HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:54:24 MET
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
From:         Przemyslaw Jablonski <U055018@HNYKUN11.BITNET>
Subject:      Just a question...

To prepare my graduate project I desperately look for an
(experimental) tool (method). I am going to research how bible
stories (9-12 years) are comprehended by childeren.

Biblical tekst are described as being metaphorical. From the
contemporary philosophical (semiotics) and psychological (I think
about Vosniadou, Verbrugge, Gibbs, Keysar, Glucksberg) literature
I learnt that the meaning of a metaphorical utterance is
determined by several elements: conventional comparison,
pragmatic factors (context, linguistic environment) and
receiver's prior knowlegde and his/her structure of experience.
(Those are not extremely difficoult to measure). Comprehension
of bible stories should also correlate with a general cognitive
competension to creative and metaphorical thinking (MacCormac,
Ortony). To measure this I would apply Kogan's Three-Triade-Test.
It is however known that a story can be comprehended only if its
receiver is commited to the text self and when a story evokes any
emotions, experiences, recollections, ect. (We call it structure
of experience).

My problem is that I do not know any suitable "hard" or "soft"
method that would enable me to describe this structure of
experience. This method should be - in a way - already tested and
used in psychological practice. The psychological researches I
could find were done from a psychoanalytic point of view (Godin,
Derbot-Sevrin, Hutsebaut) and concerned the opposite direction
of influence.

Can anyone help me? Any idea about the design and the method(s)
I should use will be wellcome.

Przemek.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:54:09 -0500
From:         Falkner <falknemj@CSUNIX.CS.UWEC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Software: progress, quality, and professionalism
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

"Computer ethics", unfortunately, must go beyond even that.  We must even go in
into the attitudes that we project on these machines.  We, ultimately, are
the master of these machines, and whatever we do, the machine is just going
to "spit it out" as the machine was programmed to do.  I know I am not
perfect; heck, I'm only a college student.  If there's one thing I'm learning
here in Eau Claire, it's the fact that you must stay on the ball mentally
to do what you have to do in classes.

As computers progress, you will get generations of students who have been
placed into conditions where they have survived numerous nights of 3 AM
coding, JUST TO GET IT RIGHT!!!  Ultimately, I as a soon-to-be (hopefully)
graduate, am going to have to break through that mold just like many of you
already have.  That, too, is a part of attitude that we must project in
order to be professional.

Just remember, we control the machine.  It gives us guidelines to work with
our work, but we ultimately control what we do.  Therefore, it is our duty
as users of the technology to progress within only our own limits, provide
users with quality beyond just getting it right (which I am still working on),
and have a professional attitude.  "Computer ethics" contains these three
aspects, which become a massive responsibility in today's computer age.

Michael J. Falkner              University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire

P. S. :  These are my opinions only, not those of the faculty and computer
staff here in UW-Eau Claire.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Samford University Computer Services
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 10:29:24 CDT
From:         GLWARNER@SAMFORD.BITNET
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology & Immortality
              8 Apr 1992 17:18:49 -0400 from <vwsetzer@MAFALDA.IME.USP.BR>

On Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:18:49 -0400 Valdemar W. Setzer said:
>Exactly, that's why I am against commandments: they don't invite you to
>take a conscious action, but to obey. This was absolutely valid and
>necessary at the original 10 commandments time, but would be improper
>to man's present constitution.

Let me see if I understand this.  In the time of the Exodus, anarchy
was bad, but now anarchy is good.  Is that what you are saying?

>Nowadays we should act as self-conscious as
>possible. I think everyone should establish his own inner "commandments",
>which should be dynamic, and not follow external ones. If someone does
>not do harm to another person because he is affraid of being prosecuted,
>he is not acting as a free human being; according to my views, he is being
>less human. If he does not do it because he respects other humans, and
>has thought about that (which excludes such an  action due to pure feelings).
>he is being more human. This is "inner ethics" and not "external ethics".
>Now, I used "you shall" because people are being forced to act without
>freedom, and this is part of "the horible world".

So if someone's "inner ethics" don't coincide with the laws of the land
they should be able to act on their own beliefs?

Not long ago, I made the statement that for us to have ETHICS we must
have a common set of ground rules.  Things that everyone believes, or
will at least tolerate.  Whether these be taken from the Bible, the
Constitution, or _Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten_
is a secondary issue (most readers will recall my opinion on the subject
I know).  The point is you cannot have an Ethical Code based on "Everybody
do what feels right to you!"


 /++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\
!  Later        +   Systems Programmer                                 !
!  Gary Warner  +   Samford University Computer Services               !
!               +   II TIMOTHY 2:15                                    !
 \+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++/
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:         UK.AC.LIV.IBM; 15 APR 92 10:58:14 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 10:06:46 BST
From:         stephen clark <AP01@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: Aristotle

On Tue, 14 Apr 92 00:06:00 EST JIM DOWNEY (JDOWNEY@EDU.MASS.RCN.RCNVMS) said:

>> Saturday I opened a fortune cookie that said "One century's philosophy
>> is the next century's common sense."
>
>Which is exactly the sense that Aristotle seeks to apply in his principle
>of the "golden mean" and the "avoidance of extremes."  But Aristotle adds
>the idea that the "common sense" is also based on universal rights, natural
>laws, and individual choices...
>

I'm all in favour of giving Aristotle a high profile in any ethical
discussion (and no, he was not Philip's houseslave, even metaphorically)
but I would like to know where he speaks of universal rights.


Stephen Clark
Liverpool
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Original_cc:  RENGLAND
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:11:00 EDT
From:         Rich England <RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: CPSR?

Might try 'Assoc for Computing Machinery' as they have authored a Code
of Professional Conduct and are likely in touch.

Rich England
Empire State College
[RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 10:35:23 EDT
From:         Ed Nilges <EGNILGES@PUCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Foundations
              6 Apr 1992 18:27:00 EDT from <WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL>

On Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:27:00 EDT <WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL> said:
>I tend to agree with Jim Downey.  I find it difficult to accept novel
>ideas that are presented only as self-evident assertions, particularly
>if I do not find them so evident.  When those assertions are presented
>in an argumentative rhetorical style that takes all questions as insult
>and insults all questioners, I become very suspicious of the assertions.
>
>My observation is that Jim was careful not to insult or assert but
>merely to raise legitimate questions, questions which I share with him.
>Rather than an attempt to respond to those questions, we get more
>angry assertions, this time questioning the legitimacy of the questions and
>the motives and integrity of the questioner.

My goodness.  Seems to me that if I had a target, it was corporate
and government behavior rather than individuals; and mutual respect
has been expressed between Jim and myself.  Along comes William Hugh
Murray, claiming that these posts have consisted of personal attacks.
He also feels that the consist of unfounded assertions.  How odd; for
not only did the posts contain arguments for the assertions (whence,
I suppose, William Hugh Murray's reference to an "argumentative style"),
they also contained (alone among all posts in the thread) references
for further reading.

I can only conclude that opinions at variance with centrist and corporate
opinions are being asked to adhere to a standard of politeness that would
effectively silence them, and again I am reminded of the reaction to
Mr. Jerry Brown's (or Mr. Larry Agran's) campaigns for high office,
which have been greeted as lese majeste in a society with democratic
pretensions; a society that should encourage, not discourage, what
to Mr. Murray is "an argumentative rhetorical style."

Mr. Murray, I'm a former happy corporate camper.  I would be delighted
if you could (instead of making irrevelant comments on style which are
substantively false) convince me that I am wrong on my central point.
I'll remind you that this is that ETHICS-L must of needs address social
issues as well as issues of individual personal behavior, since the
good man cannot live in the bad society.  Or, if you'd rather, you are
invited to convince me that a good man can live in the bad society. I
am familiar with your posts and know you to be a person of intelligence.
Will you accept my challenge?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 11:44:38 EDT
From:         Ed Nilges <EGNILGES@PUCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Digressions
              8 Apr 1992 09:48:34 LCL from <PB94018@UTKVM1.BITNET>

On Wed, 8 Apr 1992 09:48:34 LCL Vincent DeHart said:
>The current discussions have been at times entertaining, enlightening,
...
>to be among the most articulate of our contributors. The comments
>characterizing WHM's posts as having "low informational content" and as
>"a truly egregious example of irrevelance (sic)" are, I believe,
>incorrect, and I could not let them go unchallenged.

The intent was certainly not to "flame" Mr. Murray.  I too find his
posts intelligent and literate.  My intent was to show that in a
technical sense they are of low informational content in that they
tend to adhere to mainstream views.  Television, for example, needs
no defense, even one as reasoned as Mr. Murray's.  I'd much rather
read Gerry Mander's Four Arguments for the ELIMINATION of Television.
And a defense of television has no place on the ethics of computing
discussion list.  It is therefore irrelevant (I am in your debt for
correcting my spelling.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:44:12 EDT
From:         Stacy Veeder <SBVEEDER@SUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: CPSR?

Hal and anyone else who might be interested-

Coincidentally, this just arrived the other day on another listserv I
subscribe to... (It was part of an announcement of a seminar that is now
over.)
-------------------
        CPSR Washington Office
        666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE
        Suite 303
        Washington, DC
        202/544-9240

        (one block from the Eastern Market metro)

(if you would like to be notified of future CPSR Seminars, please
send  a note with e-mail address to rotenberg@washofc.cpsr.org)
-------------------

Hope this helps...!

Stacy B. Veeder
Bitnet:   SBVEEDER@SUVM.BITNET
Internet: sbveeder@suvm.acs.syr.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:      UK.AC.LON.GOLD;  6 APR 92 14:54:36 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 92 14:54:00 GMT
Reply-To:     Discussion of Ethics in Computing <ETHICS-L@DEARN>
From:         "THE ANSWER IS 42,
              NOW WHATS THE QUESTION??" <MAU01SMS@GOLD.LON.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: Digressions


How can you spend this amont of time and space in trying to decide the
nature of ethics!!!  Surely this is digression in its worst form.  Next
well start discussing how many taxi drivers it takes to change a light
bulb.  Oh by the way, how on earth did we graduate from digressions
to Colombuses encounter with the western hemisphere??


Stephen Stafford
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 08:51:45 EDT
From:         Tim Weaver <tweaver@HOBBES.KZOO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology & Immortality
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

>
> Tim Weaver states that it is the mother's choice in giving birth.  This was
> in response to the earlier "additions" to the 10 Commandments.
>
> Tim, what about a woman who has been impregnated by a rapist??
> Especially in this day and age where many women feel that there is a right
> to life for all fetuses, there isn't much of a choice there, is there??
>
The original implication made was that it was the fetus' choice,
even in your senario this doesn't work.  I must point out that you
are horribly distorting what was actually said.

Original statement:   You shall not be born.
My counter statement: You shall not give birth.

+-----------------------------+---------------------------+----------------+
|Timothy E. Weaver            | Snail: Kalamazoo College  |                |
|Database Programmer/Analyst  |        1200 Academy       | Phone:         |
|email:  tweaver@kzoo.edu     |        Kalamazoo MI 49006 | (616) 383-5656 |
+-----------------------------+---------------------------+----------------+
|These are my opinions!!      |   Don't be humble, you're not that great   |
|Mine!    Mine!    Mine!      |                  - Golda Meir (1898-1978)  |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 09:28:26 EDT
From:         Tim Weaver <tweaver@HOBBES.KZOO.EDU>
Subject: Re: TV & computers again
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

Robert Weaver writes:
> One hypothesis was that the students spent more time thinking about *how it
> looked* rather than what it said.
>
> This is of course a real concern: students will produce lasertrash, and have
> to be told to think of content.  IMHO a student studying composition should
>
One thing that's bugged me about this whole topic.  It seems the solution
here should be to reject the papers and teach the student's to write.  Since
word processors and laser printers came out there has been an over emphasis
on how a paper looks.  glance because the margins are not right.  We have
students sweating in our labs because they are convinced professors will
reject papers at a glance because the margins are not right.  I know there
are some cases where this is not an exaggeration.  It's no wonder kids
don't learn to write if this is the focus.  I wouldn't be so quick to blame
the word processor.

I learned the basics of writing a paper in high school.  Until recently,
I thought this was typical.  From everything I've seen, it's not.  In the
study sighted, I would be interested to find out whether the student's have
had any training in writing a good paper.  I would certainly find this out
before I passed judgement on word processors.

+-----------------------------+---------------------------+----------------+
|Timothy E. Weaver            | Snail: Kalamazoo College  |                |
|Database Programmer/Analyst  |        1200 Academy       | Phone:         |
|email:  tweaver@kzoo.edu     |        Kalamazoo MI 49006 | (616) 383-5656 |
+-----------------------------+---------------------------+----------------+
|These are my opinions!!      |   Don't be humble, you're not that great   |
|Mine!    Mine!    Mine!      |                  - Golda Meir (1898-1978)  |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Original_cc:  RENGLAND
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:21:00 EDT
From:         Rich England <RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: ethics and the professional person

Yes! Would really like to see it Phil but could you send it by separate
and direct email?  70K words is a lot to put on the list!

Rich England
Empire State College
[RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:54:34 -0500
From:         Falkner <falknemj@CSUNIX.CS.UWEC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Software: progress, quality, and professionalism
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

Hasn't it once been said, however, that the ultimate security we have as
humans versus the onslaught of the technology, is to pull the plug??

<Just a thought>

						Mike Falkner
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:31:15 -0400
From:         "Valdemar W. Setzer" <vwsetzer@MAFALDA.IME.USP.BR>
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology & Immortality

John F. McMullen writes:

>Cryonics is the process under which people are frozen at the time of
>death and unfrozen at a point in time when a cure has been developed for
>the fatal illness or accident damage causing death.

Did everyone notice that we have now 13 Commandments, not 10? The new ones are,
in order of appearance:

11) You shall not suffer (Aspirin, etc)
12) You shall not be born (The Pill)
13) You shall not die (Cryonics)

What a horrible world materialism has created!

PS: I am not for "commandments"..., not even the original 10.

Valdemar W. Setzer
Dept. of Computer Science
University of Sao Paulo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 10:08:40 EST
From:         "John F. McMullen (at Marist)" <KNXD@MARISTB.BITNET>
Subject:      Computer crime, Hackers & 1st Amend
Comments: cc: jquit@well.sf.ca.us

There will be a 2-hour panel discussion on "Computer Crime & First
Amendment Concerns" at 10:30AM on Sunday, April 12th at the 17th
annual Trenton Computer Festival (TCF'92). I will moderate the panel
which will be composed of Donald Delaney, New York State Police Senior
Investigator responsible for computer crime and telecommunications
fraud; Mike Godwin, in-house counsel, Electronic Frontier Foundation
(EFF); Emmanuel Goldstein, editor & publisher - "2600:The Hacker
Quarterly; and Phiber Optik, well-know hacker (previously arrested by
Delaney).

TCF is the oldest computer festival/show in the world, preceeding even
the legendary "West Coast Computer Faire". It is held on Saturday &
Sunday, April 11 & 12th at Mercer County College, outside of Trenton, NJ
It will contain over 170 commercial exhibits, the largest computer flea
market on the East Coast (8 acres) and 2 days of seminars, talks and
panel dicussions. The keynote spreaker (Saturday - 3:00PM) is Paul
Grayson, CEO of Micrografx.

The New York Amateur Computer Club (NYACC), on of the festival's
co-sponsors, is providing bus service from New York City to and from
TCF. A bus leaves 11th Street and 6th Avenue at 8:00AM on Saturday and
8:30 on Sunday (The Sunday bus originates in Long Island). For details,
call Lewis Tanner (212 928-0577 between 7&9PM).
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"ETHICS-L%POLYGRAF.BITNET@graf.poly.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 23:23:18 GMT
From:         "Mark P. Neely,
              Northern Territory University" <NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      RE: ethics and the professional person
Comments: To: ETHICS-L%POLYGRAF.BITNET@graf.poly.edu

>	A week ago I wrote an essay for a class I'm taking at Curtin
>University on Ethics and Professional Person, with particular reference to
>Engineers and Computer Software builders. Would you like to see it?
>I thought that you people wouyld find it topical ie a discussion point...


Phil,

Please send it my way...

Mark N.


    				Mark Neely,
Articled Clerk + Tutor, Law School, Northern Territory Uni. Darwin NT Australia
    			  neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.su
Disclaimer:
The views expressed herein are neither a reflection of the views held by
my employer nor those of the NTU. They are not to be taken (unless otherwise
indicated) as a formal legal opinion or advice given in my professional
capacity.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Original_cc:  RENGLAND
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:15:00 EDT
From:         Rich England <RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Computer crime, Hackers & 1st Amend

Hope that after the conference, you or others attending will let the
rest of us know what went on.

Rich England
Empire State College
[RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:36:46 EST
From:         "John F. McMullen (at Marist)" <KNXD@MARISTB.BITNET>
Subject:      Nanotechnology & Immortality
Comments: cc: mcmullen@well.sf.ca.us, callery@applelink.apple.com

Ralph Merkle, researcher in nanotechnology at Xerox Palo Alto Research
Center (Xerox PARC) will address a special meeting of the Alcor
Foundation on Sunday, April 28th at 5:00 PM. The subject of his talk
will be "Nanotechnology and Prospects For Immortality".

The meeting will be held at the 72nd Street Studio - 131 West 72nd
Street, New York City. Admission is open to the public at a cost of
$4.00.

Describing the event to me for an article I did on the event, Charles
Platt, science fiction author and a member of Alcor, said "Merkle is
one of the country's foremost experts on nanotechnology and molecular
machines. This is a science of particular interest to those involved in
cryonics as the Alcor Foundation is. Nanotechnology allows the
manipulation of things at the molecular level and provides promise of
being extremely important in the restoration of brain damage that may
be caused by Cryonics' freezing and unfreezing processes."

Cryonics is the process under which people are frozen at the time of
death and unfrozen at a point in time when a cure has been developed for
the fatal illness or accident damage causing death.

Persons wishing further information may contact Charles Platt at
(212) 535-3643.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:32:15 -0400
From:         Stuart Milligan <MILLIGAN@BROCK1P.BITNET>
Subject:      Nanotechnology & Immortality

------------------------Setzer Message-----------------------------
Subject:      Re:  Nanotechnology & Immortality

What a horrible world materialism has created!

PS: I am not for "commandments"..., not even the original 10.

Valdemar W. Setzer
Dept. of Computer Science
University of Sao Paulo
-----------------------End of Setzer Message-------------------------

I must quarrel with this line of thought.  The point is not whether you are
for commandments, the best 10 or not, but whether they are for you.  I know
it's unfashionable as an American to acknowledge social norms, but even our
legal structures capture the essence of needed common social ethics, whether
in the computing field or any other line of activity.  If you espouse the
displacement of moral/ethical groundrules and principles, it will eventually
end in chaos and heightened selfishness.  If Mr. Setzer is a parent, I would
be terribly surprised if he not once told his children to do or not do a
particular thing.  To be consistent, if you do not like commandments, yea,
especially the Ten Commandments, then you will also not issue commands.

Stuart Milligan
Drake Memorial Library
SUNY College at Brockport
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU