HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:23:47 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs

A good argument.  Too bad it misses the point.

One group of people proclaim "God's word, as interpreted by me, is
the absolute truth."  Another group of people say "Nobody knows the
absolute truth."

You claim that the second group accepts an "absolute truth" in claiming
there are no absolute truths... missing several points:

1. Many people in the second group recognize that they could be wrong
   about there being no "absolute truth," (I am one), but wish to avoid
   being long-winded with "I believe, based on evidence not cited herein,
   that none of the systems of belief presented as the 'absolute truth'
   are such and I strongly suspect, based on other evidence not cited
   herein, that no humans have ever known, or will ever know, such."

   There are places to be mind-numbingly precise.  Usenet is not
   one of them.
 
2. Saying "There are no X" is quite different from saying "there are X."
   Imagine an argument as this:

   Scientist:	There are no UFOs.

   UFO fan:		You just accepted that UFOs exist!

   Scientist:	I did not.  Why would you make such a statement?

   UFO fan:		You used the word "UFO."  Since you accept the word,
				you accept the referant (UFOs).  QED.

   This is getting very close to meta-logic.  I know just enough to
   recognize how difficult it is to apply meta-logic.


Finally, John Emery's original question had the same problem (with
meta-values, this time).

"Values" define how people are harmed, helped, etc.  "Metavalues" define
values about values.

Most of us accept common metavalues (e.g., "harm no others unnecessarily"),
but that doesn't mean we agree with the values that define "harm," "others"
or "unnecessarily".

Is it harm to permit a person to read the _Satanic Verses_?  To compel
a person to read it?  To compel nobody read it?

Does a woman have the protection of values?  A slave?  A wage-slave (which
includes a fair chunk of Americans today)? A child?  A fetus?  A human 
sperm/ova?  (Some of the answers may surprise you.  BTW, the SBC was
formed to protect the _Biblical_ right to own slaves...)

It is proper to punish a child physically, for his own good?  ("Spare the
rod, spoil the child").  To never punish a child, regardless of deed.
When, if ever, is the death penalty proper?

The people in the first group have ALL the answers.  E.g., for many fundies
a child's life is sacred until he is born -- then you can beat the crap
out of him (literally) for transgressions until you execute him for a
capital crime.

The people in the second group don't have the answers.  Execution of
criminals seems barbaric... then you read about an increase in nonchalant
murder.  Why should a community suffer to live a person who murders because
it's Friday night and he's bored?


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3725 alt.alien.visitors:5581 sci.skeptic:14181
From: luden@lehigh.edu (Dean E. Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:36:11 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University Computing Center

In article <63859@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:

>Dear Rock Watchers: Dr. Demonde has found that rocks from around the globe
>breathe, but just one inhalation can take anywhere from three days to 
>two weeks. They have also found that rocks also show signs of brain 
>activity. Some scientist say they are impressed with the data. In a speech
>that the Doctor gave to a group of fellow biologists last month he said
>that we recognize that  our findings are startling, and we need as much
>additional information as possible to back up our work.
>So, that's it folks. I think I'll name my rock Lurch.
>John Winston.

A few years ago I remember seeing a documentary of a rural town in one of 
the southern states.  The town was filled with interestingly eccentric 
people.  The makers of the film merely asked a few simple questions of these 
people and let them ramble.  It was very entertaining.  One of the couples 
had a son stationed at the White Sands Missile testing range in New Mexico 
and he had convinced them that the sand multiplies and grows, that the Navy 
had to constantly plow roads open that the sand had overtaken.  To prove it 
to them, he brought home a jar with a little sand in it.  They pulled the 
jar out to show how much the sand had grown over the years.  It must have 
never occurred to them that their son simply added a little bit every time 
he came home to visit.  They were so innocently sincere in their belief.
John, on the other hand, I think he tempts us.

Dean   den0@lehigh.edu
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3874 sci.skeptic:14721
From: meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Keywords: humor, MIB, John_Winston, rocks, Kibo
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:59:30 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

I have programmed my computer to display only messages originated
by John_Winston.

By the way, the subject line no longer reflects the topic.  This does
not bother me.

I'll leave you with this saying:  "Everything you know is wrong"
					-Firesign Theatre

______________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier					Mitel Corporation
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: RAPE OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS (Epilogue)
Date: 13 Aug 92 05:56:51 GMT
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB


[via misc.activism.progressive]


============================================================ 
Percentage change in forest and other wooded areas, 1970-88: 
============================================================ 

               PERCENTAGE                  PERCENTAGE 
COUNTRY          CHANGE    COUNTRY           CHANGE 

United States    -3.4      Denmark            4.4 
Finland          -0.1      Austria            4.5 
Japan             0.1      Norway             5.6 
Netherlands       0.7      France             8.2 
New Zealand       1.3      Spain              8.9 
Sweden            1.4      Italy              9.5 
Canada            1.6      Australia         13.1 
Belgium           1.7      United Kingdom    25.5 
Germany           2.7      Ireland           38.4 

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 
Environmental Indicators (Paris: OECD, 1991), p. 31. 

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

From page 150 of: 

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -   
_We're Number One, Where America Stands -- and Falls -- in the New     
World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro.    

New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House.    
$10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2   
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -    

    "America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor.    
    This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The    
    facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But    
    ideally they'll fire you up to help rebuild this nation."    

                        -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations    

[Transcribed by jhwoodar@well.sf.ca.us (Joe Woodard)]
################################################################## 
Newsgroups: talk.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: Gore Calls for a Real Environmental President
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 19:21:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Aug17.181804.13261@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>In article <w06ma=+.esprit@netcom.com> esprit@netcom.com (Alan F. Perry) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug14.192539.19672@den.mmc.com> sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:
>>>In article <-b3marn.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Aug11.031138.13065@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
>>>>>Press release from the Clinton/Gore Campaign.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gore Calls for a Real Environmental President 
>>>>> To: National Desk, Political and Environment Writer 
>>>>> 
>>>>>   LITTLE ROCK, Ark., Aug. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a 
>>>>>statement of Sen. Al Gore: 
>>>>> 
>
>	[2 paragraphs deleted}
>
>>>>>   Ironically, the Japanese are saying that the fastest growing 
>>>>>market in the history of world business is the market for the new 
>>>>>products, processes, and technologies that protect the environment 
>>>>>and encourage economic progress.  We can take advantage of that 
>>>>>opportunity or we can face a future polluted by the Bush-Quayle 
>>>>>administration's short-sighted self interest in protecting the 
>>>>>polluters instead of the American people. 
>>>>
>

Of course the Japanese have probably the worst environmental 
record of the indstrialized nations: they hunt whales, overfish
the oceans, completely wipe out hardwood forests, dump poisonous
junk in their rivers etc. Environmentally they are as bad as they
come.

I guess they figure that they can make a buck (or yen) by
cleaning up their mess worldwide?

>This post has had various comments about Clintons poor environmental
>record and various aspects about Gore's book.  Does anyone have a
>comment about the paragraph that I retained above?  Any political

I do, it is above.....

>speech by _any_ politician is going to have fluff in it, but the
>content of this paragraph is important.  It leads to the idea that
>environmentalism and jobs are not competing concerns, but that they
>can work together.  The Bush/Quayle team doesn't seem to think so.
>
>-- 
>
>		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)


-- 
Richard Crisp           Cupertino, Ca.        crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk        let's do it        (408) 253 4541 fax

Two things in life are certain: Death and Taxes. With Death it doesn't
get worse if the Democrats are elected.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Population Growth and the Bet that Paul Ehrlich Lost
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Aug21.034026.4921@vexcel.com>
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:20:00

Sorry I didn't read carefully enough.  I thought they were Dean Alaska's
rather than the source he cited.

No-one claimed that commodity prices were an accurate measure of the
quality of life - especially the prices of metals.  The poorer you
are, the more important the price of food commodities, assuming you
are in a monetary economy at all.

Paul Ehrlich said metal prices would go up and was confident enough
in his doctrine of general scarcity to accept a bet.

Alaska asks:

     Do you believe that it is reasonable to assert that lower
     labor costs from increased population could hold commodity
     prices level in the face of increasing scarcity or
     increasing costs of extraction?

Conceivably they could, but more likely there was greater abundance
and reduced costs of extraction.  I think the facts of the matter can
be determined from reference books, and I think a $50 bet would
stimulate me to go to the library and look them up.  By reduced
costs of extraction I mean a reduced number of man hours.  How
about copper as the commodity about which to bet?

Darned if I know whether Dean Alaska's last name is Alaska.
What name does he put on checks when he pays bets?


--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Subject: Re: Gore Calls for a Real Environmental President
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 22:07:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.160020.25868@den.mmc.com> sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:
>
>Now, so "A U.S. Senator can only pass laws for the Federal Government",
>and as you so aptly pointed out, TVA is a *Federal* project.  So Al is
>then equally unable to do anything there, either?  Gosh, I didn't
>realize the Senate was such an impotent organization.  So Al can't
>affect things back in his "home" state, and he can't work at the
>*Federal* level, that's the rationale for why we should elect him to be
>"a heartbeat away from the presidency?"  
>
I would have thought the answer to this was obvious.  Senators don't pass bills unilaterally.  They vote in favor of the passage of bills.  If there are 
enough votes to the contrary, the senate will pass, or not pass, a bill 
contrary to the individual senators vote.  Even if the senate does pass a
given bill, the president can still veto it.  That is the difference between
a US senator and a despot.

Peter Lauren.


Newsgroups: talk.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Gore Calls for a Real Environmental President
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:18:08 GMT

In article <+29m_yp.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.181804.13261@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>In article <w06ma=+.esprit@netcom.com> esprit@netcom.com (Alan F. Perry) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug14.192539.19672@den.mmc.com> sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:
>>>>In article <-b3marn.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Aug11.031138.13065@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
>>>>>>Press release from the Clinton/Gore Campaign.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gore Calls for a Real Environmental President 
>>>>>> To: National Desk, Political and Environment Writer 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   LITTLE ROCK, Ark., Aug. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a 
>>>>>>statement of Sen. Al Gore: 
>>>>>> 
>>
>>	[2 paragraphs deleted}
>>
>>>>>>   Ironically, the Japanese are saying that the fastest growing 
>>>>>>market in the history of world business is the market for the new 
>>>>>>products, processes, and technologies that protect the environment 
>>>>>>and encourage economic progress.  We can take advantage of that 
>>>>>>opportunity or we can face a future polluted by the Bush-Quayle 
>>>>>>administration's short-sighted self interest in protecting the 
>>>>>>polluters instead of the American people. 
>>>>>
>>
>
>Of course the Japanese have probably the worst environmental 
>record of the indstrialized nations: they hunt whales, overfish
>the oceans, completely wipe out hardwood forests, dump poisonous
>junk in their rivers etc. Environmentally they are as bad as they
>come.
>
>I guess they figure that they can make a buck (or yen) by
>cleaning up their mess worldwide?
>
>>This post has had various comments about Clintons poor environmental
>>record and various aspects about Gore's book.  Does anyone have a
>>comment about the paragraph that I retained above?  Any political
>
>I do, it is above.....

Which still completely avoids the point that dealing with environmental
messes can be a plus economically, and does not need to "cost jobs",
but rather could invigorate an economy.  Good environment = jobs.
>
>>speech by _any_ politician is going to have fluff in it, but the
>>content of this paragraph is important.  It leads to the idea that
>>environmentalism and jobs are not competing concerns, but that they
>>can work together.  The Bush/Quayle team doesn't seem to think so.
>>
>>-- 
>>
>>		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
>
>
>-- 
>Richard Crisp           Cupertino, Ca.        crisp@netcom.com
>(415) 903-3832 wk        let's do it        (408) 253 4541 fax
>
>Two things in life are certain: Death and Taxes. With Death it doesn't
>get worse if the Democrats are elected.


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: rawynde@netcom.com (Rob Wynden)
Subject: CA Green Party in Trouble!
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 17:45:49 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: ca

The California Green Party is in serious trouble!

We need help with our computer system immediately or
the Party could go broke very soon!!!!

Specifically we use a 9 track tape drive to read our
voter registration tapes and the tape subsystem can not
be made to function!

We currently use a 386 with a 9 track tape drive controller
card (Laguna Pertec card) to read our voter reg tapes. But
both Kennedy tape drives we have (a 9400 and a 9000) are
not working!!!  We need help with getting this equipment 
going or we need an alternate 9 track tape drive!

Without voter reg data the Green Party can not generate
operating funds and will soon cease to exist!         

Please Help!

All interested parties should contact
Rob at

rawynde@netcom.com

HELP!!!!!!

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Population Growth and the Bet that Paul Ehrlich Lost
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:40:26 GMT

In article <JMC.92Aug20175215@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>All of Dean Alaska's article consists of flat assertion and
>speculation with no quantitative information.  He cites certain
>causes that perhaps qualitatively tend to have certain effects
>ignoring anything that may have the opposite effect.
>

This is basically true.  The point of the article is that commodity prices are
not accurate measure of quality of life.  The article was an essay, not
scientific research.  I invite others to suggest factors having opposite
effects.
>Let's take just one item, perhaps the most important.
>Alaska says:

[Do you actually think my last name is Alaska?]
>
>     Commodities will be stably priced because they are produced
>     by cheaper and cheaper labor and because fewer and fewer
>     people will be in the market to buy them.  More poeple will
>     go without.
>
>Is he asserting that in the ten years covered by the bet, world
>per capita consumption declined for important commodities?
>Which commodities?
>--

This does appear to be the assertion of the author, at least in regards
to regions with high population growth and the other factors she mentioned.
She didn't say which commodities.  Do you believe that it is reasonable to
assert that lower labor costs from increased population could hold
commodity prices level in the face of increasing scarcity or increasing
costs of extraction?
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3254 talk.politics.misc:39785 alt.politics.clinton:1968
From: sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gore Calls for a Real Environmental President
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:25:39 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group, Denver

In article <-b3marn.crisp@netcom.com> crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.031138.13065@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
>>Press release from the Clinton/Gore Campaign.
>>
>> Gore Calls for a Real Environmental President 
>> To: National Desk, Political and Environment Writer 
>> 
>>   LITTLE ROCK, Ark., Aug. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a 
>>statement of Sen. Al Gore: 
>> 
>>   Once again, the Bush-Quayle administration is the on the wrong 
>>road, moving backward, trying to convince the American people that 
>>they can't afford a safe, clean environment for their kids. 
>>   The American people know that's not true.  And, they know they 
>>can't afford another four years of Bush and Quayle.  Protecting our 
>>environment means creating jobs, increasing profit, and strengthening 
>>our economy. 
>>   Ironically, the Japanese are saying that the fastest growing 
>>market in the history of world business is the market for the new 
>>products, processes, and technologies that protect the environment 
>>and encourage economic progress.  We can take advantage of that 
>>opportunity or we can face a future polluted by the Bush-Quayle 
>>administration's short-sighted self interest in protecting the 
>>polluters instead of the American people. 
>
>Now this is very interesting. Here we have the VP candidate telling
>us we need an environmentally conscious president. I find it very
>ironic that Bill Clinton's home state, Arkansas, has rivers polluted
>with chicken feces and yet Bill is tooling around on private jets
>owned by the company doing the polluting! So the Republicans are 
>protecting the polluters instead of the people? Hogwash!
>
>This Gore guy sure is good at exposing the fact that his boss-hopeful
>is talking out of both corners of his mouth!

Not too surprising, though.  I grew up in the Tennessee valley area.
The TVA runs a coal-fired electricity generating plant on the river,
about 10 miles from my mom's house.  The environment hasn't fared very
well, with lots of the forest being damaged by SO2, ash, etc.  Uncle
Albert doesn't seem to care enough about the environment to clean up
his own back yard, especially when TVA is one of the larger employers
in the area.

John
-- 
John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com
From: red_trek@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Short Environmental tips
Date: 13 Aug 92 13:38:12 -0500
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

A while back, I posted an annoucement that I had available to
interested parties a file called "Short Environmental Tips", 
heavily though not exclusively based on "50 simple things You Can 
Do to Save the Earth".

If you have sent me an e-message requesting a copy of this file
and have not yet received a copy, then please e-mail me again
and I'll make another effort to send it to your though e-mail.

E-mail to:  Red_Trek@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: Andrew.Robinson@anu.edu.au
Subject: The definition of Wealth
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 01:36:25 GMT

It took me so long to think of a reply for Gary that the original thread
disappeared from our files.  Tsk.

Correct me if I am wrong, Gary, but the position you stated most recently was
that we could effectively equate wealth with utility - that is, the more we are
able to do, the more wealthy we are.  You went on to describe money as being a
sort of unnecessary and possibly insufficient condition for wealth.  I think
that what _you_ said is an excellent definition, and I hope that I have done it
justice here.

However, I am concerned about the attempted comparison of wealth generation
between economic systems.  How can we trade off wealth when it's defined as
utility?  I shall deliberately choose a trite example - am I more wealthy than
you because I saw a kangaroo in the bush two mornings ago as I walked to work? 
Or am I less wealthy than you because I can't trip over [insert your local
cuddly here] under the same circumstances?  To be truly comparable, the wealth
created by one system must be a subset of the wealth created by another,
otherwise there will be overlap but there will also be fringes which either has
that the other doesn't, and who is to say whose fringes are better?  I suppose
this is where my comment about the economic systems defining wealth could come
in again.  I think that to say that our system is better at generating wealth
than another where there is some overlap but also fringes is to apply a
subjective value judgement to those fringes.

regardless,
Andrew

now hit d
Newsgroups: talk.environment