HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Robertson Roulette
Date: 15 Oct 1992 07:43:35 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <ldprb8INNbkv@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>                     Robertson Roulette
>                     by Joesph L. Conn
> 
> The Bush Campaign needs The Religious Rights Support, But
>         Can The Average American Voter Stand Pat?

<Rest of article not included>

Here's a puzzle.  There is one word in the rest of this article which makes
it practically certain that this text came from a real paper source by way
of a scanner.  What is that word, and why does it betray the true origin of
the text?
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:00:31 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Oct14.235345.3101@javelin.sim.es.com>,
 gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:
> bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner) writes:
>> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes...
>>
>>>Barry, Tony, Mark,
>>> 
>>>If you ever succeed if persuading me to leave the LDS Church, I
>>>would become an atheist before affiliating myself with
>>>"Christians" like you.
>>> 
>>>You might win the battle and still lose the war.
>>
>>Jason,
>>
>>You would be following a well-worn path if you do so.  A few unscientific
>>studies have indicated that the most common path followed by LDS who
>>left the faith is to atheism.  I believe Walter Martin lamented this fact
>>shortly before he died.
>>
> 
> This is indeed tragic.  

Yes, it is.  But the ends always justify the means, don't they.
<he said sarcasticly>

[...]
> The reason so many
> leave the LDS faith and end up with no belief system, or atheism, is that
> they are so indoctrinated into the sense of "One True Church" that when
> they discover that the "One True Church" is false, they are resigned to
> the idea that if the "One True Church" is false, then ALL belief systems
> are false.

More likely, the efforts of those that ripped apart their faith
have left them with such a bad taste in their mouth from having
religion rammed down their throuats, that any form of even
remotely "tradidional" religion is repulsive to them.

Also,  What's to prevent it from happening to them again.

They become EC, and some other group ripps their faith apart, so
ther go to another "Christian" sect, only to have their faith
ripped apart again by yet another group.

If I were them, I'd give up on this "Christian" God for
justifying such tactics, and either give up on all religions, or
at the very least try to find one that is more benevolent and
fosters more tolerance to outsiders than these other "Christian"
denominations.

If that means that I would be eternally damned because of it, I'd
much rather be in hell for eternity than worship the God that
endorses and approves of such malevolent, cantankerous,
uncharitable, and contentious unrighteous dominion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not Christians
Date: 14 Oct 92 10:48:45 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <e2UY026H25pw01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>,
 agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>>> slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes:
>>>>  press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> the lds says(like Jason), do you presume to know the
>>>>> interpretations better than the lds? 
>>>> 
>>>> No, what we are saying is: "Do you presume to know the *LDS*
>>>> interpretations better than the LDS?"
>>> 
>>> I think not. Joseph Smith Jr. displaced the christians with His
>>> interpretations and said in effect, these interpretations are
>>> correct, yours are skewed, corrupted, abominations, etc. You
>>> wish to ignore this historical displacement?
>>
>> Thank you for proving my point.  This is *your* interpretation
>> of what Smith said, *not* the *LDS* interpretation of what Smith
>> said.
> 
> What is important is, what was Smith's interpretation of what he said!

So then the LDS interpretation is irrelevant.
And since Smith is dead, we can ask him.
So that means that the anti-Mormon interpretation is the only
valid applicable one, right?

[...]
>>>> Mormons are not inerrantists.
>>> 
>>> The lds cannon scriptures contain errors?
>>
>>Yes, they do.  No Mormon I know of ever claimed they are word
>>perfect.  The only ones I know making *that* claim are
>>anti-Mormons.
>>
>>Look at Ether 12:23-25; 1 Nephi 19:6.
>>
>>>> Mormons do not believe in infallable prophets or leaders.
> 
> Jason, your church leaders would absolutely cringe if they knew how you
> were defending your faith.  

Back up this statement or withdraw it.  I'm tried of being called
a liar, and accused of misrepresenting my Church's beliefs.

It is pointless to continue this discussion with you, Tony. 
You're going into my kill-filter.  If you want my repsonse to
something you'll have to use email.

Dana Bunner, Gordon Banks, Mike Sellers, Willard Smith, Robert
O'Barr, Kermit Tensmeyer, and all the rest of the Mormons reading
this,  

If you think I've mis-represented the Church in any way,
intentionally lied about the church, or anything else along
thoses lines, please, speak up and let me know. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: All you need is SLACK! was Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<fTC57qk@quack.sac.ca.us> <1992Oct8.150244.19691@news.yale.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:07:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.150244.19691@news.yale.edu> 
rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla `a normal') writes:
>In article <fTC57qk@quack.sac.ca.us> 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>That's Jehovah-1 (aka Wotan, Yahweh, RA, etc). See the Book of the
>>SubGenius for details. The SubGenius must have SLACK!!!!!
>Is it possible we have really found the first man stupid enough to
>really not realize that the SubG is a joke?

Sometimes a book goes too far. Sometimes ... is NOW! First there was the
Persian Epic of Gilgamesh, then the Indian Mahabharata, then the Torah,
the New Testament, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, Dianetics,
Diurectics, I'm OK you're OK, AND NOW:
The Book of the SubGenius or How to prosper in the coming weird times.
The Source: Jehovah-1 (aka Wotan, Yahweh, RA, etc)
The Teacher: J.R. "BOB" DOBBS
The Goal: SLACK
The Obstacle: The conspiracy and it dupes, the normals
The Way: The casting out of false prophets
The Weapon: Time Control

Slogans:
Ph*ck'em if they can't take a joke. Too much is always better that not
enough. Pull the wool over your own eyes. You'll pay to know what you
REALLY think. Give me slack, or give me food (or kill me). If I can't
whup it, I'll go DOWN. Bleeding head good, healed head bad. If you act
like a dumbsh*t, they'll treat you as an equal.

Science does not remove the terror of the Gods!

If you think there's nothing wrong with the world, don't buy this Book;
if you are offended by your own sick rage when viewing literature alien
to your repressive behavior code, go ahead and purchase the Book but
DON'T READ IT! The Church of the SubGenius may drive you CRAZY! The
Roman Catholic Church has driven people crazy. Scientology has driven
people crazy. So have Satanism, Islam, the Boy Scouts, the government of
the US, Judaism, traffic jams, LSD, the CIA, Taoism, parents, kids, TV,
war, and peace. Some people drive themselves crazy. This Book will not
drive SubGeniuses crazy. It will supply them with the Slack they need to
drive OTHERS crazy. Many idiots will object to this publication. The
techniques and secrets revealed herein have been passed through the
headquarters of many terrorist organizations (including the FBI and CIA)
for years. This knowledge will also enhance your professional
capabilities and aid you in protecting against THEM, but it is not meant
for the young or irresponsible.

For up-to-date information on The Church, send a stamped, self-addressed
envelope to:
The SubGenius Foundation, po box 140306, Dallas, TX, 75214
We welcome contributions of any kind; letters, artwork, photos,
clippings, articles, sin materials, artifacts, money, sacrifices, tapes,
and all other shreds of humanity. NOT TAX DEDUCTABLE. We would rather
not hear from Mediocretins, Pinks, Glorps or False Prophets.

Ref: ISBN:0-671-63810-6
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 12 Oct 92 13:51:15 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Oct9.180117.22191@linus.mitre.org> zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell) writes:
|In article <70546@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|>The encyclopedia I looked at this afternoon had 10 pages on Jesus Christ,
|>but it only had about 2 pages on Julius Caesar and associated Juliuses.
|
|I'm sure this argument would go over very well in a meeting of
|historical scholars!  There is no reason to believe that the size of
|the article in the encyclopedia is bigger because there is more
|historical knowledge.  The encyclopedia may have contained everything
|known about Jesus but certainly did not contain everything known about
|Julius Caesar. 

Oh. And it MAY HAVE, as you say, contained amounts proportional to the
information available.

|                We have several historical books written by and about
|Julius Caesar and know a great deal more about him than Christ!  Also,
|myths don't become real because enough people write about them.  Just

Agreed.

|curious, what encyclopedia are you using?

It was the American Encyclopedia, I think.  My local public library only
had this and the World Book.  They had moved away from Britannica at that
branch.

|>I quoted Dr. Kenndy's
|>list and I, myself, cannot readily comment on these men.
|
|This is the SECOND time you've posted large extracts from Dr. Kennedy's
|book.  This is even after most of what he said had been proven wrong.
|Please stop pushing his lies!

Now, you are overstating a little.  This was all in my original post.
Much less you haven't PROVEN MOST of it was lies.  In fact you have
only given opposing evidence, which you think must obvioulsy be infallible,
which is something you want grant to the Bible, so why is your evidence so
much better?

|>|Nearly all of Dr. D. James Kennedy's statements you've given from _Why
|>|I Believe_ can easily be proven false by anyone with an encyclopedia!
|>
|>I looked in the encyclopedia today.  It confirmed all of the 
|>prophesy, except the fact that it would not be rebuilt.  Again,
|>I ask is town with the same name the same as the original town?
|>
|>Researchers testify to the fact that the Tyre of today is not the same
|>as the Tyre of old.  Why is your historian more infallible than these?
|
|I can't think of any city that is the same as it was!  Are you claiming
|it has been moved.  Someone said here that the new city is built on the
|old.

That is what I've read.

|-- Steve

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts


-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Are Mormons Christians?
Date: 13 Oct 92 06:09:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct12.224026.59651@cc.usu.edu>, slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker) writes...

[...]

> 
>Why just the other day I confused Robert Weiss with Robert
>O'Barr -- not a good thing to do. 

	Why, it's understandable.
	Aside from the glasses, we're dead ringers.

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
	
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: "Evidence" for "Jesus" comes from believers
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 13:00:20 GMT

Though I repeated for a third time my very specific intent in
participating in this thread (I stated it also in first post),

>> Kent again asks about my purpose.  I'll repeat a third time: I'm
>> making light of the criticism that most "evidence" for "Jesus" comes
>> from believers.

Kent still insists I must give him evidence for Jesus.  Amazing!

>Just don't send another "Idaho parody", thanks, that's
>not evidence...

Thanks for pointing that out, Kent.  Of course, no one ever suggested
that the Idaho parody was evidence for Jesus.

By the way, Kent, a claim and its inverse are not equivalent (check a
math or rhetoric book for confirmation*).  As I noted, your "Chineese
[sic] people" example relies on the inverse of Jesus' claim.


*I recomment Morash, BRIDGE TO ABSTRACT MATHEMATICS.
--
Gregg Skinner       I do not speak for any organization.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: Re: SINEAD O'CONNOR
Originator: cmgrawbu@c00379-346dan.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 12:30:13 GMT


>>	I really would like someone to explain exactly what Sinead 
>>O'Connor had in mind when she called the Pope the "real enemy" and 
>>ripped up his picture.  I'm quite confused.  I realize she calls 
>>herself a "recovering Catholic," but this is ridiculous.
>>--D. Mix, Georgetown University


Ok, apparently she feels that the rules of the church that tell a person how
to live and control their lives (abstinance for example) is really a plot by the 
church to keep the followers under control and in fear. I don't understand
what she thinks the people would do if they "weren't in fear," but nevertheless
she feels this is what "organized religion" (to quote her) is out to do.
She did say that she beleived in God and said that it was only God who
could get the world out of its problems.
From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:03:42 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board) writes:

>(BTW, a couple days ago I posted that I thought the fudge phrase ("so it was thought")
> in Luke did not occur in the earliest manusripts. I noted at the time that I could be thinking
>of another passage. Well, I was. Upon double-checking I found that the false fudge was not
>Luke's...it was Matthew's.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.  At first I thought you were
saying that "so it was thought" occurs in Mat, not Lk.  This is
certainly wrong.  Both Mat and Lk say something to avoid making Joseph
the father of Jesus.  In Luke it's "as it was thought".  In Mat it's
"Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus".  I suspect
you're saying that the qualification in Mat. was missing from early
manuscripts.  Here's what Comfort has to say in "Early Manuscripts and
Modern Translations":

 The NEB margin and NJB margin give two variant readings: "Joseph, to
 whom was betrothed Mary, a virgin, who gave birth to Jesus", and
 "Joseph, to whom Mary, a virgin, was betrothed, was the father of
 Jesus".  The first reading is supported by some early Latin
 translations and a few later MSS; the second reading is supported by
 one Syriac MS.  [I have verified this in the critical apparatus of the
 UBS Greek --clh] The NJB margin says that the Syriac reading must have
 arisen as a result of a misunderstanding of the first variant just
 mentioned.  Since no Greek MSS contain the second reading, and all the
 early Greek MSS -- including P1 [3rd Cent --clh] Aleph B C L W --
 support the reading "Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom was born
 Jesus", the readings given in NEB margin and NJB margin could hardly
 have been part of the original text.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Organization: beware of those who do the Devil's work in the name of Jesus!
	<1992Oct14.160654.18122@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:32:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.160654.18122@news.cs.brandeis.edu> 
aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>Keep the story of the adulterous woman (John 8:2-11) in mind.  Jesus
>(implicitly) acknowledges that the legal judgement arrived at by the Pharisees
>was correct in verse 7 but goes on to challenge them with the famous, "HE
>WHO IS WITHOUT SIN AMONG YOU, LET HIM BE THE FIRST TO THROW A STONE AT HER."
>[John 8:7 (NASB)]  You may arrive at the correct legal judgement that someone
>is guilty of homosexuality.  But we are all sinners, EQUALLY fallen in God's
>eyes and therefore are not qualified to pass judgement.  
>Remember that "WHOEVER KEEPS THE WHOLE LAW AND YET STUMBLES IN ONE
>POINT, HE HAS BECOME GUILTY OF ALL." [James 2:10 (NASB)]  Or, "FOR IN THAT
>YOU JUDGE ANOTHER, YOU CONDEMN YOURSELF; FOR YOU WHO JUDGE PRACTICE THE SAME
>THINGS." [Romans 2:1 (NASB)]  You may not be guilty of the sin of homosexuality
>but you sin and therefore are guilty of breaking the entire law just as
>everyone else is.  I know many fellow Christians don't like to hear that (I
>reminded a pastor of that once and he vehemently denied it, simply ignoring
>the verses quoted above) but it's right there.  AS CHRISTIANS, WE MUST BALANCE
>OUR ZEAL FOR THE LAW OF GOD WITH LOVE AND COMPASSION FOR OTHERS, ESPECIALLY
>THOSE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.  Sin is sin; there is no heirarchy.  THAT is how
>we confront Biblical Law honestly!
>BTW, in support of Steve Adams' position, remember, "FOR WHAT HAVE I TO DO
>WITH JUDGING OUTSIDERS?  DO YOU NOT JUDGE THOSE WHO ARE WITHIN THE CHURCH?
>BUT THOSE WHO ARE OUTSIDE, GOD JUDGES." (I Corinithians 5:12,13 (NASB)]
>  -- Scott @Brandeis

Well said, spoken as a true Christian. Why is it that so many self-proclaimed
Christians have so much trouble following Jesus? Could it be that Christian
Devil? Is it the Luke14:26 paradox?

>                           I asked Jesus,
>                     "How much do you love me?"
>                     "This much," He answered;
>                        and He stretched out
>                         His arms and died.

I still think your signature file stinks though, IMNSHO.  ::::B^}
Here, I have a new one for you:   (You like?)

I say preacher-mon don't tell me, Heaven is not on the Earth
I know you don't know, what life is really worth
you say all that glitters is gold, half the story have never been told
so now we've seen the light, we're going to stand up for our right!
You know we're sick and tired of your B*SHit game
you lie and go to Heaven in a Jesus name
we know what you don't understand, the mighty God (Jah) is a livin' man
so now we've seen the light, we're going to stand up for our right
Get Up! Stan' Up! Stand up for your right!
Get Up! Stan' Up! (In the morning!) Don't give up the fight!
	-prophet Marley, Jah! Ras TafarI!
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormons are not JW's
Date: 16 Oct 92 05:40:32 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct15.131047.5126@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.042012.17844@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller) writes:
>>From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
>>> In article <1992Oct14.174340.15126@newsgate.sps.mot.com> ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT
>>>  Now you'all notice this, these two verses don't come from s KJ version,
>>>  or RvS, or even a Jerusalem Bible
>>
>>>  but this is the exact phrasing from a JW old testament.
>>
>>Ah....  The real reason, the 'Kermit-JW-psychosis'.
>>
>>Once again, I am not JW.  Although, I know when they get to that
>>'burning bosom' stage there is no dealing with facts.
>>
>
>
>  You are not a Witness, fine.
>
>  You Quote from JW material, you use JW-like scriptures.
>
>  The only "other" group that get hung up about the name of God
>  being Jehovah and the Christ isn't Jehovah is 
>  the "Watchtower Bible Study"
>
>  You have shown _us_ your faith by _your_ works; 
>
>   <<  Yea, right this is a _grace_ issue  >>   :-)
>
>
>
>   By the way what "translation" of the OT did you use? ....
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
>Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
>   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | 


Actually, if you knew your JWs, you would know that they would NOT agree
with what Mark is saying!  They would disagree totally.  He doesn't have

a "translation" he has the original Hebrew.  Kermit, the Hebrew says
what Mark was printed on the newsgroup.  Instead of facing the issue at
hand (why the LDS think they are two different entities), you attack
Mark personally, and the translation he uses, and you try to destroy the
validity of what he is saying.  Why don't you face the issue, that it does
indeed say what it says, and lets talk about the issue.
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Mormons, a different Jesus
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:43:10 GMT


Let's see if I've understood _your_ argument:


   BoM archalogy is argued and the conclusion is
   that No metals found means it's a different Christ.


   You say you'r a "freshman" at Arizona?   {-)   

   Have you take basic in Arguments yet?


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
Life is sometimes a bowl of Cherries; Watch out for the pits;
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.philosophy,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Jesus's bloodline mystery and two different Jesus's was (I'm God.)
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:11:57 GMT
	<fTRfDx6@quack.sac.ca.us> <ksand-131092142346@wintermute.apple.com>
Organization: from madonna all the way down to smurfette

In article <ksand-131092142346@wintermute.apple.com> 
ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Hello again, should we take this one as a good example where the myth
>is false, or not? Or are the two different genealogies, just, a myth???

This is a good example of the trouble you get into when you assume that
myth must be either true or false. Myth is often based on historical fact,
so undoubtably there were Joshuas born to Josephs and Marys as these are
very common names. But myth is never constrained by the need to be
historically correct as should be painfully apparent in the Bible. Myth
is METAphoric, transcendent of true/false reductionism. Just think about
the notion of virgin birth, is that a metaphor or what?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: references (was Re: I'm God.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:26:24 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc

> In article <70546@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
> }The encyclopedia I looked at this afternoon had 10 pages on Jesus Christ,
> }but it only had about 2 pages on Julius Caesar and associated Juliuses.

Was this the official former Russian Communist Encyclopedia of the world?
Maybe
you are aware that all kinds of political/religious forces are involved
in encyclopedia designs. I would *never* trust something based on
one single source, I'm not that stupid.

Cheers,
Kenrt
	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc