HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccolm@darwin.math.usf.edu. (Gregory McColm)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: Eating our other world friends & enemies
Date: 20 Jul 92 18:51:51 GMT
Organization: Univ. of South Florida, Math Department

In article <BrIv18.Es1@well.sf.ca.us> dasher@well.sf.ca.us (D Anton Sherwood) writes:
>In article <1992Apr27.191800.5427@quest.UUCP> curt@quest.UUCP (Curtis Gibson) writes:
>>
>>Its scary to think that Mr. Spock could beam down the to front steps of
>>the Supreme Court and there are no laws to protect him from being; killed,
>>eaten, enslaved, stuffed & mounted, put in a zoo, raped, etc (you get the
>>idea) by anyone who wanted to to it to him.  Think about it, no protection
>>and rights means no vistors from out there.  Would you want to go anywhere
>>that the police could not, would not protect you?  Lets start a Alien Rights
>>movement today. 8^).....
>
>I'm sure there would be the mother of all court cases over the meaning of
>a key word ("person" or "human" or whatever) in the statute defining
>"murder" where it happens.
>-- 
>D. Anton Sherwood *\\* dasher@well.sf.ca.us *\\* +1 415 664 2229
>Libertarian candidate for California Assembly, 12th district
>"If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy."

Actually, this isn't quite as funny as it sounds.
A number of the chimpanzees that learned how to 
"talk" (let's start a controversy here) are now 
neglected.  What rights chimpanzees and possibly 
gorillas should have is unclear, but the law regards 
them as animals.  Potentially more embarrassing 
is the status of bottlenose dolphins, who seem to 
have a weaker (different?) spatial sense than humans, 
but may actually be more developed in other ways.  
If Dr Lilly arrives at the Supreme Court with an 
English-Delphinese dictionary, nobody should be too 
surprised.  But what about tuna fishing, not to 
mention our relations with Japan?  

The only cases at all like these that the Court has 
dealt with so far are the abortion cases, which 
do not inspire confidence, and the brain-death 
cases, which were decided on different grounds.  
One can only imagine the legal hash that cyborgs 
will inspire.

-----Greg McColm
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Eating our other world friends & enemies
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 09:40:05 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 <1992Jul20.185151.4599@ariel.ec.usf.edu> mccolm@darwin.math.usf.edu. (Gregory McColm) writes:

>Actually, this isn't quite as funny as it sounds.
>A number of the chimpanzees that learned how to 
>"talk" (let's start a controversy here) are now 
>neglected.  What rights chimpanzees and possibly 
>gorillas should have is unclear, but the law regards 
>them as animals.  Potentially more embarrassing 
>is the status of bottlenose dolphins, who seem to 
>have a weaker (different?) spatial sense than humans, 
>but may actually be more developed in other ways.  
>If Dr Lilly arrives at the Supreme Court with an 
>English-Delphinese dictionary, nobody should be too 
>surprised.  But what about tuna fishing, not to 
>mention our relations with Japan?  

Gregory, what are these "other ways" in which dolphins may be more
developed than us?  You imply that they are components of
intelligence.  Persoanlly, I think that's bullshit.  Put up or shut
up. 
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: r.a.s.m FAQ list wanted
From: thompson@gumby.mgi.com
Date: 25 Jul 92 22:31:32 CDT
Organization: Management Graphics, Inc.

I've seen a reference to a rec.arts.sf.misc FAQ list in another news-
group, but I don't see it here. Could someone please e-mail it me?
On second thought, could the non-moderator send it to me? I don't 
need 50 copies. :-)

Thanks,
MOKO
thompson@gumby.mgi.com

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.humor,alt.religion.kibology
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:36:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.212023.1246@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com
(Brad Templeton) writes:
>I think people put too fine a point on this.   Agnostics proudly stand up
>and say that there is no way one can know for sure, but the fact is
>that the vast bulk of them do not believe there is a god, and thus
>in my book they are athiests, (literally non-theist.)

No:  An agnostic says "I don't know if there is a God."  A militant
agnostic says "I don't know and you don't either."

An atheist believes there is no God.  A theist believes there is a God
(or more than one).

>The number of athiests who state that they know there is a god and that
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you're missing a "not" somewhere around here.

>it is impossible that there be any sort of god is small.

As I said, atheists believe there is no God.  That doesn't say their
minds can't be changed.

>Most athiests and agnostics are the same.  They think there is no god,
>they admit it is possible but unlikely and that nobody knows for certain.
>There's no difference between them.

Maybe a lot of people mislable themselves?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: Xenocide
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:08:22 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: I is a writur

jsc@athena.mit.edu (Jin S. Choi) writes:

>Does anyone know if Card is planning to write
>another book in this series, or if it was meant to be a trilogy?

Yes. It's the first of a two-book storyline. It hadn't originally started
out that way, but it grew. It won't be out for a bit, though. See the card
update I posted to .written the other day.

>And with all his interest in computers and nets, does anyone know if
>he's on the Internet somewhere? 

No. He's appeared and disappeared on some of the other networks (Delphi,
GEnie, I think CI$) but because of his writing schedule he's disappeared
more often than on-line.

-- 
Chuq "IMHO" Von Rospach, ESD Support & Training (DAL/AUX) =+= Member, SFWA
  chuq@apple.com | GEnie: MAC.BIGOT | ALink:CHUQ =+= Editor, OtherRealms
	A real SF writur with stories in ALTERNATE KENNEDYS and THE 
	  FURTHER ADVENTURES OF BATMAN, in better bookstores now!

          Painted emblems of a race, all accurst in days of yore,
       Each from his accustomed place steps into the world once more.
From: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au (Warwick Allison)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: Eating our other world friends & enemies
Date: 30 Jul 92 07:23:39 GMT
Reply-To: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>Well, here we clearly need a definition of intelligent.  When we talk
>about an organism being intelligent we usually mean that its brain
>level is such that it is a rational, concious, thinking being
>deserving legal protection.


Gee thanks, I'd always wondered what we meant by "intelligent".  Thanks for
filling me in, maybe this should be in the FAQ.


<haitus>


What the expletive does whether an organism deserves legal protection have
to do with its intelligence?  In Australia, most of the native fauna must
be HIGHLY intelligent by that definition (since they are protected by the
law).  That is probably the WORST attempt at defining the undefinable I
have ever seen... except the Cristian Science "the basic eternal quality
of the divine Mind".

--
Warwick
--
  _-_|\      warwick@cs.uq.oz.au            /Disclaimer:
 /     * <-- Computer Science Department,  /  
 \_.-._/     University of Queensland,    /      void (if removed)
      v      Brisbane, Australia.        /
From: Jacqueline_G._EmrysCSD.McLean@XEROX.COM
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: R.L.Asprin-Thieve9s World,  Zelzany-Amber next in series query
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:13:22 GMT
Reply-To: Jacqueline_G._EmrysCSD.McLean@xerox.com

R.L. Asprin/Thieve's World & Zelzany's Amber series - what were the last and
when is the next installment/book available? The Lady Grey sends her greetings
to gandalf ,et al...
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:51:19 EDT
From: <JMH131@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: R.L.Asprin-Thieve9s World, Zelzany-Amber next in series query

 _Stealer's Sky_ is the last book in the Thieves' World series.  It is #12.
 I haven't gotten any further than #5:  _The Face of Chaos_ yet.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Eating our other world friends & enemies
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:09:28 GMT

In article <9616@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> warwick@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>
>>Well, here we clearly need a definition of intelligent.  When we talk
>>about an organism being intelligent we usually mean that its brain
>>level is such that it is a rational, concious, thinking being
>>deserving legal protection.
>
>Gee thanks, I'd always wondered what we meant by "intelligent".  Thanks for
>filling me in, maybe this should be in the FAQ.
>
><haitus>
>
>What the expletive does whether an organism deserves legal protection have
>to do with its intelligence?  In Australia, most of the native fauna must
>be HIGHLY intelligent by that definition (since they are protected by the
>law).  That is probably the WORST attempt at defining the undefinable I
>have ever seen... except the Cristian Science "the basic eternal quality
>of the divine Mind".

	A more utilitarian approach would be: can it prevent me from
doing whatever I please to it for whatever reasons motivate me that week? 
If not, I doubt the question of intelligence will seriously arise.

								James  Nicoll
From: wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Henry Timmins)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: Eating our other world friends & enemies
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:49:30 GMT
	<1992Jul27.035713.24540@oracle.us.oracle.com>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>I would argue that we have conclusive evidence that dolphins are not
>intelligent.  They have not made a significant attempt to communicate
>with us despite the large numbers of them that we kill via things like
>tuna fishing.

    Maybe they don't care. Maybe they haven't made a connection between
the nets and humans (those nets are HUGE). Maybe they assume we can't be
responsibly, because no sane entity would do something like that.
    There are too many ways a nonhuman intelligence might manifest to
assume this to be conclusive.

    They have evolved in a VERY different environment, with different
sensory reliances. Trying to bridge that experience is difficult, to say
the least.

    They might be self-aware, they might be able to communicate abstract
thought. But it is obvious they are not tool-users. Consider how much of
our psychology revolves around tool use- could that not be a large
concept barrier?

    Also consider that, to a human, society is necessary to teach a
being how to be intelligent.
   There was a case where chimps, taught sign language, would pass this
knowledge to their children. True, they had shown no use of sign
language in the wild, but, perhaps, they simply haven't been pressured
or lucky to invent it on their own? With a new society, they can then
use it.

    Perhaps dolphins have never invented complex societies, or their
societies avoid humans (we get only the dumb nomads?).

There are a LOT of confounding factors, and to say that our meager
information is conclusive is, I think, unwarranted.


-Me
[Pooh Bear incarnate.]
<B1 c+ f+ w g+ k+ s+ r- e+ p>
From: goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: Price of books
Date: 23 Jul 1992 05:34:34 GMT
Organization: The Sinister Icy Black Hand of Death Club
Reply-To: goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb)
NNTP-Posting-Host: whirlwind.berkeley.edu
Originator: goldfarb@whirlwind.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Jul23.030612.11405@lucid.com> lola@lucid.com (Lola McCrary) writes:
)But a movie is more than [4.99], doesn't last as long as most books, and you
)don't get to take it home and keep it!!
)
)Lola

	The point is not that the price is high, it's that if they're
going to raise the cents figure from the traditional 95, they could 
at least round it up to a whole dollar instead of making it an
unaesthetic 99. (Recall that this thread started with the observation
that some publishers have rounded hardback prices up to a whole dollar.)

-- 
   David Goldfarb          |"I'm going to die if you touch me one more time.
goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu  |Well, I guess that I'm going to die no matter what."
goldfarb@UCBOCF.BITNET     |          -- They Might Be Giants
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: rsholmes@rodan.syr.EDU (Rich Holmes)
Subject: Re: Eating our other world friends & enemies
In-reply-to: xtifr@netcom.com's message of Sun, 26 Jul 92 20:00:56 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
	<1992Jul20.185151.4599@ariel.ec.usf.edu>
	<1992Jul26.094005.8843@oracle.us.oracle.com> <m5km1g-.xtifr@netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 02:22:06 EDT

In article <m5km1g-.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:

>Hmm, I'm not Gregory, but I think I can field this one.  Dolphins are
>more developed than humans in the area of 3D "auralization" (a word I
>just coined by analogy with "visualization").  IOW, they can hear in 3D
>*much* better than we can.  Yes, I suspect that this is a component of
>their intelligence (whatever the level of that intelligence may be). 

And right there you step into the can of worms (to mix a metaphor).
It's impossible enough for people to agree on what it means for a
human to be intelligent; it's doubly impossible to get people to agree
on what it means for a nonhuman to be intelligent. Look at the debate
over AI (the likes of Penrose vs. the likes of Hofstadter, for
instance) for a tiny taste. AIs do not / will probably not think
according to the same processes by which we think, but at least
they'll be under evolutionary selection to respond to human-type
situations in a human-like way. For chimps, dolphins, Vulcans, or
energy beings from dimension X, we can't even expect that. I do think
all that are capable of, for instance, learning arithmetic will agree
that 2+2=4; but most "measures" of human intelligence presuppose
conformity of world view on much less objective subjects.

And for that matter, when debating rights, how relevant is
intelligence? Try getting agreement on *that*, too.

When and if society finds itself having to deal with the fruits of AI,
genetic engineering, cetacian research, and/or xenopsychology, bet
heavily that the resulting uproar will make Operation Rescue look like
a tea party.

(There, now I've alluded to AI, IQ testing, animal rights, genetic
engineering, and abortion. Hmm. I may regret this.)

--
Inspected by number 23
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:36:37 -0400 
From: William Henry Timmins <wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Eating our other world friends & enemies
	<1992Jul29.065223.28918@oracle.us.oracle.com>

Michael Friedman sez:
[Mucho deleto]

What an ass. Are you snide naturally, or do you practice at it daily?

-Me

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Eating our other world friends & enemies
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 20:00:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <1992Jul26.094005.8843@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>In article <1992Jul20.185151.4599@ariel.ec.usf.edu> mccolm@darwin.math.usf.edu. (Gregory McColm) writes:

>Gregory, what are these "other ways" in which dolphins may be more
>developed than us?  You imply that they are components of
>intelligence.  Persoanlly, I think that's bullshit.  Put up or shut
>up. 

Hmm, I'm not Gregory, but I think I can field this one.  Dolphins are
more developed than humans in the area of 3D "auralization" (a word I
just coined by analogy with "visualization").  IOW, they can hear in 3D
*much* better than we can.  Yes, I suspect that this is a component of
their intelligence (whatever the level of that intelligence may be). 
And, in the lack of any real evidence about the level of that
intelligence, I think that *any* assumption about intelligence *or lack*
on the part of dolphins is BS.  

Lilly's research is suggestive, but may be influenced by bias on the
part of the researcher.  Or may not.  But, as for the "put up or shut
up" comment, Gregory did mention Dr. Lilly, and if Michael hasn't read
Lilly, then I suggest he do so before making comments like this.  If he
*has* read Lilly, then he should make more substantive objections to
Lilly's conclusions than "I think that's BS", which gives the impression
that he's speculating in an absence of knowledge.  I, myself, have some
doubts about Lilly's research, but they are doubts, not a personal
conclusion that Lilly is wrong.  In fact, I would not be at all
surprised to find that Lilly is correct.  I just don't think Lilly's
research is conclusive.  (I also admit that it's been over a decade
since I read or spoke with Dr. Lilly.)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
From: wbmorris@eos.ncsu.EDU (--)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: (none)
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:14:09 GMT

UNSUBSCRIBE SF-LOVERS
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.misc:2282 rec.humor:24872 alt.folklore.urban:20119 alt.religion.kibology:3270 rec.arts.books:13447
From: john@csrnxt1.ae.utexas.edu (John R. Schutz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.humor,alt.folklore.urban,alt.religion.kibology,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:41:16 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.misc
Organization: Those wacky, wacky fellas at UT's CSR

ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:

>"According to your religion, only a Jehovah's witness can be saved"
>"Yes, that is our teaching".
>"And according to the Bible, only 144,000 people are to be saved"
>"Yes, this is also according to our teachings".
>"But, there are 2,000,000 Jehovah's witnesses."

If I'm not mistaken, and I probably am (it's been a loooong time since
I was up on my Jehovah's Witness stuff), they believe that heaven is
already full, and that Witnesses that die are kind of held in a
Limboish (or Limbaughish...pretty much the same thing <duck>) state
until the end of the world, at which time the Witnesses'll take over
and rule...or something like that...I'm probably way off base here...
--
John R. Schutz - 3009 Hatley Dr. - Austin, TX  78746 - (512)328-0587
The Watchtower incarnate
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.misc:2235 rec.humor:24603 alt.folklore.urban:19865 alt.religion.kibology:3230 rec.arts.books:13158
From: ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.humor,alt.folklore.urban,alt.religion.kibology,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 26 Jul 92 21:24:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.UeQsWIW00VpOR531sx
	<1992Jul25.132357.6141@pdnfido.fidonet.org>
Organization: Senior, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>Thats assuming of course that *a* God can be patronized.  I don't know about
>the other religions you mentioned but in the Christian religion it is God
>who does the choosing.

That's only those sects that believe in predestination.  Other groups
believe that salvation comes from faith, which is a choice by man.

Which leads to an interesting point.  If you're predestined, then why be
good.  You're already guaranteed salvation.  If you're not predestined,
then you have nothing to lose by being bad.  Hmmmm.

Which leads to this interesting story.  A friend told me this one, and I
laughed for a while.  Seems a friend of his worked in a local store. 
One day, a Jehovah's witness was preaching to people in the store.  This
particular worker was a rather clever fellow, and the conversation ran
thusly,

"According to your religion, only a Jehovah's witness can be saved"
"Yes, that is our teaching".
"And according to the Bible, only 144,000 people are to be saved"
"Yes, this is also according to our teachings".
"But, there are 2,000,000 Jehovah's witnesses."

The preaching person went into emotional shock for hours.

					Tom the non hacker
					Kemp in 96!
					"If patriotism is the last refuge
					of scoundrels,  Then environmentalism
					is the current refuge of totalitarians."
					Bob Jackson
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: bobm@Ingres.COM (Bob McQueer)
Subject: Re: Bored Of The Rings
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:54:38 GMT

In <36073@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>,
	dated 24 Jul 92 05:18:19 GMT,
	jlkim@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Justin Kim) writes:
> 
> 	Hey! _Bored_of_the_Rings_ had me in rolling on the floor!
> Maybe I'm just easily entertained. ...

_Bored_ has its good bits, but it is very uneven, and VERY dated.  It was
a lot funnier in the mid-70's.  Somebody who doesn't personally remember
the various advertising slogans and trade names used to parody elvish
may miss a lot.  Still, if you take the original Tolkien preface "Concerning
Hobbits", and compare the "Concerning Bogies" section out of _Bored_, you
can see what an absolutely brilliant parody ought to look like.  I wish
they had parodied the rest of it that well.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: lola@lucid.com (Lola McCrary)
Subject: Price of books
Organization: Lucid, Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 03:06:12 GMT


	   To make up for the hardbacks, many paperbacks now have prices 
   such as $4.99. Yuck.

   -- 
      David Goldfarb          |"I'm going to die if you touch me one more time.
   goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu  |Well, I guess that I'm going to die no matter what."
   goldfarb@UCBOCF.BITNET     |          -- They Might Be Giants


But a movie is more than that, doesn't last as long as most books, and you
don't get to take it home and keep it!!

Besides, if you don't buy books by authors you like they won't be able to keep
writing.  

Perspective, people.

Lola
From: tmorgan@astro.as.arizona.edu (Tad Morgan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.humor,alt.folklore.urban,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 25 Jul 92 06:07:05 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Jul23.220035.347@news.columbia.edu> pw15@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Philip  Wang) writes:
>Sorry, can't think of any jokes. Maybe next time.

"Well, I've always said that there's nothing an agnostic can't do if he really
doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not."  Monty Python, "Bells"
from _The Final Rip-Off_

Tad
:   Tad Morgan  --  "To baldly go where no one has gone before..." - ST:TNG   :
:   Internet: tmorgan@as.arizona.edu   CI$: 71650,471     GEnie: W.MORGAN12   :
:   "I was compelled to take the laws of physics into my own hands." - Opus   :