HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:49:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Dec17.034920.23498
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Dec16.215746.18586@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>I see no reasonable systematic way to construe a sex act, so as to
>allow for a change of partners *within* the same act.  See my
>discussion with Mike Morris for more details.

Sp[l]itting pubic hairs again, Misha?

I suspect you haven't been in many N-way orgies, where N > 1.
The idea that there's "an act" which can be isolated and subjected
to this dreary philosophical harangue is wonderfully quaint and dusty,
reminiscent of old missionaries and old missionary positions, and more
than a bit unreal.  But we knew that already.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:2913 rec.arts.books:22238
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Mikhail on the theory that cruelty is useful
Date: 12 Dec 92 05:35:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Dec12.003516.18422
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Dec11.125242.16479@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>
lbn@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (generic fellow) writes:

Mikhail Zeleny:
>>>>I told you I was serious, Mike.  Suppose you were to tell me what you
>>>>find immoral about cruelty?  For instance, I heartily enjoy the petty
>>>>torment of those who believe in their right not to be denigrated, and,
>>>>I suspect, so do you.  Unlike neighborly love (on which see Freud),
>>>>neighborly cruelty is readily found in a copious, undiluted supply.
>>>>Why not put it to good use by making it into a moral force?

dave liebman:
>>>freud's credibility is diminished by the fact of his having been a sucker
>>>of his own cock, and not even a closeted one -- he had it published.

MZ:
>>A banal metaphor adds no merit to a _non sequitur_.

dl:
>surely a banal commentary is similarly bereft of value?

Why should I spend more energy on dealing with your flaccid nonsense?

dl:
>>>and neighborly cruelty is ever _so_ petty, the inevitable product of
>>>this bourgeois stultification you've mentioned.  those who assert that
>>>cruelty is an essential, substantive aspect of human existence do so,
>>>of course, to satisfy their plaintive need to legitimize their own
>>>blunted variant of humanity.

MZ:
>>Why "of course"?  Is your own credibility to be regarded as inherently
>>superior to the sort you accord to that alleged autofellator Siggy?

dl:
>in the absence of any slightly more than half-witted remonstrance, i'd
>probably win by default.

And Bobby Fischer is still the world champion.

dl:
>>>                             cruelty need not be immoral.  its morality,
>>>though, will be of the opiate, provincial sort most suited to those who
>>>will dully climb whatever ladder is placed before them.  that banal 
>>>frustration, those pastel fantasies of kicking the neighbor's poodle in 
>>>the ribs, are nothing but dilute.  the deployment of such inclinations in 
>>>a moral domain is nothing more than some suburban milquetoast playing 
>>>overly sweaty racquetball at the YMCA.  their bodies grow leaner, but 
>>>later that evening are found firmly embedded in their plastic-draped 
>>>couches; as, i suspect, is yours.

MZ:
>>My leather-covered couch is duly draped with last week's laundry and
>>this week's reading.  You are losing your thread again, dave.

DL:
>you're so adorable when you get petulant.

Not petulant -- bored.

>snuggles,
>dave

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:2962 rec.arts.books:22439
From: lbn@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (generic fellow)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Mikhail on the theory that cruelty is useful
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:03:08 EST
Distribution: rec,talk
Organization: Cornell University

Mikhail Zeleny:

>>>>>I told you I was serious, Mike.  Suppose you were to tell me what you
>>>>>find immoral about cruelty?  For instance, I heartily enjoy the petty
>>>>>torment of those who believe in their right not to be denigrated, and,
>>>>>I suspect, so do you.  Unlike neighborly love (on which see Freud),
>>>>>neighborly cruelty is readily found in a copious, undiluted supply.
>>>>>Why not put it to good use by making it into a moral force?

dave liebman:
>>>>freud's credibility is diminished by the fact of his having been a sucker
>>>>of his own cock, and not even a closeted one -- he had it published.

MZ:
>>>A banal metaphor adds no merit to a _non sequitur_.

dl:
>>surely a banal commentary is similarly bereft of value?

>Why should I spend more energy on dealing with your flaccid nonsense?

for the same reason you deal with everyone else's:  because you feel
compelled to flaunt your own turgidity.  unfortunately, your current
croaking, puffed-up avoidance techniques simply will not suffice.

dl:
>>>>and neighborly cruelty is ever _so_ petty, the inevitable product of
>>>>this bourgeois stultification you've mentioned.  those who assert that
>>>>cruelty is an essential, substantive aspect of human existence do so,
>>>>of course, to satisfy their plaintive need to legitimize their own
>>>>blunted variant of humanity.

MZ:
>>>Why "of course"?  Is your own credibility to be regarded as inherently
>>>superior to the sort you accord to that alleged autofellator Siggy?

dl:
>>in the absence of any slightly more than half-witted remonstrance, i'd
>>probably win by default.

MZ
>And Bobby Fischer is still the world champion.

mikhail, dearest, as it happens _you_ are the one of us who insists
on sequestering yourself behind this parody of disinterest.

DL:
>>you're so adorable when you get petulant.

MZ:
>Not petulant -- bored.

getting there,
dave

Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:3042 rec.arts.books:22859 alt.politics.homosexuality:8224
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 14:25:20 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductivenes

In article <BzG69y.qD@unix.amherst.edu>, jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL
FUCHS) says:
>
> As it is, I have a sneaking suspicion that if
>Zelany were to somehow wander onto the "alt.video.games.classic" newsgroup,
>he would manage to start a gigantic, pointless flamewar over what qualifies as
>"classic" in ten minutes flat.
>

Actually, the flamewar he would start there would more likely be
over the immorality of queer sex, don't you think?

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:3004 rec.arts.books:22602 alt.politics.homosexuality:8078
From: jeon@carson.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon)
Subject: Godel
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 08:48:58 GMT

I understand this subject probably had been beat to death in the past,
but enlighten a newcomer, if you please.

What is the effect of Godel's Incompleteness theorem in philosophy,
and what are the typical pseudo-philosophical abuses?

Jeon

Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.poltics.misc
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Merlyn on the theory that sex with Mikhail is icky
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 07:14:46 GMT


I have concluded that much from this thread...

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:52:34 GMT

> In article <Bz5yrn.BLs@unix.amherst.edu> jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu
> (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
> > >	What does my pal Mikhail 
> 
> Using the term 'pal' rather loosely, aren't we.
	Nah. I consider anyone who brings joy in my life on the level that 
Mickey does to be a pal. Whether or not that joy is of the "laugh at" rather
than the "laugh with" variety is not particularly important. He's still loads
o' fun either way.
> 
> >have to say about oral sex between us
> >breeders? 
> 
> Is that to be considered a proposition?  I'm sure he'd be flattered.
	Nope. I'm a breeder - i.e., a het. I would no sooner give Mickey oral
sex than any other male. Not that I think oral sex between males (or any other
type of sex) is wrong or yucky - it's just not my shtick.
> 
> >That's not reproductive in any possible world, but I can't imagine
> >him objecting to some woman offering him a blow job...
> 
> Then one is afraid that your imagination is sadly lacking.  Although
> such objections would be based on aesthetic reasons rather than moral
> ones, I'd imagine.
	Let me rephrase that to say "any woman he considered attractive." I'll
give Mickey the benefit of the doubt and assume he's discriminating in his 
sexual practices.
> 
> >although, then again,
> >maybe he doesn't have that problem. After all, Kant was a virgin his entire> >life - I suspect that this is probably the only way in which Mikhail could
> >compare any aspect of himself to a guy like Kant at all.
> 
> Relax, Jesse, I promise I won't leak any information which might make
> you (gasp!) reconsider your set-in-stone image of your dear pal.
> After all, what could one possibly take for granted in this world if
> _that_ was to change?
	I shudder to think. I am firmly convinced that Mickey is not a person
at all, but an avatar of some deity that we could never hope to comprehend. A
really lame deity, but nonetheless...Without him, how could I get my RDA of
condescending chuckles? Things like that just aren't included in your breakfast
cereal.
> 
> >	But then again, maybe I'm just being rude.
> 
> You?  The soul of sincere good manners, charm, and wit?  NO!?!
	Sarcasm? Or maybe you've seen me in my tux.
> 
> >				-jesse "I'm not defined by my dick" fuchs
> 
> Impressive, indeed.  Manly defiance with a splash of boyish charm, a
> pinch of quirky vulgarity, a smidgen of ironic distance...
	Add some baking soda and vinegar, and you can make a working scale
model of a volcano!
> 
>   --Erin
> 
> 
				-jesse fuchs
				"There are five billion people in this world.
				 Wonder how many of them we can screw over?
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Subject: Re: Consciousness
Reply-To: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:27:17 GMT

In article <4766@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>,
oedipus@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
|> This type of logical analysis to determine where _I_ originates from,
|> including the idea of substituting  portions of physical anatomy, is 
|> a standard traditional contemplation in Buddhist schools ( and perhaps
|> in other eastern meditative traditions).
|> 
|> The final conclusion of this rigorous, logical, analysis is that _I_
|> (and/or _self_, _consciousness_ in some d[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[C[Cs) cannot
be found
|> to exist anywhere.  It seems to exist while we are alive in a body,
|> dependent upon a body, yet it is not in any one place and it is somehow
|> associated with all places in the body (as in _my foot_).  If one spends
|> the time to think through all of the implications and associations, one
|> tends to arrive at a sort of paradox.

The mistake lies in requiring that the Subject is to be found
among the objects. But that is precisely what it is not. Every
time you reach for the Subject like it was Object, and think
you have grasped it - it is not It. For the Subject can never
be Object.

|> Like all paradoxes, the resolusion requires a radical shift
[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[Dlution
of the paradox requires a radical shift
|> in perspective/concept where all of the various _contraditory_ sides can be
|> seen as parts of a larger whole.
|> 
|> The whole, in this case, is that the _self_ as most people currently
conceive
|> of it simple does not exist.  Which is why it cannot be found, cannot be 
|> defined rigorously, and posseses contradictory aspects.      

Well, it doesnt exist _qua_object_. But that does not imply its
non-existence. Even ole Kant saw that.

|> Rev.Dr.Oedipus P. Wienushausen        #    The only constant is change;
|> oedipus@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us	      #      enjoy the illusory dance. 
|>                                       #   Love is the nature of universe. 
|> Poised on the brink: Utopia/Oblivion  #  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>!

This signature got me wondering what youre really after.


Solan
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: net
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:17:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.120407.18610@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>I will admit
>that this modal theory is a weird thing, -- it has taken me several
>years to accept it as meaningful, and in my own work, I still like to
>investigate even more arcane alternatives.  But it does what it is
>supposed to do, i.e. illuminate its subject matter.

Indeed, I can easily believe that you would need several years to
convince yourself that what you are saying actually reflects the
facts of the matter.

Your basic premise appears to be that only essentially reproductive
sex is essentially good.  Certainly you are good enough at arguing
modal logic that your arguments against gay sex being "essentially
reproductive" may be valid--especially with the benefit of several
years of study.  Your consequence may follow from your premise, but
your premise is by no means unarguable, and in fact (I believe) has no
merit whatsoever.

Illuminate the justification for your premise, if you would.  Feel
free to spend as many years thinking about it as you like, such that
your thought will be sufficiently abstracted from everyday life as to
be worth convincing yourself of.

-- 
Rob Jellinghaus    |  "Next time you see a lie being spread or a bad 
robj@netcom.com    |   decision being made out of sheer ignorance,
robj@xanadu.com    |   pause, and think of hypertext."
uunet!netcom!robj  |       -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
From: vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Consciousness
Date: 16 Dec 1992 03:22 PST
Organization: dept. of theophysics and cosmogyny
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: reg.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <BzBzI0.KnD@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, 
jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes...
>Svein writes:
>>The mistake lies in requiring that the Subject is to be found
>>among the objects. But that is precisely what it is not. Every
>>time you reach for the Subject like it was Object, and think
>>you have grasped it - it is not It. For the Subject can never
>>be Object.

>I would just like to make clear that although Svein usually espouses
>the Objectivist position on a variety of subjects, this view of
>consciousness is not the Objectivist position.  Quite frankly, I
>think it is totally incoherent and meaningless.

>--Jimbo

   Figures.


==========================================================================
We are definitely here as representatives of the     %    Pete Vincent
Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages Lumin-      % Disclaimer: all I
aries and Other Professional Thinking Persons,       % know I learned from  
and we want this machine off, and we want it off now!% reading Usenet.
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
From: zhu@athena.mit.edu (Erin Zhu)
Subject: Re: Merlyn on the theory that sex with Mikhail is icky
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 06:48:44 GMT

only when it's done right...

In article <merlyn.724144486@digibd> merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn
LeRoy) writes:

>I have concluded that much from this thread...

By the way, leave the speculations alone, or rather, quit peeking at
the bedsheets, it ain't gentlemanly.

>Merlyn LeRoy

  --Erin

p.s. Thank god (net.god?  nah...) or whoever is responsible that this
thread is being reduced to bite-sized pieces.

Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes posssible reproductiveness
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:31:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.184450.18580@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
> In article <1992Dec16.212451.25986@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
> 
> ECL:
> >Even if one grants the premise that a potentially productive union is
> >some alternate world is necessary for certain configurations to be
> >approved--and a more ludicrous premise
> 
> The difference between a premiss and a derived principle is normally
> covered in an introductory logic course.

As far as I could tell from the articles on my system, your syllogism
went as follows:
	Given, 1) Only potentially productive unions are moral.
	And given, 2) The union of two males is not potentially productive.
	Therefore, 3) The union of two males is not moral.

If #1 was somehow the conclusion (derived principle?) of some other chain
of reasoning, that chain is no longer on my system.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"God does not play dice with the universe."  --Albert Einstein
"Albert, stop telling God what to do."  --Niels Bohr
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:3000 rec.arts.books:22592 alt.politics.homosexuality:8065
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Date: 17 Dec 92 05:53:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Dec17.005347.18599
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Dec17.034920.23498@spdcc.com> 
dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.215746.18586@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>I see no reasonable systematic way to construe a sex act, so as to
>>allow for a change of partners *within* the same act.  See my
>>discussion with Mike Morris for more details.

SD:
>Sp[l]itting pubic hairs again, Misha?

Your witty repartee forcees me to revise my estimate of your professional
prospects.  Perhaps in a mere twenty years, you'll be ready for MC-ing in
a poof retirement farm.  Once again, the making of the nauseatingly
predictable cruel jest concerning the statistical prospects and probable
circumstances of such retirement, is left to the esteemed Clayton Cramer.

SD:
>I suspect you haven't been in many N-way orgies, where N > 1.

I fail to see the relevance of my sexual _curriculum vitae_ to the matter
at hand, and I do mean *your* hand.  But since you insist, I'll own up to
having been found attractive by more than one woman at a time.

SD:
>The idea that there's "an act" which can be isolated and subjected
>to this dreary philosophical harangue is wonderfully quaint and dusty,
>reminiscent of old missionaries and old missionary positions, and more
>than a bit unreal.  But we knew that already.

Within any freely chosen human activity, there is an act subject to being
isolated and analyzed.  It is neither necessary, nor reasonable, to
maintain that each such activity involves no more than one intentional
act.  But I shall not continue this disquisition, for fear of provoking
your Complacent Superficiality into troublesome reflection.  Interested
parties will find further information on this subject in _The Will_, by
Brian O'Shaughnessy.

>-- 
>Steve Dyer
>dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Organization: JPL, Shuttle Imaging Radar Software Group
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:21:18 GMT


In article <1992Dec17.234238.18655@husc3.harvard.edu>,
zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
>
>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:
>
>>>jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
>
>>>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:
>
>>>>>ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>
>>>>>>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>
>>>>>>>jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
>

I just wanted to get my name added to this list.

Let me take this time to explain my title in my signature

Systems Manager and Systems Administrator...we have lots of VAXen and a few HP
                                            workstations, I keep them running.

EGSE...NASA speak for Electronic Ground Support Equipment, all our computers,
       printers, network interconnect devices, repeaters, etc. that will be
       used to operate SRL-1.

POCC...Payload Operations Command Center, the room across from Mission Control

JSC....Johnson Space Center in Houston, but we are all currently at JPL in 
       Pasadena, CA, a 30 minute commute from West Hollywood.  I'll have to
       pack up all of our equipment 3 months prior to the mission, ship it to
       Houston, then set it up at JSC.  Then after the mission, I'll have to
       ship it all back to JPL.

SRL-1..Shuttle Radar Laboratory, also called Space Radar Laboratory, a big
       C- L- and X-band radar device that we are building here at JPL to 
       fly in the space shuttle payload bay.  It will collect images of the
       earth for various scientists in various diciplines.  (the X-band portion
       was built by the German and Italian space agencies)  There is suppose
       to be an SRL-2 and -3, but with FRED taking up all the shuttle flights,
       we aren't holding our breaths.

STS-59 Our space shuttle flight, officially scheduled by one group in NASA for
       Oct 93, while another group within NASA has it offically scheduled for
       June 94.

Also, Im 33, 5'10", 185 lbs, can bench 305, and was on a greeting card in 1983.
And I have a MS degree in Geophysics from USC, and a BS in Geology from Purdue.

Now wasn't this more interesting than the way the thread was going ?

--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:3034 rec.arts.books:22803 alt.politics.homosexuality:8167
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproduction
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:41:40 GMT
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

You people ever talk about, oh, books?  Anything like that?   

Bill
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Thursday, 17 Dec 1992 17:07:23 EST
From: RAMONA E. GRANT <REGHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: talk.rumors
Subject: re: richard pryor

Where did you hear richard pryor died?  In the enquirer or star or some other
tabloid.  Richard Pryor is not dead is just real sick.  He is suffering from
mutiple schelosis.  If he had died it would have been on the news and in the
papers.