HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: janne@seita.oulu.fi (Janne Himanka)
Subject: Re: Emacs Commandments
Organization: Tilde's home bakery
	<DODD.92Dec15141038@mycenae.cchem.berkeley.edu>
	<102255@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:33:36 GMT

>>>>> On 16 Dec 92 02:12:40 GMT, hseung@anat3d1.anatomy.upenn.edu (Hyunsuk Seung) said:

	Hyunsuk> dodd@mycenae.cchem.berkeley.edu (Lawrence R. Dodd) writes:
>
>2. Thou shalt not have commands other than `emacs' and `exit' appear
>in ones ~/.history file

	Hyunsuk> I have 'emacs' in my .login file, so there is only
	Hyunsuk> 'logout' in my command history.

I have 'emacs' in my /etc/passwd file, so there is no command history
external to emacs. 

Janne
--
      Verba iactas           + shem@phoenix.oulu.fi TKOP-HJH@FINOU.BITNET
      ut imber aquas         + Oulu University, Dept. of Library & Inf. Sc.
      at cave! vacca volat.  + shem@nic.funet.fi
From: peyote@umiacs.umd.edu (Gary W. Flake)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs
Subject: Re: Emacs Commandments
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:23:33 GMT
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

klausf@akela.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Klaus Frank) writes:
>:wq
 ^^^ Not even in jest should we see such blasphemy in this newsgroup!

;)

Gary
-- 
Spoken: Gary W. Flake  Domain: peyote@umiacs.umd.edu  UUCP: uunet!mimsy!peyote
Phone: +1-301-405-6757 USPS: UMIACS, U. of Maryland,  College Park, MD 20742
Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Emacs Commandments
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:15:23 GMT

Feel free to post your candidates...

1. Thou shalt not edit configuration files of the One True Editor with any
editor but the One True Editor.  (E.g., "% vi .emacs")

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)                 Computers should work the way beginners
Martin Marietta Energy Systems           expect them to, and one day they will.
Workstation Support                                                -- Ted Nelson
Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs
From: janne@seita.oulu.fi (Janne Himanka)
Subject: Re: Emacs Commandments
Organization: Tilde's home bakery
	<JANNE.92Dec16103336@seita.oulu.fi> <1992Dec16.175254.22116@reed.edu>
	<1992Dec16.195750.26262@ornl.gov>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 06:24:53 GMT

>>>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:57:50 GMT, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) said:

	Dave> Next step is Emacs implemented in hardware, followed by
	Dave> running it right in the human brain (with some
	Dave> Emacs-specific wetware, of course).

And the final step is emacs running by itself, without hardware,
wetware or human observers, just a lisping ghost in the  void.

Janne
--
"What did you do with the Pharaoh + shem@phoenix.oulu.fi
 Great Outhouse 8?"               + shem@nic.funet.fi
"We ate him. He was unspeakably   + TKOP-HJH@FINOU
 toothsome."                      + Oulu Univ., Dept. of Libr. & Inf. Sc.
From: hseung@anat3d1.anatomy.upenn.edu (Hyunsuk Seung)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs
Subject: Re: Emacs Commandments
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:12:40 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

dodd@mycenae.cchem.berkeley.edu (Lawrence R. Dodd) writes:
>
>2. Thou shalt not have commands other than `emacs' and `exit' appear in ones
>   ~/.history file

I have 'emacs' in my .login file, so there is only 'logout' in my
command history.

Hyunsuk Seung
hseung@anat3d1.anatomy.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs
From: emcoop@bnr.ca (hume smith)
Subject: Re: Can I get a *Witness*?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
X-Poster: Emacs-NNTP-0.1
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:37:20 GMT

In <Jym.10Dec1992.2007@naughty-peahen>, Brother Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> said:
> =o= As Brother Dave Barry puts it, "I am not making this up."

i thought it was sister Anna Russel.

>     Praise Emacs,
>     <_Brother_Jym_>

--
Hume Smith - perennial student and coop
hume.smith@acadiau.ca
emcoop@bnr.ca

Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs
From: mcherm@msc.cornell.edu (Michael Chermside)
Subject: Re: Emacs Commandments
Summary: Religious Ramblings
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:10:46 GMT

In article <JANNE.92Dec16103336@seita.oulu.fi>,
          janne@seita.oulu.fi (Janne Himanka) writes:
>I have 'emacs' in my /etc/passwd file, so there is no command history
>external to emacs. 
>
>Janne

Oh Noble One, you set an Example which all the unix world should
aspire to follow.  I have, in days past, Dreamed of and Aspired to
doing just that, but I have been Afraid.  May your Wisdom, and the
light of emacs show me the Way.

In the Name of the One True Editor,  Amen.

"Neat Quote."(tm) | Michael Chermside | mcherm@msc.cornell.edu






-- 
                                            --- Michael
From: dodd@mycenae.cchem.berkeley.edu (Lawrence R. Dodd)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs
Subject: Re: Emacs Commandments
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:10:38 GMT
Organization: Dept of Chemical Engineering, Polytechnic Univ, NY, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mycenae.cchem.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: de5@ORNL.GOV's message of Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:15:23 GMT

>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Sill <de5@ORNL.GOV> writes:

  Dave> Feel free to post your candidates...

  Dave> 1. Thou shalt not edit configuration files of the One True Editor with any
  Dave> editor but the One True Editor.  (E.g., "% vi .emacs")

2. Thou shalt not have commands other than `emacs' and `exit' appear in ones
   ~/.history file

BTW Dave, you did mean `(E.g., "% vi .emacs" is not allowed)'
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs
Subject: Re: Emacs Commandments
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:41:30
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<62914@mimsy.umd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: peyote@umiacs.umd.edu's message of 17 Dec 92 22:23:33 GMT

In article <62914@mimsy.umd.edu> peyote@umiacs.umd.edu (Gary W. Flake) writes:

   klausf@akela.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Klaus Frank) writes:
   >***DELETED***
    ^^^ Not even in jest should we see such blasphemy in this newsgroup!

Not even as an example should we quote such.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lpf@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs
From: ratinox@iota.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri)
Subject: Re: Emacs Commandments
X-Posting-Software: GNUS 3.14.1 [ NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs ]
Reply-To: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu
X-Signature-Virus-Protection: Version 1.51
X-Get-A-Clue: Have two, they're small.
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
	<JANNE.92Dec16103336@seita.oulu.fi> <1992Dec16.175254.22116@reed.edu>
	<1992Dec16.195750.26262@ornl.gov>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:59:49 GMT

>>>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:57:50 GMT, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) said:

Dave> Yeah, but we decided to skip the UNIX overhead entirely...we have a
Dave> bootable Emacs.  :-)

Ah, yes, the GNU kernel. Written in Emacs-Lisp.

--Rat
||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat          ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu
It is a proud and lonely thing to be a Stainless Steel Rat.
                                                        --`Slippery' Jim DiGriz
From: aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Baa Baa Black Sheep
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:04:35 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec12.104418.4550@memstvx1.memst.edu>, isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> Okay, so if those of us who are in Scientology are being willingly
> fleeced.  Will someone PLEASE reveal who is doing the fleecing?  Sounds
> like conspiracy theory to me :-)

You are doing the fleecing and being fleeced at the same time.  You fleece
your "customers" with fradulent counseling.   The people who get the "cut"
from your donations are the winners.  Check out the "boat" in the TIME
article.  Ask yourself who get's to use it and the other "benefits" of
Scientology.  There's your "winners".   What does that make you?

This is true.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: High pressure sales
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:10:42 GMT

John Holifield writes:

>   Its really just bad salesmanship, really.  High pressure sales don't
>mean brow-beating and intimidating the prospect.  Some regestrars could
>sign you up for 20Gs and you would thank them afterwards, some would
>just piss you off for a $15 extension course.

>   I wish this didn't happen, but not many people in any field of sales 
>can high pressure somebody tactfully.  

Presumably good salesmanship means being so subtle that the "prospect"
doesn't realize s/he's being pressured?

I just feel really queasy about this.  It may well be true that a
sufficiently good salesman could sign me up for a $20 K course; and I
might thank him right afterwards, but not when I had to live with the
effects on my family.  (I don't have $20 K to throw around.)  I don't
see why I should put myself in the reach of high pressure salesmanship,
however tactful.

I know that the accepted answer is "Scientology will help you make more
money", but in my case at least this is certainly not true.  I am doing
a job I love which I would not trade for anything in the world, and its
salary is fixed by state law.  My income is not going to go up.  It
doesn't need to; I have what I need; and I'm very uncomfortable about
the idea of someone trying to pressure me into thinking otherwise.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
From: aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Clear the Words and Clear Your Mind!
Date: 18 Dec 92 20:31:58 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec17.172939.4674@memstvx1.memst.edu>, isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>     In math or physics, this question would have some validity.  In Dianetics,
> it doesn't.  Get a dictionary and clear the words.

>     Honestly, if you'd clear the words you'd see that what LRH is saying
> is very simple.  Also, you wouldn't ask questions that are answered in the
> previous paragraph(s).

>     I'd also recomend that you get a good dictionary and clear the words
> in what people write here.   That way, you might not distort the meaning
> of what people are saying to you quit so often.  You'd probably feel a lot
> less frustrated as well.

	"Clear the words and Clear your mind.  When your mind is clear of
	 all thinking you'll understand!  You're allowed!  Praise the LRH!"
	 -- Kibo ;-)

One thing that is perfectly "clear" to me is that Scientology has nothing to
do with Science.  Scientology doesn't use or support or believe in the
Scientific Method.  It uses "equations without units" to give the feel of
Science but without all of the "bother" that Science requires.

Scientology is a left over of the 50s.  Perhaps you remember the mind-set of
the 50s?  "Science" and science fiction was "god" back then.  It's no wonder
that a Science Fiction writer of the 50s would choose a science-sounding name
for a bogus "religion".  It's just amazes me that many people don't recognize
that Scientology is science fiction!
From: aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: XEMU Revisited
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:17:19 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec13.135527.4572@memstvx1.memst.edu>, isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>    No, they did flood the records office with requests, but what you
> have read as a report is FALSE.  Its not a church teaching.  Anyone
> who knows basic Scientology theory will notice several things about
> the Xemu story that contradict the basic points of Scientology.

Why don't you detail these points for us.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, the AMA/FDA connection, and more...
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:26:18 GMT

isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>   Sorry, I could have said that a lot more clearly.  I don't have the
>actual figures to hand, but if you eliminate the income tax it requires
>about 16% of national retail consumption to replace what was lost.
>Some low income people would appear to pay more tax because they don't
>pay 16% in income tax.  To make it fair on them, you'd eliminate tax on 
>food and housing.  So you could eliminate capital gains tax and personal
>and corporate income tax and make the same amount of money with a 16%
>tax on retail consumption.

>   The large majority of individuals would pay less tax, but more people
>will be paying taxes as well.  It collects taxes on revenue that goes
>unreported.  And collects taxes from people who might not ordinarily
>pay taxes in the US.

I am skeptical of this in a number of respects.  I think far more than
16% would be required after you eliminated food and housing (isn't
60-70% of an average family's income spent on food and housing?  Nearly
90% of mine is.)  It also seems that the "more people" would have to be
the very poor.  Sales taxes are generally rejected as main sources of
revenue because they hit the poor hardest, and I don't see any exception
here.  Remember that even if food and housing are exempted, people need
clothing, transportation and medical care.

And it is just as easy to hide expenditure as income; the two are
symmetrical.  A drug dealer does not pay income tax on his drug earnings
now.  His customers will not pay sales tax on their drug expenditures
either.

But perhaps this is on the wrong newsgroup?  Maybe talk.politics.misc?

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister)
Subject: Re: e-meter
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:46:14 GMT

isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>In article <Bz7zM9.FHI.2@cs.cmu.edu>, lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>> In article <6559@pdxgate.UUCP> sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir) writes:
>>>"The net resistance between your hands will be a complicated
>>>sum of resistances throughout your body 
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>>>they can be broken down into vector components
>> 
>> Not easily. The skin is a 3-D surface, not a line. The muscles underneath
>> are even more complicated. Resistance is a bulk property, and the
>> body is highly structured.
>> 
>>>even numerous
>>>complexly related smaller vectors have vector sum or "mean vector".
>> 
>> Very numerous, but yes.
>> 
>>>This mean vector can be broken down into the three component vectors
>>>and only the vector parallel to the leads will cause a positive or
>>>negative component.
>> 
>> Yes, but uninteresting, because the non-parallel components have
>> exactly zero strength. Resistance is considered to be scalar, because
>> (assuming no other electrical activity in the room) the vector is
>> just from one lead to the other, and all the current just goes from
>> one lead to the other. 
>> 
>> That's why *all* ohmmeters and multimeters (not just Scientology
>> E-Meters) have a scalar readout.
>> -- 
>> Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science


>  Duh....
> 
>  What was that?   (And you think Scientologists are bad about using
>jargon....)  :-)

>-John Holifield

Yes John, it looks like the same kind of jargon
that you and other scientologists occasionally use.

The difference is that all of the jargon used here
are clearly defined in dictionaries and physics textbooks
and can be traced back to easily measured quantities
and unambiguous mathematical definitions.

If you like, I could define them all and describe how they are
measured.

We still haven't had a clear definition of the 'PV' equation.

.Chris.

.Chris.
From: aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: E-meters, and CULTS in general
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:28:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1gjsdrINNnrs@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn) writes:

> aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu (whoever he/she is) says:

>      "Mainstream religions don't have a need to fleece their flock
>      or sell "products" to their members."

> To which I say, "HA!" Or perhaps my reply should be "BINGO!"

> This is certainly *not* said in defense of Scientology...but hey, aabst5@vms.
> pitt.edu, I mean really! Maybe they have no need to fleece, but they
> sure have a knack for it.

It sure is a shock the first time you go to a Catholic Church's "carnival"
and see all of the gambling going on!  It's interesting to note that in the
Greek Orthodox Church a priest can be dismissed from the Church for renting
Church facilities out to someone who runs bingo.  Even though the Greek
Orthodox Church is not involved directly, they frown upon such activities!

But even in the Catholic Church, you aren't *forced* to spend your money or
be thrown out of the Church.  And they don't require you to buy courses or
other "materials" at inflated prices, either!
From: dianetti@acsu.buffalo.edu (Donald J. Dianetti)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Ending scientology
Date: 14 Dec 92 02:17:03 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Dec12.105034.4551@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>
[deleted:  discussion of cults]
>
>  Okay, I'm a Scientologist, so I didn't answer any of those questions
>since you invited everyone else to but a Scientologist.
>  It just shocks me that you'd actually have the stomach to post crap
>like that.  You're ideas are truly dangerous and have no place in a 
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>free society.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>-John Holifield

Excuse me, John, but I must ask you what your definition of a "free
society" is.  This statement you make is quite alarming to me.
So, tell me whose ideas _DO_ have a place in this "free" society 
of yours?????  

I hope you were just kidding, and I failed to get the joke.

-- 
Don Dianetti  --  SUNY at Buffalo  --  dianetti@acsu.buffalo.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: AABST5 Revealed!
Summary: Chip does another "little dance"
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:18:11 GMT
Followup-To: alt.religion.scientology
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1gjeanINNa7l@mirror.digex.com>, chipg@access.digex.com (Chip Gallo) writes:

> Since the challenge was so clearly made, I too looked up the public
> info on AABST5@VMS.CIS.PITT. The posts were so vitriolic and biased,
> the two misquotes attributed to me by this person were so
> transparent ... People who write in any public forum are accountable
> for what they say about others. 

That's why Chip prefers to send HATE MAIL!  He can be as "vitriolic"
as he wants.  Do another little dance for us, Chip!  Who's the pawn? ;-)

Why not tell us all about your experience with E-meters? ;-)

Yes, Chip, the challenge was "so clearly public".  But you don't count.
You claim, in e-mail, to not to be a Scientologist, but just a trouble
maker.  But, hey, that's fine.  You've demonstrated to me that Scientologists
(lazy dogs, every last one) couldn't figure out how to do this.

Now I don't have to post it as promised.  That's for doing it like a
"good little pawn" (your words from e-mail, Chipper).


> I apologize to Margaret Singer for incorrectly referencing her as the
> possible source for AABST5's posts. 

Yes and it's a good thing too.  Margaret was about to reveal your:
			HIDDEN CRIMES!

:-)

> Login name: aabst5			In real life: Annette A Baft
> Address mail to: aabst5+@pitt.edu
> Affiliation: Universal Student Computing [Provost]
> Account used on Sun Feb 23, 1992.
> One new message, which arrived Wed Dec 9 21:00 (4 days 23 hours ago).
> No Plan.

> Now we can refer to Annette by her Real Name.

It's too bad that Chip is so misinfored as to not do a finger of THIS account.
Any mail going to the account on Unix is ignored.  I last used it in FEBRUARY. 
Send it there if you want an exercise in futility.  Ha ha ha! 

Everyone should be aware that Chip is playing games here.  He's not interested
in discussion.  As soon as he gets he jollies from this group, he'll move
on to the next one.  He's not a Scientologist.  He's a USENETogogist!
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: e-meter
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:05:04 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <schafmei.724578205@sfu.ca>, schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister) writes:
> sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir) writes:
> 
> Sofar, there have been very few definitions of Scientology
> words that agree with standard english definitions of the same words.
> 
> I would be hesitant to treat the Scientology definition of 'charge'
> as identical the standard physics definition of 'charge' which is:
> [Definition Deleted]

   That is good, because charge in Scn has an entirely different meaning.

-John
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Re: E-Meter FAQ
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:41:28 GMT

I had the opportunity to play with a skin galvanometer (with two
electrodes, one on the forefinger and one on the middle finger of the
same hand) at a science museum.  Both my husband and I noticed at once
that the mental exercises used in meditation dropped the needle
right to the bottom of the scale.  With a very little practice both of
us could consciously push the needle up or down, though neither of us
could hold it steady in mid-scale.  However, the other person who we saw
try it couldn't get it to respond at all.

I suspect I could do the same thing with an E-meter, and will try it if
I ever have the opportunity.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology