HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: oldman@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Tig Stone)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Amherst
	<cH1NTB3w165w@cerianthus.pinetree.org> <Bx5rou.57o@unix.amherst.edu>
	<1992Nov5.143554.27849@cs.mcgill.ca>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:18:37 GMT


In article <1992Nov5.143554.27849@cs.mcgill.ca> troye@cs.mcgill.ca (Troy ENGLISH) writes:

> Well as I see it the problem with the respelling of words to make
> certain political groups happy is that the complaints are all a metter
> of perception. Ie women to womyn, I have heard people say that wo-men is
> a bad word because it implies that women are just extensions of men....
> By the same token though we could argue that wo-men and men implies that
> men are somehow just a sub-case of women. And for those who want to
> respell it to disassociate women from men (there aren't many like this
> but there are a few, as if somehow being born male is an affront to the
> universe) I would like to point out that women and their futur are tied
> completely to that of men. 

	Well, it may be true that women are tied to men for
procreation, but indeed it's true the other way around too.  Men
TOTALLY are reliant on women to procreate.  But we have 5 billion
people on the planet, so a few people here and there not procreating
surely doesn't help or hurt.
	But, my opinion is that men are indeed a subclass of women.  I
mean, when we are in the womb, we are essentially all females UNTIL
men get dosed with lots of testosterone in order to form a penis,
testes, etc.  Now, don't flame me if I'm eggregiously wrong (though
anyone is entitled to correct me if necessary), since I am no
biologist.

> As far as a gender neutral pronoun, well, I don't really like the idea
> of making the manner in which something is said more important than what
> is said. Admittedly the manner in which something is said conveys part
> of the message.  Truth be told I simply don't want to go out and have to
> learn new grammar rules every time the popular politics change.

	I agree with the fact that a lot of the "politically correct"
jargon changes are not-necessary.  There are old-sayings that are at
odds with this argument.  "The pen is mightier than the sword" versus
"Sticks and stones may break my bones..." for example.  If a PC
version of a word is more "flattering" or especially more descriptive
(i.e. African American versus Black) I will use it.  I don't like to
use "womyn" because that word is neither (IMHO).  I don't know what
word for women would be more descriptive, however.  English is a
patriarchal language, and throughout its history (I'm no linguist
either) hasn't lent too much favor to women.

> p.s Tim. What the heck is an inverted black and white triangle mean? I
> know the inverted pink one but black and white.... :-)

	WELL, if you want to make the ability to insert pink inverted
triangles into text an integral part of all upcoming computer
technology, the triangles could look more like "the real thing".  :)

--
Tig Stone 
(oldman@titan.ucc.umass.edu)
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Logical (?) opposition to Mormonsim.
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:51:54 GMT
Reply-To: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh Computer Science

In article <1992Nov1.201218.60292@cc.usu.edu> ronb@cc.usu.edu writes:

>mormon belief system is very selective in what scientific principles they
>choose to believe.   In the case of evoloution, thier only problem is that
>evoloution is described in terms of millions of years, where the genesis
>version specifically states that the creation took 7 days.

I'm not sure what your position is.  Are you condemning Mormons
for believing in evolution, or for not believing in it?  Certainly
I know many Mormons who take each position, as I do Baptists, 
Catholics, etc.  What exactly is your point?

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Going to Heaven
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:37:38 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Nov13.070459.17849@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> lungtt@gus26.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung) writes:
>My travel agent paid an unearthly price for mine...
I dunno about that. He got nailed to a tree and was dead for three days,
then got to go directly to heaven.
I think I might actually do that for money, let alone to save souls.
I'm not impressed.
-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Revised SIQ test
Date: 13 Nov 92 23:01:33 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> 
> Please choose one of the letters as your response.
> 
> Question 1) What is the soul?
> A.
> B.
> C.

B.

> Question 2) What is the purpose of human life?
> A.
> B.
> C.

B. and C.

> End of test.

So, did I pass?

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Subject: Re: What is the soul?
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:29:24 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
: 
: Spiritual intelligence test.
: 
: (Please answer each question in 25 words or less)
: 
: 1) What is the soul?

IMHO, it is an unsupported assertion that our consciousness is an 
independent, immortal, supernatural essence instead of a physiological 
phenomenon.

: 
: 2) What is the purpose of human life?

Wealth, knowledge, friends, power, fame, TV radiation, strength, 
beauty, nature, humility, etc.  Happiness is the proper balance 
of these and differs for each individual.

: 
: 
:        -------------------------------------------------------
:       |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
:       |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
:       |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
:       |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |

Excuse my conformity, but people think I am weird enough.  Why should
I prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt?
-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Worldwide Church of God mailing list.
Date: 11 Nov 92 14:13:25 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1dq5h8INNc2e@pollux.anu.edu.au> drew@cs.anu.edu.au (Drew Corrigan) writes:
|Hi,
|
|I am a member of the Worldwide Church of God in Canberra, Australia. Some
|fellow WCoG members and I have put together a mailing list for members of
|the church. If you are a WCoG member and would like to join our mailing
|list, just drop me a line.
|
|Drew Corrigan  (drew@cs.anu.edu.au)

Could you tell us about some of the reforms that have taken place
in WCoG, since Herbert W. Armstrong passed away.


Sincerely,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:20950 alt.censorship:8783 alt.sex:35886
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.censorship,alt.sex
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 11 Nov 92 11:24:28 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <BxE2t8.J5D@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.043122.19715@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro) writes:
>
>>In article <Bx77ty.J0q@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>
>>>What I am really offended by is that when I ask that the speaker not
>>>use language that I find exclusionary or intimidating, the response is
>>>almost universally something close to yours.  Once you know that I
>>>find your words troublesome, and you continue to use them, you are
>>
>>Rather sounds like a personal problem, doesn't it?  For example, I go to
>>a restaurant to eat...conversations bother me...so I ask everyone around me
>>to please not speak.  They ignore me and continue to speak normally.
>
>They are certainly insulting you; you've simply demonstrated no reason
>why they should care what you think, since you've made such an absurd
>demand.  It is far different, though, to ask someone to use one set of
>pronouns over another, than it is to ask someone to stop speaking
>entirely.
>
>>On the off chance that you are really sincere about this, please consider that
>>I consider these seemingly never-ending posts about genderless pronouns to be
>>exclusionary and intimidating.  Please desist.  Thank you.
>
>No thanks.  (Am I insulting you?  Apparently.  Do I care?  Snort.)
>
>-- 
>____ Tim Pierce                / 
>\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
----------------------
Yep! You are a true shithead and asshole, Pierce. You give being gay
on the net a bad name. Fuck that, you are a bad name.
- Steve

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Jehovah's Witnesses
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:01:09 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Nov5.133414.3959@infonode.ingr.com> tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.185417.17061@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer) writes:
>
>>>  Gee, after your little foray into talk.origins, did you convince
>>>  anybody that you even knew what the questions were. You -did- proclaim
>>>  your self, an expert on micro-biology.  Is it your premise, that you
>>>  know as much about the religion and practise of the Wittness's of 
>>>  Jehovah as you do about any part of Biology?
>>
>>	I didn't proclaim to be an expert in microbiology, just said that I'm a
>>	biologist. And tell me, Kermit, WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT I AM ? Tell 
>>	it to me ! Are you a biologist ? If not, then shut up and listen. Are 
>>	you a JW ? I think not. Then who are you to tell me who Witnesses are ?
>>	Get real, man, if you want to maintain your credibility. 
>
> No you claimed that _your_ experitise was a field of biology. You decided
> to argue evolution and creation myths here. Your were invited to present
> your theory in talk.origins. You did so. You were asked to respond to
> questions about your "experitise".  They BLEW you away.  It was
> shown how much you really do know about _any_ area of biology. It appears
> that you know even less than you know about either christianity or JW'
> thinking.
>
>   ---
>
> Now, tony rose, has turned his misguide thoughts in your direction.
> Congrates, Antti, you now have an opponent, worthy of your talents.
>
> Yes, you two _deserve_ each other. Your argument style seem to mesh
> in close order.  Why you two seem tobe pretty much the same _type_
> of person. I mistakenly thought at one time, that he had a lot in
> common with the JW's, as he argues with the same style of misinformaiton
> that you do. I see now how I could have made such a terrible :-) mistake
>
> Think of this both of you will get you just punishment. You can be his
> punishment, he can be yours!
>
>-- 
>         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
>   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie



Please witness true love from a mormon above!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: g91a2724@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR GJ ANDREWS)
Subject: exorcism
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:44:56 GMT

Need info on above topic. Please e-mail me or post on the group.
Thanks
Greg
From: pwhite@ems.cdc.com (Peter White)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Biblical error for the day
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:40:13 GMT
Reply-To: pwhite@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <10700@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
|> begin quoted material---
|> 
|> Matthew is the New Testament's prophecy hound, and he tries
|> to find them wherever he can.  But sometimes (as in verse 2:23, the
|> "Nazarene" prophecy), he just makes them up.  (Actually, I suspect he
|> really did have some verse in mind, probably one of the verses Christian
|> apologists claim this refers to--none of which work as prophecies.)
|> Another example is Matthew 27:9-10:
|> 
|>    Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled,
|>    saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver for the price of
|>    the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel; and they
|>    gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."
|> 
|> There is no such verse anywhere in the book of Jeremiah.  
True, but if you read the text in Matthew, he doesn't say that it is
written in the book of Jeremiah, only that Jeremiah said it.

So that is something that can't be disproved and certainly doesn't
qualify as a Biblical error.
-- 
Peter White
disclaimer: None of what is written necessarily reflects 
     			a view of my company.
            His anger lasts only a moment, 
			but his favor lasts a lifetime. Ps 30:5
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:24:51 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


(rpitts)
/Is it not logical that one would get one's information about Jesus 
/from his contemporaries?

Only if his contemporaries are:

a.  trustworthy
b.  unbiased
c.  independently verifiable--one thief vouching for another is not a 
    good character reference.



(rpitts)
/I can understand the logic you use to say that Muhammad received direct
/revelations about Jesus, but you might want to consider that revelations
/were not needed about Jesus' life on this earth, for there were people
/with him and they wrote about him (i.e., the New Testament.)  

You didn't wait very long before you committed Error #1, did you?

Quoting the Bible to prove that the Bible is correct (or that Christ's
claims are true) is circular reasoning and will not be accepted.  Citing
people whose testimony appears nowhere except the Bible is also circular 
reasoning and will likewise not be accepted.

And, considering that the rest of your post is nothing but you expositioning
on further bible passages, it is equally invalid.

Have you anything better, or is this all there is?



Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:27:06 GMT

In article <Bx9w46.E7x@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.222949.17885@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>
>>When you tell me that you want me to change the language that I speak,
>>my decision not to do so may be based on the fact that someone I care
>>a lot about wants me to speak the way I do.
>
>Your speech patterns depend wholly on the whims of a loved one?  Get
>help.

No, they depend totally on my whim.  My whim depends on what other
people want, weighted by the importance to me of their opinions.
Someone I love has a high weighting.  Someone I never met has a low
one.

My mother wants me to speak in certain ways; I try to do so.  You want
me to speak in other ways; I don't care.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY of Prayer in Public Schools
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:13:14 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <Bx9B84.Dvw@inews.Intel.COM>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul
Harvey) wrote:
> You see, Richard doesn't actually think about these "things". He is just
> blindly following his leader. Pat Robertson has an agenda of "PUT prayer
> back in school" and "PUT prayer back into national life" so therefore it must
> be a good idea and Richard thinks so too even though he has no idea of what
> Pat Robertson actually intends. Pat Robertson and his gang claim to be
> True Christians and claim to be advancing a True Christian Agenda and that's
> good enough for Richard.

Pat and the rest are dealing with dangerous material. It's not just
prayer in school, it's a particular brand of Christianity prayer in 
schools. Heck, do they really want to push this country into a civil
war based on religion? Don't we have it easy and calm compared with
former Yugoslavia?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Bashers Refuted
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:27:59 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1688@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>|
>|markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>|
>|>agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>|>|
>|>|markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>|>|>
>|>|>Does the Bible pass the Biblical test?  That is another good question.
>|>|
>|>|You are trying to smokescreen again to avoid my question.  This is an
>|>|absolutely absurd response.  After we examine the Book of Mormon and see
>|>|if it is the Word of God, then we can discuss the Bible.  Stop the
>|>|smokescreen and lets face the issues.
>|>
>|>And how do you propose to determine if the Book of Mormon is the Word
>|>of God?
>|
>|When God gives revelation (A), because we know that he cannot contridict
>|Himself, He cannot lie, and will not change, then we know that any other
>|revelation that comes along, (b), (c), (d), etc... will be in complete
>|harmony with the oldest revelations (that is, if it is of God).
>|
>|Therefore, we can do, as the Bereans did in Acts 17, and compare the
>|"newer" revelations against the oldest, and if it is in complete harmony
>|with it, then it is of God.  If it is not in harmony with the oldest
>|revelation that we _know_ is of God, then we can deduce that it isn't
>|from God.  This is precisely what the Bereans did when Paul was preaching
>|something "new" to them, and that is the example we are to follow when
>|someone claims to have "new" revelations.  We need to follow that example.
>
>So where shall we start?  What do you propose as the oldest revelation
>that we can agree came from God?
>
>Mark
>-- 
>   I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with
>sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.
>   -- Galileo


The Bereans used what we know today as the Old Testament.  Any newer
revelations, such as the New Testament, that does not go against the old,
has much crediblity of being from God.  It's the new revelations that
speak out against what has already been revealed, that we know cannot be
from God (D&C, BoM, etc..)
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Different Mormon God
Date: 7 Nov 92 03:28:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <25OCT199220165792@acad3.alaska.edu>, ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes...
>Do the Mormon's worship a different God from the rest of mainstream
>Christianity?  Do we worship a different Jesus?  Let us put this stupid dispute
>to rest.
> 
>Yes!  Yes!  A thousand times yes.  We worship a different God.  We preach a
>different Jesus.  We are not the same religion as you fundamentalists.  If you
>are Christian, then we are not.

[...]

	Thank you for your candor.

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Date: 12 Nov 92 02:37:30 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


[re: the Coptic Church in Alexandria]
>Allegedly founded....

(lungtt)
This is well documented in Eastern Orthodox sources (mostly in Arabic).

Cite three references.  Also keep in mind that contemporary Roman sources
describe the founding of the city of Rome by twin boys who were given 
suckle by a wild wolf.  It is not beyond the ability of ancient sources
to embellish their own history, or be subject to change by later generations.



(lungtt)
/The existing members of the Coptic Orthodox are presently being murdered
/daily for their faith.  (A prominent Muslim who stood up in protest of the
/violence, himself was assassinated in this same spree just last year.)
/You suggest that the Coptics live on lies?

There are Muslims being murdered for their faith in Bosnia today.  Do you
suggest that the Muslims live on lies?

See what happens when you stop and think about what you are saying, and
turn the words around to see if the statement makes any sense?

It is amazing what nonsense can come out of someone who is 
so biased by religion that they cannot filter their own illogic any longer.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: klt@b23a.b23a.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer X8127)
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:03:39 GMT

 In order to propose a falacious argument, that the bible teachs against
 any premortal existence
 agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com  Tony Rose  argues that "Zechariah 12:1"
 is sufficent evidence against any premortal existence.

 When the argument (I still don't think the verse and it's context argue
 for one way or the other) threatened to denigrated into a "yes it is, No it
 isn't" type of arguement Robert posted a selection from the Stongs Concordance
 for the verse in question.

 agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
 slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
 psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
 ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)

 Is everbody clear on who is involved and semi-responsible?

 Let me go on

 John 9:1-3;  When the apostles asked Him who sined that this man should
      be born Blind, was it the man himself or the man's parents. Jesus
      answered and said "neighter".

      If the man had no oportunity to sin before he was born, would the
      questions have been a real problem.

 Do you'all (that's southern for collective and plural you) remember the
 difference between the two jewish scribe sects (Pharisees and Saducees)
 Both agreed that if it were not found in the scripture, it wasn't true.
 The Saducees denied both the pre-mortal existence and the potiotionality
 of the Resurrection, while the Pharisees affirmed those as scriptural.

 Seems sorta of a parallel  to current situations, doesn't it?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic