HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: n029gg@tamuts.tamu.edu (Adam Roach)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: Bigfootf spaceman?
Date: 14 Dec 1992 22:07:30 GMT
Organization: Little piles, all around my room
NNTP-Posting-Host: tamuts.tamu.edu
Keywords: eat more mousse

In article <bbeY02lk2eqN01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> dfs30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Denise Solis) writes:
}C'mon do you really expect anyone on this board to be humble enough to bow
}down to anything? You're not listening. Besides you're not the first to
}spread this paranoid religious crap. Read your Bible closley instead of
}listening to someone elses interpetation.
}There are several references to  "Others" mentioned in the scriptures.
}I won't get into that here because it will just piss everybody off.
}Send me email if interested. I have been studying the Bible over 26 years
}and found much of interest concerning UFOs.
}                                  Denise

*plonk*
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:5806 alt.alien.visitors:9138 sci.skeptic:21316
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Prize
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 07:57:54 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Dear Folks: I just got the prize in from Kibo. I'm overwhelmed 
with gratitude for the honor of excepting this great prize from
his organization and followers. I believe it had to do with something
I said about an INVISIBLE BABY. There was also something else in the 
package but I hesitate to ask what it was. The instructions were 
written in a foreign language.
John Winston. It was probubly written is Solar Max or Solax Mal. I
never can get those two straightened out.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Dec15105733@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Dec15.200618.16281@vexcel.com>
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:29:17

I'd be grateful for a specific citation if Dingo has the Greenpeace
catalog in question.  Also is it their own research or just a summary
of other people's?

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:32:07 GMT
Subject: What's Necessary?
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace: They're not just for propaganda anymore...
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 16:39:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.142038@aifh.ed.ac.uk> jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
># 1. One speck/nanogram/whatever of Plutonium will kill you...
>
>It could cause cancer... maybe they put the point too strongly, but the point
>does hold.Perhaps it should be rephrased as one speck of plutonium COULD kill

One cigarette could kill. One glass of milk could kill. Eating a chicken leg
could kill...etc etc etc

># 2. The possibility of a nuclear plant "exploding" somehow... 
>
>Nuclear plants have been rife with accidents many of which have lead to
>shutdowns, and there have been explosions in nuclear plants in the past,
>so obviously it's possible, though maybe it should say that explosions can
>occur in nuclear plants as opposed to nuclear plants exploding.

Explosions can occur in your house...explosions can occur at a school...
etc etc etc

># 3. The total lack of knowledge in basic nuclear processes...
>
>Who's total lack of knowledge? When and where was this claim made? 
>(I just want a bit of clarifiction here, cause Greenpeace seem to know the
>basic processes of nuclear fission in their book on the nuclear age,indeed
>that section of the book could have come from my high school physics text).

See points 1 and 2.

># 4. Radwaste burial will kill millions...
>
>Haven't seen this one personally, but if radwaste burial can lead to
>radiation leaking into the atmosphere for thousands of years then it is 
>possible that it would cause millions of cancers(if it were done on a large
>scale). 

What if...What if...What if...C'mon, we're not idiots.

># 5. That renewable energy technology can replace nuclear power plants...
>
>It can; I'll post the details later in an essay on renewable energy.

I'd like to see it.  Solar cookers aren't gonna provides gigawatts of 
electricity.

># 6. Greenpeace is a "non-violent" organization...
>
>I have seen some of the discussions on this newsgroup about this, I'm not
>entirely convinced either way, though I do believe that they don't aim to go
>out and attack people(property maybe).

Invoking violence? Yes.

>Also remember that press releases are designed to attract maximum
>publicity, so there will be a tendency to put the case in it's strongest
>terms and may well be designed to shock people. I doubt that they would make
>claims that couldn't be substantiated, but they should probably give sources

That's a load of shit. How about the group that ran the ads against food
irradiation? Even though it's been FDA approved, etc. their ads merely said:

 "Food irradiation--it might kill you."

That is both unsubstantiated and instilling fear in people. Greenpeace
examples also abound.

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk (Michael!)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Run! I think the Power Plant's Gonna Blow!!
Date: 20 Dec 92 18:35:20 GMT
Reply-To: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk
Organization: Magic Michael's Mushroom Factory.


 >With  
 >nuclear plants, you have to worry about them blowing up and where you're  
 >going to put the radioactive waste.  

 1. They don't blow up. I suggest you reverse that lobotomy before the
 scars heal.

 2. The waste "problem" has been scientifically solved.  



has it? please enlighten us all...


Michael
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:06:18 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec15105733@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Dingo says Greenpeace does some good research.  I'm curious about
>that.  Do they do any research?  Is there a Greenpeace laboratory
>somewhere, and are there Greenpeace employees who do scientific
>research?  I'm sure they do legal research, i.e. looking for
>information and people tending to support their positions.

I suggest that John get a Greenpeace catalog and order a technical
report.  I referred to research, but literature search might be a 
more accurate term, for what I have seen.  Collecting the results
of hard to find studies for the public is a useful activity.  The
report I have seen collected information about incinerators,
showing that the claimed four-9's level of incineration is not verified.
Since the report included extensive tables and graphs, and was thoroughly
referenced, I don't believe that context is an issue.  This is not
to say that there is no valid criticism of Greenpeace.  Any organization
that lives by press release publicity will inevitably become compromised
in accuracy, IMO.  Nevertheless, it is a broad organization and the
quality (or lack thereof) of some of its work does not necessarily
mean that all of their work is of similar quality.


>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace, Countries' Alleged Non-Violence . . .
Date: 19 Dec 1992 22:29:58 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

John "Doomed to Talk Nonsense" McCarthy purports:

> It is the strategy of Greenpeace and similar organizations
> to provoke violence.

=+= You haven't produced a single shred of evidence to support
anything you've said about Greenpeace.  Would it be too much to
expect a single shred of evidence to support this latest claim?

=+= Your tales about the Police Riots (to use the term that
Chicago's own investigators used) in Chicago in 1968 don't
count, as they have absolutely nothing to do with Greenpeace.
(Also, it might help to keep organizations straight:  The SDS
was not the YIP.)
    <_Jym_>
From: co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: HELP! ENVIRONMENTAL JUNK MAIL BLITZ!!!
Date: 16 Dec 1992 13:41:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Mr. Spitzer,
Thank you for your support, you mean there is a way to control
Junk mail? I was beginning to wonder!
 
Another question I should have posed was: Can't these groups 
send less bulk?
ex: I get this thing from some charity that wats to save forests
about 4 times a year, it comes in a 1.5 oz. bundle complete with
stickers and those lick & paste seals you but on the back of 
envelopes. no offense, savin forests they ain't!
 
How about a postcard? I can send for more info if i want?
-another thing, Leave out the return envelope, any serious
 environmentalist will be glad to use his own and pay the
 own postage so that more of his donation goes to the cause
 and not  to mailing. (I know, you're probably wondering
what planet I'm from...) at least that's how i see it.
 
When I'm getting more mail from environmental groups than
from credit card people i start to wonder. each one of my credit
cards sends me about 8 pieces of excess mail a year. One card
I had sent me so much that i cut up the card and sent it back.
if more people did this, i wonder if these clowns would get the
message?
 
Anyone have any Ideas?
here are some of the groups i get solicited from:
EDF
Greenpeace
cousteau society <-- these guys are not TOO bad
wilderness society
wildlife defense fund
the national park/forest whatever   
Audobon Society
rainforest people (can't think of the name off hand,)                 
Nature Conservancy                                 
there are a couple more i can't remember because all of
the stuff is at home. but you get the drift. I have given
to Greenpeace, Cousteau, and 1 or two others in the past.
when I'm ready I'll give again. the more they bug me the more       
P.O. ed i get and the longer i'll wait probably.
 
ayone else have any suggestions? please post!
 
N. D'Amato
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace, Countries' Alleged Non-Violence, Ramming of Boats
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 10:04:37 GMT

In article <Jym.9Dec1992.1257@naughty-peahen> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>>> By using the above logic why then didn't the Japanese or
>>> French escorts just put a 135mm shell into the Greenpeace
>>> ship instead of boarding it and forcing it to veer away?

>=\= "The above logic?"  Are you perhaps unaware that the French
>secret service actually did blow up the Rainbow Warrior?  That,
>my friend, is the well-documented reality.

Indeed, it is true, and they were quite deserving of that kind of treatment
by the French government.  If Greenpeace really wants to declare war on
industrial civilization (and that is what they are up to) then they ought to
expect some resistance.

>=\= They also told me about the lengths they go to avoid
>damaging *any* property during their direct actions.  When
>they hang banners from smokestacks and such, they even go
>so far as to ensure that they don't scratch the paint.

If Greenpeace has such concern for property rights, why do they trespass
and try to sabotage equipment (say, but plugging up pipes etc.)?  

>=\= And they told me about yet another rumor:  There are people
>who don't think that the French secret service blew up a
>Greenpeace ship, but rather that Greenpeace blew up a French
>ship!  So much for the big and powerful publicity machine.

Be that as it may, Greenpeace DOES have a huge publicity machine.  Do you
deny that?

--Brian
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: The Recycling Myth
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:16:19
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: duanej@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM's message of Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:16:37 GMT

In article <15900006@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> duanej@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Duane Jacobson) writes:


   >/ hpfcso:talk.environment / steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
   >
   >Now, what it boils down to is that bottles are worth reusing
   >(assuming water is not scarce) if each bottle can be reused
   >a little over seven times before being lost from the system
   > - this is from a coke study about 10-15 years ago. The most 

   I continue to be baffled.

   Contrary to what common sense would indicate, it appears that making
   a brand new bottle from scratch is cheaper than washing out an old
   bottle.

There is clearly some limit where it is cheaper to make a new
thing than wash and refurbish the old. eg I know of no proposal
to collect restaurant toothpicks and sterilise and retrim them for
re-use. A big part of the cost is that even with reuse you still
have to make new bottles because of irreducible natural breakage
(or cut bottle use at a correspinding rate) - than the cost of
collection and the capital cost of washing etc has to be spread
over all the bottles you collect - to take the extreme limit if
you only get one bottle back it's not worth spending the time
and money to set up washers and collection system! 
Now, the study I saw, which was well over a decade ago concluded
that the return rate needed was about 85% - the only way to get
that high a return rate was to have a very high deposit and
consumer resentment caused a shift to cans which required an
even higher return rate - this rapidly leads to diminishing returns
and coke et al gave up and switched mostly to cans and plastic.

	  I guess that there is a lot of labor involved in collecting
   the old bottles and getting them back to the bottling plant.  If they
   do another study like that today, I'll bet they conclude that the
   consumer will need to pay an extra fee for the privilege of getting
   a beverage in a reusable container.

That's precisely what happened here in Santa Cruz where a local
dairy retstarted milk bottles. It's (almost) worth it for the taste...

   When do we get the disposable cars?  Buy a clean new one with a full
   tank of gas.  When it gets dirty or stops, get another one!

A lot of mechanical devices can now be manufactured and distributed
more cheaply than they can be repaired...

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  I know people whose idea of fun				*
*  Is throwing stones in the river in the afternoon sun		*
*  Oh let me be as free as them					*
*  				- BB 1986			*

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Ticket America-- Negative Nonsense
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:55:16

In article <2933457638.13.p00004@psilink.com> "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com> writes:
   >In article <Bz5nC6.E2D@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
   [inter multa, multa alia]
   >> The eco/phreaks are a singularly uncreative bunch.
   >>They attack the capitalist system (for they are socialists and Luddites)

   Socialists *and* Luddites? This is novel. I was under the impression 
   that socialists placed a rather high value on the industrial proletariat 
   (don't anybody have a coronary about the use of forbidden words here; 
   since we're talking about socialists, this is the appropriate 
   vocabulary). Indeed, old Dr. Marx thought that the progress of technology 
   was a precondition for his vision of human liberation. 

   Don't these folks ever get tired of this lame, threadbare McCarthyism? 
   (I'm referring to the late Senator, not the well-known 
   arithmetician.) 

   --Michael Smith

There is often considerable sympathy among socialists for particular
manifestations of Luddism, i.e. opposition to the introduction of
new technology at particular times.  Look at the American communist
newspaper, the Weekly World, for examples from time to time.
Many socialists, and not only communists, say that under socialism
new technology will always benefit society, but under capitalism it
only leads to unemployment and greater exploitation.

Alas, I don't have my Marxist references in my computer database.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: sdh4@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SCOTT DYLAN HARDING)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: He who talks arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:49:40 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

>
>   In article <JMC.92Dec13151356@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>   >Calculations of how much waste the U.S. generates per year show that
>   >there is plenty of room for landfills for many thousands of years.
>   >Picking through the trash costs labor - in almost every case more
>   >labor than the value generated by the separation.  Where the separation
>   >paid off, it was already done before politics and self-righteousness
>   >entered the scene.  Forcing people to do uneconomical recycling
>   >impoverishes the country - not very much perhaps but some.

>   >--
>   >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>to talk nonsense.
>
                  [Deleted critical reply to above]
>
>Let's do the arithmetic.  500 million tons of waste per year in the
>U.S. assuming a density of 1.0 comes to 500 million cubic meters.
>Suppose it is piled 25  meters high.  This comes to 20 million
>square meters per year, or 20 square kilometers.  The area of the
>U.S. is 3 million square miles or 23 million square kilometers.
>It will take a million years to cover the country with trash.
>
>If we do nothing special for 100 years, we will use up 1/10,000 th of
>the country.  100 years from now our descendants will be as much more
>technologically capable than we are, as we are compared to the people
>of 100 years ago.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>
>
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>-----------------------------------------------------------

He who does too much arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

    Covering 1/10000 of the US in 25 meters of trash will leach chemicals
    into a much, much larger prtion of the water table, perhaps as much as
    1/750 or so.  With so many towns and cities already hurting for fresh
    water, do you think that this is OK?

    Nowhere near 1/10000 of the land in the US is suitable for use as a
    landfill site due to economic, geologic and environmental reasons.  If we
    build landfills in the middle of the Mojave Desert, don't you think the
    money used to transport all those million of tons of trash out there would
    easily pay for the recycling of that same trash?

    Get off the numbers and get real!
-- 
-----------------
Scott Harding
Lehigh University
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: The Recycling Myth
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Dec14162758@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Dec15.161609.12203@vexcel.com>
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:59:56

Concerning trash disposal I posted:

>Let's do the arithmetic.  500 million tons of waste per year in the
>U.S. assuming a density of 1.0 comes to 500 million cubic meters.
>Suppose it is piled 25  meters high.  This comes to 20 million
>square meters per year, or 20 square kilometers.  The area of the
>U.S. is 3 million square miles or 23 million square kilometers.
>It will take a million years to cover the country with trash.
>
>If we do nothing special for 100 years, we will use up 1/10,000 th of
>the country.  100 years from now our descendants will be as much more
>technologically capable than we are, as we are compared to the people
>of 100 years ago.

and Dingo replied

     It is this kind of mathematics that results in such scorn
     for your .sig.  Is there any consideration of where these
     landfills are supposed to go?  If there is so much room, why
     is there a problem finding room for the landfills?  You
     frequently have complained that environmentalist plans, for
     example with mass transit, do not take individual concerns
     into account.  Are we to ignore individual desires not to
     have trash dumps near their homes and parks?

I should imagine that if the arithmetic had turned out to support
Dingo's prejudice that the U.S. was running out of land for landfill,
it wouldn't have resulted in his scorn.  It is a bit unfair for
him to demand a detailed plan in a Newsgroup posting, especially
a one paragraph posting by someone not specializing in the matter
under discussion.  However, we can go a little further.

1. Concerning individual desires.  As to "near their homes and
parks", it obviously depends on what you call near.  The Palo
Alto City Dump is not within a mile of homes, but it isn't far
from the yacht harbor (now abandoned for different reasons),
a local airport, and a baylands park.  I don't know that there
was any protest about that.

2. Part of the problems in locating dumps is that land in which
dumps were expecting to expand, e.g. swamps, now are called
wetlands and considered valuable for that purpose.  The seagulls
feasting off the dump don't count.

3. Anyone who flies across the country will see that there is
plenty of land not being used for anything.  I see that the
fact that we are factors of many thousands away from using up
our potential dump space doesn't impress the anti-arithmetic
faction.  Oh well, probably my son wouldn't be impressed even
though he is good at arithmetic for a second-grader.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:05:42 GMT
Subject: Re: What's Necessary?
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: talk.environment

From donj@Ingres.COM Wed Dec 16 19:04:11 1992
Relay-Version: version Notes 2.8.4  1990/05/09; site hpindda.cup.hp.com
From: donj@Ingres.COM (Don Johnson)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:04:11 GMT
Date-Received: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:56:29 GMT
Subject: Re: What's Necessary?
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501