HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Re: Am I being fair?  (I am not interested in men...)
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:14:21 GMT
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
Distribution: na,local
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <JEW.92Sep25150649@venus.venus.sunquest.com> jew@venus.sunquest.com (Ward... James Ward) writes:
>
>My wife and I are poly-interested and experienced.  My wife has bi
>tendencies and is slightly interested in additional male or female
>partners to play with.  I am not interested in other males however.  I
>feel kinda guilty limiting the posibilities.
>
>Am I right?  Am I wrong?  Should I try it?  Is it scary?
>--
>jew@sunquest.com
>
---

	To put a different perspective on this.  Suppose 2 females were in
a relationship together and one wanted to bring in a male but the other
was uncomfortable with men.  Is the uncomfortable female right/wrong --
is she being unfair?

	Is the answer the same to both questions?  If not, why not?

william
--
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1326 soc.women:17141 soc.men:17052
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Date: 29 Sep 1992 14:36:51 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1a8ub3INNt3@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ptd2@po.CWRU.Edu (Palmer T. Davis) writes:
>would seem to indicate a high degree of interoperability.  However, 
>most ANSI standard bi-poly females I know tend to be somewhat put off
>by men whose sole reason in them is that they happen to be bisexual and 
>polyamorous.  You might have better luck with the male version, though.
---
	Why is there this tendancy in humans, but it seems, especially in
women, that as soon as they find out you want something, they are
likely to withhold it or raise the price?

	In other words, even if they might have liked it also and/or given
it away for free, if you indicate interest, they will hold back
in some manner.


	I can see the following scenario at a used car dealership: you are there
with your SO.  You are ho hum interested in the selection and the
salesman is trying anything to get you interested -- price cutting, 
special incentives, etc, then your SO gets noticably excited over a
certain model and says they just have to have it.  The salesman with
a glint in his eyes glides over and deftly removes the current price
and adds on a jacked up price tag before you can get over there because
now you are interested.  Is this sleazy?  Isn't this normal human
behavior -- especially in women when it comes to interest by men?  Now
I know women are are not this way, but they are far and few between.  

	Whatever.  Just some random meanderings of a pre-coffee brain.

	I would have xposted this to soc.humans, but our site doesn't
carry that.

-wat-
--
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: gold standard
Keywords: gold money keynes
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:41:25 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Boeing AI Center, Huntsville, AL

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>No.  As others have pointed out before, gold has advantages over other
>commodities.  Unlike silver, it doesn't tarnish.  Unlike apples, it doesn't
>grow on trees (the point being that its supply is highly stable).  And unlike
>platinum, it has a highly successful history of serving as money.

The distinguishing feature of gold is the unique combination of yellow
color and high density.  There is a distinct density step function
in the table of the elements.  Here are the elements as dense and denser
than lead:

Lead		11.3
Thallium	11.8
Ruthenium	12.1
Palladium	12.2
Rhodium		12.4
Hafnium		13.3
Mercury		13.6

Tantalum	16.6
Uranium		18.7
Gold		19.3
Tungsten	19.3
Platinum	21.3
Iridium		22.4
Osmium		22.5

I inserted a balnk line between Mercury and Tantalum, where there
is a specific gravity difference of 3 g/cc.  Of the seven dense
metals, six are silvery white in color, and of those 3, tantalum
uranium, and tungsten, are not particularly expensive.  Distinguishing
these from the precious platinum and iridium would be difficult for
the average person.  Gold however is yellow, and the combination of
that and high density makes it unique and readily distinguishable using
simple tools - with a micrometer and an accurate scale and a few
calculations I can determine not only that it is gold - but that
the specific gravity.  With a color scale I can estimate the purity.
As your jeweler how he knows what something is made of.


-- 
Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Civil Space/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Member: Space Studies Institute
Physical Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.
***THE ABOVE IS NOT THE OPINION OF THE BOEING COMPANY OR ITS MANAGEMENT.***
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: whg@INEL.GOV (William H. Gray)
Subject: Re: Re: Stability of Libertaria (was Free market stuff)
Reply-To: whg@INEL.GOV (William H. Gray)
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Lab
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:40:01 GMT

In article <37182@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

|> ... I do not believe that rationality is
|> an absolute. I think von Mises, in "Human Action," has a more realistic
|> view of rationality-it is a quality of degree, i.e., short-sighted
|> versus long-sighted, as opposed to rational versus irrational. When *I*
|> use these terms, this is what I mean. Rationality is limited by 
|> non-omniscience and the fallibility of human beings. However, I do
|> agree that how rational a person is depends on his choice--to choose
|> how far and how much thought you put into an action, idea or philosophy.
|> ...
Left unstated is von Mises' idea of "rational;"  without it,  the above may be
confusing,  so I will try to paraphrase it (from memory,  so I could be way off):

	"Rational" is not "logical."  Logic is correct reasoning,  the proper
	application of the rules of logic.  Rationality is the suiting of means
	to ends;  means well-suited to achieving  stated ends are rational.

	With this scheme,  there are degrees of rationality;  and measures
	taken to achieve some end at one time,  may look foolish with hind-
	sight.  This doesn't make them irrational,  only mistaken.  On the
	other hand,  there are no degrees of logic (M was almost certainly
	unaquainted with the more exotic logics - fuzzy,  3-valued, ...);
	reasoning is either correct or it is not.

========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: hrubin@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Fuzzy logic.  Was: Re: Re: Stability of Libertaria 
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:56:48 GMT

In article <lcc1p4INN3d@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>In article 8nI@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca, pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson) writes:
>>	Could you please explain what "fuzzy logic" is?  Note that any
>>assumptions which must be made for a fuzzy logic solution to be "valid"
>>should be enumerated now rather than when someone catches a contradiction
>>and someone has to say, "But it's understood from the fuzzy logic model
>>that...."

>Fuzzy logic is a form of approximate reasoning incorperating the intrinsic
>ambiguities, imprecisions and undecidabilitites associated with real-world
>phenomena. It was formally defined in 1965 by Lofti Zadeh and has its basis
>in in continuous and multivalued logics. Fuzzy logic is based on the idea of
>the fuzzy set which does not have the two states ((0) inclusion, (0) exclusion)
>of "normal" logic but has a characteristic function that admits a degree of
>membership in the set from complete exclusion to absolute exclusion. Fuzzy
>sets do not have an arbitrary boundry separating members from non-members.

The problem is much worse than those who push fuzzy logic allow.  It is not
enough to have a numerical scale of truth values, but a much more complicated
scheme which is well known as probability logic.  The difference is that 
one cannot evaluate the truth value of a compound statement from those of
the arguments alone.  

Probabilistic reasoning is the basis of induction, etc.  It is even needed
to get a sound basis for utility theory.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
From: tregan@everest.srd.bt.co.uk (Tim Regan)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Prove something (was A = A. Isn't this obvious?)
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:28:19 GMT
Reply-To: tregan@srd.bt.co.uk
Organization: British Telecom

Dear "A=A"ers,

	OK, suppose I give you (for the duration of this debate) that
in all forms of discourse anything equals itself (which does sound
reasonable to me). What can you prove from that?

			Trembling with anticipation,

				      Tim.

PS This is my first brush with Objectivism although I read "The
Fountainhead" on a friend's recommendation. I didn't realize she'd
spawned a movement.
--
Timothy Regan		tregan@srd.bt.co.uk		Tel: +44 473 645811
Applications Research Division, BT Laboratories, Martlesham Heath IPSWICH IP5 7RE
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Prove something (was A = A. Isn't this obvious?)
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 12:29:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.142819.12092@srd.bt.co.uk> tregan@srd.bt.co.uk writes:
>	OK, suppose I give you (for the duration of this debate) that
>in all forms of discourse anything equals itself (which does sound
>reasonable to me). What can you prove from that?

Well, directly, you can't prove anything.  What you can do is rely on this
axiom to prove certain other statements true or false.  Any statement
of the form A is NOT(A) does not represent reality.  In other words, there
are no contradictions in reality.  It also leads to a corrolary which is
that anything that exists has to be something specific, and not something
general, infinite, or non-existent.  There are no infinite existents, no
fuzzy facts, and no entities about which nothing can be said.  This might
all see perfectly obvious and pedestrian, but many philosophers have arrived
at conclusions much different.


>PS This is my first brush with Objectivism although I read "The
>Fountainhead" on a friend's recommendation. I didn't realize she'd
>spawned a movement.

Indeed she has, and it is actually growing quite quickly these days (my
guess is that there are probably close to 200 objectivist philosophy
students out there in the US) and tens of thousands of "non-professional"
admirers.

If you are interested in getting a general overview of Rand's philosophy
I recommend Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand".
Rand's book "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" is her own statement
on the subject of epistemology, and "The Virtue of Selfishness" is a good 
introduction to her ethical theory.

--Brian
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: pjohnson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Peter Johnson)
Subject: Measure 9 in Oregon
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:27:38 GMT

	To the Oregonians reading this newsgroup:  what are you doing to
oppose Measure 9?
-- 
Peter Johnson	       "There are times, sir, when men of good conscience	
Independent Studies     cannot blindly follow orders." --Capt. Jean-Luc
University of Waterloo  Picard (Patrick Stewart) to Adm. Haftel, STAR TREK:
	   		THE NEXT GENERATION, "The Offspring"
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:5581 sci.econ:7807 talk.politics.misc:48065
From: Robert.Vienneau@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Currency systems
Keywords: n
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:15:41 GMT
Followup-To: alt.individualism,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Distribution: na
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

I'm not sure about attribution lines, but I think
rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>>Milton Friedman disagrees.  He has proposed a that the money supply 
>>be increased only at the rate of GNP growth to ensure stable prices.
>

I don't know that my sometime correspondent M. Friedman has ever
commented on this, but he's not the first to propose a constant rate of
growth for the money supply. A long time ago, the Swedish economist
Gustav Cassel was proposing the same thing. 3% was his magical number, I
believe. 

On the other hand, the American economist Irving Fischer proposed tying
the monetary unit to a basket of commodities. I know nothing about the
practical details of his scheme.

I don't suggest either idea is good. I'm just offering these comments
as relevant historical trivia. 
                                 Robert Vienneau
                                 rob@kaman.com


--
   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: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Separation of Powers
Date: 25 Sep 92 16:27:52 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <11191@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu> bill@polygon.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>From: bill@polygon.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
>Subject: Re: Separation of Powers
>Date: 24 Sep 92 17:25:25 GMT

>In article <1992Sep18.223118.20874@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>|> 
>|> You are quite correct: It is extremely un-democratic. However, the
>|> United States is _not_ a direct democracy, but rather a constitutional 
>|> republic. Consider the Bill of Rights: No matter what the majority
>|> of the people want, they can not infringe on the basic rights of
>|> individuals.

>Tell that to the congress that currently has an action in committee
>to amend the Constitution.   Their plan is to Repeal the Second Ammendment.
>This is not talk, the proposal has already been made.

>What was it that you said about the Bill of Rights and the basic rights
>of individuals??

>bill

>-- 

>     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
>     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
>     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   

I hate to bust your bubble here, but de facto U.S. government doesn't quite 
operate in step with the formal script.  The term I presently use to 
describe the form of government we have in America today is "elective 
despotism."
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertarian speaker sought
Date: Sat,  3 Oct 92 23:59:18 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

From an ad in the Libertarian Party News:

               AMERICA'S BEST LIBERTARIAN SPEAKERS

                        Available Now!

                    Prices start at $300

[long list of libbie luminaries, including Prof. Nadine Strossen, president
of the ACLU!]

SEND $5 FOR OUR CATALOG
40 pages long, with photos and tips on funding speakers

Liberty Speakers Agency
8302 Professional Hill Drive
Fairfax, VA 22031
(703)204-1136 * 10 am-5 pm


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.com  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Currency systems
Keywords: gold_standard money
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:52:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.131532.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu writes:
}Ah! At last some common sense in this discussion! Thanks Russ.

Common, yes, but perhaps not so sensible.

}Basing one's currency system upon precious metals or other commodities is
}clearly only required if no one has any confidence in those silly bits of paper
}that circulate around. If I tried to issue my own TonyDollars, sound
}investors would like them backed by something more substantial than my
}good word on repayment - my house or car for example.

That wouldn't be your primary problem.  Getting busted under legal tender laws
would.

}Thus, the Dollar, the Pound, etc. etc. have taken on inherent worth of their
}own, and DO NOT NEED to relate to anything in the real world to have value.

This is nonsense that could only come from someone who's illiterate about the
theory of money.

}Arguments for a return to the gold (silver, platinum, wheat, car or whatever)
}standard seem to be made by people who wish to remove control over the money
}supply from the government issuing the coinage. Very laudable aims, or course,
}for the reasons frequently expressed on a.i. But there are safer ways of
}achieving the same aim.

There are none, and you don't even bother to propose any.

}Linking the dollar to the price of gold (for example) can clearly be
}destabilizing. Had the $ been linked in the late seventies (when gold topped
}$800/oz.), the money supply may well have shrunk by half (gold is now around
}$350/oz.). More likely would have been an unnaturally high price for
}gold, and a windfall for South Africa and Russia at the expense of the
}US. And for what?

Why do you think the price of gold was that high?  It was because of the
inflationary monetary policy of the Carter Administration.  The price of
gold remained stable for centuries in England when it was one th gold standard.

}As Russ points out, you can return your personal finances to the gold
}standard by exchanging all those fragile dollars at your local bank. You
}can also trade with like-minded folks by swapping gold options and gold
}futures. The fact that this is not a commonplace occurrence should tell
}you something about what others think of the gold standard.
}
}Tony Cox, Stanford, CA.

The main reason this doesn't occur is that it's far more convenient to employ
checks and credit cards, which are substituting for Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs)
to an increasing degree.  


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105)
Subject: Re: Currency systems
Followup-To: alt.individualism
Summary: Response to Dani re: gold standards
Keywords: gold_standard money Keynes
Reply-To: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 06:01:30 GMT
Expires: Sun, 1 Nov 1992 14:02:28 GMT

In article <1660@hsvaic.boeing.com>, eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes:
> tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox - (415)926-3105) writes:
> 
>>As Russ points out, you can return your personal finances to the gold
>>standard by exchanging all those fragile dollars at your local bank. You
>>can also trade with like-minded folks by swapping gold options and gold
>>futures. The fact that this is not a commonplace occurrence should tell
>>you something about what others think of the gold standard.
> 
> You will note that the US government still holds 200,000,000 ounces
> of gold at Fort Knox, and another 20% of the world's gold is in
> the vault at the Ferderal Reserve Bank in New York, owned by various
> other countries.  If gold were considered useless, why do large
> countries own so much of it?

   An interesting statistic. The US government also owns sufficient
   nuclear weapons to destroy the world 20 times over.

   I have enough trouble understanding my own motives, so I wont hazard
   a guess as to the logic of such conglomerate mentalities.

   By the way, most of the rest of the gold is owned by Taiwan, which is
   by no means a big country.

> 
> My college issued dormitory constuction bonds in the 20's payable
> in gold coin.  In 1933 gold coins were forcibly removed from
> circulation and clauses like the one above were declared void.
> Why was it necessary to stop people from using gold in their
> transactions at the point of a gun?
> 

   Presumably because there was money to be made by so doing. Necessity
   doesn't enter into it, although I expect that necessity was the
   justification. I am not well versed on the history of the case you
   describe.

   Perhaps you are mistaking my comments for those of one who supports
   the government subversion of the money supply. Nothing could be
   further from the truth.

   But your point is well taken, and supports my continuing distrust of
   'gold money'. Take the Kings shilling and do the Kings bidding - base
   your wealth on gold, and you merely set yourself up for the NEXT
   time the government tries to steal it! Base it on diversity, and you
   may just survive!

Tony Cox, Stanford, CA.