HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ami A. Silberman)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: COVINGTON CROSS
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:08:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Sep2.160849.16161
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

bnostran@ds5000.DAC.Northeastern.edu (Barbara Nostrand) writes:
>spoken in Atlantia.  An here-in lies a significant dilema for "authenticity"
>in medieval reconstruction.  While it is possible to recreate this accent,
>it is unlikely that it will be generally perceived as "Medieval" or
>"British."  Instead, it is most likely to be perceived as "Antebellum."
>It is my opinion that the society rather frequently faces this dilema
>and is one of the major reasons for fantasy elements in the SCA.  Basically,
>fanatasy can at times seem much more "authentic" and "medieval" than
>accurate recreation.

It's even a problem for film-making and the like from more recent periods.
In the film "Glory" (about the Negro Regiments in the Union Army in the
"late unpleasantness"), all the Bostonians had an almost Southern accent,
very unlike the current New England accent, but suppossedly much like that of
the middle of the last century.
-- 
ami silberman - janitor of lunacy
	silber@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Are the Moties us?
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:08:17 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug21.210952.29951@csi.on.ca> richard@csi.on.ca (Richard Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.171010.14926@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <42gy7qm@rpi.edu> kasprj@rpi.edu writes:
>>This statement is frankly ludicrous.

>>Are you going to suggest that intelligence is not genetic?  If it
>>isn't then please explain why proper upbringing can't turn a horse
>>into a savant.

>This is a ridiculous comparison.  Intelligence is *not* genetic.

If so, then how did proto-humans evolve greater intelligence?

>Very, very few reputable psychologists or geneticists would suggest
>this.  It is a laughable proposition.  Why can't proper upbringing
>turn a horse into a savant?  Ah ha ha ha!  Oh ho ho ho!
>Sheesh!
>Perhaps, maybe just perhaps, because a horse is not a human 

Once again, may I respectfully point out that the differences between
a horse and a human are genetic?

>Ok, a slight admission.  The genetic make up of an individual *may*
>have some *slight* influence on the intelligence of that individual.

May?  Are you seriously suggesting that there is even the slightest
chance that it may not?


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: Robert.Turner@brunel.ac.uk (Robert Turner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Terminology
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:16:15 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, West London, UK

Hi

Right then, a question for all you 'cyberpunk' (and similar) fans out
there. We have:

Hardware	Machinery
Software	Programs
Wetware		Biological Software

Are there any other ?ware items around the fictional universe that I
have missed?  Is there a term for optical machines? Am I going mad?

Rob

-- 
 _________________________________________________________________________
/                            |                                            \
|   Rob Turner, PC Support   |     email : Robert.Turner@brunel.ac.uk     |
|   Brunel University        |                                            |
|   London, England          |     Life, the Universe, and Aardvarks.     |
\____________________________|____________________________________________/
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science
From: gapdrr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Daniel R T Rothman)
Subject: Re: Are the Moties us?
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:28:47 GMT

richard@csi.on.ca (Richard Martin) writes:

>Ok, I'm sorry if tempers are flaring here.  Yes intelligence is genetic.
>But...
>Differences in intelligence amongst humans can hardly be attributed to
>genetic traits.  (Yes, some cases of (what is the PC term nowadays?)
>developmentally challenged humans are due to genetic defects.  This is
>generally due to chromosomal problems--crossing of chromosomes, failure
>to separate during meiosis, etc.  As I said before, I don't think you 

another important group of humans with verifiable lower intelligence
are largely inbred groups. I come from an originally 16th century dutch 
settlement, and many of the original families survive. These groups
regularly produce persons of limited intellect and/or physical
defects.

>can be born a genius.)  As to the "may" comment.  I am not certain of
>these things--I am not a doctor, not a true student of genetics, nor
>a psychologist.  But I believe that the greatest portion of the
>development of a human being (including intelligence) may be attributed
>to environmental factors.  If otherwise, surely we would be much, much
>more intelligent today than we were even a millenium ago.  We're not

i would agree, if intellectual capacity (or even achievement, as a positive
indicator) were a positive corrolator with surviving offspring. 
Currently, the opposite seems to be the case. For approximately the
last 2500 years (and earlier) I would guess that positive selection for
disease resistance has been a much greater factor. Last i checked,
intelligence and disease resistance didn't corrolate at all..

>evolving that quickly.  (Invalid argument--not discussing whether
>evolving or not; discussing whether intelligence is genetic trait.)
>No argument:  intelligence is genetic.
>But:  in humans, environmental factors play greater part in making
>differences twixt individuals.

How then do we explain the correlation of intellectual traits? I refer
here specifically to the recognized linkage between mathematical and
musical ability. I beleieve there are other such linkages with which
i am not as familiar. These seem to indicate non-obvious biological
causalities in intelligence, which are surely genetically produced.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: phillber@nyx.cs.du.edu (Pelle Hillberg)
Subject: Wolvertons "On My Way to Paradise
Summary: Why
Keywords: dave good
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 17:05:52 GMT


Why is it that I don't hear more raving comments about Dave Wolverton's
extremely excellent book "On My Way to Paradise". It is certainly on of the
5-10 best SF-books I've read. Considering it is his first published novel,
it is really an accomplishment. I has a lot of traditional SF in it, and
it succeeds on virtually every level.
<rave off> :-)

Pelle Hillberg, Uppsala, Sweden
t88_lars_e@maja.teknikum.uu.se
From: lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: SNOW CRASH by Neal Stephenson
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:04:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Society for the Appreciation of Janni Lee Simner

eliz@ai.mit.edu (Elizabeth Willey) writes:
>
>_The Big U_ stands for University; it's a campus comedy.

That's a weak description.  Vicious university satire is more like it.
Anything about the American Megaversity, whose campus is a single
building covering 9 city blocks sealed off from the slum outside, with
Serbobaltoslavoian maintainance men, library anarchy, and fraternity
terrorism is not a "campus comedy".

	Larry "whee" Hammer
--

                                \  "The work is rather too light, and bright,
LNH@albert.physics.arizona.edu   \  and sparkling; it wants ... a long chapter
The insane don't need disclaimers \ of solemn specious nonsense." --Jane Austen
From: rod@cats.ucsc.edu (Rodrick Su)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Continuing Time
Date: 29 Aug 1992 04:14:29 GMT
Organization: Tigana Restoration Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <Btq4A5.D77@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ndj20710@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Nathan D. Johnson) writes:
>The two big problems that I have with the hologram of Trent problem, which I
>will need answers to before I can consider your solution, are:
>1  Where is Trent after he leaves the elevator?

	He heads straight for a locker room to get a scale suit.

-- 
[ Rodrick Su           ]-----------------------------------------------------] 
[----------------------[ A bomb lives only as it is falling.		     ] 
[ rod@cats.ucsc.edu    ]------------------------[ ``Use of Weapons''         ] 
[ rod@ucscb.ucsc.edu   ]------------------------[   Iain M. Banks            ]
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: betsyp@apollo.hp.com (Betsy Perry)
Subject: Re: Upcoming Books till June
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:03:10 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA


Thanks to Dani for his heroic typing.  I have a few comments
and quibbles.

In article <b#gnyjl.dani@netcom.com> dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:
>
>Adams, Douglas, Mostly Harmless, Random House HC, Nov

Unlike Pratchett, Adams got unfunnier with each passing novel.
I'll probably borrow this from the library.

>Duane, Diane, The Door Into Sunset, Tor HC, Mar
>	I can't wait that long!

Me, either.  And I hear that she continued to develop it
after the UK printing, so that the UK and American editions
may differ...

>Feist, Raymond E, The King's Buccaneer, Doubleday Foundation HC, Nov

A promising title from an adequate writer.  I preferred the
Feist and Wurts books to Feist alone.  

>Jones, Diana Wynne, A Sudden Wild Magic, Morrow AvoNova HC, Oct

Not to be missed.  A wonderful British writer, primarily
of children's fantasy, but I believe this, like *Fire and Hemlock*,
is aimed at an older audience.  (The fact that it's from AvoNova instead
of her usual American children's-book publisher backs this supposition up.)

>MacAvoy, King of the Dead, AvoNova, Dec
>	I haven't a clue why this is a sequel to "Lens of the World",
>	instead of being a stand-alone novel. LotW certainly didn't
>	need a sequel.

This is a reissue of the hardcover original.  LotW didn't necessarily
need a sequel, but it profits by a good continuation.  *King of the Dead* 
is a satisfying novel in its own right, though considerably darker than
LotW.  And *KotD* depends on the idiosyncracies of its protagonist;
the plot could not have been realized on any other figure.   KotD does 
not suffer from second-book-in-a-trilogy syndrome; its beginning and
conclusion are both satisfying.

>May, Julian, Diamond Mask, Random House/Knopf HC, May

Finally.  Although I couldn't make it through *Intervention* myself...

>Pierce, Tamora, Wild Magic: The Immortals, MacMillan Atheneum, ya HC, Oct
>	Set in the world of the "Song of the Lioness" books, but not
>	one of them.  Since I so enjoyed those, I'll be sure to seek
>	this one out, though the children's library may be my best bet.

Yup, or special-order it at a good bookstore. The "Atheneum" is the 
tipoff that it won't be on the adult shelves.

>Tepper, Sheri, Sideshow, Bantam Spectra, Feb

Sigh.  Tepper used to be one of my few must-buys; however, the
strident political asides in her last few books (especially *Beauty*)
have dimmed my enthusiasm.  And I even agree with many of her points of
view...

-- 
Betsy Hanes Perry   (note P in userid)     betsyp@apollo.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard Company
"It seems to us that the readers who want fiction to be like life are
considerably outnumbered by those who would like life to be like fiction."
From: jlpicard@austin.ibm.com (Craig Becker)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Books on Magic vs Science
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:27:57 GMT
Reply-To: craigb@ot.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Object Technology Products
Originator: jlpicard@woofer.austin.ibm.com


In article <1992Aug25.131931.1@vaxa.strath.ac.uk>, ciar04@vaxa writes:
> Are there any books that dwell on the battle between magic and science? 
> I seem to recall seeing some (or at least one) books on this, but I
> don't seem to be able to find any at the local book stores.

Gee, about 15 or 18 years ago I remember reading what I remember
as a really good magic vs science novel called, I think _The Last
Unicorn_. Don't remember the author, but the gist was that the
Earth was split up into nations who used magic and nations who
relied on science, and they were at war. The main character was
an intelligence agent for the science guys who was infiltrating
the magicians and something about looking for a unicorn.

Craig

-- 
-- "You can expect virtually      Craig Becker, Object Technology Products --
--  anything from a people who had      Internet: craigb@ot.austin.ibm.com --
--  nuclear weapons in the early      IBM TR: craigb@woofer.austin.ibm.com --
--  seventeenth century."                           VNET: CRAIGB at AUSVM1 --
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil)
Subject: Brain Damage (sequel to "The Sensitives" ?)
Organization: IUPUI
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 21:34:06 GMT

From today's Chicago Tribune:
 
Herbert Burkholz's Brain Damage (Atheneum, $20) could be labeled thriller
rather than science fiction, but it has a plot twist that I think qualifies
it as science fiction, as well as making it flat-out fun to read.  A
captivating group of characters known as the Sensitives are so attuned
to the thoughts of others that they are virtually telepathic.  All have
been top-notch operatives for the CIA.  Now, the head of the agency is dead
of a brain tumor, which in his final days brought on the appearance of
creeping insanity.  He has left behind a set of bizarre instructions that
seem to be irreversible because of the vicious martinets he has charged
with carrying them out.  These seemingtly unrelated acts include the
firebombing of a nursing home, the fixing of a prep basketball game and an
assault on a teenage girl.  The Sensitives search for the incredible truth
behind this scheme, as Burkholz masterfully dangles a piece of a plot in
front of his readers without giving any sense of its whole until the
eagerly awaited resolution.
 
---end text ---
 
so now the question:  is this a sequel to "The Sensitives" ?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: advax@reg.triumf.ca (A.Daviel)
Subject: Re: Books on Magic vs Science
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:33:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.011006.14454@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes...
>In article <1992Aug25.131931.1@vaxa.strath.ac.uk>, ciar04@vaxa writes:
>>Are there any books that dwell on the battle between magic and science? 
>>I seem to recall seeing some (or at least one) books on this, but I
>>don't seem to be able to find any at the local book stores.
> 
>Roger Zelazny had a book about 10 years ago called _Changeling_(?)
>that is pretty much exactly that.  The sequal is called _Madwand_.
>As I recall, it left room for more sequels, but I don't know if he
>wrote any more.

Also the Changeling Earth series by Zelazny; Orcus (the demon) vs. Ardneh (a 
computer). Lawrence Watt-Evans had a couple (the Cyborg and the Sorcerers, 
and the Wizard and the War Machine), which feature wizardy vs. a computer 
(the human part of the cyborg just wants to be left alone). An earlier 
Zelazny  (Shadowjack??) features a tidally locked planet where wizardry 
works on the dark side and science on the light side, or rather that is the 
basic paradigm by which the society operates. 

Andrew
From: ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Tarot sf and fantasy
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:16:45 GMT
	<1992Aug25.182123.25501@hsv3.lsil.com>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

In article <1992Aug24.191913.27191@csus.edu> arthurc@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu
(Arthur Chandler) writes:
>Can anyone here help me out?  I'm looking for science fiction and/or
>fantasy books based on the Tarot cards.  What I'm looking for is not
>just a casual reference or a scene, but books whose structure is based
>on the Tarot.

And -- how silly of me -- 
_Little, Big_ By John Crowley. Doesn't involve the standard Tarot cards,
but rather the "Lesser Trumps" -- the Cousins, the Fisherman, Going on a
Trip, all the little things that get overlooked by the Greater Trumps.

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: ted@athena.mit.edu (Theodore J Ko)
Subject: Re: Piers Anthony's Xanth Series
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:04:18 GMT

I'd read about the first seven or so before giving up.  Piers Anthony overkills
Xanth as badly as he did with Apprentice Adept.

First seven:

Spell for Chameleon
Source of Magic
Castle Roogna
Centaur Aisle
Ogre, Ogre
Night Mare
Dragon on a Pedestal


-Ted
From: Joel.Rosenberg@f341.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Joel Rosenberg)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Are the Moties us?
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 00:35:45 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <714832602snx@sloth.equinox.gen.nz> hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Phil Anderson) writes:

>In article <1992Aug24.234252.11253@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp writes:

>  > Ron, are you seriously claiming that there is no evolutionary pressure
>  > for large families?

>You seem to be of the belief that not only is there a direct genetic 
>imperative to have as many children as possible, but that it outweighs any 
>other factors involved. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

You are wrong.  I have said nothing about the relative strength of the
genetic imperative and environmental pressures, otherwise known as
nature vs. nurture.  I have pointed out that even if the majority fo
the variation comes from nurture there will still be a strong advatage
to having genetic coding that makes one want large families.

>It would seem that a consequence of such a situation would be that, on 
>average, families in a richer country would be observed to be significantly 
>larger than those in a poorer country, due to there being a greater ability 
>to support children in the richer society. 

Note that I said nothing about the relative strength of nature vs.
nurture in this context.  The evidence you have brought up strongly
suggests that, at least today, nurture is by far the most important.
It also suggests that over time we would expect version of the genes
that make us want more kids to arise that are able to resist the
countervailing pressures from nurture.

>Therefore, if your theory (as I understand it) is correct, we can predict 
>that family sizes (though not necessarily birth rates) in North America and 
>Western Europe should be larger than family sizes in, say, South America, 
>Africa and India.  

>A) Do you agree with this reasoning? If not, where have I gone wrong?

I agree with your reasoning except for the first statement - the bit
about nature being mroe important than nurture.  Right now, at least,
it's the opposite.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: hyde@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: The Worm Ouroboros
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:57:34 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Aug26.042013.484@news.eng.convex.com>, cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
> In article <MATT.92Aug25200518@physics16.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug25.172504.1115@gvl.unisys.com> schrey@oak.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Timothy M. Schreyer) writes:
> 
>>>    "The Worm Ouroboros" has a definitely dated feel to it that would strike

> Truly, if you like fantasy and have not read this book, you owe it to
> yourself to give it a try. As C.S. Lewis said about it, it is "good beyond
> hope". 

	I'm quite a fan of the book myself, moreso perhaps than
	those who have praised it in recent posts here - I find
	some of their criticisims to be rather superficial
	(except the one about mercury and the narrator).

	However, C.S.L. said that about TLOTR, not TWO.


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@ac.dal.ca or hyde@dalac
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.written:11574 rec.arts.sf.science:2690
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Are the Moties us?
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:29:55 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug26.114851.21973@cs.ruu.nl> rkunenbo@cs.ruu.nl (Ronald Kunenborg) writes:
>In <1992Aug24.234252.11253@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>If you want to skp to what I, at least, think is the core issue search
>>for ***.  Basicly, Ron seems to think that some genetic traits can't
>>be passed on to kids.  I think that Ron needs to read up on genetics a bit.

>Well, no. Genetic traits can ofcourse be passed on. I just deny that some things
>are genetic traits.

>>>Only if this trait is coded genetically. I think this is our main
>>>point of difference - You argue these traits can be coded genetically
>>>(AND are passed to another generation AND are dominant, but you could
>>>just take this as working hypothesis) and I argue they cannot.

>>***
>>Well, first off, let's take a look at your statement.  I argue that
>>these traits can be coded genetically.  Sure.  And that they are
>>passed to another generation.  Um, Ron, mind explaining to us how a
>>genetically coded trait could not be inheritable?  On its face your
>>statement looks like Grade A nonsense.

>IF a trait is coded genetically it can ofcourse be inherited. The COMBINATION
>of the three was what I found unlikely.

Ron, you still seem totally unclear on this.  The COMBINATION?  You
mean you would have found any one believable, but all three together
is unlikely?  Once more, bizarreness.

>>Also, why do they have to be dominant?  Recessives can also spread
>>through a population.

>Sure, but how successful are recessive genes? In the end they
>disappear.

Not quite.

>And a gene for "wanting more children" would disappear very fast - every time
>the dominant counterpart "wanting less children" would come up, a new
>generation 
>with the recessive gene would be even smaller in number.

Ron, you seem really unclear on this.  Let's say we have two genes -
want more kids (m) and want less kids (L).  L is dominant so I
capitalize it.

Now let's look at the possibilities...

mm - has a lot of kids, all of whom have at least one m gene.

mL - has a few kids, passes on m to half and L to half.

LL - has a few kids, passes L on to each.

After each generation the number of m genes has increased.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: mcjunkin@hpspkla.spk.hp.com (Bart L. McJunkin)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:51:13 GMT
Subject: What happened to ESF results?
Organization: Hewlett Packard Company, Spokane, Wa.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written

###########################################################################

Did Brad ever reveal the ESF results?  

Bart.

###########################################################################
mcjunkin@hpspkla.spk.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written