HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mdw@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Line of Credit
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:42:00 GMT

I hate the dweebs who call you up at home trying to get you to apply for
a MasterCard or Visa over the phone. If they're that hard up for cardholders 
I don't trust 'em anyway. I told him I wasn't interested, and he asked why. 

I told him I was an arms smuggler and I didn't need no steenking credit line.

mdw

-- 
Matt Welsh    mdw@tc.cornell.edu        +1 607 253 2737
Systems Programmer, Cornell Theory Center
  "We're going away now. I fed the cat."
From: jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs
Subject: Re: What does (point) point at?
Date: 22 Nov 92 07:41:11 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Boston University Computer Science Department
In-reply-to: doom@elaine6.Stanford.EDU's message of 22 Nov 92 01:02:51 GMT

In article <DOOM.92Nov21200251@elaine6.Stanford.EDU> doom@elaine6.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brenner) writes:

   In emacs lisp, you can evaluate (point) to find out where
   the point is.  How do you find out what is at this point in
   the file?  For example, I might want to do one thing if the
   cursor is on some white space, and another thing if it's on
   a character, but I can only think of the most kludgy ways of
   checking which is the case. 

Point is *between* two characters.  Try char-after, preceding-char, and
following-char.

-- 
Joe Wells <jbw@cs.bu.edu>
Member of the League for Programming Freedom --- send e-mail for details
Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs
From: sbyrnes@rice.edu (Steven Byrnes)
Subject: Re: What does (point) point at? 
Reply-To: sbyrnes@rice.edu (Steven Byrnes)
Organization: Locutus
Distribution: alt
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 05:48:57 GMT

On 21 Nov 92 20:02:51, Joseph Brenner said:

> There's gotta be a better way.) 

Perhaps looking-at is what you want?

C-h f looking-at<return>

looking-at:
t if text after point matches regular expression PAT.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs
From: doom@elaine6.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brenner)
Subject: What does (point) point at? 
Organization: DSG, Stanford University
Distribution: alt
Date: 21 Nov 92 20:02:51


Well, the ordinary mortals on gnu.emacs.help seem unable to
help me on this one.  Info nodes, source code, and Bob
Chassel's draft of a tutorial have all left me in the dark.

Perhaps it's time to appeal to the emacs gods.

In emacs lisp, you can evaluate (point) to find out where
the point is.  How do you find out what is at this point in
the file?  For example, I might want to do one thing if the
cursor is on some white space, and another thing if it's on
a character, but I can only think of the most kludgy ways of
checking which is the case. 

(How's this: put the cursor somewhere.  Record the location.
Do a search for a space.  Compare location to the recorded
location.  If the location has changed, you know it wasn't a
space.  

There's gotta be a better way.)
From: kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs
Subject: Re: What does (point) point at?
Date: 22 Nov 92 21:54:30 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <DOOM.92Nov21200251@elaine6.Stanford.EDU> doom@elaine6.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brenner) writes:
>In emacs lisp, you can evaluate (point) to find out where
>the point is.  How do you find out what is at this point in
>the file?  For example, I might want to do one thing if the
>cursor is on some white space, and another thing if it's on
>a character, but I can only think of the most kludgy ways of
>checking which is the case. 
>
>(How's this: put the cursor somewhere.  Record the location.
>Do a search for a space.  Compare location to the recorded
>location.  If the location has changed, you know it wasn't a
>space.  
>
>There's gotta be a better way.) 

Without moving point, the following code tests if the character following
point is a white space, according to the definition of white space in the
syntax table.

        (eq ?\  (char-syntax (following-char))

Note, there are 2 blanks after the back slash character.  (For more
information, check out Chapter 30, Syntax Tables, in the GNU Emacs Lisp
Reference Manual, Edition 1.03.)

From a programming view, point always lies BETWEEN two characters, while the
cursor lies on top of the character immediately following point.  (This is all
explained in section 1.1, Point, of the GNU Emacs Manual.)  Thus, the function
"following-char" returns the character under the cursor.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Gallagher        kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org OR ...!uunet!digi!kgallagh
DSC Communications Corporation   Addr: MS 152, 1000 Coit Rd, Plano, TX 75075
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.religion.sabaean
From: bes@ddsw1.mcs.com (Bes)
Subject: Sabaenism
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:08:53 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago IL
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3


In the observation that humanity needs a direction from which to relate, I
believ thyat Sabaeanism offers such a possibility.

There are no FAQ that I know to date. And yet I can't see where it could
ever be kept up to date as questions frequently asked can have a myriad of
answers that no one person is omniscient enough to have fortold.

To attempt a FAQ is to reflect a Catechism, or Revealed Scripture that
usually is ill fated to critiscim and to a fate of becoming out of date.

Sabaeanism may be a surging religious, philosophy for the future as it
really has its roots in prehistoric antiquity and seems to have never lost
its sight of the cosmos to which it relates. It seems to be adequate for
a time when experiencing extra terrestial involvement a philosophy is needed
that would be adequate for the time.

Sabaeanism seems to have been introduced by the popularity of the pagan Arab
but neither the ancient sources nor the pagan Arab deny the existance prior
in other places.

Many purists get hunged up that Sabaeanism is strictly a Yemanite phenomena
but scholarly work contemporary to its first noteriety contradict that.

Perhaps this group is a source for serious persons whose interest are into
henotheistic philosophy. Study of the ancient world religion, customs, and
practices as they relate to the star groups and constellations. The arts of
Astromancy, (universally/ and scientific), theurgy, and a series of other
subjects that at the moment I do not enumerate.

Bes
From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: PV equation
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 22:10:54 PST
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

> gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:

> In article <V5uJuB2w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.o
> > gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
> >> Stop waffling.  You said you could to it if I made it worth your time.
> >> I have made you an offer that should make it worth your time.
> >> I'm pretty tired playing the Monty Phyton Cheese Shop skit with you.
> > Get over it.
> >> If time is an issue, I'm willing to grant you any reasonable time to
> >> put together your proof.  How much time do you need?
> > Since I am leaving on the third, and won't be back until 9 Jan. 93,
> > it will have to wait until then.
> If this proof is as trivial as you've claimed earlier in this discussion,
> you should have no problem getting that post together before the 3rd.
> 
> Postponing it until 1993 looks to me like just another of your silly
> excuses -- as you can hope that everybody has forgotten everything
> about it by then.
> 
> If you can't do it, I think you would appeared as a much more honest
> man if you've admitted so, instead of this long string of excuses.

Take your medication and get over it.  I have a life.  If you can't
deal with it, practice your primal scream.  I can understand your
anger.  Separation anxiety is just something your going to have to
work on by yourself while I'm gone.

Bill Hardman

------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]

            h      mM    gs
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: StorageTek, Louisville, CO
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:05:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.084801.2093@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>
>>Do you see a fundamental distinction between the CoS giving me a number over
>>the telephone and an organization *completely independent* of Scientology
>>gathering and producing *written* reports on the effectiveness of SCN?
>>
>>What you're suggesting is similar to calling a particular computer company
>>and asking if they have the best computers. And believing what they say.
>
>If the word of Scn cannot be accepted, then someone else will need to take
>the responsibility of getting some people trained up as auditors and case
>supervisors and auditing people according whatever research methods were
>needed.

Well, this is an improvement.

It's still missing the boat, however: there's not a snowball's chance in hell
that Scn would permit someone else other than the church to permit non-Scn
people to start doing Interviews-with-Ohmmeters. It really misses the 	point,
too: what I'm asking about is the effectiveness of Scientology. Some sort of
surveying of participants with statistical controls. Something resembling 
*scientific* research.

Can you think of any way that that could be done, Jonathon?

Different question: can you think of any reason why the church *wouldn't*
want it to be done.

>Why dispute Scn's results and still ask for evidence from *them*?

Why put words in my mouth and expect me to respect you in the morning?

Jonathon, in this entire discussion, there has not been a single time when I
have disputed the results of Scientology. The *kinds* of results that I would
even consider appropriate for evaluation have *never been produced*. I keep
asking for objective results and you keep deflecting the requests. Part of the
way you deflect the requests are by claiming that we're disputing the results
or criticizing the religion. I am not. I am asking how it is that one can
critically, objectively evaluate the effectiveness of this "applied religious
technology".

If you feel incapable or unqualified to answer this request, then say so.  If
you feel there's categorically no way for the CoS to satisfy this request,
then say that. But don't dance around and say nonsense like I'm "disputing
Scn's results." What I'm disputing is the presence of independently
verifiable results. So far, you have not provided *any* of them.

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: It's True For You
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:50:13 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


In article <BxuCtB.q8@cup.hp.com> decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes:
>: I understand that some auditing sessions involve relaxation
>: techniques, and hence are related to hypnotism. [I'd appreciate input
>: on this point.] I know that Hubbard studied hypnotism and
>: self-hypnotism in the 1940's.
>
>What do you mean by "relaxation techniques"?  There is nothing termed
>that in Scientology or Dianetics auditing.  The state of "reverie"
>described in DMSMH (the well-publicized Dianetics book) is simply
>the person relaxing with their eyes closed.

I don't claim to great expertise here, which is why I asked for
input. That said, it is my understanding that hypnotism is very
un-magic, and is mostly done by the subject, not by the hypnotist.
There is no such thing as a "hypnotic trance" - just a relaxed state
that might as well be called "reverie".

Stage hypnotists do manipulative things: the usual phrase is "post
hypnotic suggestion". It doesn't take hypnotism to manipulate people,
nor does hypnotism imply that the hypnotist will take an active role.

To get back to religion, we already know that forces such as peer
pressure can remold one's world view. The Catholics, for instance,
are fairly successful in getting people to believe in
transsubstantiation - that wine literally becomes the blood of
Christ; the appearance of wine that remains is "an accidental
property that inheres in no substance."  Philosopher Anthony Kenny
observed that if this doctrine makes sense, then "for all I can tell,
my typewriter might be Benjamin Disraeli".

To get back to Scientology, we have a situation where a world view
(thetans, engrams, Ron, the whole ball of wax) is acquired by the
pre-Clear. Now, some of this is acquired through reading, and some
through that most time-honored of religious mechanisms, hanging
around with fellow church-members. My question is, how big a role
does auditing play in this transfer? And how big a role does reverie
play in auditing?
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:44:22 GMT
Organization: StorageTek, Louisville, CO

In article <1992Nov14.045858.14979@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>>3. Is Scientology valid?
>>> 
>>>Tens of thousands of case histories, all sworn to, are in the possession
>>>of the organizations of Scientology.
>>
>>This goes into that ever-increasing folder of Claims Asserted but not Proven.
>>Show us the data!
>
>You're questioning the fact that there are tens of thousands of Scn case
>histories?  Call up your local Church of Scientology and ask them how many
>people in the past ten years they've audited.  Multiply that number by
>450 (total number of orgs and missions).  This will give you the number of
>case histories for just the past ten years.

You still don't get it.

Do you see a fundamental distinction between the CoS giving me a number over
the telephone and an organization *completely independent* of Scientology gathering
and producing *written* reports on the effectiveness of SCN?

What you're suggesting is similar to calling a particular computer company and
asking if they have the best computers. And believing what they say.

>>What does this mean? Is the quoting of two valid sciences intended to give
>>Scientology credibility?
>>
>>What testing of chemistry and physics is LRH referring to? What is the
>>corresponding testing of Scientology?
>
>Read his books and find out from him what he means.

Oh, nonsense. *You* made the assertion (or reproduded LRH's assertion); *you* tell us
what makes the assertion valid.

>The term "FAQ" will not be used in the re-post.

Cool. Call it a "FUA" then. For Frequently Unsubstantiated Assertions. 

--phil
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
Date: 21 Nov 92 23:40:43 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <1992Nov19.153359.5244@random.ccs.northeastern.edu> rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.050807.18654@lds-az.loral.com>
>jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes: 
>>In article <1992Nov16.233132.5689@u.washington.edu>
>>mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes: 
>>>jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes: 
>[a whole lot]
>>>>I was like that once.  Ethics got rough and I didn't like it.  However,
>>>>since then I've stepped back and viewed the whole and how this ethics
>>>>system can keep things going without trouble, etc.
>>>
>>>I would be very interested in hearing about this, if that's okay.
>>
>>I've only been assigned a condition once and that was Doubt when I
>>had doubts about being on staff at the PHX Org.  So I worked up from
>>Doubt.  In the end I decided to stay on staff.  Not because anyone
>>forced me to or because I was afraid of what would happen if I didn't,
>>I benefited from the Doubt formula and having worked back up from Doubt.
>
>What is involved in being assigned a condition of Doubt?  I gather you
>said something like 'I'm not sure I want to be on staff at the PHX
>Org.'  What was the response?  How do you act, and how are you
>treated,  differently when you are in Doubt than when you are not?

I had started the procedure to route-off from staff.  The doubt condition
was between me and the ethics officer.  I had to apply the formula for
doubt (see Introduction to Scientology Ethics).  It's rather therapeutic.

Jonathon
Barbera
From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: PV equation
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:47:00 GMT
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:

> In article <goD5TB2w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.o
> 
> > To excuse you lack of education in the location of a mis-
> > understood word, you have to have the person having the comprehension
> > trouble in front of you.  It doesn't work over the net.  If he wants
> > the service for free, find someone local, that is trained and certified
> > to do it.  If his plea is valid, and he does want to discover the mis-
> > understood words, he could e-mail me his phone number, and I would
> > schedule him for an appointment.  Of course, to make it worth my
> > time, I would have to charge a standard industry rate, as I am a
> > certified social worker with a degree.
> 
> Bill, we are not discussing a "misunderstood word" -- we are discussing
> the correct application of an equation that appear in one of the
> most basic books on Scientology and Dianetics.

You missed the comment to which you were replying to Gisle.  Richard
asked me to help him define his words, and I said "it's not worth my
time", and you said I bailed out of the discussion.  Are we up to
speed on how we got to this place?

> But, I understand your reply to mean that you have a good
> understanding of the PV equation, and would be willing to help others
> learning about it if it could be made worth your your time.  I think
> that that could be arranged in some sporting fashion.  In short, I
> have a bet to offer you:

[bet specifics deleted to save bandwidth]

> Do we have a bet?

Due to time constraints, I won't be able to put that together during
this week.  It would be easier for you (as well as cheaper) to go
into an org, and take the Dianetics Course.

> > I have noticed in your posts that you have a poor control
> > over your psychotic delusions in a discussion, and have a compulsive
> > habit of attempting to belittle the opposing viewpoint.  When did
> > you first feel that you had to exert this force over an imagined
> > enemy?  Your particular neurosis has always facinated me, and for
> > you, I will handle your case over the net.  I will not use
> > Scientology, but routine psychological evaluations and practices.
> > The first hour is on me.
> 
> Hmmm... It sounds like you are starting to become angry.  I appreciate
> that... shows that you care.

No, actually I saw an individual in serious trouble and my fist
instict is to use my resources to help in a manner that would be
accepted, since I'm sure that Dianetic processing wouldn't.

Bill Hardman

------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]
                (Bark At The Moon Productions)
                        *A Secret Cult*
If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:19:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.041731.16568@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>[...]: what I'm asking about is the effectiveness of Scientology.  Some sort
>>of surveying of participants with statistical controls.  Something
>>resembling *scientific* research.
>
>After the person has been trained, he/she can become a field auditor.
>There are currently a lot of field auditors.  They audit people outside of
>churches or missions.  This is okay.  LRH set it up so this can be done.

What has this got to do with rigorous, *scientific* research?

>>Can you think of any way that that could be done, Jonathon?
>
>Just as I said originally.  Get some people, get them trained, and have
>them audit people.  Then use the research stuff to research the results.

Would it have Scientific rigor?

I'm betting not: how Scientology has been represented so far in this group
is with no scientific rigor whatsoever. I have never before heard of an
equation that works no matter what units you apply to it. That's not
rigor.

>>Different question: can you think of any reason why the church *wouldn't*
>>want it to be done?
>
>Policy allows for field auditors and field groups.

Can you explain how that answers the question: why wouldn't Scientology want
rigorous measurment done of its effectiveness?

>>If you feel incapable or unqualified to answer this request, then say so.  If
>>you feel there's categorically no way for the CoS to satisfy this request,
>>then say that. But don't dance around and say nonsense like I'm "disputing
>>Scn's results." What I'm disputing is the presence of independently
>>verifiable results. So far, you have not provided *any* of them.
>
>If you and others out there want "independently verifiable results" you might
>want to get them through your own research.  Right?  Isn't that proof?

I'm asking Scientology to provide independent research. So far, you think
that that's an impossibility. It is not.

To answer your question, no -- me doing my own thing would not be rigorous,
scientific research. I am not trained to do that kind of research, and I'm
unwilling to spend the massive amounts of time that it would take to do
satisfactory work in this area.

You see -- I'm not sure you fathom what it would *mean* for someone to
research Scientology with rigor. It ain't some individual diving in and
checking it out. It's an impartial team observer objectively observing what it
sees. And constantly being on the lookout to ensure that they remain
objective. It's not a trivial thing to do. It's very difficult.

--phil
From: nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Validity of E-Meter
Date: 20 Nov 1992 07:38:27 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <BxzGnr.Lp2@cup.hp.com> decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes:
>The Inimitable Raz (raz@socs.uts.edu.au) wrote:
>: Unfortunately I've yet to find anything else in Scientology that I
>: consider good and worthwhile. The conversation here is leaving me 
>: less receptive to Scn than I was when I first subscribed!

>Perhaps the E-meter is a worthwhile addition, since it can be used
>to help find painful subject matter which would be beneficially discussed.

>Dave Decot

	Hmmm...  That's odd, the E-meter doesn't _do_ anything, sure,
it says right here on page vi of "Dianetics:A Handbook of Dianetics(R)
Procedure":

	"The Hubbard(R) Electrometer, or E-Meter(TM), is a device
	 sometimes used in Dianetics technology.  In, itself, the
	 E-Meter does nothing.  It is not intended or effective for
	 the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any desease, or
	 for the improvement of health or any bodily function."

But it _does_ cost ~ $3000.00, go figure!  'nuff said!

-- 
Richard Nistuk               4th Yr Physics at U.B.C.
nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca