HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Antti's word
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:23:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.110648.27448@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
> 
> >	"To make someone to do (something)"  One word, eight letters:
> 
> >	"motivate"
> 
> 	"Juoksutututtaa" => To make someone to make someone to run. How do you
> 	translate with one word ?

  Antti, this is an argument you will certainly lose.  English has lots of words
(_root_ words), and I mean lots.  200,000 words is a small dictionary.  The OED
contains 400,000 and leaves out all slang and most words from after 1950.

  Why don't we play the word game together?  How many words for "fool" are there
in Finnish?  In English there are fool, tomfool, schmuck, ass, jackass, stupid,
zany, clown, buffoon, doodle, sop, milksop, mooncalf, softhead, ignoramus,
chump, booby, boob, sap, klutz, dingbat, dingdong, dingaling, saphead, mutt,
jerk, goof, schlemiel, sawney, galoot, dolt, dunce, clod, Boeotian, dullard,
niais, donkey, ninny, ninnyhammer, nincompoop, looby, noddy, jobbernowl,
thickwit, dope, nitwit, dimwit, lackwit, lamebrain, lightweight, witling, gaby,
dummy, dumbell, block, loon, gowk, blockhead, dolthead, dumbhead, stupidhead,
dullhead, bufflehead, bonehead, jughead, thickhead, thickskull, numskull,
lunkhead, chucklehead, knucklehead, chowderhead, jolterhead, muttonhead,
beefhead, meathead, noodlehead, pinhead, pinbrain, peabrain, cabbagehead,
pumpkinhead, fathead, blubberhead, muddlehead, puzzlehead, addlebrain,
addlehead, addlepate, tottyhead, puddinghead, mushhead, blunderhead, dunderhead,
dunderpate, clodpate, clodhopper, scatterbrain, shatterbrain, shatterpate,
rattlebrain, rattlehead, rattlepate, harebrain, featherhead, featherbrain,
shallowpate, shallowbrain, giddybrain, giddyhead, giddypate, flibbetigibbet,
simpleton, simp, juggins, clot, golem, idiot, imbecile, moron, halfwit, cretin,
dotard, fogy, fuddyduddy, and fud.

  I am reasonably sure that even with this list people will be sending me email
saying I missed one of their favorites.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:06:23 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Sep9.151841.12198@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >I guess you are good with maths as well. Add together all the
> >years Finland belonged to Sweden, and compare it with the years
> >Finland *belonged* to Russia. Based on your twisted sense of 
> >geography you would live in Sweden just now.
> 
> 	I'm not claiming anything about Finland, but North Carelia. OK, let's 
> 	count:

Seesh, first Finland, and now *just North Carelia*. Well, if you really
want to live in Russia, fine for me. The rest of people in Joensuu
are still living in Finland, with the exception of a paranoid person
that believes he lives in Russia :-).
 
> 		1323 Peace at P{hkin{saari - NC still in Russia
> 		1595 Peace at T{yssin{     - -------"----------
> 		1617 ----"--- Stolbova     - NC part of Sweden 
> 		1725 the Great Hatred      - NC under Russian Occupation
> 		1742 the Lesser Hatred     - -----------"------
> 		1809 the peace at Hamina   - NC belongs to Russia
> 		1917 Finnish independence
 
> 	And now the maths: North Carelia was less than 200 years under Swedish
> 	rule (with Finland) and 700-800 years under the rule of Novgorod or
> 	Russia. 

You forgot that nobody really claimed NC before 1323, even if it
was part of Sweden since early 1000. 

> >Anyway, all this is silly anyway, because Finland has been an
> >independent state since December 6, 1917.
> 
> 	This makes things more complicated, but in a way NC is now a Finnish 
> 	"colony". I don't say this with separatist ideas at all.

So your historical table shows clearly that NC is a Russian colony.
If we want to believe that, then you really have a low opinion
of the level of intelligence of us reading this group.

> >Stop lying, you will not be part of the people that will rule
> >Earth when Jesus arrives if you continue spreading lies about Finland.
> 
> 
> 	Tell me, what is wrong with the chart I gave you above ? What am I 
> 	lying in it ?

Remember when you said that you posted from Russia? Well, if you
do so, crawl over to the Russian side, instead of writing lies
on talk.origin.

This seems to be a never-ending flame fest,  and I will stop any
conversation about this, because this newsgroup is talk.origin,
not talk.antti.lies.again.

Cheers,
Kent

"I would rather have a thousands idiots attacking my position, than
have one idiot helping to defend it."	[Paraphrased from Voltaire]
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Is Antti a JW? (was Re: macroevolution)
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 10:40:26 GMT

bvickers@net3.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>At least now I know where you're coming from.  Although I must
>admit I wouldn't have expected a Jehovah's Witness to be using
>words like "bullshit."

	What's wrong with "bullshit" ? I think it's a natural word. 

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 03:31:17 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

On a note related to the anti-abortion B.C. comic strip:

Why didn't Hart get canned for drawing this obviously anti abortion strip
when the guy that draws the Popeye strip had been laid off just for
saying that Olive Oyl has the right to choose which toy she wants?

Isn't that biased on the part of the comic strip publishers?  Shouldn't
the be devoting equal time to opposing viewpoints?
From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:40:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.142406.24207@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
writes:
> In article <1992Sep2.130157.3954@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
> }In article <dkristof.715431601@hq> dkristof@Pt.hq.af.mil (Capt Dave Kristof)
writes:
> }>For you Creationists out there, a simple question:
> }>
> }>What is the purpose of mankind?  
> }
> }To worship God.
> 
> Why?

	More to the point, what is this omnipotent/omniscient being that he
needs something like me to worship him?  Is the THAT insecure?
 

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:01:57 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <dkristof.715431601@hq> dkristof@Pt.hq.af.mil (Capt Dave Kristof) writes:
>For you Creationists out there, a simple question:
>
>What is the purpose of mankind?  

To worship God.

My next door neighbour and myself had a long discussion about this.
We concluded that God is simply amazing and wonderful and very very
clever and brilliant - in facts words (and thoughts) fail to 
sum Him up - not surprising really as He is our Creator and we are
His created beings. My neighbour and I thought about all that God had 
done for us and given us, including existence itself, and we decided
that to spend eternity in God's presence (heaven) was an appropriate
length of time - we would be able to actually see God face to face
and praise, honour, glorify and simply worship Him.

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: maddox@utkvx2.utk.edu (Maddox, John Thortan)
Subject: RE:  Gentry/Kouzenetsov Info request.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:44:00 GMT


  As per Andrew's request, here is his timely reply.


>Hi John:
>	Oh yes, Gentry's "Tiny Mystery".  Well, after reading this  
>article, it is very tiny indeed:
>	
>	Wakefield, J.R., 1988.  The geology of Gentry's "Tiny  
>Mystery".  Journal of Geological Education, v.36, p.161-175.
>	[ - refutes evidence used by Robert Gentry [1986 : Creation's  
>tiny mystery.  Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee] to  
>claim the Earth was initially "instantly created" with a granitic  
>composition.  Basically Gentry has ignored the local geology, which  
>proves the samples he is using are _younger_ than some _sedimentary_  
>formations and many other rocks in the area, they are not "granite",  
>and many other scientific procedure and logical errors.]
>	
>	The author visited Gentry's sampling area.  It is quite a  
>detailed article.  I hope this is what you are looking for.  Please  
>post to the net, since I have read access only.
>	-Andrew
>	macrae@pandora.geo.ucalgary.ca

John
maddox@utkvx.utk.edu
From: bvickers@net1.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Antti is confused (was Re: macroevolution)
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:12:35 GMT
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	Because it seems that the Biblical definition of species differ from
>	scientific definition. This is speciation in scientific sense ONLY, I
>	can agree that.

Please point me to the Biblical definition of species.  I was not aware
that one existed.  In fact I was not aware that the Bible was a scientific
document.

Antti, perhaps you are unaware of net etiquette rules.  Please do not
simply quote material and add things like "That is true" or "True"
or other meaningless one-line responses.  You waste a lot of valuable
network bandwidth by doing that.  Only respond when you have something
to say.  Of the last 7 or so posts I've read by you, only one had
anything to say.

--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.origins:11113 alt.atheism:16908 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3516 sci.skeptic:16191
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism,alt.fan.dan-quayle,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Keywords: creationist propaganda
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 22:15:07 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:

>
>    I've read B.C. for YEARS and it seems that Mr. Hart has only recently
> transformed from a soft core, tollerant, evangelical christian to a brainwash
> zombie purveyor of conservative hate propaganda.  This sort of worries me; lo
> of people read the comics before (or instead of) the front page.  This
> progression represents another jack-boot clomp in the progress of
> irrationalistic think-o-phobia.  Ackthpppttt!
>
> Dan (from inside my asbestos tent, where I am watching M*A*S*H reruns)
> Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

Hey, let him go.  His jokes on baseball are pretty good.  Besides, his attempts
at being religious/political don't hold a candle to Doonesbury, Bloom County,
and Outland.

This is a case where Limbaugh is wrong.  Liberals do know how to laugh, both at
ourselves and at the whackos on the right.  Trudeau has been making us laugh
for a long time, and Breathed also, albeit only on Sundays now.  Let 'em have a
low rent strip like B.C.

Of course, if Trudeau really does fire everyone in his strip for their lack of
'family values,' that'll only leave the empty images of GHWB and Our Boy.





>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 10 Sep 92 06:38:40 EST
 <1992Sep7.194132.3943@desire.wright.edu> <1992Sep9.150803.11851@cs.joensuu.fi>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Sep9.150803.11851@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>Then they cannot be one species.  One of the more common definitions of 
>>species is 'animals who freely interbreed and produce life fertile offspring.'
>>If they don't/can't interbreed then they are different species.
> 
>>This is one of the more basic tenents of science.  If you have studied
>>science, how come you don't know this?
> 
> 	Don't blame me - actually this was my point: The extreme subspecies 
> 	can't interbreed with each other, so they're often considered to 
> 	be different species - especially if the other subspecies are 
> 	extinct. 
> -- 

But you ignored *MY* point, that this is really speciation in action.  The
subspecies on the extreme ends of the range have evolved in different
directions, thus are diverging in an evolutionary sense.

Sue

> 
> 		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
> 
> 	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:00:49 GMT

  Note: since this has nothing to do with t.o followups are to alt.atheism only.
Look there if you want to follow this thread.

In article <esposito.6.716510256@uncg.edu>, esposito@uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph
Esposito) writes:
> In article <1992Sep11.153652.12928@phillip.edu.au> lbarrass@phillip.edu.au 
> writes:>
> >  I haven't noticed any posts condeming yoga/meditation/eastern philosophy 
> 
> Yoga, meditation, and eastern PHILOSOPHIES don't include a GOD.  We are 
> athiests.  We do not believe in a God.  Yoga, meditation and eastern 
> philosophies do not include a God.  That is why you don't hear us debating  
> them.

  Obviously you have never studied Yoga.  It is, without a doubt, a theistic
belief.  Many Yoga books concentrate only on the body positions, but any serious
look into Yoga will show that these are geared toward "freeing the Atman" and
other obviously religious concepts.  Most eastern PHILOSOPHIES (*) are likewise
too thoroughly entangled in religious beliefs to be easily separated, as you
seem to imply.  Exceptions, of course, are Taoism and Buddhism which are still
inarguably religions.

(*) I have no idea why the word is capatalized.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Xref: sparky talk.origins:11144 talk.religion.misc:16019
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 10 Sep 1992 14:32:49 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Sep10.095949.26234@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.164007@IASTATE.EDU> btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
> >	More to the point, what is this omnipotent/omniscient being that he
> > needs something like me to worship him?  Is the THAT insecure?
>
> It is the evolutionary philosophy which conditions you into saying
> `something like me'. You, yes _you_ are made in God's image - can
> I say `fearfully and wonderfully created'?

What are you talking about?  It's obvious that people are merely cheap
replicas of god.  It says so right in the bible: man was made out of the
dust or clay, rather than the superior immaterial of god.

It is sacreligious to assume that god made us in his image to glorify us or
even for his own glory: glory presumes there are independent spectators to
be impressed.  Perhaps god made us in his image to glorify his own
creator who made god in HIS image.

You can say `fearfully and wonderfully created', but what does it mean?
At best, it strikes me as groveling syncophancy, due to a vision of god
born of Roman and feudal times.  God is not limited to human manners of
governance and behavior: treating him as a king is probably due to antique
cultural biases.  Treating him as chairman of the board is similarly
unjustifiable.  You are guilty of making your god too small.

> Anyhow, God has decided
> that He wishes us to relate to Him in a personal way - to love Him
> and worship him. If you want to question this, ask Him yourself.

Actually, I did ask.  God told me that it didn't want all this fuss and
attention, and would prefer that we act more naturally.  It's like you're
making a film: you don't want the actors asking "is the camera on?" or
mugging grotesquely because they know it is.  God wants Masterpiece
Theatre, not the Funniest Home Videos version of worship that you believe in.

Mike Huben


"... believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere
terrified flattery calling Him 'good' and worshipping him is a still greater
danger... The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of
God or that of the inerrancy of scripture is to prevail when they conflict.
I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two.
Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even
permissable."
C. S. Lewis, in letter to John Beversluis
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Antti's word
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:59:08 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Sep12.234807.7794@cc.uow.edu.au>, u8515682@cc.uow.edu.au (Wayne Jefferson Doust) writes:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> 
>>> 	bimbo, jughead
> 
>>Speaking about 'bimbo', doesn't it show that language itself
>>evolves, and with the advent of Hollywood stars lacking certain
>>intelligence compensated other ways our language got a new
>>word. In other words, evolution. Thanks Antti for pointing this out.
> 
>>Please, I'm not advocating the use of the word bimbo, in my
>>humble opinion why didn't we create a similar ugly word 
>>about dumb men with blonde hair?
> 
> Hmm, we could of course _create_ one. :-)
> 
>>Kent
> 
> Wayne

HAH!  That's an easy one.  We can just use one word that already fits......


........ just call dumb blond men...... quayles......


Sue
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.lang
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Ted Holden on Linguistics and Evolution
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:49:51 GMT

In article <1038@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.093701.29084@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
@ In article <1007@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:

@ >A small nit here.  Greenberg's methods are *statistical*, and are thus
@ >potential very precise - they just do not help in identifiying *specific*
@ >*correspondences*.  Given that the time depth of the uncontroversial
@ >major Amerindian language families seems to be on the order of 4K, some
@ >higher level of connection is clearly likely.

@ 	Having read Greenberg's book, I note that he lists as
@ correspondences words that seem rather similar phonetically and
@ semantically. Linguists who prefer greater precision have not been
@ very kind to him, not surprisingly.

>Does he actually imply they are *actual* correspondences, or is he only
>calling them *candidate* correspondences.  In a statistical analysis,
>if the statistic chosen is sufficiently robust, the inclusion of a few
>'false' correspondences is *irrelevant*, it is the job of the statistic
>to filter the influence of these out.

	That is certainly correct.

	But the next question is how much "noise" would be necessary
to make it too hard to do the statistics.

>[As soon as I find Greenberg's papr on this I will have a better idea of
>how robust his analysis is - thank's again for the references].

>This is why I say that most refutations of Greengerg's thesis I have seen
>indicate a lack of understanding of statistical methods.  So a few candidate
>correspondences are not 'real'?  What of it?  Does removing them from the
>table alter the final results?

	Greenberg's method is also criticized as very subjective.

	Over in sci.lang, I've asked about him and some of the
linguists there have howled.

>I find the linguists' insistance on concrete cognates to be rather limiting.
>Statistics is very good at extracting meaningful data from noisy sources.
>I think they would find it ia very powerful addition to their arsenal of
>techniques.

	I can agree that the more traditionalist linguists are
probably not very comfortable with statistical arguments. But there
are linguists willing to do statistical investigations of linguistic
relationships. In _Sprung from a Common Source_, there were some
papers on that, including a paper on trying to judge resemblance
between word roots with a computer program. That would be to lessen
the subjectivity involved in deciding if two word roots were related
or not, and to make Greenbergian linguistics less subjective.
From: dk@imager (Dave Knapp)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 8 Sep 92 05:54:11 GMT
Organization: Laboratory for Experimental Astrophysics

In Article <1992Sep2.130157.3954@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:

> In article <dkristof.715431601@hq> dkristof@Pt.hq.af.mil (Capt
> Dave Kristof) writes:
>> What is the purpose of mankind?
> To worship God.

   As a Christian, I feel obligated to point out that this answer
is a.) not Biblical, and b.) not the historical Christian view. 
I doubt it is even a common Fundamentalist view.

   -- Dave
-- 
  *-------------------------------------------------------------*
  * David Knapp        dk@imager.llnl.gov       (510) 422-1023  *
  *            98.7% of all statistics are made up.             *
  *-------------------------------------------------------------*
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber)
Subject: Re: Chance? Yeah, Sure  (was: worthless comic strips)
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:54:48 GMT

(I couldn't find the original attribution)     

>In article <87ST03Qz76e400@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>[quoting J. Hart's "B.C."]
>>And perhaps it happened by chance. Yeah, sure.

	Loucks was toying with us the whole time. He DOES have a theory of
creationism. It's "evolution couldn't have happened by chance"

Rob Zuber
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Request for transitional fossil info.
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:21:14 GMT


Why should we think that this information would be treated differently than 
previous presentations to you (i.e. ignored at best)?