HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: The Shadow <swcramer@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Why ?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 03:34:19 -0500

In article <92103.204403RED103@psuvm.psu.edu> <RED103@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>      I would like to know why it is important to destroy the earth.  It
>      seems that anyone who would advocate this has a death wish unless
>      there is an alternative living enviroment proposed. However, the
>      tone of the posts here don't reflect an interest in living altern-
>      atives.  If then you want to die, why don't you just kill yourselves
>      and leave the earth for those who would like to save it.
>
>                                                        Thank You,
>                                                            RED

Step one...

alt.destroy.red

Step two...

continue with this sub...

-Shadow
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: Rick McGlinchey <rmcglinc@ugly.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: First posting
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:13:31 -0500

Hi folks,

My first post here in my newest-most-interesting-newly-found 
newsgroup alt.d.t.e.  Somebody out there in netland help me
out with this one...  I had a friend who was researching
Tesla once.  He said Tesla had this theory about some kind
of tower/generator/electricity-emmitor thing that, if ever built
and activated, would effictively split the earth in half!
Anyone recall this one?  Methinks that splitting the earth into
two would be more than enough to destroy it and all life on
it.  Comments?  Validation?  Ok, ok...FLAME?  One of those
three should get something from SOMEBODY out there.


Cheers,
Rick

--
Let's make it go BOOM...	                  rmcglinc@ugly.ucs.indiana.edu
 "Myself alone" - Slavador Dali, also reflecting the ownership of my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: dproudfo@jarthur.claremont.edu (Kekoa Proudfoot)
Subject: Re:    Why ?
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 04:57:48 GMT


In article <13APR199216514199@utarlg.uta.edu> b790zcd@utarlg.uta.edu
(George M. Smiley) writes:
> In article <1992Apr13.203743.15468@muddcs.claremont.edu>, dproudfo@jarthur.claremont.edu (Kekoa Proudfoot) writes...
> >In article <12APR199222185592@utarlg.uta.edu> b790zcd@utarlg.uta.edu
> >(George M. Smiley) writes:
> >
> >> Still thinking on how to destroy the sun,
> > 
> >You'll be thinking until you die, trust me.  And you won't die because the
> >sun or the earth blew up, either.
> 
> Of course I will be thinking about. You still don't get do you ? You seem
> to be of the opinion that you intimately know the future. How do you know
> how I will die ?

I didn't say I know how you will die.  I did, however, say I know how
you WON'T.

> How do you know that the earth and sun are indestructible ?

Energy equations, and knowledge that humans can't produce enough energy
to meet minimal requirements.  If you'd like to see some equations, I'd be
happy to provide some.  Not that you will be able to understand them, of
course.

> Who thinks who is smart now ?

I turn this question back to you.

> You should open up your mind and try to look
> at things from another perspective, mabye then you would understand.

You should take basic class in Physics.

> 
> > 
> >> George.
> > 
> >+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> >         _
> >         |     _
> >        (|avid |)roudfoot              dproudfo@jarthur.claremont.edu
> >               |                        HARVEY MUDD COLLEGE, c/o '95
> 
> Not assuming '95 comes,
> George.

It will, I assure you.

I repeat:  The earth will not be destroyed.  Not in the sense that it will
           be shattered into several pieces or burnt in a fireball of any
           sort.

Destroying all of life, on the other hand, is not as impossible.  I'm open
to suggestions on how to rid the earth of its life...  that is, as long
as they have nothing to do with blasting the planet to bits.


+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
         _
         |     _
        (|avid |)roudfoot              dproudfo@jarthur.claremont.edu
               |                        HARVEY MUDD COLLEGE, c/o '95
From: sbrogii@copernicus.Tymnet.COM (Scott Brogley)
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
Subject: Re: A question of perfection...
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:13:08 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <EdvP6kq00WB5QVF0wy@andrew.cmu.edu> re0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ronald William Ely) writes:
---stuff about life and ocean deleated.swb---
>    The trouble is if there's anything left of the earth, intelligent life
>would probably redevelope sooner or later, unless there was some sort of
>sentinet life left behind to prevent it.
>    Personally, I think we should give up this blowing up the earth idea
>and concentrate  on engineering a replacement for the human race, preferably
>one without the gene that makes people act like assholes.
>Keep a good thought
>
>---Ron Ely
Hi Ron, hi everybody,
	Back again after a hiatus...
	I missed all of the harmonics discussion, If someone could post a
summary(or mail to sbrogii@Tymnet.COM) I would appriciate it.

	I had a thought concerning enginearing a replacement form to ensure
the end of life, something should be created that would be sure to eradicate
life on Earth. Then I thought, isnt that what H.S. (homosap) are doing?
	Maby the Dinosaurs had a sentient form which influenced mamals,
due to the posibility of their survival. And then the sentiend saurs did
their world in.
	We should concentrate on trench life, sharks, cockroaches,
and lizards due to their resiliancy.
	Any other suggestions?
Scott Brogley
w 408.922.6547
sbrogii@Tymnet.COM

my thaughts are my own, although they probably wernt once.
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: The Shadow <swcramer@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Why ?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:52:38 -0500

In article <92104.104049RED103@psuvm.psu.edu> RED103@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>I don't think I'm the "poor child" who needs lectured here, especially if you b
>elive destroying all life is your ticket to "a better place".  I think I will t
>ake the advice of posting to another newsgroup and stop wasting my time (and
>yours apparently) here.
>
>                                                Thanks,
>
>                                                       RED


No, thank YOU.

-Shadow
From: swcramer@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (The Shadow)
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
Subject: beauracracy used properly...
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:09:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: bronze.1992Apr8.200959.19772
Organization: Indiana University


Get the world pretty much linked up and run via computer systems...
put the master computer in the charge of administrators, say at a
college computing facility...  I would give them about a week or so
before everything was mucked up so much that everything would collapse
into anarchy and people would revolt...  from there the standard
nuclear war scenario could take effect...  and voila - no more earth.

-Shadow
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com (Pete Ashdown)
Subject: Re: Why ?
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:44:21 GMT

jj22+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Joseph Jantos) writes:

>It's been my impression that the people posting to this newsgroup are
>pathetic non-conformist wanna-be's who get kicks out of trying to
>think up ways to destroy the earth

Yes.  I would much rather be a multinational corporation wanna-be out labeling
my products as "Eco Friendly".

>(either eliminating the
>"togetherness" off all the earths atoms or destroying ALL life as we
>know it) knowing that a reasonable, effective, and possible solution
>does not exist, and even if one did exist, they wouldn't try to
>implement it even if they were organized and had sufficient funds.

I used to recycle my glass, my plastic, my tin.  I still do, for the most
part.  However, when I have to drive 20 miles to dump my bottles in what is
essentially a bottle landfill waiting to be recycled, it gets rather
pointless.  Most of the recycling centers around here have closed due to the
fact that they don't have any place to take their stuff to be recycled.  Earth
Day is one big joke.  People were all excited about it in 1990, but one lousy
year later, about an eighth of the people actually remembered it.  This year
it will be even more pathetic.

In other words, without some SERIOUS government intervention, "Save The Earth"
is just a lot of hot air.  So I'm jumping on the other bandwagon.  Let's
accellerate the process.

>IMNSHO, this bboard is a stupid joke.

IMHO, you have no sense of humor.
-- 
     James Brown, Mark Hosler, Al Jourgenson.  Coincidence or conspiracy?

DISCLAIMER: My writings have NOTHING to do with my employer.  Keep it that way.
Pete Ashdown  pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com  ...uunet!javelin.sim.es.com!pashdown
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: dproudfo@jarthur.claremont.edu (Kekoa Proudfoot)
Subject: Re:    Why ?
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:37:43 GMT

In article <12APR199222185592@utarlg.uta.edu> b790zcd@utarlg.uta.edu
(George M. Smiley) writes:
> In article <92103.204403RED103@psuvm.psu.edu>, <RED103@psuvm.psu.edu>
> writes...
> >      I would like to know why it is important to destroy the earth.  It
> >      seems that anyone who would advocate this has a death wish unless
> >      there is an alternative living enviroment proposed. However, the
> >      tone of the posts here don't reflect an interest in living altern-
> >      atives.  If then you want to die, why don't you just kill yourselves
> >      and leave the earth for those who would like to save it.
> > 
> >                                                        Thank You,
> >                                                            RED
> 
> I think every one here has their own reasons as to why it is important
> to destroy the earth, that is more of a philosophical question and really
> is irrevelant.

Irrelevant?  Tell me the purpose of doing something without knowing WHY
you're going to do it.  You seem to have reasons for wanting to destroy
the earth.  Please share them.

> [stuff about living alternatives deleted]
> 
> As for dying,
> I do not wish to die unless everything and everybody on this planet dies
> along with me. If that sounds selfish, too bad, you've misinterpreted me
> and  will never understand anything anybody posts in alt.destroy.the.earth,
> hence, you should unsubscribe and await your eventual lonely doom.

Well, you haven't given me much to misinterpret, now have you?  BTW, I do
understand these posts.  A humorous newsgroup making fun of alt.save.the.earth.

   IF YOU STILL BELIEVE YOU'RE GOING TO DESTROY THE EARTH, YOU'RE A FOOL.

Maybe you'll mess up the environment.  Maybe you'll even kill off most life.
But you won't destroy the earth.  Face it, you're not smart enough to defeat
eons of evolution.  Nature and life are made to survive.

> Still thinking on how to destroy the sun,

You'll be thinking until you die, trust me.  And you won't die because the
sun or the earth blew up, either.

> George.

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
         _
         |     _
        (|avid |)roudfoot              dproudfo@jarthur.claremont.edu
               |                        HARVEY MUDD COLLEGE, c/o '95
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com (Pete Ashdown)
Subject: Re: destroying the planet with (pick a substance)
Keywords: Why, Not
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:48:19 GMT

spg@nereid.sunquest.com (Steve Gibbons) writes:

>Some definitions (for purposes of this post.)
>destroy = make inoperable
>earth   = 3rd planet from Sol
>It seems to me, that all one has to do to destroy (see the first definition
>above) the earth is to remove/corrupt the majority of the atmosphere for a
>period of time.  (No, I'm not talking about mood-music.)
>Toxins of various natures seem like the easiest way to go.

I don't know about your definition of "destroy".  I'd just like to get all the
people off the planet.  I think we should campaign to have the smallpox virus
released into every major city's water supply.

Does anyone remember that wacko who held hostages back in the early 70's with
the demand that all the white people get off the earth in one week?  As a
tyke, I was really looking forward to the upcoming spaceship ride.  Imagine my
disappointment when they shot him.
-- 
     James Brown, Mark Hosler, Al Jourgenson.  Coincidence or conspiracy?

DISCLAIMER: My writings have NOTHING to do with my employer.  Keep it that way.
Pete Ashdown  pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com  ...uunet!javelin.sim.es.com!pashdown
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: b790zcd@utarlg.uta.edu (George M. Smiley)
Subject: Re: Getting rid of Ocean Dwellers
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:19:00 GMT

In article <wdumNpq00aw3AFAkUV@andrew.cmu.edu>, Joseph Wei-Cheng Ku <jk73+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes...
>this won't work because of  one reason: takes too long. 
>by the time we remove enough salt from the oceans, the salt water
>creatures will have enough time to adopt/evolve to their new eviroment,
>and the fresh water creatures will be able to migrate into the oceans
>etc... unless there is a dramatic change in the salt content of both the
>oceans and the rivers, (say, within five years, which is very unlikely)
>there wouldn't be too much irreversable damage to the eco sys. 
>Then my suggestion is this. We need to do more research to find a way to
>start a nuclear reactions  with just plain water, cold fusion is
>preferred, but splitting oxygens might not be bad either(probably hard
>to do, huh? but like I said, more research). If we can start some type
>of  reaction, not only can we evaporate all the water on this planet, we
>could also burn this planet into ciders with the energy produced by this
>reaction, which will result in the true destruction of the earth (the
>crust and atomsphere at least), making it absolutely inhabitable. 
> 
>-jk

Nah, evolution takes a very long time in comparison to the time it would
take to accomplish this. Very seldom does it take only 5 years for 
something to evolve especially when it is trying to change the very
nature of its cells. Changing color is one thing, but, changing what
an organism is through evolution is one of the constraints of that
organisms form, in other words, it just doesn't happen.

George.
Of course, we could do both !!

Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: b790zcd@utarlg.uta.edu (George M. Smiley)
Subject: Getting rid of Ocean Dwellers
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:15:00 GMT

All right, so we can destroy land dwelling life (by various clever proposals),
but, what about those who live in water ? It was suggested that the only way 
to get rid of them  would be to boil away all the earths water. That could
work, but, here is my suggestion:

 A) Start with the oceans, build gigantic machines whose sole purpose is to
    take in seawater and convert it to freshwater. This could be accomplished
    with the help of scientists by dupping them into beleiving that us humans
    are running out of drinking water (something that has already been put
    forth by enviromentalists living in California). Once they come up with
    a simple, efficient, working prototype we take it away from them and
    build thousands of them. Installing these machines throughout the worlds
    oceans we allow them to operate day and night until the salt content of
    the ocean dwindles to lethal proportions. Remember those highschool biology
    films were a single cell salt water creature was placed in freshwater ?
    Due to the pressure gradient and active transpost and osmosis and all that
    other stuff I forgot, the cell either collapses or burst. Imagine this
    happening at the worldwide ocean level and you get what I'm driving at.

 B) O.K., so we have eliminated saltwater dwellers, but what about the 
    freshwater dwellers ? Well, in the process of A we get a lot of left
    over salt. We take this leftover salt and dump it into the lakes,
    rivers, and streams throughout the world (actually we dump it into the
    place were those lakes and rivers get their water from). The result is
    that we have eliminated all creatures that live in water.

Flaws ?, Questions ??, Comments ???
--
George.
P.S. Any plan that involves taking advantage of enviromentalists can't be that
     off the mark.
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: gooley@netcom.com (Markian Gooley)
Subject: Reasons why
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 23:43:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

With recycling it's usually "out of sight, out of mind."  I've lived in several
places with recycling programs, and the best way any of them has managed to
recycle paper is to send it off to be shredded and treated to make blown
cellulose insulation.

Most recycled paper is a fraud: often only 10% of the fiber (if any) is
from consumers...most is from waste in paper mills.

At present, people seem to be going about feeling virtuous because they
"recycle" paper, glass, etc., even they don't care what the ultimate fate of
those things might be.

So what about alt.destroy.the.earth?


This can be thought of as a group that makes a point through the use of
nasty humor.  I'd like to see more articles of an anti-environmental
nature: e.g., how to prevent recycling, how to ruin ecosystems, etc.

After all, alt.save.the.earth isn't about how to protect Earth from an
asteroid collision or an army of mad scientists who want to blow it up.
alt.destroy.the.earth should be its Evil Twin, sometimes trying to make
a sound point through sick humor.

Mark.
gooley@netcom.com
From: rone@chort.usc.edu (Ron A. Echeverri)
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
Subject: Re:    Why ?
Date: 13 Apr 1992 21:32:40 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: chort.usc.edu

In article <1992Apr13.203743.15468@muddcs.claremont.edu> dproudfo@jarthur.claremont.edu (Kekoa Proudfoot) writes:

>Irrelevant?  Tell me the purpose of doing something without knowing WHY
>you're going to do it.  You seem to have reasons for wanting to destroy
>the earth.  Please share them.

TO GET RID OF PEABRAINS LIKE YOU.... (whoops, let that ol' id slip again)

Why else? To find a better place to live, of course. Anyone with twice the
normal head density could figure it out.

>Well, you haven't given me much to misinterpret, now have you?  BTW, I do
>understand these posts.  A humorous newsgroup making fun of alt.save.the.earth

Hey! Maybe you're not so dense after all! :-)

>   IF YOU STILL BELIEVE YOU'RE GOING TO DESTROY THE EARTH, YOU'RE A FOOL.

HA! Genius is always misunderstood in its own time!

>Maybe you'll mess up the environment.  Maybe you'll even kill off most life.
>But you won't destroy the earth.  Face it, you're not smart enough to defeat
>eons of evolution.  Nature and life are made to survive.

Wow, we got hard, solid evidence here, boys and girls. :) what, just because
there's been life for about, oh, a billion years, you actually think nature and
life were "made to survive"? Now, now. Give it another couple of billion years
at least before you jump to conclusions.

>You'll be thinking until you die, trust me.  And you won't die because the
>sun or the earth blew up, either.

No, there are other methods of destruction, none so blase' as a simple
explosion.... ah, the possibilities

>         _
>         |     _
>        (|avid |)roudfoot-in-mouth :-)  dproudfo@jarthur.claremont.edu
>               |                        HARVEY MUDD COLLEGE, c/o '95



-- 
.signature: defunct due to sig virus
Reconstruction in process
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 16 Apr 1992 10:52:02 EDT
From: <CMH114@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
Subject: Re: Getting rid of Ocean Dwellers
 <wdumNpq00aw3AFAkUV@andrew.cmu.edu> <14APR199216191704@utarlg.uta.edu>

I don't know, about evolution having to take huge chunks of time- now,I'm just
a ignorant history major, but the last thing I heard out of the evolution
theoretical corner was that they were talking about a "lumpy" evolutionary time
scale. That is, species stay stable for really long periods of time, until the
local environment changes, drastically and suddenly, or slowly, and taking
decades or centuries, then evolutionary selection really kicks in, and species
rapidly split up into new species filling emptied niches. In this case,
suddenly turning all salt water to fresh (with a *poof* from the fairy
godmother's wand) the deep sea beasties and flora and bugs and such will die
off, leaving the eggs and spores and equivilents steady, until they maturate.
Of the next generation, the vast majority will immediately fail to cope with
the osmotic pressures, but the ones possessing traits that would have got them
killed previously allows them to survive and rapidly repopulate the ocean floor


Mitch                     Terraforming is much simpler than Lunaforming
Quest Laboratories
Terraforming Division
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: wmperry@cherry.ucs.indiana.edu (William M. Perry)
Subject: Re: micro-singularity (was Re: deadly ?)
Organization: Computer Science Student, Indiana University
	<92094.102553U21187@uicvm.uic.edu>
	<1992Apr10.201552.27100@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:27:55

In article <1992Apr10.201552.27100@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy) writes:

>Path: bronze!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usc!wupost!uwm.edu!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.Edu!fau
>From: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
>Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
>Date: 10 Apr 92 20:15:52 GMT
>References: <11937@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <1992Apr3.112949.26946@klaava.Helsinki.FI> <92094.102553U21187@uicvm.uic.edu>
>Sender: news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu
>Reply-To: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
>Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
>Lines: 28
>Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns6.ins.cwru.edu


>In a previous article, bquinn@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Trouble) says:

>>There was a book written, sorry, can't remember the title, about a man who 
>>accidentally created a miniature black hole and set it orbiting within the 
>>earth itself.  I'm talking about a really tiny black hole, not much bigger 

>I haven't done the calculations on this recently,
> but I seem to remember that such a small black
> hole would lose its energy (pronounced "mass")
> in the form of x-rays much faster than it can
> gain weight from the earth.  In short, it would
> burn out + explode.  

   Wouldn't  this  destroy  the  earth in the  process?  Or  would the
explosion be too small to effect the entire planet?

--
+------------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| William M. Perry             |'Children survive childhood.  It's being      |
| wmperry@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu | grownup that's lethal.'		      |
| Phone: (812) 336 - 3071      |     - Glen Cook, Tower of Fear		      |
+--Not Speaking for IU or RHA--+----------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth