HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Death of America
Date: 13 Dec 1992 20:11:50 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) says:
>By the way, Broward, I don't mean to insinuate anything but all that
>gangs) of an article that Charles Packer posted during the summer ...
>did you stay with his friends? (-; (Which district were you staying in?)


      If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then
      maybe, just maybe, it IS a duck, do you suppose?

       When I hear friend tell me that *his* friend got shot
        that's one thing.
   
       When the guy next to me gets blown away, then there's a 
       problem.

>
>>      The gas tax ALONE is a killer.  It effectively DOUBLES the cost
>product development mandate.  I don't know how much of their work
>has been written in the business press (WSJ, NYT or Globe & Mail)
>but I'll have to claim nondisclosure on this one ... all I can say
>though, is that it's quite different from what they told me when I
>went calling on them as an undergrad or when I was working between
>degrees and "checking things out", so to speak.
>
>>      Oh, oh, I get it.  "Upppggrrraaddddiiiinnnngggg".  Like, eh,
>>     the "realignment" at HP.  Okay, gotcha. ;)
>
>Amdahl has moved a lot of their software systems development to
>their site in north Toronto and were hiring from May through the
>fall.  I've been waiting a year for an interview at their hardware
>lab in the Bay Area (I'm not flaming Amdahl here; they have their
>valid corporate reasons for their ongoing freeze at that site; I'm
>just using this for an illustration).
>
>As much as I can sympathize with your friends' complaints, I'm afraid
>that you should be a little more critical before accepting every word
>at face value rather than taking caution for any exaggerations and/or
>artistic licence ... I realize that it goes along with your general
>frame of mind at the moment (I don't mean that as a flame; I've
>enjoyed reading your articles), but do pause and take a deep breath
>next time ...
>
>gld
>--
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Gary L. Dare
>> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
>> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.lang
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Logic
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:52:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.052533.1485@hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk> chiwingkwok@cuhk.hk (Kwok Chi Wing) writes:
}However, after a careful examination, one can find out that all the
}statements (or, to be more precise, propositions) in logic are analytic,
}i.e., we need not examine the real world  before we can decide whether
}such statements is true.  It has no empirical content and hence it cannot
}tell us anything about the structure of our mind.

What is the status of the claim that all logical claims are analytic?  Is
it analytic or synthetic?  Within this framework (which is not the one I
think correct), mustn't it be either one or the other?

If it's analytic, then wouldn't it fail to be empirical?  If it's unempirical,
then how could it be true (i.e., correspond to the facts of reality)?


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.lang
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Logic
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 09:54:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.140820.21203@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
}I split this thread off from another which shall not be
}named because Tim Starr disagreed with my characterization
}of logic as a form of language.  Tim, and others, believe
}that logic is a way of knowing the truth, so I suppose 
}they can tell us what it is, language or not.  Or rather
}what they mean by it.  My guess is we're seeing exactly
}the uncertainty of mapping the world with a language here,
}but maybe someone can straighten it out.
}
}Therefore, can those who believe that logic produces
}truth tell us what they mean by "logic"?  I assume the
}meaning is well understood; otherwise we would not know
}whether we were using it or not, and thus whether or
}not truth was being produced.

I find the best definition of logic to be the Objectivist one: consistent
identification of the facts of reality.

I think what I mean about logic being pre-linguistic is suggested by
Chomsky's theory of "deep grammar," and is adumbrated by Objectivist
David Kelley in part II of his book, "The Evidence of the Senses: A Realist
Theory of Perception."

However, I'm not articulate enough in my thoughts on this matter to trust
myself to attempt explanation, as I'd probably do no better than confuse
things further.

~
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Question for Peter
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:16:50 GMT

In article <Bz3oDx.8z7@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
}  What I said is that Objectivism
}  *claims* to be a rigorous discipline and it's not.

Without, of course, bothering to support this descriptive claim with any
evidence.  Petey Positivist may have tricked some poor Objectivists into
making such a claim prior to his decrypting "rigorous" from his positivist
cipher, but he has never produced one iota of anyone ever claiming that
Objectivism is "a positive science."

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Economics and the Dart Board (...and the theory of Chaos)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:49:25 GMT

Some interested person wrote:
>>Just think of a situation where stock market prices COULD be predicted.
>>This would make it possible for an infinite number of people to get extremely
>>rich by speculating in the stock market - I believe everyone understands that
>>this is not possible for real economic reasons. Therefore repeated and
>>reliable stockmarket "forecasts" are impossible by definition (I'm sorry I 
>>can't remember the name of this theory).

Peter Nelson responds:
>  Whatever it's called, it has a major flaw: "an infinite number of people
>  to getting extremely rich" is not the only possible outcome.  The other
>  one is that the market would be totally predictable, and *NOBODY* would
>  get extremely rich.  In other words the fact of its being predictable
>  would mean that prices would truly reflect the underlying value and
>  potential of the stock (the perfect efficient market) so you couldn't
>  make any money in it.   Another outcome is that you could make money but
>  in only a limited way -- the appreciation of my bank CD's is absolutely
>  predictable over the term of the CD, but I'm only getting 4%.

For a rather brilliant refutation of this inane thesis, I refer
interested readers to Paul Samuelson's work rather boldly entitled
"Proof that properly anticipated prices fluctuate randomly."  I
can supply a more accurate reference upon demand.

--Jimbo


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Re: Death of America
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:38:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.122320.25031@panix.com>, 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes...

>What's the current percentage of the Federal budget which
>goes toward paying the interest?  

Ah yes, the old focus on percents question. By the way 10% of $100 Trillion,
is just a trifling 10% right? No matter, it doesn't make any difference
anymore.

Your answer:

Time 06-22-92:

	p. 38, shows net interest for '92 at 13.7%, and
	p. 39, "If you want a real smoke screen, however, look  
	        to Ross Perot. He doesn't seem to have a clue
	        about the deficit...."

Which is officially THE TRUTH now.

Time is of course a noted prophet of THE TRUTH, see
"Whistling Dixie; Clinton and Gore to the fore."
 April 6, 1987 v129 p32(1), 
 Subj: Presidential Candidates, election forecasts.

>And why, if the Federal
>government is going bankrupt, haven't the Gnomes of Zurich
>figured this out and pulled all their money out of the
>U.S.?  

A government can't go bankrupt, to paraphrase Thurow and
Heilbroner (Economics Explained, '82, pp. 92-98):

	Ultimately the federal government has the power
	to incur an unlimited deficit because it has the
	power to print money....

More of the new TRUTH.

>How come only Usenet knows about this?

Because: (again from Economics Explained p.98)...

	As for our grandchildren, it is true that if we
	pay off the debt they will not have to carry its
	weight. But to offset that, neither will they be
	carried by the comfortable government bonds they
	would otherwise have inherited. They will also
	be relieved from paying taxes to meet the interest
	on the debt. Alas, they will be relieved as well
	of the pleasure of depositing the green Treasury
	checks for interest payments that used to arrive
	twice a year.

Now aren't you happy you asked.

Now we have a good investment deal for you...

		10 yr	20 yr	30 yr
		------	------	------
US Treasury     6.75%	7.15%	7.5%
Notes/Bonds	

Your children and grandchildren will think of you often,
and you'll be well taken care of in your old age. 

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )


-= Now just put your hand on the screen, please =-

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Economics and the Dart Board
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:54:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <palmer.724088972@news.larc.nasa.gov> palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer) writes:
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec10.210318.21431@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>}As evidence I refer you to the "Clinton recovery", which
>>}seems to be taking place only because Clinton was elected 
>>}(actually, because Clinton was _likely_ to be elected, at
>>}first).
>
>>Nope.  It's caused by Greenspan's credit expansion at the Fed, a.k.a.,
>>inflation.
                                                    
  So which is it?  How do we know those are the only two 
  possibilities?  If it was the Fed expansion then how do we 
  explain that in August, after a dozen or so Fed cuts, the 
  M2 actually went *down*?   Inflation is defined as an increase
  in the money supply, so a falling M2 rules this out and more-
  over a falling M2 sure isn't predicted by any theory that's been
  presented here.
                              
  Which is not to say there won't be inflation down the road:
  The Economist compared stimulating the economy with monetary
  policy to pulling a brick across a table with a rubber band.
  You pull and nothing happens, so you pull harder, and still
  nothing happens, so you pull harder and still nothing happens,
  so you pull harder and the brick smacks you in the face! (inflation)  

  Of course with a real brick, if you knew the its mass and 
  the surface properties of it and the table and, along with
  the characteristics of the rubber band you could probably
  tell when you have to duck.   Econonics gives us no clue. 
  Or to more precisely it gives us lots of clues and no way to
  decide among them.


---peter
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:35:53 GMT

by> Brian K. Yoder
gs> Gary Strand

gs> Trust me, you can't toss out every ethical theory that has a flaw and 
    expect others to take you seriously. 

by> Why should someone accept a moral theory which contains flaws? 

  Because all moral theories have flaws. I know of no reasonable person who
  believes that their moral system cannot break down, ie, supply an answer
  that is against their core principles. Rand said that perfection is an un-
  attainable goal; why should Objectivism be exempt?

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.lang
From: Kwok Chi Wing <chiwingkwok@cuhk.hk>
Subject: Re: Logic
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A7521F93FB010798@maca02.csc.cuhk.hk>
X-Xxdate: Mon, 14 Dec 92 10:25:07 GMT
Organization: The Chinese University of Hong Kong
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:25:33 GMT

>edu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!rutgers!cmcl2!pan
x!gcf
Subject: Re: Logic
From:  Kwok Chi Wing  (The Chinese University of Hong Kong)
Email address:  chiwingkwok@cuhk.hk


"What logic is" is an ambiguous question.  We should try to clarify it
before we can really 
give the answer.  Some people who ask this question may expect the answer
tell us what 
"logic" refers to; some may expect we will say something about the
intension (i.e. meaning) 
of "logic".

Here, we will try to discuss the first one.

The term "logic", in our context, refers to a field of knowledge.  What
does this field of 
knowledge concern ?  Many may answer in this way: it is a subject which
investigates the 
underlying rule of thinking.  It is even tempted to assert that (in fact,
many philosophers 
did, such as Kant) logic gives insight into the structure of our mind.  

However, after a careful examination, one can find out that all the
statements (or, to be 
more precise, propositions) in logic are analytic, i.e. we need not
examine the real world 
before we can decide whether such statements is true.  It has no
empirical content and 
hence it cannot tell us anything about the structure of our mind.

Then, what job does logic actually do ?  Logic is a subject which
investigates logical 
concepts.  By the term "investigate", I mean "analysis".  Loosely
speaking, logical concepts 
includes logical conectives (e.g. "and", "or", "if...then...", "not",
"neither...or...", "unless", 
...etc.) and also some of the concepts which frequently appear and is key
to determine the 
truth value of our statements (such as "for all", "there is some", "there
is at least twelve", 
"there is not", "it is possible", "it is not possible",...), some basic
concepts (such as 
"true/false", "valid/invalid argument"...).  What a logicist does is to
clarify all these 
concepts and find out the relation between them.  As an example, a truth
table for "and" is 
a clean way to define the concept "and" in term of the concept "truth
value".

How can logic help us in thinking, if logic is really something like this
?  Clear thinking 
requires clear concepts.  Logic helps us in this way !  In fact, saying
that logic gives us 
rule of thinking sometimes may be misleading (especially when we want to
understand the 
nature of the subject; note that I only say that it is misleading, not
say that it is wrong).

What is my point ?  My point is that logic, in this sense, is linguistic
(of couse, the 
term "linguistic" is not quite well-defined).
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Death of America 3
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:47:22 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: Big Ears

In article <17DEC199217554470@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
>In article <BzF3uz.77w@apollo.hp.com>, 
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes...
>
>>In article <16DEC199215280817@utarlg.uta.edu> 
>>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
>> 
>>>I would rather starve than continue to pay for corrupt government.
>
>>  It's this sort of emotionalism that makes me question the theory
>>  that "humans are rational".   
>
>It's interesting that you've asserted such an observation only arises out 
>of emotionalism. 

  It's these sort of reading skills that make me question the theory
  that "humans are rational".

  Kindly point out where I said "only" or some analogue of it.


>>  How do you rationally justify this sort of self destructive behavior?   
>
>Why would I `rationally justify' a statement involving an expression of
>will or intent?

  You will isn't under your rational control?   Does Tim Starr know
  this?


>Was doing just-as-ordered more sensible, regarding the germans under nazism, 
>or the william calley's under american totalitarianism?

  If the alternative was death, I say "yes" because  A)  you, or
  your philosophical premises, *could* be wrong, and B) you could
  always exact revenge or retribution, or whatever motivates you
  later.

  In general, willful suicide never makes rational sense because
  whatever philosophical musings led up to the decision *could*
  turn out to be wrong, later.


>As such, I am not aware of any human institution not subject to corruption. 
>Observing then an inevitable cycle of birth, growth, decay, and death, 
>(and apparently natural), why does it make sense, or seem rational, to
>cling to, or unduly prolong, that which is waning?

  By this logic, the American Revolution, which was clearly waning
  prior to the decision of France to enter on the American side,
  should have been given up as lost.   By this logic, whenever
  the stock market is dropping you should abandon all your
  investments.    Things wax and wane all the time.


>Hardly a sound investment of time and effort, and were we talking about
>financial institutions, such would be a strategy which leads to bankruptcy
>in short order. 

  Tell that to Lee Iacocca.

>>  I notice you're posting from a ".edu" site -- are you
>>  currently enjoying the benefits of corrupt government?  
>
>Very much so.

  So you admit that you are enjoying the benefits of money
  forcibly acquired from other people.  Doesn't this seem
  ethically hypocritical?


---peter






Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.postmodern
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Death of America
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:50:57 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile
Keywords: sprung from the body of demeter

b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
| ...
| I am the accuser of the prejudiced intellectualists bigots
| I am the final answer to the arrogance of the federalist Publius Caesar
| I am the `bombast,' the bomb blast, and the resurrection of Christian Anarchy
| ....

Hey, why not?  talk.politics.poetry, a time whose 
idea has come.

-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Illogical Logic ( Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand )
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:46:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <184629@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:

>I'm not sure what "liberalism" is, but I would guess that our society 
>is in the top ten among killers.

  I agree; in fact we have THE highest number of homicides in the world 
  (Senate Judiciary Committee report, March 13, 1991).   In sheer *rates*
  (i.e., per 100K) of violent crime (murder, assualt, rape) we vastly outpace
  any other major industrialized nation. 

>  We dispatched about 125,000 in Iraq without even knowing it.

  On the other hand to attach true ethical significance to things
  like this maybe we would have to ask what percentage of the total
  number of people we killed *that we could have killed*.   In other
  words, if Iraq or NAZI Germany, or whomever, had the same technology
  and capabilities we do, how many people would they kill?  I'll bet
  it would be more, but that would be pure speculation.

  
>A dead "enemy" killed by a "good" American is still an example of man
>torturing man. 

  True.  It's interesting the way we apply ethical systems designed for
  individuals to whole groups.  There is reliable evidence that many
  Iraqi soldiers in the front lines were there under duress, i.e., at 
  gunpoint or because their family was, in effect, at gunpoint.  Was
  it "ethical" for us to kill them, along with their more enthusiastic
  comrades?

  Self defence and NCP and all that are meaningful concepts in a simple
  world of individual interactions.  But when the interactions are 
  between groups, what is the extent to which membership in a group
  confers upon you the ethical liabilities of any one member?   


---peter

  


Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5413 talk.politics.misc:63975 alt.conspiracy:13064
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Death of America
Date: 12 Dec 1992 20:11:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) says:

>>
>thanks. i almost mistakenly took you seriously, you self-righteous fool.
>
>care to take this to rec.poetry or alt.evangelist or something?
>

       You miss a point, I admit  there *was* a lot of filler. :)

       i)  The Federal Government is NOT "America"
      
       ii) For all our government's talk of "Putting people first"
           and the gratuitous sighs of relief at Clinton's election,
           I believe we are closer to civil war now than in the past
           100 years.

       iii) We have a government os absolutely fantastic manipulators.
            Unfortunately, they have no sense of quantitative reality.


     I personally feel more alienated by what I've seen in the past 4 
     years than I can describe.  And now I'm being bombarded with
    
       i) Gay rights in the military.  Hey, I could give a damn, one
          way or the other, but I'm tired of the righteous, militant
          crap.  A backlash is coming.  

       ii) I'm tired of hearing about AIDS.

       iii) I'm tired of hearing about "fixing the deficit"

       iv)  I watched the New York "Teaching about homosexuality in 
            the first grade" controversy.  Quite frankly, this is not
            even a DEBATABLE issue to me.  Indoctrinating children at
            that age is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.  It's EVIL that's it's
            even been contemplated.  A backlash is coming.

       v) I won't give my firearms to ANYONE.  EVER.  I don't care
          about living THAT much.  And my government is about to
          declare war on me.

       vi)  Meanwhile, I'm being sucked dry in taxes, receiving no benefits,
            and the congress keeps on lying, taxing, and spending.
     
     I wouldn't let Clinton's election fool me, if I were you.  
      There are a HUGE number of people like me.  We just don't say
      much.  It's quite obvious it will be "Business as usual" now,
      after seeing his appointments.

Government.


>
>--
>charles
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy