HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: School discipline (was Re: worthless comic strips)
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:15:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.135021.4376@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
|> In article <3eaRRB6w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
|> > D.J.Butcher@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Butcher) writes:
|> >> The muder rate in the UK is significantly lower than that in the US.  Of
|> >> course the christian church is rather intrinsically wound up in the state
|> >> but the level of church attendance is (I recall, I could be wrong) a great
|> >> deal less than in the US.  And it hasn't done Hellfire and Brimstone 
|> >> performances for a long time.
|> > 
|> > Of course, the fact that in the UK people don't walk around with guns is
|> > nothing to do with it...
|> > 
|> > 
|> > mathew
|> 
|> Yep, and Canada, our next door neighbor with very strict gun control has
|> a murder rate of nearly ten percent of ours.....


	Alas, things are not quite that good.  I think the actual
	murder rate is a full 25% of the U.S. rate, though perhaps
	the number of murders committed with firearms is indeed
	as low as 10%.

	Some Canadians like to boast about our relatively low
	murder rate but the actual fact is that among developed
	nations we are one of the more violent.  Only by comparison
	to our southern neighbor do we look peaceful.

	However, in the province of Newfoundland (pop 600,000+),
	the poorest part of the country, there were no murders for
	1990 and 1991.  Gotta find their secret, hope it's not the cold...

						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito)
Subject: Re: missing the point
Organization: not affliated with any
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:56:46 GMT

In article <890707p.22.717522130@ace.acadiau.ca> 890707p@ace.acadiau.ca 
(GLENN G. PARSONS) writes:

>I like to read this group, but the trite arguments over highly subjective 
>interpretations of religions details misses the entire essence of what 
>religious thought should serve to accomplish.

In your, or anyone elses, opinion what exactly do you think religious 
thought should serve to accomplish?  I'll argue that it serves to segregate 
the masses, to promote prejudice and intolerance, to oppress the downtrodden,
to suppress the underprivileged, and to protect the power of the 
privileged.  Of course this is in a sociological perspective -- this is what
religion has actually done over the years of human history.  What it was 
originally intended to accomplish, I'd venture the guess 'to explain what 
cannot be explained.'

>when we mire ourselves down in insipid arguments over things which are 
>really totally dependent upon personal opinion, and which are of no 
>significance to spiritualistic living in the first place, we are throwing 
>around us Blake's "chains of the soul."

Spiritualistic living?  What is spiritualistic living and what is 
significant to this type of living?

I think when you speak of spiritualistic living, you are talking about a 
moral and righteous exisitence.  Morality is fine, as long as an 
individual's morality is not dictated to her.  Righteousness is downright 
wrong, for in reality, for us to live other things must die.  Is it right to 
kill the deer to feed your family.  It is neither right or wrong, it is 
necessary.  

And if I misinterpreted your statement, I'm sure you'll correct me.
--
Andrew Joseph Esposito                    internet:  esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu
voice (919) 379-8244                      bitnet:    in%"esposito@uncg.bitnet"

--
Disclaimer:  The opinions herein are not necessarily the opinions of any
organization or group of which the author is affiliated.  The preceding 
opinions may not even be the author's.  No guarantees are given and no 
warranties will be honored.
From: morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke)
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Organization: TRIUMF, Vancouver BC
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:40:52 GMT

In article <5910@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu>, 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher) writes:
|> >No.  (1) says cupid is a cause of people falling in love, but not necessarily
|> >the only cause, therefore (4) is invalid.  The original argument re: God, 
|> >said that God is *the* cause of the universe, therefore its equivalent to 
|> >(4) is valid.
|> 
|> A quick note:  This argument also assumes causality, which I define right
|> now to mean "the doctrine that everything has a cause".

Not necessarily...

	(1) God is the cause of the universe.
	(2) The cause of the universe is nothing.
	(3) Therefore, God is nothing.

-- Morgan Burke (morgan@reg.triumf.ca)
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Biblical killings
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:40:35 GMT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

{following James Meritt's postings on killing in the Bible ("good"
killing, that is :-)}

Check out the Book of the Mormons!  Somewhere in there, there is a man 
that doesn't want to kill anyone, but God(tm) MAKES him grab a man by the
hair and chop his head off with a nice, shiny sword! Wow!

Brian /-|-\
(I can post the passage if anyone wants to see it...maybe next week)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:14:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.093515.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>,
hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:

|> In article <1992Sep26.215440.25625@u.washington.edu>,
|> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
|> > In article <1992Sep25.154002.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>
|> hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
|> >>
|> >> Hi !
|> >>
|> >>
|> >> If God is 'Existence' as is defined in the Holy Bible
|> >> (in 2nd Moses 3:14-15 and in gospel of Johannes 8:28-29),
|> >> then who dares to assert that God does not exist. ?
|> >>
|> >>         Hannu.
|> >>
|> >
|> > Me.
|> >
|> > Next question?
|> >
|> >
|> > --
|> > | Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
|> > | U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
|> 
|> 
|>  Don't take the trouble, you asserted just that you yourself does not exist.
|> 
|>           Hannu.

Huh?  I don't get it.


L. King
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Gerrrrr! Part two of Two
Date: 2 Oct 92 10:38:18 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <1992Oct1.125907.164704@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> jsm@ibis.dsto.gov.au (James Marcus) writes:

>I think we need to clarify some definitions here.  The name "occult"
>refers mainly to Satanism, and could not be further away from

Rubbish.  'occult' just means 'hidden', and refers to any of the various 
religious/magical cults which have "knowledge" only available by going 
through their rituals.  Satanism is tiny compared to all the others, many of 
whom accept your Christian god.


              Have another day    [Armageddon, the musical] 
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:22:19 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 <willimsa.717592190@unix1.tcd.ie> willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams) writes:
>From: willimsa@unix1.tcd.ie (Gavin Williams)
>Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
>Date: 27 Sep 92 11:09:50 GMT

>hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>>(Kelley Miller) writes:
>>> In a previous article, hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi () says:
>>>> Hi !
>>>> If God is 'Existence' as is defined in the Holy Bible
>>>> (in 2nd Moses 3:14-15 and in gospel of Johannes 8:28-29),
>>>> then who dares to assert that God does not exist. ?
>>>>         Hannu.
>>>
>>> I would say any thinking person.
>>  Then I would say that these thinking persons must be stupid, because
>>  they assert at the same time that they themselves does not exist. !


>I guess this means that the new year has started and that the eternal cycle 
>will reassert itself.  We will have the new Allen Roy posters, and the
>new SCIENTIFIC PROOF: posters.

>Lets just take a deep breath and get ready for a couple of months of circular
>logic.

>*sigh*
>Gavin


The question isn't "Who dares?" but "Who cares" to deny that existence 
doesn't exists?  This ought to really fire up the Objectivists out there.  
If God is existence, then to deny God is to deny that existence exists, and 
to accept God's existence is to assert flatly, "Existence exists!"  So maybe
objectivists can be theists!


a heyday with thisone.
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: THE LORD IS UPON ME!
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:55:08 GMT


In a previous article, edc513ysft@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au () says:

>YOU MIGHT THINK THIS IS STUPID BUT I AM THE SON OF GOD!
>I HAVE POWERS ATTRACT ALL THE WOMEN ON THE DANCEFLOOR.
>THIS IS PROOF ENOUGH THAT I AM AND SHALL BE THE ALL CONQUERING
>STUD THAT I AM!
>
>P.S.  GOD EXISTS.  I SEE HIM IN MY DREAMS AND HE TALKS TO ME.
>      HE TELLS ME ABOUT LIFE, THE UNIVERSE AND HOW TO PICK UP
>      PRETTY YOUNG BLONDES.

Hmmm...

Not to critisize, but are you sure it's wise to be taking advise about
women from God?  I mean, throughout eternity, he only got layed once, and
that was a brunette...

:-)


>
>
>Mr Baldy
>
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Assembly of God???  Strange.. *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // I was not aware that the diety  *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // was available in source form..." *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: The Lord Cometh!
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:18:07 GMT

x@beyond.one's.understanding (The Messiah) wrote (in article <x.36.718287285@beyond.one's.understanding>):
>	Thou shall repent thy sins, or suffer eternal pain!

Naaw, I'll just take plenty of Tylenol.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
From: cf603@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: No, no, no...*I'm* the one, true god
Date: 29 Sep 1992 12:13:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cf603@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Sill)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, esposito@hamlet.uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito) says:
>In article <19n2uuINN17e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cf603@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Sill) writes:
>>Forget about Colleen, the Christian "god", and all the other wannabes. 
>>*I'm* the one, true god.
>
>Jerkface!  Leave Colleen alone! You are a bully, picking on Girls!

I was merely stating fact.  If Colleen or any other false god wants to
challenge my claim, I'll be happy to.

>>But don't bother trying to become one of my followers or disciples...I
>>don't want or need any.  Of what interest are mere mortals to an
>>omnipotent, omniscient immortal?  Imagine yourselves compared to microbes. 
>>Would you care in the least if they worshipped you?
>
>Well, if the tiny little microbes that make up me decided to stop 
>worshipping me (ie., decided not to be me) I'd fall apart and be a lump of 
>protoplasm.  I'm glad I have loyal microbial followers!

One needen't be omniscient to know that humans aren't composed of colonies
of microbes.  (Cells aren't microbes.)

>>So why do I even bother bother making myself known to you?  I just want to
>>have a little fun.  Kinda like burning ants with a magnifying glass.
>
>Cause you have no one else to talk to?  Your tired of talking to street 
>people?  You are delirious?

Ha, ha, ha.  I *love* watching 'em squirm!

>>Have a nice, insignificant little life.  :-)
>
>You too!

My existence is all that counts.  My universe began when I was born and
will cease when I die.  Nothing exists that I don't experience first hand.

You are nothing but a prop to occupy my time.
-- 
Dave Sill
Play: cf603@cleveland.freenet.edu
Work: de5@ornl.gov
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18253 sci.skeptic:17230 talk.origins:12307
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: evolution and natural selection
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:44:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: bu.97169
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

>|> >The moths are an example of natural selection, NOT of evolution. 

evolution: a change in the gene pool of a population over time
(or, more narrowly,a change in allele frequency)

natural selection: differential reproductive success of (pre-existing)
genotypes in a population

fitness: average reproductive success of a genotype in a population
(usually expressed relative to the most fit genotype in the population
which is arbitrarily assigned a fitness of one.)

When fitness differences exist, natural selection can cause a change
in allele frequencies (evolution). Eventually selection will drive
allele frequencies to an equilibrium point and will then serve to
prevent evolution until mutation (or recombination or gene flow) 
replenishes genetic variation with differences in fitness.

Selection and evolution are not synonomous; selection is but one 
of the mechanisms of evolution. The others are mutation, recombination,
gene flow and genetic drift.

The moths are definately an example of evolution (via natural selection).

Follow-ups to talk.origins 

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
From: cf603@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Test For True Christians
Date: 28 Sep 1992 13:49:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cf603@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Sill)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) says:
>
>Are you familiar with "snake handling" groups?  These are charismatic
>churches that use snakes (usually rattlesnakes, I think) in their
>services.  I believe they are found primarily in the Appalachians,
>e.g. West Virginia.  I've seen a film of one of their services.  They
>really do handle the snakes.  People get bitten from time to time.  I
>guess you're not asking the right Christians.

Yeah, there was an incident about a year ago in the Knoxville, Tennessee,
area.  A man died after being bitten by a rattler.  They sought no medical
attention.


-- 
Dave Sill
Play: cf603@cleveland.freenet.edu
Work: de5@ornl.gov
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18272 talk.origins:12343
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: School discipline (was Re: worthless comic strips)
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:50:21 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <3eaRRB6w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> D.J.Butcher@newcastle.ac.uk (Dave Butcher) writes:
>> The muder rate in the UK is significantly lower than that in the US.  Of
>> course the christian church is rather intrinsically wound up in the state
>> but the level of church attendance is (I recall, I could be wrong) a great
>> deal less than in the US.  And it hasn't done Hellfire and Brimstone 
>> performances for a long time.
> 
> Of course, the fact that in the UK people don't walk around with guns is
> nothing to do with it...
> 
> 
> mathew

Yep, and Canada, our next door neighbor with very strict gun control has
a murder rate of nearly ten percent of ours.....

Sue
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
From: matthew@rima.isor.vuw.ac.nz (Matthew Hobbs)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:38:33 GMT
Organization: Institute of Statistics and Operations Research, VUW, Wellington, NZ



Evidence: an observation used to (help) compare competing hypotheses.

The evidence is used to weight one hypothesis over its opposition.

The `weight' of the evidence depends on its relative probability
under the competing hypotheses (i.e. each hypothesis makes an implicit
prediction about the evidence - before the fact).

I can find some references if anyone wants...

-------------
Matthew Hobbs (email: matthew@isor.vuw.ac.nz)
ISOR, Victoria University Wellington, New Zealand.
From: jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God is responsible for the death of Jesus
Date: 5 Oct 1992 03:56:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


Hey. Enough badmouthing the wolves already.

-- 
Jessica McGeary
jmm25@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University
Remember! Arguments should be FUN!
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I still seem to be God
Date: 27 Sep 92 10:04:11 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:
> Oh goody! I've been called (however unspecifically) a Heretic
> and Blasphemer. I can sleep well tonight.

I've been described as "Enslaved to a Satanic device" by a genuine
honest-to-God Christian...


mathew
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religion & Crime / "Satanic Conspiracy"
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 27 Sep 92 16:28:33 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

 David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> A  list  of "satanic indicators" was sent by Ms Klein to  help  social 
> workers.  Classic  signs and symptoms are said to include  an  unusual 
> preoccupation  with  urine and faeces, fear of  ghosts  and  monsters, 
> aggressive play, and the child being "clingy", reciting nursery rhymes 
> with  indecent overtones, suffering from nightmares and  bed  wetting, 
> preoccupation with "passing gas", using mouth to make "gas sounds" and 
> wild laughter when the child or someone else "passes gas".

   Hmmmm....sounds like classic symptoms of being a kid.

Karl
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Correcting Creationists
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:12:19 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1aaavrINNagr@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary) writes:
>That's one thing to spring on fundies right there- women
>were not created from Adam, but from adam- from the race- even as men were!

  Great!  Now I suppose all you women will want equal rights and
  compensation for past grievances based on your perceived role in
  original sin.  Next thing you know, you'll be demanding painless
  childbirth.  How's a guy supposed to remain superior these days?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"Above all, a god needs compassion"    James T. Kirk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation (Was Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!)
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 29 Sep 1992 15:59 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Sep29.003242.6@sycraft.com>, ken@sycraft.com (Ken Richardson) writes...
>In article <1992Sep28.100020.27769@hsr.no>, onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>> I should mention that comparing genomes directly is a relatively new technique.
>> The older, more standard, technique is to compare proteins of individuals ( which
>> relies ONLY on the 10% meaningful DNA) and the results are the same: 99%
>> identical. So there is no need to doubt that humans and chimps are very much
>> alike. No, the stunning thing, which alone almost proves the
>> chimp/human-relation, is that also the junk-DNA are alike. 
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> Not only does DNA-dating increase the integrity of the existing dating techniques,
>> it supports and CONFIRMS the theory of evolution even further. 
> 
>Well, I appreciate your conviction.  But "confirmation" is a bit strong.
> 
>I mean, consider for a moment: If you were the Creator, and you were about
>to create life, what techniques would you use to put order and simplicity
>into the task?  Object-oriented techniques!
> 
>What are object-oriented techniques?  They are a philosophy and approach to
>computer programming that promote code re-use.  And computer programs are
>not unlike DNA programs.
> 
>In fact, object oriented programming makes reusing code easier than *not*
>reusing code.  So extending this to its natural conclusion, I would expect
>the process of creating life to be a more simple and orderly process by
>reusing DNA rather than not.

This doesn't, however, explain the similarities in "junk" DNA (pseudogenes),
where you find things like this:

abcde  - apes
afghbcde - chimps
afghbde - humans

This seems to indicate that the "fgh" was introduced in a common ancestor
of chimps and humans, but after the ancestor of apes split off.  Since
this is in functionless "code", similarity of function does not explain
it.  (Perhaps you would want to argue that these are comments in the code?)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: GOD is EXISTENCE
Reply-To: starpath@bard.mit.edu
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:15:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.123352.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>  
hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>   Then I would say that these thinking persons must be stupid, because
>   they assert at the same time that they themselves does not exist. !

	Your argument:

	QUAM is EXISTENCE
	YOU EXIST
	therefore QUAM EXISTS
	(oh, I think you used 'GOD' instead of 'QUAM')

	isn't very interesting.  All I would be doing is defining a set of  
objects; those objects that I assume 'exist'.  (Heh; personally, I think  
that's kind of an unwarrented assumption, but that's another topic.)  Now  
that I've defined the set, I can't DO much with it.

	But I'll try, just to show what the problems are:
	1) 'QUAM is GOOD'  ==> 'EXISTENCE is GOOD'
                                no evidence for this, certainly
	2) 'QUAM loves you' ==> 'EXISTENCE loves you'
                                 classifications can love?
	3) 'QUAM created all' ==> 'EXISTENCE created all'
	                           paradoxical at best; probably
	                           meaningless

	There are lots of ways of defining supreme beings; but usually one  
tries to fit in concepts that rely on the supernatural.  Defining 'QUAM'  
to be EXISTENCE means no supernatural traits to 'QUAM', unless one can  
show that the supernatural EXISTS.

--
David Hollingsworth starpath@bard.mit.edu Send me NeXTMail or kill me
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is the last straw...this man has got to go!"  -- A Christian
radio show's statement about Massachusetts Gov. Weld, upon reporting
that he is funding an organization intended to prevent suicide
among teen homosexuals.