HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Full Employment Act" for lawyers?
Date: 22 Aug 92 15:15:53 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <BsvIKp.n3H@apollo.hp.com>, 
nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) said:

> ...but why do we seem to need so much more of this than other
> prosperous western societies?  There was a well-documented article
> in Forbes last March illustrating that the tort-law costs in the US
> were *orders of magnitude* more than most of our major economic
> competitors.
>
> Now I might agree that this may really translate into "too much
> litigation" rather than "too many lawyers".  (after all, in a high
> crime area would we say that there's "too many security companies",
> or "too much crime"?  On the OTHER hand, lawyers actively encourage
> litigation (they run TV ads here asking, "Have you been injured in
> an accident?") )

Question: do we have too much litigation, or do other societies have
too little?

Consider that in most of those TV ads, the lawyer usually goes on to
say something like "You may have rights which you're not aware of,
rights which you may lose if you don't take certain actions in time."
Is it a bad thing that people are being informed of this fact, and
that if they do go to a lawyer they learn exactly what these rights
are and what they have to do to enforce them?  (And please note that
this is a separate question entirely from "Should anyone get rich from
informing people of their rights and helping to enforce them?")

> It has been suggested that one reason we have so much litigation is
> that the US does not have a social safety net.  If you are injured
> so that you cannot work, or work at your trained occupation, then
> you are destitute.  The courts are the only way to seek the means to
> live.  Other societies will provide you with the means to live, or
> pay for retraining for some new skill.

There's a lot of truth in that analysis.  The point I'm trying to make
is that while the current system may benefit lawyers, it -- contrary
to some popular beliefs -- isn't the lawyers' fault.  Whether or not
the services that they provide _should_ be needed in a "good" society,
they do seem to be needed in the society we've got.

(And _please_, don't anyone bring up the old idea that it is too the
lawyers' fault because so many elected officials are lawyers who have
a vested interest in keeping the system the way it is... even if all
that is true, in a representative democracy the responsibility for
choosing the representatives must lie with the electorate, not the
elected.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Trinity (was Polytheism)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Aug15.000441.20657@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:41:43 GMT

In article <Bszp1q.MAo@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> 
pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
By the way, the trinity originally comes from the triple Goddess  ...

In article <1992Aug15.000441.20657@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> 
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
This reminds me of Chekov in Star Trek claiming that all the important
historical figures were really Russians.

Catholic Trinity and Pagan Triple Goddess just coincidence? Perhaps.
Many scholars have theorized that the Catholics adopted the Trinity to
make it an easier sell amongst the Pagan Europeans who were familiar
with the three aspects of Goddess long before Yahweh even existed. It is
interesting that the original writers of the OT where trying to sell the
idea of only one God of Israel, as opposed to the polytheism of Babylon
and Egypt, where the Triple Goddess was well know. After all that work
to exclude the Trinity, the Catholics put her back in. And add to this,
the Catholic Mary worshippers who are trying to restore the Goddess from
within Christianity. Makes you wonder if man can not live by God alone,
perhaps man also needs the Goddess.
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:01:35 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Mark Christiansen (markwc@barney.esl.com) wrote:
: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
: 
: Where does the Bible say that the flood went above all mountains?
: 
: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
: 
: Gen. 7:19
: 
: --
: 
: That only tells me that the water rose above the mountains that Noah
: knew about, not all the mountains on the earth.
: 
: Mark

Actually, it does not say that... it says all mountains.

But on the other hand, this looks like a promising approach.
Perhaps the flood only covered the parts of the Earth that
Noah knew about, and only killed people that Noah knew about,
and Noah only took on board animals that he knew about.

Makes the whole thing pretty content-free.

Note: I am not suggesting the story is content free. I *am*
suggesting that the content is mostly missed by simply focusing
on the story as a literal acount of an ancient catastrophe. The
point of the story is not a history lesson.

Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage
From: ron@syacus.acus.oz.au (Ron Williams)
Subject: Re: Survey
Organization: ACUS Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Sydney
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:13:25 GMT

In article <920818174711_70253.2621_CHC74-1@CompuServe.COM> you write:
: When you die, where will you go?  (in the ground is not a valid answer)
: 
: If you were to die today, would you go to heaven?
: 
: If you were to die today and God asked you, "Why should I let you into my
: heaven?" What would you say?
: 
: What is my "agenda" for asking these questions?  Just curious.
: 
: Bye,
: CDC
: 

GO AWAY. 

You are not welcome in this universe. 

Keep your crippled belief systems to yourselves. Do not attempt to further 
spread the mind-virus you have been infected with.

--
Ron Williams                  ACSnet : ron@syacus.acus.oz
Ph : +61 2 390-1366         Internet : ron@syacus.acus.OZ.AU
Fax: +61 2 390-1391             UUCP : uunet!munnari!syacus.acus.oz.au!ron
Standard Disclaimers Apply

--
Ron Williams                  ACSnet : ron@syacus.acus.oz
Ph : +61 2 390-1366         Internet : ron@syacus.acus.OZ.AU
Fax: +61 2 390-1391             UUCP : uunet!munnari!syacus.acus.oz.au!ron
Standard Disclaimers Apply
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jesus denied he was God
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:22:34 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

In article <1992Aug16.114104.6996@ac.dal.ca>, hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>Suppose a man runs up to me and says, "Hey there, my good man, can you tell
>me the way to Musquadobit?"  
>
>I reply, "Why do you call me good? None is good but Jesus." 
>
>What do you think I mean? At this point, you have no way of telling. 
>But which would you guess?

Exactly.  GUESS!!  You have no way of telling!!  That's what I've been
trying to say for a few posts now.

>a) the man is in the wrong to call me good, because none is good but Jesus.
>I am pointing out his error, acting in the role of religious teacher.
>
>b) trying to get the man to see that in fact I am Jesus by forcing him to
>examine his reasons for calling me good. Now, it might have been clearer if
>I had said: " It is well that you call me good, my friend, for I am Jesus."

Exactly.  Jesus didn't say, "Don't call me good because only God is good."
Nor did he say, "I'm glad you call me good because only God is good."  To
take Jesus' question as a statement of his relationship with God either way
is, to use your word, a guess.  The Christian who sees this as a claim to
diety reads in his/her prior belief in Jesus' divinity.  The same goes for
those who see a rejection of diety here.  It's a simple question.  The
determination of Jesus' motivation in asking it is not at all simple.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Questions about religious experience
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:55:15 GMT

In article <92228.234549SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>In college I came to terms with the fact that I was homosexual ...

Perhaps a blessing in disguise, instead of the common mainstream view of
being a curse. I feel sorry for those who actually fall into the
mainstream, how can they see themselves as individuals if they are
exactly the same as everyone else? If you found yourself to be Dan
Quayle, how would you wake up?

>The only "proof" I have that this experience ever took place in the
>manner in which I have presented it is entirely subjective. Indeed
>the experience has led me farther and farther away from certainties,
>but into a territory which has proven paradoxily to be unexpectedly
>rich as long as it is not exploited for certainties.

An authentic story from an obviously authentic individual, I would be
honered to walk in your footsteps, however, being an individual, I'm
sure you would understand if I choose not to. I wish you a peaceful
journey.
From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: An open question...
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:51:46 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada




Some open questions...respond to as many as you like. All responses we

An open question...
 
 Have you ever had an experience you choose to describe as "religious?" If so,
how did you decide to classify it as such? For example, if you had an intense
conversion experience, what led you to conclude that it was supernatural in 
origin, rather than regarding it as a hallucination, aberration in conscious-
ness, etc.?


Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Subject: Re: To Kent,
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:48:17 GMT

 danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:

>And what do you mean by "any other popular modern religion"? You don't
>specify what religion you are comparing all the rest to. I assume you
>mean christianity of a particular sort.

---- I don't consider Christianity a "religion"  the way I see it, and the
way I practice it, it is a relationship between myself and Jesus Christ. 
Catholocism is a religion, so is muslimism, and atheism, and all the other
isms.  My relationship is personal, therefore, not a religion.
(sfg)


>Also you make two claims which are intruiging:
>
>     that islam is the fastest growing religion
>     that islam offers its followers nothing
>
>How do you reconcile those two statements?

>Dano


---- I did not make the statement that islam is the fastest growing
religion, someone else did.  I have no idea what the fastest growing
religion is, but I took his word for it.  It profits the people nothing
because they don't get into heaven, they never know the true God, and they
have no hope of knowing him if they continue on the muslim course.  That
to me, is getting nothing for all their work.
(sfg)

Steve.Gross

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Free Will / Evil / Creation
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:51:38 GMT

In article <lharris.2@upei.ca> lharris@upei.ca (Lora Harris) writes:
>     Likewise, you cannot give a being free will (the ability to choose good 
>or evil)*without* allowing the possibility to choose evil.  If there is no 
>possibility of evil, then the being does not have the ability to choose it, 
>and hence, no free will.  Eventually, given free will, someone will choose 
>evil.

So do people have free will in heaven?

(I've asked this question before, and generally the answer is something like
"you can have the ability to choose good and evil, without ever choosing
evil".  But _you_ can't give this answer, since it contradicts what you said
above.)
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:18:05 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

In article <1992Aug18.211225.3053@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
 
>
>In article <1992Aug17.171307.8600@oclc.org> jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
>>This is a wonderful justification for henotheism, but the claim that
>>Christianity is a monotheistic religion is still unsupported other
>>than the assertion that God is the "one true god", whatever that means.
>
>I have my doubts.
>
>Even atheists believe in the existence of things powerful than they are; an
>airplane can fly me to Europe.  I can't fly to Europe on my own, no matter
>how hard I try.  But an airplane isn't a god.
>
>The definition of "gods" seems to be that "gods" have some sort of power which
>is different from that of people.  Which _really_ means that whether or not
>something is a god depends on where you draw the line for what kind of power
>counts.  You draw the line somewhere between airplanes and angels, and I draw
>the line somewhere between angels and creator-deities.
>
>(And if you reply "well, the line gets drawn between supernatural and
>non-supernatural beings", I will point out that one could argue that if angels
>exist they must certainly not be supernatural since the laws of the universe
>obviously permit their existence.  I will also note that you really haven't
>given me any reason to think your concept of gods fits most people's concept
>of gods.)
 
Perhaps all of you people should get together and decide on a definition of
God, whether you choose the OT Patriarchal, the Greek, or the last Christian
Fathers--then choice.
 
As for me, and my house, I pick the OT Patriarchal!
 
A poor Wayfaring Stranger [some say, a Strange One] in a strange land,
 
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably                     |
 |             not your's either; and                                  |
 |             only mine, when authorized!                             |
 |                                                                     |
 |                                   Try: Roger_Holfeltz@stortek.com   |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:47:06 GMT

In article <VSUMMERS.92Aug21081947@polaris.cv.nrao.edu>,
vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Vince Summers) writes:
>      There was nevertheless an interesting determination as to the mathe-
> matical probability I believe of an important molecule (perhaps DNA),
> forming on its own, and the probability was so small as to be nonexistent.
> I believe it was a French scientist, and the number was 10 to the some-
> where between 74 and 141 or so AGAINST its forming.  Like I said, if 
> anyone wants to believe in creation, they may tend to accept this first
> chance, whereas those who don't first chance will say this isn't true
> and I am lying without even checking it out.

  Why do I get the feeling nobody is reading followups to these posts?

  1) Keep in mind that a milliliter (about a thousandth of a quart) sustains, on
the low end of the scale, 100,000,000 reactions every second.  Imagine what a
few megaliters of organic soup can do in a megayear.

  2) Chemical reactions are NOT, nor will they ever be, random.  They follow
very stringent rules, and many reactions are verboten many are encouraged,
decreasing the odds significantly.

  3) There is no reason to assume that life in it's current form is the only
possible form.  There may be thousands, millions, or billions of different types
of simple self replicating molecules.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Catholic Church on marriage (was Re: Cath. Christianity 101 - CDF's 1986 Instruction on Homosexuality)
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 13:33:06 GMT

creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:

>   Loren, these are the same incorrect assumptions that I have already
>corrected in previous posts, but I'll go over it one more time.  The
>Catholic Church does not teach that in every sexual act a couple must
>"try to produce kids."  The Church teaches that "_in any use whatever
>of marriage_ there must be no impairment of its natural capacity to
>create life" [Pius XI, _Casti Connubii_].

So why do they support the rhythm method, huh? That sure as hell
impairs marriage of its natural capacity to create life.

Well, actually, it doesn't, which I suppose is the reason noone
who seriously didn't want a family would use it.

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
From: scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson)
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:38:18 GMT
Reply-To: scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <1270@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>
>And I suppose that Noah travelled the world to verify this
>information.  Of course, we are assuming that the translations above
>where truely inspired and accurate representations of the original
>records of Noah's experience.

Hmm.  If you believe that the OT is Noah's word (or some other human's),
and not God's word, why even believe that the flood occurred?  Even if
_a_ flood occurred, why believe it had divine origins?

After all, you've only got the word of some unknown human, and you
already don't trust _some_ of the description you've been given?




-- 
But you knew your figure cut a cipher/ Through every crafted plan/ And 
playing our game for real/ Saw through our plumbing jobs/ And wayward glands/
To a meaning of your own, in bones."  - Iain M. Banks, "Use of Weapons"
Scott Gibson                   {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Dawkins/_The Selfish Gene_ quote
Keywords: quotes, implications, truth, literalness, "reading into", `Woof!'
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 07:27:08 GMT



Dr Nancy's Sweetie writes:

>The Watchtower book:
>> At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins' comment in the
>> preface to his book: "This book should be read almost as though it were
>> science fiction."

>The actual preface from Mr Dawkins's book:

>> This book should be read as though it were science fiction.  It is
>> designed to appeal to the imagination.  But it is not science fiction:
>> it is science.  Cliche or not, "stranger than fiction" expresses exactly
>> how I feel about the truth. [...]

>CJ Silverio considers this "a transparent attempt to manipulate their
>readers into thinking that Dawkins `knows' he's being unrealistic & has
>no good arguments to make in favor of his position."

And this seems to be the particular type of propaganda that has given some
creationists the impression that scientists are part of a "conspiracy".

>I believe that Christians are called to avoid even the appearance of doing
>wrong; that care should be taken to ensure that everything written and said
>is true in both literal meaning and implication.  Obviously, you can't
>account for everything -- but the JW(s) who used this quote don't appear
>to have spent much time ensuring that they would not mislead anybody.

Well, you can't expect people who accept the Bible so uncritically to be
particularly well equipped for this sort of analysis.

Keith
From: Steve.Gross@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Gross)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Brutal Honesty
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:55:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service


 pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:

>That's all I can stands, and I can't stands n'more!

---- Gee Popeye, you hurt my feelings so badly!  I don't give a crap what
you or Mr. Dyer or anyone else says to or about me.  Most of you aren't
worth talking to anyway because your ideas are so ludicrous.  Maybe you'll
have more luck trying to piss Brutus off.
(sfg)


>We'll see. You're a very trying individual.

---- As are you and the people you agree with, and take sides with.  What,
are you trying to gain brownie points?  Good luck, they'll fry you and
your stupid opinions the same way they'll fry mine.  Rudeness and a crass
personality dominate this group, and I doubt anyone will spare you any
more than me.
(sfg)

Steve.Gross


>--
>Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
>Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
>University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
>pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80