HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
First thanks everyone for your replys to my last request.  

Now on to new things..

I am tring to use vm for the first time.  when I run it by 'vm' i get
the following error:

wrong type argument: arrayp, nil

Here is the lisp back trace.  If I execute a 'd' this error will
appear

Return value: buffer-name
  byte-code("p=,A!+qA" [vm-sbe-buffer buffer-name] 2)
* byte-code("AHBH.	C!AHBH" [message 0 1 vm-reorder-message-headers] 2)
  vm-vheaders-of(nil)
* vm-preview-current-message()
  byte-code("@ ABC!?B		C!+	*2.J!M!+NO\"*P!	.+J!.S!))	qV C!+	X!,BY ,Z]=?-_` \"AB!\"#	$+ep!fZ!gZ!h )++$+,#,j ,$,+,
  vm(nil nil)
* call-interactively(vm)
  func-execute-ext-cmd(1)
  call-interactively(func-execute-ext-cmd)

Is there something I need to set-up ???  Thanks for any help.


Mike Battaglia
DSC Communications Corp
(214) 519-3253
mbattagl@dsccc.com
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from help-lucid-emacs to alt.lucid-emacs.help; Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:17:06 EST
From: piggy%hilbert.maths.utas.edu.au@lucid.com (La Monte Yarroll)
Subject: Please add me.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:15:25 EST
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL11]
Newsgroups: alt.lucid-emacs.help
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from help-lucid-emacs to alt.lucid-emacs.help; Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:03:14 EST
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:30:44 EST
From: wxj20@cas.org (Wayne Johnson)
Subject: Loading Emacs 19.4
Newsgroups: alt.lucid-emacs.help
I'm having trouble completing the make for Lucid Emacs 19.4 because
if can't find the header X11/xpm.h.  This header file isn't in our
X11R5 include directories.  Is our X11 source outdated?

--
Wayne Johnson
Chemical Abstracts Service
wxj20@cas.org
(614) 447-3600 x3428
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from help-lucid-emacs to alt.lucid-emacs.help; Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:22:39 EST
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:22:35 PST
X-Windows: More than enough rope.
From: jwz@lucid.com (Jamie Zawinski)
Subject: Re: kind of -geometry wxh+x+y for a new screen
	<WARSAW.93Jan26153002@anthem.nlm.nih.gov>
Newsgroups: alt.lucid-emacs.help
Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> 
> 1. It seems you have to restart emacs whenever you do an "xrdb -load"
>    because lemacs can't re-read the resource database. 

Yes, this is because the resource database is read only when the display
connection is opened, by XtAppInitialize.

> Jamie, maybe you can add a lisp function x-reread-resources???

This could be done, but it would be slightly non-portable, since I believe
there's no advertised way to read the resource db; all of the directory-
searching magic is built into Xt.  Also, it would leak like mad, since
I'm pretty sure resource dbs are never freed.

> 2. I can't seem to find a way to specify different initial screens.
>    -name switch doesn't seem to work. 

-name works, but maybe it doesn't do what you think it does.  For resource-
lookup purposes, it effectively changes what argv[0] is.  This doesn't
have anything to do with screen names, which are a level down in the 
hierarchy from that.

> Maybe there should be a -screen switch to specify the screen-name of the
> initial screen???

That'd be easy; just have that switch set `default-screen-name'.

> If I start up lemacs with "emacs -name foo" I would expect one of the
> following things to happen: the initial screen comes up with a screen
> name of "foo", or f.identify (from tvtwm) should identify the
> Class.res_name as "foo".

The Class.res_name of a screen is the name of that screen (the name of the
Widget.)  Remember that this doesn't have anything to do with the window
title.  The Class.res_class is the resource-class of emacs itself (usually
"Emacs").  If you start emacs with "-name bar", then a screen named "foo"
gets its resources from "bar.foo*" / "Emacs.EmacsScreen*".

(I'm not really sure that the Class.res_class of a screen should be "Emacs",
the class of the application, instead of "EmacsScreen", the class of the
widget.  It seems inconsistent that the res_name comes from the widget and
the res_class comes from the application.  But this is what
XtCreatePopupShell does, so I guess it's correct by definition.)

	-- Jamie
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Seeing Only What You Look For
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:33:01 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: gambit@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: God doesn't exist
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:22:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.101937.18534@netcom.com> abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell) writes:
>gambit@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>ked@2001.bgsu.edu (Burly) writes:
>>>Thomas Aquinas, a most influential Roman Catholic theologian and
>>>philosopher came up with the First Cause Argument also known as the
>>>Cosmological Argument.  In it he stated several arguments that he believed
>>>make it clear that God does exist.  Let's study his argument for a minute:
>>>       1.  Everything that exists had a cause of its coming into existence
>>>       2.  Nothing can be the cause of itself
>>>       3.  There cannot be an infinite series of causal chains
>>>       4.  Therefore, there must be a first cause
>>>       5.  The First Cause must be God
>>>-----------------------]
>>>       6.  Therefore, God exists.
>
>>Actually, Aquinas is correct on his first four counts.
>
>No, he wasn't. The first three are flagrantly contradictory:
>
>Assume God exists. I know, it's hard, but try.
>By (1), God had a cause for coming into existence.
>By (2), this cause was something other than God.
>By (3), this causal chain must stop somewhere.
>
> [etc.]

You're absolutely correct, of course.  (I'm embarassed that I overlooked this
on a world-wide forum!)  The Law of Causality states that every effect has a
cause, not that every _entity_ has a cause.  Please disregard what I wrote
earlier on the subject of Aquinas' proof. :)

The fact that every entity does not require a cause is obvious, because the
Universe (if we take it to be the totality of existence) obviously did not
have a cause.  There could be nothing to cause existence, because it would
have to exist itself.

(I must admit that I have never read Aquinas; I have only seen his "proof"
as presented by others, or in philosophy texts.  When I get a chance, I
should definitely look it up.)

------------------------------------------------

Benjamin W. Lagow
Grad Res Asst, Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: gdm7238@summa.tamu.edu (MCBRIDE, GARY DEAN)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Evidence vs Faith
Date: 21 Jan 1993 15:36 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: summa.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <C168GK.Co8@SSD.intel.com>, pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes...
]In article <C14zCx.LIy@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:
]>The person
]>above said that the "faith" in the free market was based on 1) ethical
]>arguments, historical and empirical evidence, political theory, etc. this
]>leads to 2) a belief that is not based on faith. My point is that the same
]>arguments can be used to show the existance of God. I may be wrong (and
]>that's very hard for me to admit), but don't tell me I'm making a choice
]>based on blind faith. I'm as sure of my "faith" as you are that there is
]>no God (or more so depending . . . ). 
]>Some information about myself. I have read Rand exstensivily and find
]>her ideas interesting and true in many cases. Her ideas about ego and
]>existance are right on, but I totally disagree with her theory on God.
]>I know God exists and I have come to this conclusion through logic. 
] 
]I (and others, I'm sure) would honestly like to hear at least some of
]your arguments that God exists.  At least tell us something about the
]God that you argue exists.  I promise not to flame you.

I too would be very very interested in hearing it as well.  I have never
seen a truly logical argument for god's existence that was not just dripping
with flaws.  And, yes, at least some idea of what "God" is would be appreciated.

]-- 
]Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
]Operating Systems Engineer		|
]Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply

Gary McBride
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:13:49 GMT

In article <C18L6p.9HM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:

>The Koran also states some things that have been contradicted by physical
>evidence. This isn't such a big deal, but the Koran shcolars can't give
>any (not even an unreasonable one) as to why these contradictions exist.
>Therefore I claim that the Koran is faulty, has been shown to be so, and
>generalizing from this we can assume it has more than just the few mistakes
>we have been able to show.

Some other people have pointed out that the Bible indirectly states
that pi = 3.  Maybe its just a matter of interpretation, but then you
must also allow wide interpretation of other Biblical concepts.

What about some scriptures on Hindu mysticism?  I have one which gives
a lot of practical, useful advice on breathing and yogic postures,
with miraculous but scientifically verified results, and eventually
claims that God can be experienced through meditation.  Again, there
are some provably true statements and some unprovable statements, and
some of the latter contradict the Bible.

>[deleted]

>Yet another problem is the fact that God had to revel the Bible to a man,
>to be read by man. How does God explain to Moses the concept of Evolution,
>DNA, one billion years, etc. And if he does, how do the people understand?
>God would have to revel to everyone everywhere all the knowledge necessary.
>It just can't be. It makes logical sence for the Bible to require translation
>based on the knowledge of the individual. How can God write a book that never
>goes out of date? How can he create a work that will relate to a group of
>nomads in tents in the middle of the desert, and a group of people 5000
>years later, typing news articles in a language that hasn't been created yet,
>on boxes called computers? The only way the make the Bible timeless was to 
>make parts of it symbolic and parts of it tranlatable. It makes logical
>sence for it to be this way, and it adds to the argument rather than taking
>away from it.

I agree that what makes the Bible (or any other text) timeless is that
it can be interpreted.  Can't the Biblical "definition" of God be
similarly interpreted to mean a wide range of things, some of which
obviously exist (goodness, love, human potential)?

-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: godel theorem and godel theorem ....(Re: Where's
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<C1Ctuw.3pq@quake.sylmar.ca.us>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:09:47 GMT

In article <C1Ctuw.3pq@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us 
(Brian K. Yoder) writes:


   >What it points out is that rationalism (that is, pure logic 
   >unrelated to any real facts) is helpless to deal with reality.

  How do you imagine that Godel's theorem points out such a thing?
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell)
Subject: Re: Private Roads in an Objectivist Society
Keywords: Private Roads
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:38:03 GMT

frankp@galena.bellcore.com (Frank Perez) writes:

>This might sound a little ridiculous, but what if I own a house and the local
>road is owned by someone else and that person does not let me use his road.
>I now have a house but I cannot enter it because all the local streets
>surrounding the house are owned by this person who will not let me use his
>road. Do you see a possible problem ?

How did this situation arise?

For the sake of you urban types, there is a lot of rural property where the
only access is on private roads crossing the properties of others. Access
rights are part of what changes hands when interior properties are bought and
sold. Disputes do arise, usually when somebody fails to be a good neighbor
and respect the properties they traverse, but access problems aren't *primary*.
After all, you'd have to be pretty stupid to buy a property that you couldn't
get to. And, as a final line of defense for the stupid, the courts won't uphold
a sale of inaccessible property, which amounts to fraud.

For a technical analogy, there are some really slick algorithms that are
tremendously simple and effective, but for the fact that they either
can't be initialized, or they can't be terminated, without destroying
the premise of their simplicity and effectiveness. People tend not to
use these algorithms in practice. <}:-)

Steve abell@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Subject: Re: On the subject of Kant..
Reply-To: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:06:24 GMT

Steven McDermott on brains in bottles:
|> Of course, if objective reality did exist, it might change and take our
|> perceptions along with it. If everyone perceived the change would that
|> count as evidence?

"Everybody"? If you're a brain in a bottle, you normally don't
consider the existence of other brains in bottles.

Solan
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: sals@deirdre.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: Evidence for the market
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:38:45 GMT

In article <C17LHA.BEB@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris  
Holt) writes:
> violett@indiana.edu (Andrew J Violette) writes:
> >Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
> 
> >>Hee hee.  Then why do I have such faith in the free market, in
> >>limited circumstances?
> 
> >I am a little bit confused as to what your definition of free market  
is.  A
> >free market defined only under "limited circumstances" is not a free  
market,
> >it is a regulated market.
> 
> It is possible to have a free market in beans and a regulated market
> in medical care, side by side.  It is possible to have a free market
> in porkbelly futures, regulated by the constraint that one cannot
> leverage beyond a given percentage.  The point is that modelling a
> free market, one makes assumptions (sufficient diversity among
> suppliers and buyers for supply/demand curves to be continuous and
> monotonic, sufficient information about a product that the buyer
> can act rationally); the less likely the assumptions are to hold,
> the less accurate the model, and the more it is necessary to add
> other constraints.
The problem with having some markets free and some regulated is that the  
markets for individual products are intertwined. While the market for  
beans and the market for medical care don't appear to have much effect on  
each other, regulating one market will effect people's actions in that  
market and hence have an effect (albeit small in your example) on all  
other markets. And BTW not all economists make those assumptions you list,  
For example austrian economicists do not.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:28:11 GMT

tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.) writes:

> No, I am not loosing sleep over this thread, :), still tell me "what is God?"

Ok, I'm going to break my own rule to answer this one. I'm still not going to
debate any more, but I will give my definition of God just so everyone can
know what I was thinking of when I posted.
I think God is an all-knowing (yet doesn't act on all the knowledge He has),
all-powerful (yet restricted by promises He has made to Himself), all-
present (yet not felt everywhere) non-physical part of the universe. A
friend of mine and I were argueing over the cause of free-will this morning
and I say that God is that which made Free will. My friend maintained that
Free will was contained completely within the brain. I argued that free
will can't come from a bunch of pieces of matter reacting in predictable
ways. 
The point of all this is that I think that God is the source of all the
non-physical in the universe; free will, motivation, spirit, etc. (Of
course I think God is the source of all the physical in the Universe,
but I don't think that's a definition).
I'm not really sure if that's a definition, but that's what I have to say
when asked what is God, I hope it's enough.


-- 
H. Ross Perot | "How do you always manage to    | Jeff R. Lamb
for President | decide?" 			| Midnight Arrow
of the United | "How do you let others decide   | Champion of Reality
States in '96 | for you?"	   -Ayn Rand 	| (jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu)
From: friesen@stein.u.washington.edu (Craig Friesen)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Fountainhead: The Motion Picture
Date: 23 Jan 1993 01:34:16 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

>I guess the best pocket review of the movie is that, 4 years after
>having seen it, I remember almost nothing of it.

hey, I just saw this one.  I really enjoyed the book, but found the
film terrible.  It almost seemed like the actors had to say their lines
fast so that they could say everything Ayn wrote for them in a less
than 2 hour period.  It came out really campy, especially when the
characterization had to be done through the characters dialog instead
of their actions.  

Review: Forget the film.  It's too confusing if you haven't read the
book and it's pointless if you have.

As far as Atlas Shrugged being put on film, I think this is going to
be an even harder task with the symphony of characters instead of the
trio of the Fountainhead.

just my opinions,
Craig
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Fountainhead: The Motion Picture
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:08:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1jq7aoINN17f@shelley.u.washington.edu>, friesen@stein.u.washington.edu (Craig Friesen) writes...
>As far as Atlas Shrugged being put on film, I think this is going to
>be an even harder task with the symphony of characters instead of the
>trio of the Fountainhead.

	Agreed.

	I'm amazed that the film is going to be made.  I didn't catch
anyone mention whether Peikoff or other Objectivists will have control
over the film.

	--> It would be amusing if liberal Hollywood changed the
ending of the film to make altruism/colectivism work out...  :^]

Sample script:

JAMES TAGGART:
	"Economic Dictator Galt!  Your three year plan has brought
prosperity to our country!"

JOHN GALT:
	"Arrrgh!  I was wrong!"  (thumping his head on his desk
over and over and over)


	:^)  :^)  :^)

	Okay, so it wouldn't be all THAT amusing.

Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:23:59 GMT

========================================
> tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.) writes:
>    >that night saw me cruising thru Spinoza. Spinoza neatly proceeds to merge
>    >the concept of god with harmony, nature and universal laws.

 torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) asks:
>  Which statements of Spinoza's implied to you that he merged the concept of
>god with harmony, nature and universal laws?

 Following is the best I can do offhand; Even tho it ain't directly from
 literal translation of Spinoza's work (i don't have them handly), still it
 gives what you asked for.

 disclaimer: at the end of this post
 ref:
	 Spinoza's Philosophy: An Outline
	 Errol E. Harris
	 ISBN 0-391-03736-4
	 B3998.H275 1992

	 chapter 3: the idea of god and his existence
	 page 24

 /begin{quote} (typos and emphasis are mine)
  
  We must next explain how Spinoza expounds in detail the nature of God
  and the manner in which finite things depend upon God, but before we do
  so, let us digress somewhat to consider why, both in his own day and ever
  since, he has been accused of atheism.

  It would seem perverse in extreme to call a philosopher an atheist who
  spent so much space and ingenuity on proving the existence of God and
  elaborating his infinite and eternal nature, as does Spinoza. So much
  is his thought permeated by his conception of God that Novalis called
  him "God-intoxicated." YET BECAUSE HE IDENTIFIED GOD WITH NATURE, he
  seemed from the first, and to many he still does seem, to deny the
  existence of any God such as traditional religion recognizes. Tradition
  speaks of a God separate from the world, who by an act of free will
  created the world out of nothing, and rules over it as does a king his
  kingdom. For Spinoza the Universe is the totality of all that is, and
  he identifies it with God, which for the traditionalist, is tantamount
  to a denial of God's existence as a separate sovereign being. Moreover,
  Spinoza denies that God created the world out of nothing by an act of
  free will.............
  
 /end{quote}

 disclaimers:
 [1] i do not agree with everything Spinoza wrote, but still he is fun to
     play with once in a while.
 [2] the quote, as you can see, is an interpretation of Spinoza (thats not same
     as me/you interpreting Spinoza.) So, you may want to go into the
     references yourself for more, and more, and...... :)

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: gambit@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: God doesn't exist
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:31:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.225310.29640@crash> mdc@crash.cts.com (Milo D. Cooper) writes:
>In article <C1FqD7.Hos@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gambit@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>=
>=The fact that every entity does not require a cause is obvious, because the
>=Universe (if we take it to be the totality of existence) obviously did not
>=have a cause.  There could be nothing to cause existence, because it would
>=have to exist itself.

>	How is it, then, that from such a nihilistic origin of life
>emerged conscious life aware of its past, and thus concerned with its
>future?  Logic is subject to the dictates of experience.

Tell me exactly what you mean by "a nihilistic origin of life" and THEN
I'll answer.

This applies to everyone reading this group:
If you have an objection to what I have said, then please state what your
objection is.  Don't just say, "But you're wrong."

------------------------------------------------

Benjamin W. Lagow
Grad Res Asst, Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism