HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dproudfo@jarthur.claremont.edu (Kekoa Proudfoot)
Subject: Re: A question of perfection...
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 04:59:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.031707.26904@wam.umd.edu> rommel@next06cville.wam.umd.edu (David Lawrence Miller) writes:
> 
> 
> 	I've been following this group for a while and it occurs to me  
> that some very good ideas come forward, but they won't _completely_  
> eradicate life as we know it (the deep sea factor, notably).
> 	Has anyone considered how long it would take for that life to  
> evolve into anything sentient enough to muck about the planet as we do? I  
> guess a few billion years, after we kill everything else.  I guess my  
> point is, how long before the sun goes kablooey?  If there were just a  
> little life around then, I wouldn't mind too much... but I guess I'm not a  
> perfectionist.  Whaddaya think?
> 
> 					Rommel

I'll say the following:

It has taken about 600,000,000 years for sea life to evolve to plants,
then vertebrates, animals, amphibians, insects, dinosaurs... the rise
of mammals came only about 75,000,000 years ago.  Homo sapiens have been
around for only about a million years.  The first multicellular fossils
are, at their oldest, 750,000,000 years old.

For reference, the solar system has been around for about 5 billion years.
"Life", depending on your definition, has been around for about 3.5 to 3.8
billion years.  The age of the universe is on the order of 10 to 20 billion
years.

I'd assume the sun would last for another billion years in a state similar to
the one it's in right now.  The sun is likely to swell and cool and redden,
although I'm not exactly sure on the exact time-frame of this.  I believe
the life of a star is on the order of 10 billion years, although I'm not too
sure on this figure.  The earth, however, will be dry and lifeless by the
time the sun "dies".  Killing only some life is a risk... though I wouldn't
say it's a bad one.  It all depends on what life is killed and to what extent.
Haven't seen or heard of a flawless plan yet...  and I still have my doubts.


+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
         _
         |     _
        (|avid |)roudfoot              dproudfo@jarthur.claremont.edu
               |                        HARVEY MUDD COLLEGE, c/o '95

Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: mitchell@seas.smu.edu (Gary Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Getting rid of Ocean Dwellers
Keywords: Gor-Gor
Organization: Brute Force Productions
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 13:14:12 GMT

Haven't any of you guys seen GODZILLA?

Hint. Hint. :))

Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: b790zcd@utarlg.uta.edu (George M. Smiley)
Subject: Re:    Why ?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 03:18:00 GMT

In article <92103.204403RED103@psuvm.psu.edu>, <RED103@psuvm.psu.edu> writes...
>      I would like to know why it is important to destroy the earth.  It
>      seems that anyone who would advocate this has a death wish unless
>      there is an alternative living enviroment proposed. However, the
>      tone of the posts here don't reflect an interest in living altern-
>      atives.  If then you want to die, why don't you just kill yourselves
>      and leave the earth for those who would like to save it.
> 
>                                                        Thank You,
>                                                            RED

I think every one here has their own reasons as to why it is important
to destroy the earth, that is more of a philosophical question and really
is irrevelant. As for living alternatives, that goes against the very
concept of destroy the earth. Destroying the earth encompasses destroying
everthing on the planet as well as the planet for eternity. If a living
alternative was allowed that living alternative would just propagate itself
into another earth thus nullifying the original destruction. As for dying,
I do not wish to die unless everything and everybody on this planet dies
along with me. If that sounds selfish, too bad, you've misinterpreted me
and  will never understand anything anybody posts in alt.destroy.the.earth,
hence, you should unsubscribe and await your eventual lonely doom.

Still thinking on how to destroy the sun,

George.
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
Subject: Re: Getting rid of Ocean Dwellers
From: spg@nereid.sunquest.com (Steve Gibbons)
Date: 15 Apr 1992 00:01 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Sunquest Information Systems, Instrument Interfacing
Keywords: Ice-9, DQ Blizzards are K00l too.
Summary: alt.destroy.the.earth with world distribution (I love it...)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  

In article <wdumNpq00aw3AFAkUV@andrew.cmu.edu>, jk73+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joseph Wei-Cheng Ku) writes...
#Then my suggestion is this. We need to do more research to find a way to
#start a nuclear reactions  with just plain water, cold fusion is
#preferred, but splitting oxygens might not be bad either(probably hard
#to do, huh? but like I said, more research). If we can start some type
#of  reaction, not only can we evaporate all the water on this planet, we
#could also burn this planet into ciders with the energy produced by this
#reaction, which will result in the true destruction of the earth (the
#crust and atomsphere at least), making it absolutely inhabitable. 

This posting was one of those things that make me go "hmmm."  It seems to me
that Kurt Vonnegut Jr. already thought of something along this vein (chain
reactions with water) in his novel "Cat's Cradel."  (BTW, does ice-9 qualify as
being suitably destructive + permanent?  ;-)  )

So, all you chemistry/physics dudes and dudettes, hop to it...
--
Steve (SPG6) spg@sunquest.com
It's been a really rotten 3 weeks, that's why _I_ read a.d.t.e...
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: jtilton@willamette.edu (James Tilton)
Subject: Re: beauracracy used properly...
Summary: Anarchy used improperly...
Keywords: Lemon Meringue Pie
Organization: Poor, at best.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 05:22:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.200959.19772@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> swcramer@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (The Shadow) writes:
>
>Get the world pretty much linked up and run via computer systems...
>put the master computer in the charge of administrators, say at a
>college computing facility...  I would give them about a week or so
>before everything was mucked up so much that everything would collapse
>into anarchy and people would revolt...  from there the standard
>nuclear war scenario could take effect...  and voila - no more earth.
>
>-Shadow

What!  This is supposed to be alt.destroy.the.earth, and you suggest a
method which cause "everything [to] collapse into anarchy and people
would revolt"?  Pshaw, pshaw!  That should be in alt.save.the.earth! :)

						-et

--
Anarchists of the world, unite!
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
Subject: Re: Water, water, everywhere...
Reply-To: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 20:02:27 GMT


In a previous article, dc4l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Dean Calloway) says:

>I already posted the "melting the icecaps" thing; I'm surprised nobody
>embraced it.  The problem is what to do with the life under the waves.
>
>I can not come up with any reasonable way of eliminating it.  Even a

The only sure fire method of eliminating deep sea
 life is by boiling off all of the earth's water.
 The boil would have to be maintained long enough
 for underground springs to dry up as well.  

To do that, you use either the Astronomical Collisions
 method or the VonNeumann Machines method.  
-- 
Francis A. Uy
fau@po.cwru.edu
cs201329@umbc5.ubc.edu
Organization: Masters student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:48:18 -0400 
From: Dean Calloway <dc4l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Why ?
	<1992Apr13.203743.15468@muddcs.claremont.edu>

Q: Why destroy the earth?

A: Because its there...

Is there any other reason to be offered... I mean, since the dawn of
time, mankind has searched high and low to answer the inevitable
question that seesm to plague his very existence... "Why".... we
question and wonder precisely because we don't know...

DCAL
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: The Shadow <swcramer@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Getting rid of Ocean Dwellers
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:14:52 -0500


but...  what if some sort of new life form is able to develop and
proliferate during the process of killing all the water creatures?

guess there could be a task force formed for taking care of these
pesky things...

in the end result the food chain is gonna be really messed up.  but...
planet earth will fix it all again after a couple millenia.  alas,
back to the start again.

-Shadow
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sunday, 12 Apr 1992 20:44:03 EDT
From: <RED103@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
Subject:    Why ?

      I would like to know why it is important to destroy the earth.  It
      seems that anyone who would advocate this has a death wish unless
      there is an alternative living enviroment proposed. However, the
      tone of the posts here don't reflect an interest in living altern-
      atives.  If then you want to die, why don't you just kill yourselves
      and leave the earth for those who would like to save it.

                                                        Thank You,
                                                            RED
From: rone@chort.usc.edu (Ron A. Echeverri)
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
Subject: Re: Why ?
Date: 13 Apr 1992 21:42:18 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: chort.usc.edu

In article <kduN8Jm00VB9I4DGV0@andrew.cmu.edu> jj22+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Joseph Jantos) writes:
>It's been my impression that the people posting to this newsgroup are
>pathetic non-conformist wanna-be's who get kicks out of trying to
>think up ways to destroy the earth (either eliminating the
>"togetherness" off all the earths atoms or destroying ALL life as we
>know it) knowing that a reasonable, effective, and possible solution
>does not exist, and even if one did exist, they wouldn't try to
>implement it even if they were organized and had sufficient funds.

(I don't know about you fellow a.d.t.e posters, but this twerp emailed me this.
Why bother when i'd read the board anyways? Sheesh)

To JJT: Your impression of your impressions have been greatly exaggerated.
That happens when you drink all that coffee and stay up watching all the 
no-rating movies on the movie cable channels.

Besides, who said we don't have enough funds? we're about to convince H. Ross
Perot to abandon the presidency campaign and fund our experiments instead.
Ha, so there.

>IMNSHO, this bboard is a stupid joke.

Not so humble is right. Your head is so big, it reminds me of Roseanne Barr.
And at least she can sing.

>-bbz
Dyslexic, eh? I'm sorry.

-- 
.signature: defunct due to sig virus
Reconstruction in process
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: The Shadow <swcramer@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: nice depiction of earth's destruction
Keywords: big ball go boom
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:06:48 -0500


I believe that the book I am thinking of is called "The Forge of God."
I do not, however, remember the author.  There is a fantastic
description in there of the earth's total and complete destruction,
though.

You folks here might appreciate reading that...

-Shadow
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Re: Destroy Sun -> Destroy Earth
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 07:35:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

dproudfo@jarthur.claremont.edu (Kekoa Proudfoot a.k.a. David) writes:
: 
: You make some nice points... but let's consider some basic facts about the
: sun:
:                30
: Mass    1.99x10  kg
:                5
: Radius  6.69x10  km
: 
: Now, for comparison, facts about Earth:
: 
:                24
: Mass    5.98x10  kg (That's 332,776 times less massive than the sun)
:                 3
: Radius  6.378x10 km (105 times smaller then the radius of sun)
: 
: Hmmm.  Volume is proportional to radius cubed...
:    3
: 105 = 1,157,625.  That means the sun has 1,157,625 times more volume than the
: Earth.
: 
: Now, how can you propose to destroy the sun when it has so much more mass
: AND it is so much larger than the earth?  Tell me some chemical reaction
: (or fission/fusion) reaction which can use, say, a planet as one reagent and
: the sun as the other, which will cause a drastic change in the primary
: reaction we're concerned with, the fusion of hydrogen, etc. at the sun.  Even
: still, perhaps we might find a way to cause a disturbance at the sun.  Some
: space-time thing-a-ma-bob... yeah, right.  I'm sure we'll find another,
: closer-to-home method of destroying the earth before then.

There is a theory that has not yet been put to rest that the sun is already
out and just doesn't know it.  The lack of neutrino's says what should be
happening isn't and in fact if the nuclear fire did go out, the appearance
and energy radiation would not change very rapidly by our reckoning.  So
maybe our point here is moot.

:     What will destroying the earth accomplish?
: 
:        (Yes, yes, I know the answer is life)
: 
:     So, what is the purpose of destroying life?  More specifically, what is
: wrong with life as we know it?  Please outline points and please be as
: specific as possible.  Perhaps knowing what is wrong will help to focus
: people's effort on the problems with life.  This will in turn allow for
: correction (whether that means destroying things remains to be determined).
: 
:     Please post your responses so other people can respond to responses, etc.
: (A type of brainstorming?)  I hope this will help to bring out what it is
: destroy-the-earther's are really after (seeing that what many have wanted--
: namely blowing the planet to bits--is not likely).

It's the ultimate suicide fantasy.  We all harbor one, some talk about it.

Yes the Earth is one big motha as anyone who has ever gone up in an airliner
on a clear day knows.  How many have noticed how unbelievably thin a layer
life is on that big motha.  It doesn't extend in any substantial way more
than 10 or 20 feet down in soil, several tens of feet in water nor more than
a few 10's of feet up.  Now that thin film ought to be real vulnerable. And
is as we are finding out.
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

"There are some strings.  They're just not attached."
                                                    Victoria Roberts
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
Subject: Re: Yet another nuclear...
Reply-To: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 20:25:54 GMT


In a previous article, d91ds@efd.lth.se (David Sundqvist) says:

>possible to place nuclear bombs around the equator, or between some 
>tectonic plates, and simply split away a sizable chunk of our lovley
>planet?
>Do we have enough bombs, or should we start building our own?

Argh!  There are two things this board needs ASAP:

1) someone who knows physics that's willing to do
 a bit of research on nukes, asteroids, sea life,
 + automata.

2) an FAQ list.  Obviously, #2 comes after we get
 the answers from #1.  My personal suspicion is no,
 all the H-bombs in the world cannot shatter the 
 crust, or vaporize the oceans, or blow off the
 atmosphere.  But I don't have time to look it up.
-- 
Francis A. Uy
fau@po.cwru.edu
cs201329@umbc5.ubc.edu
From: jj22+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Joseph Jantos)
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
Subject: Re: Why ?
Date: 13 Apr 92 13:52:21 GMT
Organization: Freshman, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

It's been my impression that the people posting to this newsgroup are
pathetic non-conformist wanna-be's who get kicks out of trying to
think up ways to destroy the earth (either eliminating the
"togetherness" off all the earths atoms or destroying ALL life as we
know it) knowing that a reasonable, effective, and possible solution
does not exist, and even if one did exist, they wouldn't try to
implement it even if they were organized and had sufficient funds.

IMNSHO, this bboard is a stupid joke.

-bbz
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
Subject: Re: Antimatter
Reply-To: fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 20:29:28 GMT


In a previous article, brummer@cc.helsinki.fi () says:

>Who says that we can't build enough H-bombs to blow up the earth? Just build
>them until every place is full of them from the deep sea to Mount Everest and

There aren't enough fissionables in the world (I think).

>possible at this time to produce antimatter. The problem is how to store it and

Yes, it is possible to produce antimatter.  But the
 process for doing that is so hideously inefficient
 (nowhere near the 8% figure you wanted) that you're
 better off just using the original energy sources
 as your weapons.
-- 
Francis A. Uy
fau@po.cwru.edu
cs201329@umbc5.ubc.edu
From: rone@chort.usc.edu (Ron A. Echeverri)
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
Subject: Re: Why ?
Followup-To: alt.flame,poster
Date: 14 Apr 1992 00:57:37 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: chort.usc.edu

In article <1992Apr14.060216.2452@muddcs.claremont.edu> dproudfo@jarthur.claremont.edu (Kekoa Proudfoot) writes:
>The practicality of the ideas in this newsgroup, however, is another
>issue entirely.  They are all "suicide fantasies" as Bob Cain
>previously put it.  I'd like to put my emphasis on "fantasies."
>My point: enjoyable, yes; practical or even possible, no.  Sorry to
>have to bring reality to this newsgroup.

Thanks a lot, bud. I think we all needed it.

But i'm sure we agree you can stick your reality where the sun don't shine...

GOD you're so damn pedantic.... is this hereditary or something you acquired?

-- 
.signature: defunct due to sig virus
Reconstruction in process
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
Subject: Re: destroying the planet with (pick a substance)
From: spg@nereid.sunquest.com (Steve Gibbons)
Date: 8 Apr 1992 21:28 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Sunquest Information Systems, Instrument Interfacing
Keywords: Why, Not
Summary: Oh, what the heck...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  

In article <92099.120354JFG110@psuvm.psu.edu>, JFG110@psuvm.psu.edu writes...
# 
#    Would the individual who wanted to destroy the earth with some sort of
#  anti-matterbomb of positrons or anti-protons please repost his questionable
#  article to be looked over by a more competant physics major who has played
#  with this stuff.

Brag, brag, brag...  :-)

Some definitions (for purposes of this post.)
destroy = make inoperable
earth   = 3rd planet from Sol

It seems to me, that all one has to do to destroy (see the first definition
above) the earth is to remove/corrupt the majority of the atmosphere for a
period of time.  (No, I'm not talking about mood-music.)

Toxins of various natures seem like the easiest way to go.

--
Steve (SPG6) spg@sunquest.com
Flame me.  It's late.  This is an alt group anyway...
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Even harder than it sounds.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 07:36:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

If the goal is the simple obliteration of the planet, that probably is
quite achievable by just turning Tellers's gun back on himself.  He wants
to take the star wars funding and the weapons research dollars that are
getting harder to justify and protect ouselves from those menacing
asterioids.  One plan is simply: if one is coming at us make sure we
have the technology to get up there fast and mount some inertial thrust
mechanism on it that will gently but firmly stear it away or put it into
a convenient orbit (least energy.)  Once we have that technology then
it would of course be a simple matter to find one that is just going to
miss us and very carefully steer it onto Teller's roof.

The bigger problem is the eradication of the biochemical basis of life
that would be spewn into interstellar space, some of which would inevitably
end up, given enough time and enough universes, at a point hospitable enough
to give it a real big head start on getting this whole silly thing going 
again.  I think that is probably how this started.  Someone on Xaxanathu
while networking one night stumbled on the secret.  The excited netters
immediately tried it and it worked.  Some billions of years later a tiny
piece of that residue landed here and just look at the mess.  It's a lot
like polution, easy to make but damn hard to eradicate.

I think the problem is best left to nature.  If we just kick back and wait,
the sun will do it well enough.  If the shortage of neutrinos means what it
just might mean, we really don't have too long to wait.  I doubt that the
energy density in a blooming red dwarf would leave much molecular structure
intact so the universe is probably safe if us netters would just leave
things well enough alone.  Really, would you want to be to blame for this
happening somewere else?  Just something to think about.
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

"There are some strings.  They're just not attached."
                                                    Victoria Roberts
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: rommel@next06cville.wam.umd.edu (David Lawrence Miller)
Subject: Re: micro-singularity (was Re: deadly ?)
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 03:01:10 GMT


> >In a previous article, bquinn@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Trouble) says:
> 
> >>There was a book written, sorry, can't remember the title, about a man  
who 
> >>accidentally created a miniature black hole and set it orbiting within  
the 
> >>earth itself.  I'm talking about a really tiny black hole, not much  
bigger 
> 
> >I haven't done the calculations on this recently,
> > but I seem to remember that such a small black
> > hole would lose its energy (pronounced "mass")
> > in the form of x-rays much faster than it can
> > gain weight from the earth.  In short, it would
> > burn out + explode.  
> 
>    Wouldn't  this  destroy  the  earth in the  process?  Or  would the
> explosion be too small to effect the entire planet?
> 
I just finished the book!  It is _Earth_ by David Brin and although some  
of it very far-fetched (and according to the author who is a physics prof.  
somewhere in L.A.(?) unfeasible).  Overall though, I enjoed it.  Just in  
case anyone out there cared about this seemingly-dead thread...
						Rom
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth
From: The Shadow <swcramer@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Why ?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:24:41 -0500

In article <kduN8Jm00VB9I4DGV0@andrew.cmu.edu> jj22+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Joseph Jantos) writes:
>It's been my impression that the people posting to this newsgroup are
>pathetic non-conformist wanna-be's who get kicks out of trying to
>think up ways to destroy the earth (either eliminating the
>"togetherness" off all the earths atoms or destroying ALL life as we
>know it) knowing that a reasonable, effective, and possible solution
>does not exist, and even if one did exist, they wouldn't try to
>implement it even if they were organized and had sufficient funds.
>
>IMNSHO, this bboard is a stupid joke.

Do the words "sarcasm" or "humor" ring any bells with you?

And...  since you have mentioned "wanna-be's" then what about all of
the "jump-on-the-recycling-bandwagon-just-because-its-the-in-thing-to-do"
people that are out there?

Anyway...  let us have our fun...  and you go elsewhere and have your
delusions.

-Shadow
Newsgroups: alt.destroy.the.earth