMR 2.1a X
--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
* Origin: OS/2 Desktop * Escondido, CA * 619-743-2511 * V.FC (1:202/344)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 202/1
203
SEEN-BY: 202/301 344 606 701 911 1002 209/207 209 254 710 720 270/101
SEEN-BY: 290/627 396/1 640/75
PATH: 202/344 301 1 209/710 209 102/2 851
--------
From: Gary Steinweg
To: Jackson Harding
Sub: Free Willy
Date: 20 Jul 94 21:06:06
--------
EID:6699 1cf4a8c0
MSGID: 1:202/344.0 2e2df42e
JH> In a msg of Monday July 11 1994, Gary Steinweg mumbled about Free Willy
JH> to All:
JH> GS> How to remove a dead whale, or the Farside comes to Oregon.
JH> This is without doubt the best post we've ever had here in
JH> the four years I've been moderator. Truly the first post
JH> where I have literaly been crippled with laughter and had
JH> tears rolling liberally down my cheeks.
I didn't author it, but I did enjoy reformatting and sharing it.
JH> GS> This is a very sobering videotape. Here at the institute we
JH> GS> watch it often,
JH> I realise you are claiming not to be the original poster
JH> but can I arrange for a copy?, either PAL or NTSC, hell if
JH> it's the latter I'll pay to get it
JH> converted.
I'll see if I can find my way back to the original author via
the Internet regarding your desires. I hope I'm successful,
however, please don't hold your breath.
---
X SLMR 2.1a X
--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
* Origin: OS/2 Desktop * Escondido, CA * 619-743-2511 * V.FC (1:202/344)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 202/1
203
SEEN-BY: 202/301 344 606 701 911 1002 209/207 209 254 710 720 270/101
SEEN-BY: 290/627 396/1 640/75
PATH: 202/344 301 1 209/710 209 102/2 851
--------
From: Jeff Freeman
To: David Macdonald
Sub: EVOLUTION
Date: 20 Jul 94 21:15:04
--------
EID:0d96 1cf4a9e0
MSGID: 1:124/1014.5121 fb1b0307
REPLY: 1:232/310 10052679
On (18 Jul 94) David Macdonald wrote to Jeff Freeman...
DM> I hope this makes some sense!
Bunches! Thanks... Now I'm off to the evolution echo where I can be
on-topic. :)
--- PPoint 1.80
* Origin: Jeff Freeman (1:124/1014.5121)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 124/1014 1 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: John Powell
To: Dr Pepper
Sub: Stuff
Date: 21 Jul 94 07:01:00
--------
EID:a23a 1cf53820
PID: QE 2.76a-
-=> Quoting Dr Pepper to John Powell <=-
DP> Bob Marley often put political themes in his music. Yet i haven't
DP> heard a peep about him from the conspiracy industry, why not?
Voodoo... Nuff said.
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- Blue Wave/QBBS v2.12 OS/2 [NR]
* Origin: Absence Of Evidence Is Not Evidence Of Absence BBS (1:261/1201.0)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 261/1201 1087 1023 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: John Powell
To: Pete Porro
Sub: OIL COMPANIES
Date: 21 Jul 94 10:11:00
--------
EID:8e45 1cf55160
PID: QE 2.76a-
-=> Quoting Pete Porro to John Powell <=-
>DH> I think that people need to have a better idea of what use they have
>DH> for their vehicle - why not have two - one gas powered for long
>DH> distance trips ( rental? ) and the electric for city commute ( 50 miles
>DH> per charge )
> Would these type of batteries exhibit the 'memory' that other (laptop,
> cellular phone) batteries have?
PP> Hmm, actually the answer would be an electric car, with a Diesel
PP> generator built in. When the batteries started to run low, the engine
PP> would kick in and power the car, while recharging the batteries. When
PP> charged, it would shut off, and you would run on electric battery
PP> power again. You would just have to fill the fuel tank, and remember
PP> to plug in at night.
The longest routine trip I make is about 12 miles one way so I could get
by on an all-electric car fine during the week. And if it had an
automatic parasol-like solar do-da that popped up it could do a little
recharging while it was parked.
I would make a perfect beta-tester... Anybody know who's ass ya
have to kiss to get on of those cars?
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- Blue Wave/QBBS v2.12 OS/2 [NR]
* Origin: Absence Of Evidence Is Not Evidence Of Absence BBS (1:261/1201.0)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 261/1201 1087 1023 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rick Moen
To: Stewart Draper
Sub: Re: Skeptical of skeptics
Date: 20 Jul 94 23:47:22
--------
EID:6d65 1cf4bde0
MSGID: 1:125/27 f526d21b
SD> I suggest if you don't want to waste time on posting replys
SD> to messages, that you don't post replys to messages: simple! Well
SD> as for specifics as against generalisations; this is asking for
SD> much as you see there is a limit to the amount of time that I have
SD> to explain. All I am attempting to say is that individuals who seek
SD> the truth, skeptics or other need to view things from an entirely
SD> individual and objective fashion.
Stewart, is THIS how you write when you are being "specific"? Please
remind us not to ask you to be _vague and general_. ;->
SD> They must not be swayed by popular culture and fashion, what is
SD> considered to be the right thing at the time. [deletia]
SD> This is what skeptics are about; popular beliefs.
Stewart, when you _recuperate_ from whatever is scrambling the synapses,
you might re-enter this echo and ASK what skeptics are about. In the
meantime, you should eschew TELLING us what skeptics are about, in as
much as you have not the least particle of a clue on that subject.
Cheers,
Rick Moen
Member, Board of Directors
Bay Area Skeptics
--- MsgToss 2.0d (beta)
* Origin: Bay Area Skeptics: Doubt on the Prowl Since '82 (1:125/27)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 125/27 110 125 203/530 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Eric Greene
To: Alethea Raspa
Sub: PAWNSHOP EMBLEM.
Date: 19 Jul 94 20:48:08
--------
EID:c5de 1cf3a600
MSGID: 1:133/208.1 2e2c74bf
Hiya Alethea -
10 Jul 94, Alethea Raspa writes to Dr Pepper:
-=>> Quoting Dr Pepper to Alethea Raspa <=-
PP>> So why are there three balls over the door of a pawn shop?
AA>> Three balls hang over pawn shop doors because they are from the
AA>> coat of arms of the Florentine d'Medici family
DP>> Medici as in medicine, they were doctors before they were bankers,
the
DP>> three balls were originally pills.
AR> I think you are thinking more about the Borgia Pope, Alexander IV. His
AR> children were often accused of poisoning their rivals, but Lucrezia
is
AR> generally credited with not being as bad as her brother's and father's
AR> enemies had painted her.
Does this include the fact that she was bedding her father and both brothers
a
nd Juan's murder is attributed to Caesar's desire to be his Lucrezia's sole
lo
ver? Sounds like a fine woman to me!
Eric
Internet: erg@america.net
eric.greene@index.com
--- GoldED 2.41
* Origin: Deep-Sky BBS - (404)321-5904 (1:133/208.1)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 133/208 201 2 370/510 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Jeff Miller
To: John Moore
Sub: Numerology and Bible
Date: 21 Jul 94 9:43:10
--------
EID:9675 1cf54d60
MSGID: 1:3619/25@Fido 2e2e9d64
PID: CNet XFIDO 3.0
JM>A Googol is a one followed by a hundred zeroes. A googolplex is a
JM>googol to the googol power.
John, a googolplex is ten to the googol power (or 1 followed by a
googol of zeros).
JM>I wish I could attribute the mathematician who made it up, but I
JM>recall from an article by Isaac Asimov in the fifties than it was
JM>invented to entertain his young daughter. Asimov stated that a
American mathematician Edward Kasner claimed that he asked his nine-
year-old nephew Milton Sirotta what the number ought to be called,
and that his nephew suggested "googol."
I'd try to bring this back on-topic by discussing numerology, but the
subject is so ridiculous I can't!
--- CNet/3
* Origin: Ground Zero 813-849-4034 New Port Richey, FL NEC/RHUB (1:3619/25)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 3619/25 3603/20 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Bloomberg
To: Tad Cook
Sub: Re: Holocaust Denial
Date: 20 Jul 94 21:42:11
--------
EID:6dc9 1cf4ad40
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 442068bb
REPLY: 1:343/124.0 2e27592f
In a msg to David Macdonald on , Tad Cook of 1:343/124 writes:
TC> Have you read NAZIS, COMMUNISTS, KLANSMEN and Others On the Fringe,
TC> by John George and Laird Wilcox? Its published by Prometheus.
It's one of those books on my "to order" list. Have you read it? If so,
how
is it?
Did you get my message on POLITICS about the latest issue of SKEPTIC, and
its
articles on Holocaust revisionists?
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: The more one knows, the less one believes. (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 2430/1 3701 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Bloomberg
To: John Powell
Sub: Stuff
Date: 20 Jul 94 21:45:05
--------
EID:afde 1cf4ada0
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 4420742d
In a msg to David Bloomberg on , John Powell of 1:261/1201
write
s:
JP> - Director Special Projects
DB> Oooooh, can I have it? ;-)
JP> Sure, if you really want it . Here's how it works: I pick a
JP> special project, more or less outline what/why/how, you do most but
not
JP> necessarily all of the grunt work delegating to volunteers as you can,
JP> you/me (and others) finalize a report. Something like 2 to 4 projects
JP> a year depending on how it goes.
I would have to do GRUNT work?! With a "Director" title? Sheesh...
JP> I'm not interested in rehashing old stuff or in assembling FAQ-like
JP> material. I also want to mostly avoid UFO stuff whenever possible.
JP> (In case folks haven't figured it out yet the so-called UFO Phenomenon
is
JP> finished, over, done...)
It is? Ok, I give up, what was the solution? :-)
JP> I won't tell you what the first project is but here's a hint: It
JP> happenned rather recently and has never been researched or
JP> investigated.
Hmmmm. Well, I kind of have my hands full with REALL now. If all that
grunt
work weren't involved, I'd consider it, but... Ah well.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: The more one knows, the less one believes. (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 2430/1 3701 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Bloomberg
To: John Powell
Sub: Stuff
Date: 20 Jul 94 21:47:54
--------
EID:afde 1cf4ade0
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 44207b71
In a msg to David Bloomberg on , John Powell of 1:261/1201
write
s:
JP> Odyssey Fringe Science Research Network Journal
JP> "Odyssey Journal"
DB> Do you accept skeptical articles as well?
JP> Of course. No opinions, only actual work...
What constitutes actual work? Would Kottmeyer's articles, for example,
consti
tute actual work -- such as his comparisons between the "memories" of supposed
abductees and the science fiction TV shows and movies they may very well
have
seen?
JP> However, this Journal doesn't exist. In much the same way that I run
the
JP> Odyssey Fringe Science Research Network, I made this available a long
tim
e
JP> ago in case folks wanted to do it and so far there haven't been any
JP> takers.
Ah well.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: The more one knows, the less one believes. (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 2430/1 3701 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Terry Smith
To: Lewin Edwards
Sub: Skeptical of skeptics
Date: 15 Jul 94 10:16:51
--------
EID:6597 1cef5200
MSGID: 3:800/846.23 e269a0f1
REPLY: 3:634/396 2e21ed8c
On <11 Jul 1994 > Lewin Edwards wrote to Terry Smith:
LE> And what's the difference (besides a little pronunciation
LE> difference) between referring to things as "evil spirits" or
LE> "bacteria" (or whatever) ? Just a word.
Depends on whether you prefer penicillin, or getting a beating to drive
the sp
irits out I guess. Still, if you prefer the latter, it seems to be making
a co
me back - after all, burning all HIV positive people at the stake will slow
th
e spread of the disease.
It would have worked then too, they just didn't catch the diseases early
enoug
h.
Terry Smith
--- timEd-B11
* Origin: Point Taken. (3:800/846.23)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 800/846 1 2 857 374/14 98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Paul Feonic
To: Sweet Sue
Sub: 1:232/10 Holographic
Date: 17 Jul 94 12:04:53
--------
EID:eb3c 1cf16080
SS>>> While there is no such thing as a "victim,"
JF>> I don't know what your definition of 'victim' is, but the above
JF>> statement would seem to contradict itself.
SS> Just because others may <> choose to be 'victimized'
in
SS> some way (which all of us do), is no excuse for someone else to
SS> <> benefit at someone else's expense.
But how can one "Choose" to be victimised if noone is victimising them?
Hence, by victimising someone, I'm actually helping them by doing what they
want. And if that victimisation helps me, then all the better. Everyone
wins (and if they don't then they wanted to lose.)
So we should repeal all laws, scrap all government, and let people believe
their fate.
SS> then I'm clear it's <> and I don't wail and moan about
SS> having been a 'victim.' I didn't to put someone before me, I
SS> <> to.
SS> On the other hand, if I do embark on something that will unavoidably
SS> cause someone to be hurt, I realize that on some level they <>
SS> chose to be hurt.
We had someone awhile back say essentially the same thing. Joanne felt
that we all had a belief-reality. Being somewhat distant from the beliefs
of the Newage movement, I had thought it was a fairly limited belief this
century. Apparently not.
The reaction most of us gave to the "Victim by choice" claims was the
example of rape/murder/etc. The extremes of victimisation. Your no-victim
reality would imply that when a rapist stalks a women, she's choosing to
be
stalked, when attacked, she's choosing to be raped. Any time she chooses,
she can stop it with a mere change of her mind.
A murder likewise. The victim chooses to be killed. A growth experience,
no doubt. (Hey, perhaps OJ Simpson's 127 lawyers could use that in court.
Do you think it'll work if OJ believes hard enough?)
And I expected Joanne to say "No, no, I never said that" and explain a
subtler version (Like a rape victim didn't choose to be raped, but she
chooses not to recover emotionally. Or something similar.) But instead,
Joanne agreed with the content, if not the tone, of the examples. Yes,
the
ultimate cliche is true, rape victims "wanted it".
(OTOH, when she waxed on about one of her hates, vaccinations (because a
few kids per thousand each year react badly, some fatally. She wanted kids
to be trained to "Choose" not to catch diseases) she didn't seem to apply
her own choice-reality to the kids who died. Surely they chose to die.)
Soooo, I take your claims to their extreme not to ridicule, (Or not _just_
to ridicule :-) but to see if you do take your belief system that far.
Nix.
Ps. Thanks for adding you netmail number to so many messages. (I'm not
organised enough to do something intelligent like write it down _before_
I
need it.) Is there any reason why your sysop won't change his/her origin
line. From memory, Fido policy insists on it. (Too hard to send netmail
otherwise)
... Hypochondria getting you down? Try new extra strength Placebos.
--- Blue Wave/Opus v2.12
* Origin: The Phone Box BBS ! - [Line 2] - Adelaide OZ! (3:800/855.0)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 800/2 857 374/14 98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Paul Feonic
To: Sweet Sue
Sub: Re: Fringe science?
Date: 17 Jul 94 12:39:30
--------
EID:9a98 1cf164e0
RM>> That's meaningless, except in the sense that _everything_ is composed
RM>> of mass-energy. [] That has nothing at all to do with identifying
RM>> disease-causing agents.
SS> If, as you originally said (and I agree), all matter and energy do
SS> originate at the quantum level. And if, as you now repeat, everything
SS> is composed of mass-energy. Then disease-causing agents, which are
SS> part of "everything" also originate at the quantum level.
No. Disease causing agents originate at the complex molecular level.
That is, while the most basic particles are quantum in nature, they are
not
diseases. An electron in a cancer cell is no different than an electron
in
a carrot. Do carrots cause cancer? The basic atoms, ions, or very simple
basic molecules are also not diseases. A hydroxyl is a hydroxyl is a
hydroxyl. The disease only becomes a disease when taken as a whole,
macro-molecular, product.
What gets confusing is that most diseases cure themselves (Most of the
time, doctors still only treat the symptoms and try to prevent further
complications), and the brain _does_ affect the body. (As anyone with a
stressful job, or fretful animal, knows.)
But that effect is caused by electrochemical reactions in the brain
releasing (Or causing to be released) chemicals in the body. Those
chemicals have an effect on the body. Nothing mystical, nor requiring new
energies or particles.
If the body is physically unable to cure a disease (Or any illness) no
amount of prayer and positive thinking will. Even _if_ the PEAR lab results
are correct, thought still couldn't effect macroscopic matter on a noticeable
level.
Just like some drugs can cause athletes/animals to perform faster and
better than non-drug using a/a. But those athletes and animals are still
bound by the physical limits of their strength/energy/etc. Some people
can
do that through will-power and confidence. Or prayer. But it just does
the
same things to the body as the drug, no more, usually less.
That doesn't mean that thought has _no_ effect, quite the opposite. But
even if thought occurs due to quantum interaction, the effect on the body
occurs due to molecular interaction and is always limited by the
capabilities of those molecules and the structures they are part of.
Nix.
... Dining With Elvis. Ahuh Huh.
--- Blue Wave/Opus v2.12
* Origin: The Phone Box BBS ! - [Line 2] - Adelaide OZ! (3:800/855.0)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 800/2 857 374/14 98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rod Speed
To: Gary Quinton
Sub: ritual mutilation
Date: 14 Jul 94 13:43:58
--------
EID:223c 1cee6d60
TS> uses it's tail for a great deal of communication, including
TS> threat/submission display, greeting, warning ect., it most certainly
TS> does constitute maiming, and can lead to crippling -
RS> Crap. The breeds that have docked tails manage fine, regardless of
RS> this stuff about the use of tails. Essentially the use of tails is
RS> just one part of dog communication and they managed without it.
GQ> Hey! just like the tolerant attitude of the Ellen James society from
GQ> the World According to Garp. Lets all cut our tongues out! We can use
GQ> our hands to communicate...
Damn, could have sworn I used my eyes and fingers quite a bit. Just knew
I was doing it wrong.
GQ> Although personally, a little mutilation of animals is not a bad
GQ> thing if practiced in excess...
Some of the humans even mutilate themselves. Even in first world countrys.
--- PQWK202
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 711/934 809 808 54/54 50/99 635/503 800/2 857 374/14
PATH: 374/98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rod Speed
To: Richard O'donovan
Sub: Skeptical of skeptics
Date: 14 Jul 94 14:01:00
--------
EID:5956 1cee7020
RS> (to the onlookers, Stew has been doing precisely the same thing in
RS> the local Science echo, howling about how useless scientists are and
RS> that we should all join the one true religion, Draperism, with Stew
RS> doing an excellent imitation of a tele-evangelist)
RO> Have you so little faith in the participants here that they can't
RO> fend for themselves?
Who said anything about them not being able to fend for themselves. I am
quite sure most of them can actually. There are other possibilitys.
RS> You left out the 'closed mind' and 'religion' bit here this time.
RS> Or are they reserve ammunition ? |-)
RO> Maybe they'll appear when someone poses an argument!?!
Thats what reserve ammunition means.
SD> It's understandable that people would fight something rather than
SD> try to understand it,
RS> Or it could be they do actually try to understand why some people
RS> like the fringe loonys believe what they believe, like being abducted
RS> by aliens and experimented on. Gives them something to talk about I
RS> guess.
RO> What about an open mind?
Personally I think the evidence shows thats about the least likely
explanation. As the detail of the people being tossed out of I_UFO shows
so utterly clearly. Not my idea of how people with an open mind operate.
Havent seen a better example of closed minds in quite some time.
RO> If all that can be done to dismiss such claims is to label the
RO> people making them as "fringe loonys",
Rather a leap of logic here. Yes, IF that is all that can be done.
No that is not in fact all that can be done or has been done with
people who claim stuff like that. And since it was just an example,
not intended to be a definitive statement on the complete question
of alien abduction...
RO> then surely you're proving Stewarts case.
Pretty pathetic proof if thats all the proof there is.
RO> If you have automatically dismissed such ideas out of hand,
Again, IF. If in fact I have considered the evidence which purports to
prove that aliens actually abduct people and experiment on then, find
they have no proof, but believe anyway, it might well be valid to call
them 'fringe loonys'. Various fringe loonys will not doubt get their
noses out of joint when they read that. Thats their problem |-)
RO> then there can be no room for them being true
Corse there is, if they provide rigorous scientific evidence that they
have been abducted by aliens and experimented on, thats fine by me, I
will then say, 'oh goody, for the first time we have hard scientific
evidence that aliens abduct people and experiment on them'. And I will
stop going out at night into farmers fields so it doesnt happen to me.
RO> - irrespective of whether they objectively are or not. Isn't such
RO> paltry narrow mindedness a perfect example of what Stewart said?
Nope, just you missing the point utterly.
SD> I don't think it's a good attempt at finding the truth, but it's a
SD> very good attempt at being popular and agreed with.
SD> Skeptics are popularists in wolfs clothing,
RS> Yeah, vintage Stewart Draper, find as many bad words as you can, claim
RS> thats what the group is. Did you just search and replace 'scientists'
RS> for 'skeptics' ?
RO> I'm new to this echo,
Oh well, just dont complain about the scorch marks |-)
RO> so I don't know what passes for an argument, but this certainly what
RO> I would call one.
And since thats precisely what Stew was hoping for, and I am much too well
mannered to just studiously ignore him, thats hardly surprising |-)
RS> Atleast this one is only a page or so of tripe, something to be grateful
RO> Were you referring to his post or yours?
You have a lot to learn clearly, this approach is much too transparent |-)
--- PQWK202
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 711/934 809 808 54/54 50/99 635/503 800/2 857 374/14
PATH: 374/98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rod Speed
To: Stewart Draper
Sub: Skeptical of skeptics
Date: 14 Jul 94 21:35:20
--------
EID:816e 1ceeac60
SD> What I was simply stating was that skeptics as a modus operandi work
SD> of skepticism or negative prejudice bases. If you use concepts and
SD> considerations that are rigidly followed to answer the unknown, you
SD> will always get an unknown.
Bullshit Stew, you are just playing with yourself again. If you apply a
method which is known to work well for separating dud proposals or claims
from proven ones, whether thats the scientific method, or skepticism, you
actually have an approach which gets at the truth. Pretty simple really.
Its only rigid in the sense that it demands evidence and proof instead of
operating from the basics of 'well I am a smarty pants and thats why when
I say an alien visited, it must have'
SD> There is a use for skepticism no doubt when others would attempt to
SD> lie and cheat.
Or when they are deluding themselves and they saw Venus instead.
SD> But there are many unknown phenomena out there
Yes, there is lots thats not thoroughly understood yet.
SD> that need to be looked at in a different way.
Nope, just keep looking in the same way and eventually understand those
bits too. Sure beats sitting under a crystal and praying for divine
guidance on just why the ozone layer is changing.
SD> One has to work backwards when dealing with the unknown; one must
SD> question ones own preconceived notions.
Sounds good like much of this waffly stuff does. Its basically just
waffle tho Stew. Take a collection of fancy words and concepts, put into
a blender, churn for a while, pour them into an email message and hope
they sound impressive. They dont, they are just waffle.
SD> Finding the truth is no laughing matter and cannot be done so
SD> obviously and easily as you may think. The truth is out there but you
SD> need to broaden your horizons of understanding if you are to attempt
SD> to find it. I only write to aid you in your search, nothing more.
See, this stuff is a classic example of it. All you have really done is
take some good words, 'truth', 'broaden your horizons' blend for a while
and produce some tripe. All a bit useless when attempting to actually
get any closer to understanding how things work tho. Truth if you like,
SD> If you don't accept what I say then ok and don't write me back and
SD> tell me I'm a dill. As this is of no consequence as I know what I
SD> know.
And you obviously think 'I know what I know' is the irrefutable proof of
all your claims. Stewart Draper the messiah, here to bring enlightenment
to us all and save us from our poor benighted existence where we just
cant see where we are going wrong and just need you to point it out.
Corse its actually far more likely you really are a dill and know SFA too.
SD> The first thing a skeptic does is to relate everything back to a
SD> fundamental known.
Nope, demands evidence.
SD> The problem in this is that the fundamental known may infact be
SD> something different that what it is taken for.
And the world may be a pimple on the bum of a gigantic pink elephant
too. Might not be too.
SD> You need to look at a problem form as many angles as possible, using
SD> as much information as you can get your hands upon.
And discarding the waffle and fanciful crap so you can see if anything
really is actually going on at all. Or is it another loon too long
between pills.
SD> I have noticed skeptics seem to chuck anything out without really
SD> looking into it if it vaguely smells fishy. And in this case
SD> anything that smells fishy is everything that isn't commonly agreed
SD> to.
Pathetic. You presumably dont realise you are just the latest in a long
line of loons saying precisely that in here. Doesnt make it come true
repeating that mantra tho.
SD> Take religion vs science of old; science took a bagging due to the
SD> power of the church. Nowadays this old law is being used by science
SD> against anything else it comes up against.
Its complete bullshit Stew. Just playing with words.
SD> Could the scientists of today be as blind as the religionsist of old;
SD> sticking to fundamental and agreed-upon concepts of reality?
Well, since they keep coming up with new knowledge which can be thoroughly
established by rigorous science as being an accurate description, the
short answer is NO. Not that Stew is likely to notice tho.
--- PQWK202
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 711/934 809 808 54/54 50/99 635/503 800/2 857 374/14
PATH: 374/98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rod Speed
To: Lewin Edwards
Sub: Skeptical of skeptics
Date: 14 Jul 94 16:03:22
--------
EID:6da8 1cee8060
TS> and disease are caused by evil spirits, the world was created in
TS> seven days and if you sail out far enough, you will fall of the
TS> edge of the world.
LE> Not so far off the truth, only a little bent.
Totally wrong in fact.
LE> As we all know, you just have to sail FAST enough as well and you sure
LE> will fall off the edge of the world.
We dont really know that.
LE> And what's the difference (besides a little pronunciation difference)
LE> between referring to things as "evil spirits" or "bacteria" (or
LE> whatever) ? Just a word.
Then you might as well just say something happens because of 'things'.
Doesnt get you very far tho.
And the difference is that when you understand how smallpox works you can
eliminate it completely. You cant with demons. Worthwhile improvement IMO.
Sure seems a heap more productive to be able to conclude there aint much
point in human sacrifice for a good crop and what you need is the right
variety and planting conditions.
--- PQWK202
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 711/934 809 808 54/54 50/99 635/503 800/2 857 374/14
PATH: 374/98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rod Speed
To: Stewart Draper
Sub: The ultimate skeptic defi
Date: 14 Jul 94 21:47:26
--------
EID:7b49 1ceeade0
SD> The ultimate skeptic is defined as one who follows all known and
SD> travelled routes in finding an answer for the unknown.
Nope, that just goes to show the danger of taking a commentary on
scientists and search and replacing that word to skeptics. Doesnt work
too well at all |-)
SD> A skeptic is one who seeks agreement based upon commonly held beliefs
SD> at the time, and nothing more.
Nope, does nothing of the sort.
SD> A skeptic is therefore close-minded and prejudiced before even looking
SD> at something.
Well, since you got the first two wrong, you have a real problem with
the 'is therefore' then dont you |-)
SD> Without looking at something with the intention of understanding it,
SD> you will not find the truth behind it.
Thats crap too. Some of the most dramatic discoverys have come by accident.
SD> If you look to find all false things, then you will find only those
SD> false things that you are looking for.
Playing with words Stew. How unusual.
SD> The human mind will always solve problems based upon previous
SD> experience.
Nice theory Stew, now explain how revolutionary new stuff is discovered.
How did viruses get discovered if that silly proposition was true.
SD> And if previous experience is based upon a totallity of belief in
SD> explained phenomena and a totallity of unbelief in un-explained
SD> phenomena; then you will not find an answer.
Damn, that doesnt explain how answers have been found. Maybe that means
there is a hell of a problem with that tidy explanation then.
SD> The human mind can always come up with answers to problems as it can
SD> create possible answers that seem plausible and can be agreed upon.
Playing with words again, stoppit, you will go blind.
SD> All scientific evidence is only as good as the person viewing it.
Utter crap Stew, the whole point of rigorous science is to ensure quite
the reverse, that the observer does not contaminate the evidence. Thats
why double blind trials were invented for example.
SD> Anything that cannot be agreed upon is not conclusive to the masses.
Still playing with words to no useful purpose.
SD> Anything experienced by the individual is experienced with their own
SD> capacities which may be more than the masses.
And that sentence doesnt even make sense.
SD> If you seek to find answers to life using scientific methods alone
Depends on what answers you are seeking. Anyway we already know the
answer to life, the universe and everything, its 42.
SD> you will find yourself looking into physical events as we know them
to
SD> be only. There is more to this, as individuals have discovered above
SD> and beyond meagre scientific means of understanding.
SD> Blindness will disappear as understandings take hold!
Hallelujah Brother, salvation in our time.
SD> Dogmatic skeptics band together in bunches, following and thinking
SD> alike in one un-ending chain of thought agreement based upon meagre
SD> scientific methods. Science is good for materiality, but not to find
SD> the answers too life and unknown phenomena!
Funny that, maybe you would care to explain how science has actually
managed to do what you claim it cant.
SD> Please disagree with me; after all that's what skeptics are about
SD> isn't it. You may think I am ignorant, yes indeed I am, I am gladly
SD> ignorant of your realities and hair-brained concepts.
Request denied.
--- PQWK202
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 711/934 809 808 54/54 50/99 635/503 800/2 857 374/14
PATH: 374/98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Lewin Edwards
To: Rod Speed
Sub: Skeptical of skeptics
Date: 15 Jul 94 22:54:36
--------
EID:82e2 1cefb6c0
MSGID: 3:634/396 2e274ce1
#undef REALITY
RS> Tom Watson, the font of IBM, pontificated at one time that the world
woul
d
RS> only have a need for 5-10 computers. Everyone would use one of those.
One
RS> of the silliest predictions of all time.
Not really. There is essentially only one telephone network in the world
(excl
uding intercom type systems in highly localized environments). We all use
it.
In a similar fashion, it is conceivable that the world's computing power
could
be concentrated in a [decentralized, for military reasons] pool of gigantic
C
PU horsepower. Where's the need for a PC if you have trillions of exabytes
of
information and a myriad online services, VANs etc, accessible via a simple,
_
easily replaced_, _cheap_, _non-vulnerable_ dumb terminal ?
-- Lewin A.R.W. Edwards (deceased)
#define REALITY
--- GoldED 2.41+
* Origin: ZWSBBS 61-3-8276881 28800bps 24 Hours (3:634/396)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 634/396 384 635/503 800/2 857 374/14 98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2
PATH: 102/851
--------
From: Sue James
To: JEFF FREEMAN
Sub: Re: 1:232/10 Holograp
Date: 16 Jul 94 21:39:00
--------
EID:ac80 1cf0ace0
-> As Jeff was looking at John in *that* tone of voice ...<-
Hi Jeff,
Hope it's ok to add a thought or two here. I missed the
original message from Sweet Sue, but hope I'm not way off beam .. 8-)
JF> I think you wanted to send that to SS, as I am also having trouble
JF> understanding the concept that victim's share some responsibility.
JM> Transferring to the recipient of some hurt the
JM> responsiblity for bringing it on themselves, even though you concede
to
JM> having been the agent, absolving yourself for any and all
JM> responsibility
JF> Well, as SS pointed out, not *all* of the responsibility, but just
JF> some of it -- which I am having trouble swallowing, nonetheless.
I certainly wouldn't absolve the "agent" (the one causing the hurt) of
any responsibility - I am in full agreement with you there.
But I feel it is *also* the way we choose to perceive and
respond to situations that causes us to be hurt.
Other people only have the power over us that we *let* them have.
For example if you were particularly nasty to me [grin], then sure the
responsibilty for your actions lies with you. But whether or not I allow
those comments to affect me is, in part, *my* responsibility.
So... the recipient *is* responsible in his/her choice of response. But
I for one do not see that this offers a cop put for the "perpetrator"
either!!
I guess it's related to the human doormat syndrome too. After all, if a
person continually allows him/herself to be used or abused, most ppl
would be horrified at the actions of the users and abusers - their
actions are in no way right or excusable. But *part* of the
responsibility for the *continuation* of the situation lies with the
person on the receiving end.
And hey, I realise all this is generalising to an incredible extent -
and there are times where the "abusee" is powerless to get out
of the situation. Also I am not saying for one moment that anyone has
the right to deliberately hurt another human being. But every one of us
has the responsibility for our own emotions actions, and saying "You
made me feel ... " or "You made me do ...." is just not valid.
Don't know if I've explained that clearly enough. A bit of a case of
late night spaghetti-brain .. [grin] But I hope it makes sense.
Just thought I'd put in my two cents' worth into an interesting thread
.. 8-)
Cheers,
Sue (J .. [g] ) Two of us makes it confusing [sigh]
... Another day, another challenge.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- EzyQwk V1.10g004fa001b
* Origin: Atropos (3:632/334)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 632/334 107 998 635/503 800/2 857 374/14 98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209
PATH: 102/2 851
--------
From: Jackson Harding
To: Rod Speed
Sub: Skeptical of skeptics
Date: 18 Jul 94 07:59:00
--------
EID:95ef 1cf23f60
MSGID: 3:800/857 2e2a366e
Hello Rod!
Thursday July 14 1994, Rod Speed writes to Stewart Draper:
RS> Pathetic. You presumably dont realise you are just the latest in a long
RS> line of loons saying precisely that in here. Doesnt make it come true
RS> repeating that mantra tho.
Please, disect his arguments, but refrain from the personal attacks.
Bye for now,
Jackson
--- FMail/386 0.98a+
* Origin: Psychics meeting cancelled due to unforseen circumstance (3:800/857
)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 800/857 374/14 98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Terry Smith
To: Adrian Eng
Sub: Subliminal Messages on Songs
Date: 16 Jul 94 14:41:23
--------
EID:c882 1cf07520
MSGID: 3:800/846.23 e282a6c0
REPLY: 3:690/245.0 2e1f62fa
On <09 Jul 1994 > Adrian Eng wrote to All:
AE> Hi All
AE> Anyone here know about subliminal messages on songs
AE> nowadays?
AE> Subliminal message have been around us for ages. Coca Cola
AE> got sued BAD for having 1/12 frame in every second flash the
AE> coke sign sublimina-ing implanting coke in our subconcious.
AE> Guess why!
I have a simple request to make Adrian. Where were they sued, when, and
how mu
ch was the award? As you're the one who profered this information, I'm sure
yo
u can back this claim up.
Yours in eager anticipation;
Terry Smith
--- timEd-B11
* Origin: Point Taken. (3:800/846.23)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 800/846 1 2 857 374/14 98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Terry Smith
To: Don Allen
Sub: Superconductivity info! 2/3
Date: 16 Jul 94 14:46:07
--------
EID:10ea 1cf075c0
MSGID: 3:800/846.23 e282a6c1
REPLY: 1:3623/18@fidonet.org 6090dd64
On <12 Jul 1994 > Don Allen wrote to All:
DA> * Forwarded from "I_UFO"
DA> * Originally by Walter Bartoo
DA> * Originally to Glenda Stocks
DA> * Originally dated 9 Jul 1994, 9:42
DA> programming was dezigned to do. If you study how our
DA> society was dezigned and how direct social programming was
DA> dezigned, worked and was built into it by those controling
DA> us and doing this you begin to see the plan used to
DA> manipulate everyone in it their advantage. You can't control
DA> a free thinker who has risen above it, they wont allow it.
I see! Evolution isn't the danger in schools, the real enemies are spelling
an
d grammar.
Then again, can we believe him? He's evidently a scientist.
Terry Smith
--- timEd-B11
* Origin: Point Taken. (3:800/846.23)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 800/846 1 2 857 374/14 98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Terry Smith
To: John Prewett
Sub: Debating Fundos
Date: 16 Jul 94 23:02:49
--------
EID:1f7e 1cf0b840
MSGID: 3:800/846.23 e28a5130
REPLY: 1:355/2.12@fidonet AA47127F
On <11 Jul 1994 > John Prewett wrote to Terry Smith:
JP>
JP> The article in question merely presented some facts re:
JP> DNA that the consensus of science has accepted for a
JP> couple of decades.
JP> We aren't (at least at this point) debating
JP> scientifically revealed fact. Rather, the issue (as
JP> far as I'm concerned) is what those facts mean or don't
JP> mean re: the likelyhood of a Creatorless origin of life.
Science doesn't 'reveal' facts, it takes hypotheses as disproven, or not
dispr
oven. For those hypotheses that are not disproven, if testable arguments
can b
e sustained as to how they may explain observed phenomea, the are accepted
as
working hypotheses. The 'likelyhood' of a creatorless origin of life is
not ad
dressed by science, unless you take an assumption of the possibility of
explai
ning lifes physical origins as being a product of the natural processes
observ
ered in the physical universe, as having theological significance. This
is not
a theological echo.
JP> Scientist who have revealed intricacy and organization which provides
JP> evidence the atheist POV is a delusion
TS> Scientists who prove negatives based on their subjective impression
TS> of the philosophical viewpoints of assumed 'enemies'. Tell me more.
JP> Individuals who desire to know "truth", whether
JP> members of the "scientific", legal, historical, or
JP> theological camps, IMHO, have no reason to view each
JP> other as "enemies".
Which is why I wondered about, and asked for more clarification on your
commen
ts. An observation of a planets rotation, the translation of the Dead Sea
scro
lls, assessment of the metabolic aftermath of stress by an analysis of cerebro
-spinal fluid - none of these things has a 'faith'.
TS> Science _is_ 'atheistic - without GOD, as teleological explanations
TS> are not part of science. The need to invoke 'God' as a mechanism is
a
TS> scientific way of saying 'and a miracle occured.' This has nothing at
TS> all to do with the practitioners personal belief. If you believe one
TS> can quantify 'Godness', or propose controls to discount the presence
TS> of God in an experiment, I'd be interested in hearing your proposal.
JP> IMHO, to succeed, such an experiment must be within
JP> the parameters of God's chosen terms of
JP> revelation.
To even get off the starting grid,one must find an acceptable method of
assess
ing what that is. I realise you have your opinion - but that is all it is,
not
hing more.
For the operation of 'creation' to be a part of science, we need one of
two th
ings IMO. Either a 'creation event' which has left traces we can study,
or a d
istinction between 'created' and 'none-created' material. Please consider
that
last sentence, as it contains an important clue as to how science operates.
This is an echo for the consideration of testable claims. If, as I suspect,
yo
u are endevouring to introduce the oft rejected political agenda of 'creationi
st "science" [sic]' then I would suspect the moderator will close it down
quic
kly. If, on the other hand, you have testable claims which you wish to propose
, or evidence of logical falacies in some of the theories concerning the
obser
ved fact of evolution, I would be delighted to see them, and respond if
I am c
onversant with your topics.
JP> IOW: if one's "experiment" is on the order of:
JP> "God, if you are real then come shake my hand",
JP> then I sincerely doubt God will comply.
Some claim that is a valid method, but the results are not amenable to objecti
ve observation.
JP> The only means that I am aware of, of conducting what
JP> could be characterized as a publicly visible and
JP> verifiable "experiment" re: God is via the concept of
JP> prophecy and fulfillment.
Evidently Jupiter is not that important in the plan, though it could be
argued
He _did_ arrange for the Gallileo craft to be in a reasonable spot:-)
Terry Smith
--- timEd-B11
* Origin: Point Taken. (3:800/846.23)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 800/846 1 2 857 374/14 98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Hong Ooi
To: Sweet Sue
Sub: Fringe science?
Date: 16 Jul 94 17:54:48
--------
EID:8011 1cf08ec0
MSGID: 3:712/559.1 2e28598f
TID: FastEcho 1.40 UNREG
Sweet Sue wrote to Rick Moen on 02 Jul 94 17:57
RM>> That's meaningless, except in the sense that _everything_ is composed
RM>> of mass-energy. Your lunch is composed of mass-energy. Mt. Rushmore
RM>> is composed of mass-energy. That has nothing at all to do with
RM>> identifying disease-causing agents.
SS> If, as you originally said (and I agree), all matter and energy do
SS> originate at the quantum level. And if, as you now repeat, everything
SS> is composed of mass-energy. Then disease-causing agents, which are
part
SS> of "everything" also originate at the quantum level. Otherwise, there
SS> must be some new mathematical proof I'm unaware of which disproves the
SS> old "if A=B and B=C then C=A."
I don't see the point of your argument. Just because disease-causing agents
ar
e mass-energy, just like everything else, says nothing about how they behave
a
t scales beyond sub-atomic. The fact that quantum effects are indiscernible
at
everyday scales should be obvious to everyone.
RM>> The premise is absurd, rendering the conclusion moot. "Consciousness
RM>> is the orchestrator of matter manipulation" is a statement devoid of
RM>> scientific utility: It makes no predictions, has no testable
RM>> consequences, explains no phenomena.
SS> The premise is absurd and/or devoid of scientific utility? There is
no
SS> means of reasoning with you on this point since you find both the
SS> premise and the conclusion absurd. Just so, I cannot understand what
SS> the need is to make a prediction or explain a phenomenon or test
SS> consequences, if it can simply be accomplished that by setting our minds
SS> a given way, a specific and desired outcome can be achieved. One is
SS> more expedient than the other.
Now, how do you _know_ that "setting your minds a given way" will in fact
resu
lt in specific and desired outcomes? How do you _know_ that what happened
does
in fact have any real link with your own actions? If your hypothesis makes
no
measurable predictions, you have no way of validating it.
I'm not saying that the hypothesis that psychic energies can have real effects
is _wrong_. I'm saying that there is no _evidence_ that it is _right_. (Or,
e
xtremely little evidence.) Given that, why should we make allowances in
our ev
eryday lives for the effects of psychic energies?
RM>RM>> .... nyone could cause specific macro-scale events by "thinking
RM>RM>> positive thoughts"
SS> Finally, we agree on something.
I think Rick is quoting someone else...
[...]
SS> Read my response to Rick MacFarlane re my teeth/gums. It is perfectly
SS> reasonable of me to conclude that if I can influence and change
SS> something like this, I can also (given strong enough motivation and
SS> desire) change something which happened in the past so long as it does
SS> not involve another human being.
? Are you sure about that? How do you _know_ that your own actions will
have r
eal, specific effects on apparently independent events?
Hong
--- GoldED 2.42.G0614
* Origin: Hong's Point (3:712/559.1)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 712/559 623 54/54 50/99 635/503 800/2 857 374/14 98
PATH: 374/1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rod Speed
To: Rick Moen
Sub: Spelling
Date: 15 Jul 94 12:05:26
--------
EID:d45d 1cef60a0
RM> The point, though, Pete, is that a highly useful distinction between
RM> the two words is gradually being eroded through sheer sloppiness and
RM> lack of thought, just as people are ignoring (and gradually
RM> obliterating) the _very clear_ difference between "condone" and
RM> "approve of" -- through sheer ignroance of the latter word, alone.
RM> ("Condone" properly means "turn a blind eye to", "ignore the
RM> existence of".)
RM> If you enjoy having a language capable of expressing distinctions,
RM> capable of precision, then it might be a good idea not to allow your
RM> usage to be dictated by the worst, least informed, least thoughtful
RM> (ab)users of it -- or you may soon find that clarity is no longer an
RM> option.
RS> OTOH its not always just one way either. Living languages change over
RS> time and there aint no point in just attempting to claim that there
RS> is just one pure way and all else is degradation.
RM> But I didn't say that.
Well, thats arguable.
RM> I rather resent your attributing this crude stereotype to me,
Thats life, try not to worry about it too much |-)
RM> since I never said anything of the sort.
Well, you studiously deleted what you did say, I have put it back. Sure,
I was using exaggerated language, but you were actually decrying just
the sort of thing that happens in a living language, a gradual change in
usage over time. In this case in a way which you perceive of as worse,
losing a 'useful distinction' thru 'sheer sloppiness'. That can
accurately be described as a degradation, deterioration. The language
appears to be going that way anyway, tho you can certainly make a case
that its undesirable. Not likely to make much difference to what happens
tho.
Another example is the blurring between 'can' and 'may' in the sense of
'can I ?'. The older usage is certainly more correct, fogeys have been
bemoaning that one for quite a few decades now, common usage is changing
anyway, like all living languages do.
RS> An example is the use of salubrious in the context of luxurious,
RS> desirable, not just the traditional meaning of healthy.
RM> This is a _metaphorical_ meaning -- not a modification of the
RM> original, as long as it continues to be recognised as metaphor.
Sure, there are differences. The 'can' and 'may' would have been a better
example to have chosen.
RM> Further, if that were to happen, no confusion or lack of ability to
RM> speak clearly will result, since context will suffice to make the
RM> meaning quite clear.
Sure. But there are other examples like 'you and me' and you and I', IMO
its worrying too much about stuff which really doesnt matter too much.
RS> Or the now almost dead strictly correct form of mothers-in-law
RS> becoming mother-in-laws.
RM> Are you suggesting that the latter form passes without comment
RM> _anywhere_?
Nope, I am suggesting that its becoming common usage and only the most
pedantic are likely to comment on it.
RM> I'm glad to say I've never heard it where I am.
I think its most unlikely to be the cause of the end of civilisation as
we know it. The curtains wont fade, the cat wont lose its fur.
RS> Living languages move on. Just like Nth American english differs from
RS> british english.
RM> So what?
That original of yours is just another example of living languages
changing over time. Usually with some people deploring the change too.
RM> You're now the second person to tell me this as if it should for
RM> some reason be news to me. Well, it's not
It was an example, not meant to be news. Its one technique used in
written expression, using examples.
RM> -- nor is it to any sentient biped over roughly the age of eight.
Like wow man |-)
RM> Yes, OF COURSE living languages move on. Sometimes they move in the
RM> wrong direction.
Yes, there are usually people who can be found to deplore any particular
change. It happens anyway.
RM> In those cases, if you're smart, you don't simply shrug and concede
RM> the inevitability of "movement" as you're carried over the cliff:
No, you piss against the wind and make your jeans rather smelly |-)
RM> To the contrary, you start tugging in the other direction.
Tug when ready Griddly, I dont expect to see it make a blind bit of
difference |-)
--- PQWK202
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 711/934 809 808 54/54 50/99 635/503 800/2 857 374/14
PATH: 374/98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rod Speed
To: John Molloy
Sub: Re: SKEPTICAL OF SKEPTICS
Date: 16 Jul 94 13:18:10
--------
EID:6097 1cf06a40
SD> there will come a time in your life when the evidence for UFO's and
SD> OOBE, reincarnation and other strange phenomena of that ilk will shake
SD> you little world apart. Please investigate what I have said with an
SD> open-mind if you are at all interested in reality and the truth in
SD> life. I know I am right, and I know that you are wrong.
JM> Stewart, it must be wonderful to know you are right. The more I
JM> travel through this world, the less convinced I am that it is
JM> possible to know everything. Solid evidence of UFOs and OOBEs would
JM> fascinate my enquiring mind. So would a live interview with the tooth
JM> fairy.
Why dont you just ask Stew to put you in touch with some, he spends
quite a bit of time off with the fairys by the looks of it |-)
--- PQWK202
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 711/934 809 808 54/54 50/99 635/503 800/2 857 374/14
PATH: 374/98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Joe Slater
To: Gary Steinweg
Sub: Free Willy
Date: 17 Jul 94 22:44:00
--------
EID:dbd4 1cf1b580
Monday July 11 1994, Gary Steinweg writes to All:
GS> Taken from the Internet:
GS> FREE WILLY
GS> (original author unknown)
This was written by noted humorist Dave Barry, and is several years old.
I hav
e it in one of his collections somewhere. It was posted on his onetime Clarine
t column, and they will cheerfully sue the pants off you for infringing
their
copyright.
jds
--- FMail 0.92
* Origin: What horrors wait for me in this, the Phantom's Opera? (3:632/351)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 632/351 998 635/503 800/2 857 374/14 98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2
PATH: 102/851
--------
From: Alan Sawyer
To: All
Sub: ALIENS
Date: 17 Jul 94 09:13:04
--------
EID:bab9 1cf149a0
PID: BWRA 3.00 [Eval]
MSGID: 3:633/158.1305 2e294e53
Have the inhabitants of this area beaten the UFO/ALIEN/GOVERNMENT
COVERUP topic to death yet or can we start again.Here we go.
Signing off.....Alan
Member: AUSTREK,GATB,VAPA,PPC,CCC.
Space/U.F.O. NUT,X-Phile,Trekker,and Avid Gameplayer .
___________________________________________________________________________
Fidonet Address 3:633/158 or 3:632/103.
Warpnet Address 147:3701/8.
Usenet Address Alan.Sawyer@p1305.f158.n633.z3.fidonet.org OR
Mulder@cloud.apana.org.au
===========================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
'I thought you only liked those...paranormal type cases.'-Scully to Mulder.
(X-FILES)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
... "Computer, delete WESLEY.EXE" - Entire Enterprise crew.
---
þ TLX v3.10 þ
--- FMail 0.96â
* Origin: USS YAMATO (3:633/158.1305)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 633/158 104 371 635/503 800/2 857 374/14 98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209
PATH: 102/2 851
--------
From: Terry Smith
To: Denise Weinmann
Sub: {hm
Date: 19 Jul 94 11:16:30
--------
EID:b4d5 1cf35a00
MSGID: 3:800/846.23 e2be3443
REPLY: 1:396/65.0 2e23f22e
On <13 Jul 1994 > Denise Weinmann wrote to 6}T:
DW> %9;biN Q7ow?q4r6R$.A64@zLfIZ,Hx&?;RA@ @
DW> 5|6Hb+~AI]Ju|% Talk Radio told me today that "study after study" has confirmed that
JF> viewing violent programs (TV or movies) *definately* alters the
JF> behavior of children. Can anyone enlighten me here? Maybe name one
JF> of the studies and a source for reputable info? I was under the
JF> impression that this myth had been debunked.
RS> Depends on what you call 'alters the behaviour'. Clearly if little
RS> kids run around pretending to shoot each other, many of then can only
RS> have got that behaviour from what they watch.
VS> As a child, born in the first decade of this century, I played
VS> 'Cowboys and Indians' with other boys pretending to shoot them
VS> with a gun carved from wood. Television wasn't even a word then.
VS> We probably got the idea from the books we read. It may have added
VS> to what is innate.
I think they mostly got it from movies, westerns. Corse not all kids had
to have seen the movies, as long as some did.
--- PQWK202
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 711/934 809 808 54/54 50/99 635/503 800/2 857 374/14
PATH: 374/98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Marianne Szarka
To: Rick Moen
Sub: Science Of Simplicityÿ 0
Date: 17 Jul 94 19:41:00
--------
EID:9a9d 1cf19d20
MSGID: 3:712/505.0 2e28fcac
* message cross posted from Gtnet science by Paul Feonic
originally by Marianne Szarka
Hello Rick,
I've been reluctant to enter the Skeptics echo till Paul's cross
posting now, though I have been reading it for awhile off and on.
Curiously the postings from this base reaches my board only after some
extended time, some messages by as much as 13 days after the original
posting, which is slower than snail. Consequently it was quite 'eery'
to have debates I was reluctantly holding on Gtnet Science almost
echoed some days later in a paralell discussion right here re matters
of the para-normal etc which in fact were posted earlier than mine.
I then attempted to close off the similar discussion, particularly
since Sweet Sue and myself seemed to be mining similar veins, and
since my original posting was not intended to challenge the
'scientific mind-set', but rather to seek information. However these
things tend to 'evolve' so to speak.
Anyhow I don't want to go over similar ground yet again, so will
respond mainly to the astrological point, which I have been studying
as a curiosity for some years, without determining much more than that
some of its claims prove quite remarkably true while still others do
not. And to be sure I am not talking of sun-sign or pop-astrology
which is supposedly for amusement and does little for its reputation.
RM> PF>1. The Gauqualine's statistical proof of a Mars and Saturn effe
RM> PF> in natal astrological charts. (Astrology and Science, Michel
RM> PF> Gauquelin)
RM> Gauquelin did NOT allege that the curious apparent statistical ano
RM> _ambiguously_ on display in _some_ of the Mars Effect studies show
RM> anything more than a statistical anomaly. He was very clear on th
RM> point. (By the way, Gauquelin's claims had NOTHING to do with nat
RM> astrology charts. G. was severely anti-astrology, having even wri
RM> a tract against it called _Dreams and Illusions of Astrology_.)
I doubt if Gaquelin would have ascribed different meanings to his
studies in different books. Particularly the _some_ of the Mars Effect
studies you refer to above, strikes me as incongruous since it was
_one_ study as a whole (with separate studies done about different
planets) and the statistical facts resulting from it had nothing
'_ambiguous_' about them. My book at hand is The Truth about Astrology
by Michel Gauquelin.
"Astrology is a game of mirrors: you look at a mystery, it reflects
another. Its status is unique in the scale of scientific values. A
large part of its planetary symbolism has been demonstrated to be
incontrovertibly, statistically true. But at the same time, the zones
of daily movement of the planets to which astrologers attribute the
most influence are not necessarily the correct ones."
Gauquelin did indeed set out to prove astrology false, and that has
actually made his 30 odd year exhaustive, and replicated statistical
findings free of bias, or if anything tending to the negative, so his
results surprised even himself.
"I like to think that again it will be thanks to Mars, the
rebel planet against 'official' scientists, that astrology - as
stultified today as once astronomy was - will become a science, a
caterpillar at last transformed into a butterfly."
"I must never forget that the influence of the planets, even reduced
to the modest proportions I have assigned it, remains a provocation
for the average scientist today."
And Rick, even your brief paragraph above, whether
you're a scientist or not, testifies to this fact. It could be, I
suppose a natural bias and perhaps worn thin from repetition over the
years. Or else it's based on CSICOP's attempted cover-up of the Mars
Effect and its significance. (circa 1977)
CSICOP's unscientific attitude regarding the Mars effect had in fact
cast doubt as to the organization's (unrefereed at least) research
methods in 'paranormal' areas as well.
Though Gauquelin, at the end of this book says that "... today I would
not allow myself to draw drastic conclusions as I have sometimes done
in the past." he essentially has both for and against deductions.
"In astroglogy's favour, my work has demonstrated its fundemental
assumptions - the role played by astral influences at the moment of
birth. Moreover, the planetary effect on personality is compatible
with a a certain diagnostic application. On the basis of the natal
position of a planet in relation to the horizon and the meridian, it
.
Continued in the next message...
--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
* Origin: Sydney PC Users Group - COMPAQ BBS (4 lines) (3:712/505)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 712/505 623 54/54 50/99 635/503 800/2 857 374/14 98
PATH: 374/1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rod Speed
To: Fredric Rice
Sub: MONKIES AND EVOLUTION
Date: 18 Jul 94 10:02:20
--------
EID:be92 1cf25040
db> She: "Well, if evolution is true, then I ought to be able
db> to walk down the street and see a dog turn into a cat."
FR> It's no laughing matter. This week I've seen someone claim that,
FR> since rabbits don't turn into dogs, evolution doesn't happen. I can
FR> only come to the conclusion that their "leaders" are telling these
FR> people this nonsense.
rs> I think the real problem is that they really cant grasp it. They just
rs> dont appear to be able to look at say the wide variety of dogs which
rs> have been produced by human interference in the selection process,
rs> extend that back a million or so years to include the wider variety
rs> of cats and dogs.
FR> What a few want is that the various breeds of dogs change enough to
FR> be sexually isolated from their ancestors and thus be classed as a
FR> new species (I say a few because few even know what evolution is,
FR> leave alone know what they want to observe.) Yet that's been done at
FR> the microbiotic level and some few _still_ will not accept the fact
FR> of evolution. The somewhat "less dishonest" allow that, yes,
FR> speciation takes place at the microbiotic level but that in "higher"
FR> animals, it doesn't.
True, but IMO that only makes things worse with people like that. They
have enough problem with the larger animals like dogs and cats, move
into stuff like the microbiotic level and they are lost completely.
I know one fellow who is by far the most mechanically oriented person I
have come across personally. Can make you a pistol out of blocks of steel
anytime. Utterly hopeless at anything which cant be actually physically
seen tho, like electronics. Quite interesting actually because his father
is quite the reverse pretty hopeless with mechanical stuff, and spent his
working life in electronics.
I think there is a real sense in which the people who just cant accept
evolution, particularly amongst the general public, are most just too thick
to actually understand it.
Bit like theoretical physics, where a much larger number of people are
quite happy to admit they just dont understand the fundamentals and likely
cant even if they tried.
FR> Now the point is presented that, in biology, there is no such thing
FR> as "higher" or "lower" animals
I'm not convinced myself. Single celled animals are vastly less
sophisticated than say a human.
Ditto for the control processes of insects compared with a human.
Particularly the lower forms which essentially just react to chemical
differences in say the water they inhabit etc.
FR> and Creationists shift their focus of willful denial upon that factor
FR> if they are driven to acknowledge speciation.
Yeah, I think there is a very real sense in which they just reject
much of evolution because of the rather unpalatable consequences if it
was true. If we just evolved out of lower life forms, much of the
basic for religious belief, which IMO is mostly just a crutch for the
mind, is pulled away.
You can see how the religious can come to accept that the earth does
revolve around the sun, that doesnt pull the rug from under the
fundamentals of their beliefs.
rs> Bit like much of theoretical physics in many ways, it really is a
rs> hell of difficult thing for a lot of people to quite get their brain
rs> around. Even something like the dual particle/wave nature of light.
FR> Both are easilly experimental. The use of an electron source and
FR> a diffraction grid and applying the two-hole experiment easilly
FR> demonstrates the duality with the generation of interferience
FR> patterns.
Sure, but thats part of the problem. Sure, you can readily demonstrate
that electricity is the flow of electrons. But for some people that
conceptual stuff that cant actually be seen, and all you can do is use
experiments to prove its happening, is a hell of a mental hurdle that
they just cant surmount.
FR> The fossil record, coupled to observed natural selection and even
FR> speciation is also easilly understandable.
Again, easily understandable by those with the mental horsepower to do
so. I'm not convinced that most of the fundys can even grasp the
essentially simple concept that fossil formation is a very unusual
phenomena, particular with the higher life forms like hominids and its
hardly surprising if there are too many fossils of them.
The evidence of the similarity of the DNA between say humans and the
higher apes is even more graphic. But then you have the problem
getting the fundys to actually understand what the DNA actually is and
why that is significant.
FR> I think what is more difficult is accepting the fact that the
FR> advent of species is knowable. Understanding that there is
FR> nothing unknowable to the Human species seems to terrify some.
True, really rips the rug from under most of their religious beliefs.
Corse there is no reason why some god couldnt have just created
the circumstances of say the atomic structure, and left the rest
to get on with it and eventually produce humans by evolution. Cant
see any real prospect of the fundys going for that either tho |-)
--- PQWK202
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 711/934 809 808 54/54 50/99 635/503 800/2 857 374/14
PATH: 374/98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rod Speed
To: John Prewett
Sub: Evolution
Date: 18 Jul 94 10:11:22
--------
EID:0f63 1cf25160
RS> No serious scientist that has ever considered the evidence has any
RS> doubt about it on the fundamentals. That the most sophisticated life
RS> forms have evolved from the least sophisticated ones.
JP> Not so.
RS> Is so.
JP> I presumed you meant Creatorless evolution, as opposed to "evolution"
JP> in the sense (due to intelligent input) that cars "evolve" (which I
JP> don't dispute).
I was saying that its clear that evolution happens, that the simpler
forms were around first, the more complex forms arrived later, building
on the simpler forms, evolving from them. Single celled animals being
around along before say apes.
I wasnt making any specific comment on intelligent input in the sense of
a designer interfering in the process. Its obvious what happened, its
less obvious what was involved in that process. There is no evidence for
any guiding hand.
JP> I apologize if I made an erroneous assumption re: your meaning of
JP> "evolution".
It now appears you did not make an error, there is no evidence for a
guiding hand in the process.
JP> Some scientist believe it is plausible that sans intelligent input
JP> (Creator), life could have originated and "evolved".
JP> And some don't.
And science isnt about 'some believe', science is about evidence.
RS> But here isnt an appropriate forum to discuss it, there are echoes
RS> specifically devoted to fundys flagrantly demonstrating their gross
RS> misunderstanding of the science.
JP> If you don't consider this worth discussion, or if you deem my input
JP> worthless, then I hope you'll not bother to respond.
I didnt mean that, I am happy to discuss it, just not clear just how far
is acceptible in here as far as evolution v creationism is concerned. So
far, seems acceptible to me, presumably Jackson will say if its not.
--- PQWK202
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 711/934 809 808 54/54 50/99 635/503 800/2 857 374/14
PATH: 374/98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rod Speed
To: Rick Mcfarlane
Sub: ritual mutilation
Date: 18 Jul 94 10:41:24
--------
EID:3f91 1cf25520
TS> It seems plausible to me that one reason these breeds were docked was
TS> to lessen the chances of pack formation.
RS> Its essentially an appearance thing. There have been similar
RS> approaches with cropped ears. Some of the pack dogs are short tailed,
RS> cocker spaniels for example.
RM> I think you're right, Rod. My brother-in-law had two dobermans
RM> (dobermen? ), one that was never docked - floppy ears and long
RM> tail - and a second one that had been docked. The docked one _looked_
RM> much more fierce (especially because of the ears, rather than the
RM> tail) than the natural one (which looked like a large, long-legged
RM> daschund).
Yeah, its essentially playing on an unconscious recognition in many
people that pricked ears is a sign of a dog taking an active
interest in you and hence an increase risk of it applying the fangs.
OTOH some people can be remarkably insensitive to the fundamentals of
dog behaviour. I often had a Scottish Deerhound, looks quite similar
to an Irish Wolfhound, around at my place when the owner was away.
It would usually just lie inside the big glass doors which form the
main front door. Doziest animal I have ever had anything to do with,
when a visitor arrived, at times it wouldnt even look up. Extremely
gentle animal. Huge dog tho, tall and skinny like most of those very
large hounds that include Afghans and Borzois etc. It was always
amazing how many people couldnt even notice what a placid and gentle
dog it was, and thought themselves at real risk of getting bitten.
In this case it was more the size than anything else.
I also had a very large solid alsatian, very black fur, much blacker
than you normally see in an alsatian, with a massive wide shoulders
and chest. Extremely friendly dog. Just the coloration and size and
the barking was enough to fool most people, many thought that their
end was nigh |-)
RM> I believe, in the case of that breed at least, that was the reason
RM> that the practice began - to give the dog a more viscious appearance
RM> (erect ears make the dog seem more alert and threatening, while a
RM> wagging tail would detract fromthe image).
True. The same approach has a long military history, dressing up to look
more fierce than you really are. Some of the Japanese helmet style things
really did it in style.
Dogs do it on behaviour a hell of a lot too. There is a hell of an element
of bluff in a lot of dog aggressive behaviour. Fascinating to watch a pair
of dogs on either side of a picket fence with a gap in it. They will tear
up and down shouting their heads off at each other, then come to the gap
and there is usually a hell of a 'oh shit, what do we do now' type
reaction |-)
RM> Also, there was a definite difference in temperment between these two
RM> dogs, even though they were kept in the same houshold, and treated
RM> the same. This may have been due to natural personality differences,
RM> or the fact that the docked one was male, and the other was female.
That last makes a hell of a difference. In fact its very graphic evidence
against the proposition that humans behave in a sexually differentiated
way purely because of their upbringing. The difference is quite pronounced
in dogs, and in them it cant have been the upbringing. There is
considerable overlap, but there are also considerable differences at the
extremitys too.
RM> But, I can't help but speculate that perhaps, people reacted to the
RM> docked dog's appearance with more fear, which the dog was able to
RM> sense, making him more agressive.
Yeah, thats a very big effect with those sort of guard dog breeds. I
wouldnt hesitate to enter a used car yard with alsatians myself if there
was any need to. It mostly bluff and image.
Corse there are real breed differences too, blue heelers have some
damned odd behaviour, usually letting the burglar into the yard and give
him hell on the way out |-)
RM> I think this may also have been understood by the people who started
RM> the practice (at least in the case of that breed).
Yeah, animal breeding, particularly with dogs, is a classic example of
what you can achieve without understanding the science. There are some
quite remarkable special characteristics which have been amplified in
dog breeds. Particular the rounding up behaviour in some breeds, you can
watch even puppys do to chickens or little kids with no training at all
|-)
RS> Particularly when some of the breeds deliberately bred for fighting
RS> and viciousness dont have shortened tails. There is no obvious
RS> association at all.
RM> I doubt that his explanation (that it was done to impede pack
RM> formation) is right. There are probably different reasons for it
RM> with each breed where it is practiced.
Yeah, the breed which were developed for large animal attacking are
quite different in that stuff. The tail stuff and aura isnt that
important. Pig dogs too, what you want is a particular personality, the
appearance doesnt matter much, the boars dont give a stuff about it.
Particularly the hounds, they have a hell of a pursuit characteristic
amplified in them, they really are amazingly hard to stop if you get
them into a pursuit situation.
RM> Probably mostly to change appearance,
Yeah, I think some of its just appearance and nothing else, personal
taste. Weimaraners for example. No great logic in that half tail for a
gun dog.
RM> although perhaps sometimes for health reasons.
Dunno, I cant thing of a single example myself. The worst of the fur for
that is the spaniels, but you get long tailed examples like red setters
with the same fur.
RM> Why not breed the beggars to have short tails and erect ears in the
RM> first place ?
Its harder basically. It does happen, Manx cats for example.
--- PQWK202
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 711/934 809 808 54/54 50/99 635/503 800/2 857 374/14
PATH: 374/98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rod Speed
To: Rick Moen
Sub: Fringe science?
Date: 18 Jul 94 20:21:26
--------
EID:bf84 1cf2a2a0
RS> While I agree with the vast bulk of the stuff you said to Sue, there
RS> are some quibbles.
RS> ...
RS> Generally the term replication is used to describe experimental
RS> design which has its own duplication, replication. You would normally
RS> use the phrase 'independent experimental verification' or something
RS> like that for someone else doing the essentially the same
RS> experimentation themselves.
RM> You may well be right -- or we may each be right in slightly
RM> differing contexts. I'm not sure. However, I double-checked on the
RM> USENET alt.paranormal and sci.skeptic newsgroups, and found that both
RM> Roger D. Nelson and York H. Dobyns of the PEAR lab, in separate
RM> discussions, used the term the way I did -- for whatever that's
RM> worth. Those two fellows are both experienced and respected
RM> parapsychologists.
I was talking more about mainstream science. Particularly the biological
sciences where you need reps to actually show that you have a real
effect, say in a fertiliser trial.
--- PQWK202
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 711/934 809 808 54/54 50/99 635/503 800/2 857 374/14
PATH: 374/98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rod Speed
To: Lewin Edwards
Sub: Skeptical of skeptics
Date: 19 Jul 94 07:54:10
--------
EID:6da8 1cf33ec0
RS> Tom Watson, the font of IBM, pontificated at one time that the world
RS> would only have a need for 5-10 computers. Everyone would use one of
RS> those. One of the silliest predictions of all time.
LE> Not really.
Yes really.
LE> There is essentially only one telephone network in the world
LE> (excluding intercom type systems in highly localized environments).
Yes, but so what ?
LE> We all use it.
For voice, mostly relatively locally.
LE> In a similar fashion, it is conceivable that the world's computing
LE> power could be concentrated in a [decentralized, for military reasons]
LE> pool of gigantic CPU horsepower.
It certainly could be done that way, it would be a completely stupid way
to do things tho. It would be stupid to have just one massive computer
per city like Sydney and Melb even.
LE> Where's the need for a PC if you have trillions of exabytes of
LE> information and a myriad online services, VANs etc, accessible via a
LE> simple, _easily replaced_, _cheap_, _non-vulnerable_ dumb terminal ?
Small problem with the fact that the dumb terminal is actually pretty
close to the electronic complexity of the PC.
You clearly have the same fundamental mental problem that Tom had |-)
--- PQWK202
* Origin: afswlw rjfilepwq (3:711/934.2)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 711/934 809 808 54/54 50/99 635/503 800/2 857 374/14
PATH: 374/98 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Mea Hewitt
To: Rod Speed
Sub: DREAM SOLUTIONS
Date: 19 Jul 94 17:52:21
--------
EID:5e07 1cf38e80
RS> need exotic explanations like alpha patterns.
Brain wave patterns are not exotic. All of us have them at different
times and in different combinations.
Doctors exploring sleep disorders and REM sleep characteristics
do not consider them exotic.
mea
... þ Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- TMail v1.31.5
* Origin: MultiLine 40+Lines 43 CDRoms & Internet +619 370-3333 (3:690/254)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 690/254 660 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Macdonald
To: Dr Pepper
Sub: Melanoma
Date: 21 Jul 94 14:33:21
--------
EID:950a 1cf57420
MSGID: 1:232/310 1008f061
PID: VFIDO 6.10.03
Re: Stuff
Dr. Pepper,
I think you are off-base on skin cancer. The form that tends to stay
localized and is seldom fatal is basal cell carsenoma; melanomas, on the
other hand, occur in a number of varieities, ar emuch more invasive and
much
more deadly, some forms extremely so.
--- VFIDO 6.10.03
* Origin: Hermes (1:232/310)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 232/310 302 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: J. Moore
To: Dave Halliday
Sub: Re: Tesla Kooks
Date: 19 Jul 94 14:17:11
--------
EID:ca44 1cf37220
MSGID: 1:229/15@fidonet.org 799014a7
DH> It is because of this flamboyance that he has become known as the
DH> archetypical "mad scientist" and has attracted the attention of people
DH> whose contributions to scientific exploration really *do* fall into
the
DH> mad-scientist category...
Actually, it was because (with the exception of his very smart work
with a/c current and induction motors) his ideas were kooky one and all.
And he blew all his considerable fortune (acquired from his non-kooky
work on a/c current and induction motors) on these kooky ideas.
* Q-Blue 1.0
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'
* Origin: CRS Online, Toronto, Ontario (1:229/15)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 229/15 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Mark Bellis
To: David Macdonald
Sub: 1:232/10 Holographic
Date: 19 Jul 94 23:23:11
--------
EID:fa52 1cf3bae0
MSGID: 1:229/15@fidonet.org 7a0ef47c
DM>Remember what the "Airplane" schemes did to thousands of New Ager's bank
DM>accounts a few years ago?
I don't - could you please explain?
DM>It was a classical ponzi scheme tricked out in New
DM>Age warm and fuzzy new speak and it took thousands for millions.
---
* SLMR 2.1a * EH?> CANADIAN DOS PROMPT
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'e'
* Origin: CRS Online, Toronto, Ontario (1:229/15)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 229/15 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Mark Bellis
To: Mia Cline
Sub: ghosts
Date: 19 Jul 94 23:23:11
--------
EID:785d 1cf3bae0
MSGID: 1:229/15@fidonet.org 7a0ef47d
MC> DB> I must have missed this earlier message. What was
MC> DB> her research in? What's her PhD in? Where can I
MC> DB> read the results of these studies?
MC>Parapsychology and you can read more about her and it in Omni magazine.
Errr...what University gives out Ph.Ds in Paraspsychology, and has she
published in any other scholarly reviews besides OMNI?
---
* SLMR 2.1a * EH?> CANADIAN DOS PROMPT
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'e'
* Origin: CRS Online, Toronto, Ontario (1:229/15)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 229/15 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Mark Bellis
To: Don Allen
Sub: Wierd Assassinations
Date: 19 Jul 94 23:23:11
--------
EID:3166 1cf3bae0
MSGID: 1:229/15@fidonet.org 7a0ef47e
DA> * Forwarded from "I_UFO"
DA> * Originally by Sandy Doonan
DA> * Originally to Walter Bartoo
DA> * Originally dated 11 Jul 1994, 17:28
DA>>>>> Hmmm....time will tell won't it?
DA>wb> (WB) Time is what you are loosing rapidly! WE are on a real
DA>wb> count down ending in 1997. You can can take that to the bank.
DA>You have your date off by a year. 1998 is when Henry Kissinger will
make h
i
DA>historic announcements to the world, backed up by the military might
of the
DA>United Nations. The steps required to barcode everyone in the world
are
DA>already in place and _that_ will be completed by the end of 1997. There
wo
n
"Military might of the United Nations"?? These are the guys that can't
stop a barfight in Bosnia.
---
* SLMR 2.1a * Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'e'
* Origin: CRS Online, Toronto, Ontario (1:229/15)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 229/15 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Mark Bellis
To: Dr Pepper
Sub: BASIS
Date: 19 Jul 94 23:23:11
--------
EID:2ade 1cf3bae0
MSGID: 1:229/15@fidonet.org 7a0ef47f
DP>My signature represents the old Dr Pepper logo, a redcircle with the
number
s
DP>arranged around the edge as on a clock.
DP>10 2
DP> DR PEPPER
DP> 4
^I should have guessed - but where's the 8 one would expect over
here?
Thanks, mark.bellis@canrem.com
---
* SLMR 2.1a * Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'e'
* Origin: CRS Online, Toronto, Ontario (1:229/15)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 229/15 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Mark Bellis
To: Rick Moen
Sub: Re: Bay Area Skeptic
Date: 19 Jul 94 23:23:11
--------
EID:0073 1cf3bae0
MSGID: 1:229/15@fidonet.org 7a0ef480
Hey Rick! How do I get the Bay Area Skeptics newsletter?
Thanks, mark.bellis@canrem.com
---
* SLMR 2.1a * My reality check just bounced.
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'e'
* Origin: CRS Online, Toronto, Ontario (1:229/15)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 229/15 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Mark Bellis
To: Jackson Harding
Sub: Free Willy
Date: 19 Jul 94 23:23:11
--------
EID:83ea 1cf3bae0
MSGID: 1:229/15@fidonet.org 7a0ef482
I'd like a ntsc VHS copy myself - If you can't get one, I might try
getting ahold of a copy from the Oregon TV station - will reply to you
if I find one first.
---
* SLMR 2.1a * --T-A+G-L-I+N-E--+M-E-A+S-U-R+I-N-G+--G-A+U-G-E--
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'e'
* Origin: CRS Online, Toronto, Ontario (1:229/15)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 229/15 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: J. Moore
To: Adrian Eng
Sub: Re: Subliminal Messages o
Date: 21 Jul 94 14:00:11
--------
EID:3aa3 1cf57000
MSGID: 1:229/15@fidonet.org 7a941e2c
TC> playing the song backwards, but there is NO EVIDENCE that
TC> this somehoe enters your consiousness and influences you.
AE> it's not the concious mind I'm worried about.. it's the SUB-concious
AE> mind I'm worried about! Your sub-concious never forgets!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yet another statement from you in this thread that is without basis.
"Prove it or lose it!"
AE> It seemed to work the first time but not the second
Find a reliable source for this, please. That means NOT the guy who
pushed this stuff in the first place (you know, the "sex in the ice
cubes" guy.)
AE> to listen to your problems and hopefully find something in your past.
He
AE> looks is your Sub-concious mind as it is the one controlling your life.
AE> Once the problem is located and resolved, your problem is long gone.
Only in the movies. Try again.
* Q-Blue 1.0
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'e'
* Origin: CRS Online, Toronto, Ontario (1:229/15)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 229/15 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Jeff Freeman
To: Rick Moen
Sub: Skeptical of skeptics
Date: 21 Jul 94 20:06:54
--------
EID:51d2 1cf5a0c0
MSGID: 1:124/1014.5121 26f3ce08
REPLY: 1:125/27 f326d41b
On (18 Jul 94) Rick Moen wrote to Jeff Freeman...
RM> Well, you might be interested in dialing up this board (node 1:125/27,
RM> 415-572-0359), and file requesting or downloading LOGIC.FAQ and
RM> FALLACY.TXT. You'd probably find them interesting. I think I noticed
RM> that you run a point system, and my node doesn't mind points as
RM> calling systems, at all, if you want to file request.
On my way... :)
Thanks!
BTW: In the RECFRP echo, a ten year old named Joey Fox is asking about
an FM talk-radio show host named Bob Larson who is claiming some 15
murders in Florida were cause by young teens (as young as 11 yrs old)
playing D&D. As he told me, when they reach a certain point in their
"realms" they must kill a friend or parent (someone well known).
Do you have any info on this Larson guy, or these claims in particular.
I know... just another of a bazillion talk-show hosts with just another
of a bazillion or so allegations agains D&D.
What surprised me was that Joey sought out another point of view on his
own... and he's only 10. A young skeptic. :D
--- PPoint 1.80
* Origin: Jeff Freeman (1:124/1014.5121)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 124/1014 1 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Jeff Freeman
To: Rick Moen
Sub: Evolution
Date: 21 Jul 94 20:24:41
--------
EID:f339 1cf5a300
MSGID: 1:124/1014.5121 f270f161
REPLY: 1:125/27 f326d51b
On (18 Jul 94) Rick Moen wrote to Jeff Freeman...
RM> JF>Question: A Horse and Donkey can mate and the offspring is a Mule
RM>
RM> You probably already know the answer, really: Conceptually, a species
RM> is all the animals that in theory could breed with one another and
RM> produce _fertile_ offspring. I've never heard of a fertile mule, but
[sigh] I just got my monthly issue of The Plain Truth (they've been
sending it for a year with a "this is your last issue unless you renew!"
warning) and coincidentally, there's an article on Evolution:
*** I quote, in part:
If evolution is to work, then this [macroevolution] is what must happen.
But -- and this is crucial to understanding why some scientists see a
problem with the theory -- it has never been demonstrated that
macroevolution does happen! In fact, the evidence seems to point to an
entirely different conclusion.
These scientists believe that because this fundamental premise of
evolution has not been confirmed, the present conclusions inadequately
explain the origin of new species when examined by science's own rules.
Rather than show that life gradually develops from simple to complex,
the fossil record seems to indicate that life-forms appear abruptly,
exist with only minor variations for millions of years, then, on
occassion, abruptly become extinct.
*** I end quote.
It seems to me that we DO have a record of every relationship that
species can have between one another: Same species, Closely-Related
species and Different species. What other evidence is needed?
Should I shuffle off to the Evolution echo? :)
--- PPoint 1.80
* Origin: Jeff Freeman (1:124/1014.5121)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 124/1014 1 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Jeff Freeman
To: All
Sub: Video Violence
Date: 22 Jul 94 11:33:43
--------
EID:8ff3 1cf65c20
MSGID: 1:124/1014.5121 51ec745f
Last NEWSWEEK reports:
Video games make kids more violent.
Proof? A study in which children played a video game and were then
asked if it made them feel more aggressive.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Journalists suck.
--- PPoint 1.80
* Origin: Jeff Freeman (1:124/1014.5121)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 124/1014 1 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Jeff Freeman
To: David Bloomberg
Sub: Holocaust Denial
Date: 23 Jul 94 01:55:12
--------
EID:129f 1cf70ee0
MSGID: 1:124/1014.5121 a21c4f8d
On (20 Jul 94) David Bloomberg wrote to Tad Cook...
DB> Did you get my message on POLITICS about the latest issue of SKEPTIC,
DB> and its articles on Holocaust revisionists?
According to NEWSWEEK, this week, the initial poll asked Americans if
they believed the holocaust might never have happened, but with a
confusing syntax including a double negative. This 22% figure was
bandied about until the poll was repeated with straightforward wording
of the question. Actual result: 1%.
ONE percent?
I mean, you could ask ANYTHING and get better'n ONE percent. I think
that the whole "Holocaust Revisionists" phenom is a media-created THING.
Honestly, at one percent, there virtually *aren't* any.
They found ONE guy saying it (whom NO ONE believed, apparently) and made
a big show of it.
More evidence to add to the pile. I'll prove that journalists suck yet.
--- PPoint 1.80
* Origin: Jeff Freeman (1:124/1014.5121)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 124/1014 1 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Dr Pepper
To: Mark Bellis
Sub: Dr Pepper Logo
Date: 22 Jul 94 14:23:00
--------
EID:3657 1cf672e0
TID: IMAIL 1.51/b+ PK7-B
MSGID: 1:15/41@FidoNet 658e515e
REPLY: 1:229/15@fidonet.org 7a0ef47f
PID: FM 2.3.mL.b2 AE00006F
Um, better make that "Secret Statanic Meaning of the Dr Pepper Logo" to
keep i
t on topic.
> DP>My signature represents the old Dr Pepper logo, a redcircle with the
> numbers
> DP>arranged around the edge as on a clock.
> ^I should have guessed - but where's the 8 one would expect
> over
> here?
There never was one, just 10, 2 and 4.
10 2
DR PEPPER
4
---
* Origin: Happy days are here again! (1:15/41)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 15/41 300/12 15 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Dr Pepper
To: Rod Speed
Sub: Statistics
Date: 22 Jul 94 14:36:00
--------
EID:c481 1cf67480
TID: IMAIL 1.51/b+ PK7-B
MSGID: 1:15/41@FidoNet 658e515f
PID: FM 2.3.mL.b2 AE00006F
> VS> As a child, born in the first decade of this century, I played
> VS> 'Cowboys and Indians' with other boys pretending to shoot them
> VS> with a gun carved from wood. Television wasn't even a word then.
> VS> We probably got the idea from the books we read. It may have added
> VS> to what is innate.
> I think they mostly got it from movies, westerns. Corse not all
> kids had to have seen the movies, as long as some did.
Now explain why Mark Twain had Tom Sawyer, who lived before there were movies,
cajoling all his buddies into playing pirates and robbers, complete with
secr
et signs and horrific oaths?
10 2
DR PEPPER
4
---
* Origin: Happy days are here again! (1:15/41)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 15/41 300/12 15 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: John Powell
To: David Bloomberg
Sub: Stuff
Date: 22 Jul 94 15:31:00
--------
EID:59a4 1cf67be0
PID: QE 2.76a-
-=> Quoting David Bloomberg to John Powell <=-
JP> - Director Special Projects
DB> Oooooh, can I have it? ;-)
JP> Sure, if you really want it . Here's how it works: I pick a
JP> special project, more or less outline what/why/how, you do most but
not
JP> necessarily all of the grunt work delegating to volunteers as you can,
JP> you/me (and others) finalize a report. Something like 2 to 4 projects
JP> a year depending on how it goes.
DB> I would have to do GRUNT work?! With a "Director" title? Sheesh...
Only the grunt work that you couldn't delegate...
JP> I'm not interested in rehashing old stuff or in assembling FAQ-like
JP> material. I also want to mostly avoid UFO stuff whenever possible.
JP> (In case folks haven't figured it out yet the so-called UFO Phenomenon
is
JP> finished, over, done...)
DB> It is? Ok, I give up, what was the solution? :-)
If I tell you I'll have to kill you... Wait a sec, my shoephone just
rang... [Uh-huh, yeah, uh-huh, okay, yeah, okay, uh-huh, uh-huh, dweeb,
okay, uh-huh, sure, see ya.]
Here's the deal David. You've been given special dispensation. So, why
is the UFO Phenomenon finished?
Because:
- With current technology it is no longer to possible to use any
filmed, videotaped or photographic evidence to say anything
positive, only to occasionally prove a hoax.
- With current technology it is perfectly reasonable to expect
to see a completely manmade craft doing perfectly wild things.
- Eyewitness testimony alone is never even barely enough. And
there isn't even that much credible eyewitness testimony.
- Other physical trace evidence has proved mostly mundane,
sometimes hoaxed, sometimes inconclusive.
- The Abduction Phenomenon subset of UFology has run off the
deep end, slipped its mooring lines and disengaged itself from
the main UFO Phenomenon. When this happenned it signaled the
actual end of the UFO Phenomenon... (This happenned with the
combination of three things: 1) The overwhelming public
acceptance of Mack and his book; 2) The overwhelming _lack_ of
response from all the folks and groups that should have
stepped in but didn't; 3) The overwhelming _lack_ of public
response to those few folks/groups who did step in..)
- The population has _no_ leverage with the government or the
military. There is _no_ way to make them tell us something
that they don't want to tell us. (Unless we give up the UFO
angle, fix the democratic system, _then_ return to the UFO
angle and study the resulting documentation...)
JP> I won't tell you what the first project is but here's a hint: It
JP> happenned rather recently and has never been researched or
JP> investigated.
DB> Hmmmm. Well, I kind of have my hands full with REALL now. If all
DB> that grunt work weren't involved, I'd consider it, but... Ah well.
I knew it! You probably expected some cushy job with a cool title,
curvy secretaries fetching your coffee and doing your nails...
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- Blue Wave/QBBS v2.12 OS/2 [NR]
* Origin: Absence Of Evidence Is Not Evidence Of Absence BBS (1:261/1201.0)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 261/1201 1087 1023 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: John Powell
To: David Bloomberg
Sub: Stuff
Date: 22 Jul 94 15:33:00
--------
EID:59a4 1cf67c20
PID: QE 2.76a-
-=> Quoting David Bloomberg to John Powell <=-
JP> Odyssey Fringe Science Research Network Journal
JP> "Odyssey Journal"
DB> Do you accept skeptical articles as well?
JP> Of course. No opinions, only actual work...
DB> What constitutes actual work? Would Kottmeyer's articles, for
DB> example, constitute actual work -- such as his comparisons between the
DB> "memories" of supposed abductees and the science fiction TV shows and
DB> movies they may very well have seen?
Yep, Kottmeyer's articles are mostly work especially lately. (Some of
his earlier stuff was too heavily punctuated with opinion which tended
to mask that fact that he'd done real work.)
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- Blue Wave/QBBS v2.12 OS/2 [NR]
* Origin: Absence Of Evidence Is Not Evidence Of Absence BBS (1:261/1201.0)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 261/1201 1087 1023 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Macdonald
To: Rick Moen
Sub: Ayurvedic medicine
Date: 22 Jul 94 07:05:42
--------
EID:231f 1cf638a0
MSGID: 1:232/310 100b27d1
PID: VFIDO 6.10.03
Re: Re: Conference
The fad for Ayurvedic medicine baffles me completely. Have I missed
something, or is India not one of the unhealthest, least sanitary, most
plague-ridden areas of the world? Somehow India sounds like a very unlikely
place to look to for medical miracles!
--- VFIDO 6.10.03
* Origin: Hermes (1:232/310)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 232/310 302 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Macdonald
To: Mea Hewitt
Sub: SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES O
Date: 22 Jul 94 07:05:43
--------
EID:2bde 1cf638a0
MSGID: 1:232/310 10088777
PID: VFIDO 6.10.03
Re: SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES O
Mea,
this is so typical of your posts! Years ago you read something. What?
You never tell us! Was it a reliable article in a scientific journal or
a
fluff piece in Omni? Have you read anything else? have you looked into
recent work on the subject? There are quite recent double-blind studies
on
subliminal messages that show quite clearly that they do not work. I can
send
a bibliography if you would like it. Please understand that we do not harbor
personal hostility, but this "I read an aricle somewhere once" tactic is,
well, at best irresponsible. Things are not that simple.
--- VFIDO 6.10.03
* Origin: Hermes (1:232/310)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 232/310 302 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Macdonald
To: Mea Hewitt
Sub: THE FLOOD
Date: 22 Jul 94 07:05:44
--------
EID:9c6f 1cf638a0
MSGID: 1:232/310 10093b86
PID: VFIDO 6.10.03
Re: THE FLOOD
Mea,
Your geography is a little mixed. Asia Minor is approximately modern
Turkey. If there was a local flood, it was much more likely in ancient
Mesopotamia, southern Iraq. There is some evidence fora localized flood
in
that area, but upon examination, it tends to evapoate. See my article "The
Flood Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence," Creation/Evolution, Issue XXIII
(Spring 1988), pp.14-20.
Why accept Gibbon but not Job? First, I would suggest you not accept
Gibbon. There are much more modern hsitories of the Roman Empire that are
more accurate; we have made progress in two centuries,though Gibbon remains
a
great literary masterpiece. Still, Gibbon was a hsitorian, attempting to
write history. The Bible is not history; it is a religious compilation
of
many different literary works written and edited over a long period of time
by many people. Job did not write Job; indeed, I know of no Biblical scholar
who considers that to be so. The same is true of other books named after
other Biblical figures; they tend to be subjects, not authors.
--- VFIDO 6.10.03
* Origin: Hermes (1:232/310)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 232/310 302 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Macdonald
To: Ken Stuckas
Sub: Sneezing in sunlight
Date: 22 Jul 94 07:05:46
--------
EID:6b12 1cf638a0
MSGID: 1:232/310 1004cee4
PID: VFIDO 6.10.03
Re: Sneezing in sunlight
You have your mather's nose? Doesn't she mind?
--- VFIDO 6.10.03
* Origin: Hermes (1:232/310)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 232/310 302 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: John Powell
To: Dr Pepper
Sub: Dr Pepper Logo
Date: 23 Jul 94 00:28:00
--------
EID:287c 1cf70380
PID: QE 2.76a-
-=> Quoting Dr Pepper to Mark Bellis <=-
DP> Um, better make that "Secret Statanic Meaning of the Dr Pepper Logo"
DP> to keep it on topic.
> DP>My signature represents the old Dr Pepper logo, a redcircle with the
> DP>numbers arranged around the edge as on a clock.
> ^I should have guessed - but where's the 8 one would expect
> over here?
DP> There never was one, just 10, 2 and 4.
DP> 10 2
DP> DR PEPPER
DP> 4
Its subtle subliminal advertising. Visually the numbers were/are
arranged like those on a clock face and the original advertising was to
drink a Dr. Pepper at 10:00am, 2:00pm, and at 4:00pm.
Thanks, take care.
John.
-
--- Blue Wave/QBBS v2.12 OS/2 [NR]
* Origin: Absence Of Evidence Is Not Evidence Of Absence BBS (1:261/1201.0)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 261/1201 1087 1023 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rick Moen
To: Mea Hewitt
Sub: Re: The flood
Date: 22 Jul 94 02:18:48
--------
EID:349c 1cf61240
MSGID: 1:125/27 f626f41b
MH>RM> Actually, no. This latter bit is not true. 19th C.
MH>RM> catastrophism did not entail divine intervention. It simply
MH>RM> assumed relatively (on geological/biological scales) sudden
MH>RM> development of life and . . . .
MH> Rick, this is a straight quote from Encyclopeadia Britannica. The
MH> set is about ten years old. I would suggest you look it up.
Mea, I believe you that your quotation from the _Brittanica_ is
more-or-less accurately reported to this echo, but so what? I certainly
will accept that some 19th C. scientists put a religious gloss
on their views of early Earth history. However, it simply is not
the case that catastrophism as a school of thought in 19th C. biology
and geology presupposed divine intervention. Skip the _Brittanica_
and go directly to the science texts of that period, and see for
yourself.
MH> I am not plumping for a world wide flood.
MH> I am saying that there was a flood over Asia Minor.
But there was _not_ a flood over Asia Minor. This TOO would involve an
absurdly large quantity of water, and, further, there is no evidence to
suggest that this occurred.
MH> Then I say that legends of flooding in other areas at around the
MH> same time are borne out by Cuvier in the Paris Basin,William
MH> Buckland after Darwin.and a whole heap of other geologists and
MH> paleontologists.
There is plenty of evidence of localised flooding -- hardly surprising,
since people tended to _live near rivers_. There is even evidence of
rains and tsunamis from the eruption of Thera (Santorini Island) causing
coastal disruption over a fairly broad area. However, flooding of
something as big as _Asia Minor_ -- no, ma'am.
MH> Most of the Old Testament is a History and many of these stories are
MH> being proved to be factual.
Yes, there is a considerable quantity of historical data to be found
in the Old Testament. However, the bit about flooding of entire
sub-continents (or more) is simply not supported by evidence, and is
absurd on its face.
MH>If I am able to accept Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
MH>(and he wasn't there at the time ) why not Job or Isaiah or Jeremiah,
MH>when they were there?
What a silly argument! Why not accept J.M. Barrie's "Peter Pan" as
factual? He wasn't there, either! ;->
Cheers,
Rick M.
moen@blyth.com
--- MsgToss 2.0d (beta)
* Origin: Bay Area Skeptics: Doubt on the Prowl Since '82 (1:125/27)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 125/27 110 125 203/530 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Rick Moen
To: Pete Porro
Sub: Re: Evolution
Date: 22 Jul 94 02:23:42
--------
EID:cc76 1cf612e0
MSGID: 1:125/27 f626f51b
PP> [deletia] And of course the ultimate answer: God being and all
PP> knowing and seeing entity created evolution, because he knew nothing
PP> stagnant could make progress and continue with his plans. God knew
PP> that the ability to adjust and change was necessary for his creation
PP> to live on as planned. End of argument?
Pete, I've never had any problem with any of that. (It sounds like a
respectable and reasonable position.) I wasn't really making a comment
on religion at all, per se, just on the illogical assertion that belief
in God requires one to be a creationist.
Cheers,
Rick M.
moen@blyth.com
--- MsgToss 2.0d (beta)
* Origin: Bay Area Skeptics: Doubt on the Prowl Since '82 (1:125/27)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 125/27 110 125 203/530 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Eric Young
To: All
Sub: Re: NUMEROLOGY AND BIBLE
Date: 22 Jul 94 08:01:35
--------
EID:d7ec 1cf64020
The number was devised by Dr. Edward Kasner (d1955) accourding to the Guiness
Book of Records. I'm not sure if that's accurate but it's the only reference
I could find mentioning a "googol"
(a googolplex is 10 to the googol power.)
--- Aeolus v1.1 (#49820039)
* Origin: The Mac Daddy BBS (415) 587-9052 1stClass in SF (1:125/340)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 125/340 110 125 203/530 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Mea Hewitt
To: Jeff Freeman
Sub: ANTI-SEMITISM
Date: 20 Jul 94 17:19:46
--------
EID:8bd4 1cf48a60
Fanatics of any type frighten me. I remember being hounded by an
Atheist who tried to convert me . He took months to go away.
A fundo of a different kind I guess
JF> Speaking of the early Christian Fathers, though... can we compare and
JF> contrast Jesus Christ and David Koresh?
The early christian fathers were leaders for the first six , seven hundred
years.
JF> Ooh... off topic. You on HolySmoke? [do you even care to discuss
JF> this?]
I don't know whether my BBS has Holy Smoke.
Without going into a discussion on the historical Christ
Remember He replaced the Centurion's ear, lopped off by Peter
and told his followers to lay aside any weapons.
He did not have an armoury for protection.
mea
... Facts have this nasty habit of treading upon ideology...
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- TMail v1.31.5
* Origin: MultiLine 40+Lines 43 CDRoms & Internet +619 370-3333 (3:690/254)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 690/254 660 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: Mia Cline
To: Mark Bellis
Sub: ghosts
Date: 23 Jul 94 13:03:24
--------
EID:eec5 1cf76860
MSGID: 1:201/20.0 2e31151c
REPLY: 1:229/15@fidonet.org 7a0ef47d
MB> Errr...what University gives out Ph.Ds in Paraspsychology, and has she
MB> published in any other scholarly reviews besides OMNI?
i am not sure what University that she attended. i did not research her
life.
i do not know if she has had anything else published or not because this
was
several years ago that i was researching the subject of if ghosts exist
or no
t.
mia
--- Maximus/2 2.01wb
* Origin: Graffiti on the BBS Wall/2 * 317-448-2842 (1:201/20)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 201/20 1 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Bloomberg
To: All
Sub: Top 10 UFO Hoaxes
Date: 23 Jul 94 09:04:59
--------
EID:ca43 1cf74880
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 444106a9
Date: Mon Jul 18 1994 20:14:52
From: Nelson S. Pacheco
To: All
Subj: Top Ten UFO Hoaxes
P_SKEPTIC -------------------------------
It's time to present the award for the Top Ten UFO Hoaxes
of All Time. This is a difficult award to give, because the
competition is so fierce. Anyway, here are the winners:
10. George Adamski
Holy Blavatski! That UFO looks like an inverted street
light!
9. Snippy the Horse
Not a great case, but recognized as the father of the cattle
mutilation/ UFO connection. Accepting the award
posthumously on behalf of Snippy
and the Ananias Club will be Linda Howe...
8. Travis Walton
How about the best 2 out of 3 lie detector results?
7. Dulce, NM
Spanish for "sweet, like a sucker" as in "there's a sucker
born every minute..."
6. Hudson Valley
The "Blue Angels" of the ultralight world...
5. Guardian
Holy smoke!!!
4. Roswell
Say it ain't so, Marcel!
3. Gulf Breeze
Also winner of the "Ed Walters Special Effects Award"
2. MJ-16
(MJ12 + Shandera, Moore, Lazar, and Lear)
and the winner of the "check your brains at the door" award
for the top UFO hoax of all time is:
1. The Linda Napolitano case, also known as "Manhattan
Transfer," or "The hoax of the century."
Condolences to all the losers... but there's always the yearly
awards...
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
* Origin: The more one knows, the less one believes. (1:2430/2112)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 850 851 852 890 943 1302 147/7 170/400 209/207
209
SEEN-BY: 209/710 720 270/101 290/627 396/1 640/75 3615/50
PATH: 2430/1 3701 3615/50 396/1 209/209 102/2 851
--------
From: David Bloomberg
To: All
Sub: Skeptics Manifesto, 1/5
Date: 23 Jul 94 11:07:14
--------
EID:c0c3 1cf758e0
MSGID: 1:2430/2112 444225b2
From _Skeptic_ vol. 1, no. 1, 1992, pp. 15-21.
The following article is copyright (c) 1992 by the Skeptics Society,
2761 N. Marengo Ave., Altadena, CA 91001, (818) 794-3119. Permission
has been granted for noncommercial electronic circulation of this
articles in its entirety, including this notice. For information about
a special Internet introductory subscription rate, see the file
subscription-rates or contact Jim Lippard (lippard@rtd.com).
A SKEPTICAL MANIFESTO
By Michael Shermer, Ph.D.
On the opening page of the splendid little book _To Know a Fly_, Vincent
Dethier makes this humorous observation of how children grow up to
become scientists: "Although small children have taboos against stepping
on ants because such actions are said to bring on rain, there has never
seemed to be a taboo against pulling off the legs or wings of flies.
Most children eventually outgrow this behavior. Those who do not either
come to a bad end or become biologists" (1962, p. 2). The same could be
said of skepticism. In their early years children are knowledge junkies,
questioning everything in their view, though exhibiting little
skepticism. Most never learn to distinguish between inquisitiveness and
credulity. Those who do either come to a bad end or become pr