HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: haker@offroad.chem.wisc.edu (Michael Haker)
Subject: Re: Shadow of the Beast (Was: New Lynx Stuff?)
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 20:20:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.143855.24774@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov>  
jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes:
> I played the Genesis version of Shadow of the Beast and it was truly  
horrid.
> I really can't imagine how anyone could like it.  Is this just the  
Genesis
> version that is terrible, or are alot of Lynx owners going to be really
> dissapointed when it comes out for the Lynx?
> 
> Steve

I've played the original Amiga version of Beast and I really enjoyed it  
alot.  BUT, what I liked most about it were the incredible graphics and  
sound.  One of my friends called it the best interactive demo he has ever  
seen.  I guess my point is that the game play is pretty awful.  It's very  
much of a pattern game.  But if you treat the game more like a graphical  
adventure game (i.e. try to learn the tricks and traps) and not treat it  
like an action game I think many lynx owners will like it.  One problem  
with the game is that it looks like one should play it like another  
repackaging of that same old horizontal-scrolling-kick-and-punch game with  
different graphics (like StreetFighter, Mutant Turtles, X-men, Robocop,  
Batman Returns, .......).  Its not that kind of game.

I really hope the Lynx port keeps the sound and graphics true to the amiga  
original.  But given the fact that the Lynx screen has only about 1/4 the  
pixels of a low-res amiga screen, I have my doubts.  Never the less I will  
probably buy it.

Mike
From: jg@cl.cam.ac.uk (Jim Grundy)
Newsgroups: alt.games.lynx
Subject: Re: Zarlor Mercenary: How good is it?
Date: 13 Aug 92 08:51:24 GMT
Reply-To: jg@cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: Cambridge Hardware Verification Group

I have ZM and find it quite enjoyable.
Its of the shoot everything on the ground and in the sky and particularly
the big mutha at the end of the level variety, but they can be quite
fun and its a good instance of that style.
Boy do I wish I could have got my copy for US$17 rather than the
UK#29 (= US$52) I paid for the sucker here in the UK.

Jim

===============================================================================
Jim Grundy               
University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 223 334760            | This space has
Computer Laboratory     | Fax:   +44 223 334678            | been intentionally
New Museums Site        | Telex: CAMSPLG 81240             | left blank for
Pembroke Street         | email: jg@cl.cam.ac.uk           | formatting
Cambridge  CB2 3QG      | talk:  jg@razorbill.cl.cam.ac.uk | purposes.
UNITED KINGDOM          |                                  |
===============================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.games.lynx:399 rec.games.video:16928
From: howard@sinoda.ultra.COM (Howard Simonson)
Newsgroups: alt.games.lynx,rec.games.video
Subject: Re: Lynx Casino
Date: 14 Aug 92 01:47:33 GMT
Reply-To: howard@ultra.com
Distribution: na
Organization: Ultra Network Technologies

In article <1992Aug10.174649.8851@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug07.080216.28115@sco.COM>, davidv@sco.COM (Uncle David) writes:
|> > 
|> > Blackjack
|> > 
|> > the statistics part of the game don't seem to be working too well. i've
|> > gotten lots of blackjacks, and had it payoff correctly, but of the 15 or
|> > that i got, it only managed to record one. blackjack is considered to be
|> > an Ace and a Face card, correct? nothing weird like requiring an Ace of
|> > Spades and a Jack of spades for black jack (or some similar combo). weird.
|> > 
|> 
|> Not being an expert on Black Jack, but having read a little about it, I
|> believe that Blackjack requires exactly what it's name implies -- a Jack
|> of clubs or spades.  A heart or diamond jack will not do.  Also, the same
|> rules may apply to the Ace in a Blackjack, but not sure.  Can anybody
|> clarify or verify this?

Blackjack is declared (and payed out) on any two cards dealt that total 21.
All combinations of aces and ten cards (tens and face cards) should be
clicking up the BJ statistic.  Knowing LYNX Casino, I wouldn't doubt there
being a bug or "shoddy interpretation" of the rules, coming in to play.
-- 
-------------  ----   ----   ----  ----  -----  -----  -- ---------------------
|J -------- |  |   \  |   \  |     |       |    |   |  || |
|  |/\=== | |  |   /  |   /  |     |       |    |   |  || | Is that a Jack
|------------- |---   |---   ---   ----    |    |   |  || |
||A          | |      |\     |        |    |    |   |  || |  of Spades, or a
||    /^\    | |      | \    |        |    |    |   |     |
||   /   \   | |      |  \   ----  ----    |    -----  [] |   Jack of Diamonds
||  / /|\ \  |____________________________________________|
||  L/_|_\J  |                                            | <-- over there?
-|    )|(    | EM: howard@ultra.com/VM: (408)922-0600 x228|____________________
 |    ---   V| Ultra Network Technologies*101 Daggett Dr*San Jose*CA*95134-2132
 ------------- [ My disclaimer is on file in the main office ]
Xref: sparky alt.games.lynx:451 rec.games.video:17264
From: arnieh@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Arnaldo Horta)
Newsgroups: alt.games.lynx,rec.games.video
Subject: Re: Assorted tidbits
Date: 17 Aug 1992 00:59:49 -0400
Organization: University of Miami Department of Mathematics & Computer Science
Distribution: fl
NNTP-Posting-Host: mthvax.cs.miami.edu

In <1992Aug16.164804.14558@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov> jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes:

>In article <l8rf9iINN65u@aludra.usc.edu>, rjung@aludra.usc.edu (Robert A. Jung) writes:
>> 
>> A few random rumors and news McNuggets. Take 'em with all the salt you want.
>> 
>> 1. According to an Atari insider friend of mine, the Atari Jaguar will have
>>         two 68030s or 68040s, running in parallel. A loose interpretation
>>         will call this 1 "64-bit" game system, from adding up two "32-bit"
>>         processors.

>..

> 
>> 3. Price for this magic box? $199.

>Sorry, but I find this HARD to believe.  Either it doesn't use 68030's or
>40's or it is not this cheap.  A 68040 chip itself is quite expensive.  On
>the other hand, maybe they figure they can lose money (big time) on the
>consoles and make it up in game sales.  That would make me real worried
>about the price of games, though!

I have heard that before....In the heyday of the 2600, Atari tried this
strategy.  The result...they had to stop production of the units due to
lack of profits!  I agree that a 68030 or 68040 is probably too
expensive for the price to be that low...However, maybe Atari wants to
try suicide again!

Arnaldo Horta
From: ega015@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Robert Edge)
Newsgroups: alt.games.lynx
Subject: TOKI
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:47:55 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing at Lancaster University, UK.


	Does any one know of any cheats/tips for Toki?

			Robert....
				ega015@comp.lancs.ac.uk
				ega015@cent1.lancs.ac.uk
Organization: Electrical & Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.games.lynx
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:29:27 -0400 
From: David Apfelbaum <da0g+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Robotron for $12.99


A friend of mine (hi Jeff) tipped me off about this -- it seems our
local stores (Babages & Electronics Boutique) are selling Robotron for
$12.99 -- and these seem to be their last copies of Robotron!!


Whats happenning??  Is atari canceling Robotron?  (It seems like an
excellent game too -- at least >I< like it..)


        -David.
From: jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke)
Newsgroups: alt.games.lynx
Subject: Shadow of the Beast (Was: New Lynx Stuff?)
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:38:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

In article <1992Aug17.231620.1389@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, tazzzzz@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Kevin Dangoor) writes:
> 
> (Big Shadow of the Beast fan)

I played the Genesis version of Shadow of the Beast and it was truly horrid.
I really can't imagine how anyone could like it.  Is this just the Genesis
version that is terrible, or are alot of Lynx owners going to be really
dissapointed when it comes out for the Lynx?

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.games.lynx
From: Josh.Adams@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Josh Adams)
Subject: Re: Zarlor Mercenary: How good is it?
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:49:41 GMT

Yes you shoot everything, but it's really cool. I don't know why. Never
played it with a friend but that should be even cooler! You can kill each
other or make youself invisible from each other. Good game!

Good replay value, too. You can choose from several different characters
who have built in abilities

JosH

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky alt.wanted.muslem.bestiality:2 alt.wanted.moslem.gay:74 talk.bizarre:25588
From: andrewc@spider.co.uk (Andrew Cannon)
Newsgroups: alt.wanted.muslem.bestiality,alt.bugg-key.marmalade,alt.wanted.moslem.gay,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: hi
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:12:03 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <z!zm8+h.rdc@netcom.com> rdc@netcom.com (Neub E. Imegront) writes:
>
>
>hi.  i'm new to the net.

Hello, nice to read you.

>testing.

Yes, it works

>testing.

The echo also works.

>is anyone reading this?

No I have a neural implant from the Internet.

>hello.

Hello, are we friends yet ?

>hello??????????????????

Oh we are friends then.

>i can't head you?

Why not ? I'll wear a condom.

>hello.

Oh you are nice.

>
>well, fuck you then.

Your place or mine big girl ?

-- 
|       Andy Cannon         | Needs must,                          | 
|  Misplaced Yorkshireman   | when the Devil vomits in your Kettle |
|    Spider Systems Ltd     |                                      |
|   andrewc@spider.co.uk    |                    Edmund Blackadder |
Newsgroups: alt.wanted.moslem.gay,talk.bizarre
From: PJF4081@cc.utah.edu (that's mr. wonderful to you)
Subject: Re: A shy guy.
Followup-To: alt.wanted.moslem.gay
Summary: pus
Keywords: vomit sucking death bitch
Reply-To: mr. wonderful
Organization: committee for the advancement of disgust
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 09:44:26 MDT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.10

In <1992Aug19.185936.1@vax1.umkc.edu> ttasset@vax1.umkc.edu writes:

> I don't want to say much, except "hi" and would like you all to send me some
> e-mail.
> 
> I like things on a much more personal level.  Let's converse one on one?
> 
> 	-Tom

		LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE FORGOT TO LOG OFF.
		
	



()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()(
	PJF---->Biochem. grad student. "suffering *is* my game.		
	  	            WORK  :==  FUTURE
	"i am involved in the petty business of scientific research."
                         "feel free to feel me."
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: tlimonce@drew.drew.edu
Subject: Re: Verifying the Poster
Organization: Drew University - Alumni
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:03:58 GMT

In <e10@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

> And, since all Usenet flame wars ultimately evolve to a prediction of
> The End Of The Net or a comparison to Hitler, we can concluded that
> this flame has reached its ultimate status.  And therefore, it has
> reached its natural conclusion.

But Tom forgot that flame wars never end on Usenet.  In fact, this
would be about the time that Peter da Silva would chime in with
something like:

"Then do it. Design and implement secure news. Since TCP isn't entirely
secure, you'll have to add some authentication protocol on top of that.
Since UUCP is spoofable, you'll need to use it there as well. It's not
going to be easy.
 
"If it works we'll all switch over. If it doesn't we'll have learned
something.
 
"But you can't get there from here."

Doesn't that sound just like him?


Tom
--
There is nothing wrong with talking to yourself...
I met and interesting person that way!
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: limonce@pilot.njin.net
Subject: Re: Verifying the Poster
Organization: New Jersey Intercampus Network
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:04:10 GMT

In <e11@drew.drew.edu> tlimonce@drew.drew.edu (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

> Then do it. Design and implement secure news. Since TCP isn't entirely
> secure, you'll have to add some authentication protocol on top of that.
> Since UUCP is spoofable, you'll need to use it there as well. It's not
> going to be easy.

However, Brad Templeton is always looking to take a dare and
would respond to this paragraph.  He'll suggest his cancel-password
scheme.  Though he'll admit something like way back in
<1992Jun24.065423.17252@clarinet.com> he <brad@clarinet.com> wrote:

> I pointed out back then the flaw in my own scheme.  The concept of
> a cancel daemon *is* useful for things like renaming groups, deleting
> groups, post-moderating groups and yes, even the legitimate control of
> crossposting.  (For example, if the charter of alt.cascade had read,
> "cascades are not to be crossposted to other groups" then a properly
> working cancel-daemon would be appropriate.)
> 
> Cancel passwords would make all this difficult or impossible.

Tom
--
There is nothing wrong with talking to yourself...
at least you know you're going to win any arguments!
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM
Subject: Re: Verifying the Poster
Organization: Mentor Graphics - IC Group
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:00:14 GMT

In <1992Aug13.184412.2204@sparky.imd.sterling.com> kent@sparky.imd.sterling.com (Kent Landfield) writes:

> What is needed is *not* a Copyright: header (that would be as effective as the
> current Distribution: header).  The articles are already copyrighted unless its
> specifically relinquished...  What is needed is a Digital Signature capability
> like what is being developed for Privacy Enhanced Mail (PEM).   If it could be
> proven beyond a shadow of a doubt *who* the initial poster of every article was
> and whether the article had or hadn't been modified, then its possible for the
> courts to deal with the violations with some degree of certainty.  Matt Bishop
> presented a paper on a model for this at the last Dallas USENIX (I think).
> Those who are interested should consider it suggested reading.  The "ideas"
> are there to make the net capable of being dealt with in a judicious manner
> by our judicial systems.

I really hate when people post saying that netnews needs to be
re-written so that security like this can be enforced.

Tom
--
There is nothing wrong with talking to yourself...
I do it, and so do I!
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:661 news.admin:7087 comp.org.eff.talk:5417 misc.legal.computing:1959
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Date: 16 Aug 92 13:21:51 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <1992Aug12.185559.25600@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>Further, there are several periodic posting in news.announce.newusers
>which are designed to inform the new user of the rules (terms and 
>conditions) of using netnews.  One of those (Primer to the Usenet
>Community -- or something like that) explicity states that you should
>assume that anything you don't mark with a copyright notice is in
>the public domain.

And it's wrong. It's not authoritative on Usenet.

NOTHING is authoritative on Usenet.

>Nobody offers any guarantee of continuing to provied usenet feeds, either

UUNET does. UUPSI does.

[ copyright header fantasy mostly deleted ]

>        Free    -   User grants permission to copy as in Usenet above and for
>                        any individual to use freely provided that no profits 
>                        are made.

Death of Usenet predicted. I'd toss these articles in the crapper even
though I run a free site. It's a bad precedent. The set of rights that
now exist (Copyright: Usenet) are sufficient.

>If the idea of someone making money by distributing information offends
>you then disconnect your telephone, turn off the tv, turn off the radio,
>turn off the computer and stick to conversations and US Mail for a while.

Agreed.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Xref: sparky alt.culture.usenet:673 news.admin:7130 comp.org.eff.talk:5440 misc.legal.computing:1975
From: system@freds.cojones.com (George W. Hayduke)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright:" field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 08:31:10 ADT
Organization: Bedlam Institute of Higher Learning

system@freds.cojones.com (George W. Hayduke) writes:
> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> > 
> > THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC DOMAIN ONLY NET.
> 
> The net isn't. I was referring to charters for individual, newly created

I should clarify. It's not that the net isn't, it's more that nobody's sure
just WHAT the hell the net is, and we're all waiting for the judge to inform
us.

That day could be the end of netnews.


--
from the mythical, nonexistant SYSTEM 0PERATOR | The FredBox +1 907 344 8437
system@freds.cojones.com | uunet!coldbox!fredbox!system | ASFJP@ALASKA.BITNET
Home of a few raving lunatics and myriads of electronic publications.
Why anyone would want to copyright this dreck is beyond me.

Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM
Subject: Re: Verifying the Poster
Organization: Mentor Graphics - IC Group
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:02:20 GMT

In <e6@pilot.njin.net> limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

> Of course, that just means that forgers will only need to be a bit
> more careful when crafting their forgeries for them to work.  After
> a few iteration of attempts, they'll have perfected their technique.

At that time, someone will suggest that netnews be reimplemented
from the ground up with security and authenticity as prime
concerns.

Tom
--
There is nothing wrong with talking to yourself...
I do it, and so do I!
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM
Subject: Re: Verifying the Poster
Organization: Mentor Graphics - IC Group
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:04:20 GMT

In <e12@pilot.njin.net> limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

> Brad Templeton is always looking to take a dare and...

...and the whole things starts over.

This is a problem with Usenet.  It has no "memory" so every post risks
repeating an old question, which starts a virtual repeat of the last
time such topic came up.  FAQ postings help, but I think there is
another solution.

My solution would be to have all of Usenet stored on a CD-ROM so that
people could refer back to these threads and not repeat them.  For
example, if someone complains about something that's been discussed
before, we wouldn't have to repeat the entire discussion (as we often
do).  Instead, someone would post:

"Oh, refer to message xxxx for the last time we argued that.  Chances
are you'll find the answer to what you were going to ask has already
been posted.  Please only post your question if you feel that you are
bringing a new element/factor/discovery/revealation to the issue."

I think this would be really useful.  I can think of a number of past
discussions that I'd like to re-read from time to time.  For example, I
still don't think anyone should be selling a CD-ROM full of old Usenet
postings.  Did anyone save that thread?  I'd really like to re-read
it and start that discussion ALL OVER AGAIN!  :-) :-) :-)

Tom
--
There is nothing wrong with talking to yourself...
I do it, and so do I!
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: limonce@pilot.njin.net
Subject: Re: Verifying the Poster
Organization: New Jersey Intercampus Network
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:01:09 GMT

In <e2@drew.drew.edu> tlimonce@drew.drew.edu (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

> Such posts are always followed by someone talking about how it
> can't be done without breaking all old systems.

This is always followed by someone who claims that they've figured
out a way to do it.

Tom
--
There is nothing wrong with talking to yourself...
at least you know you're going to win any arguments!
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: tlimonce@drew.drew.edu
Subject: Re: Verifying the Poster
Organization: Drew University - Alumni
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:00:57 GMT

In <e1@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

> I really hate when people post saying that netnews needs to be
> re-written so that security like this can be enforced.

Such posts are always followed by someone talking about how it
can't be done without breaking all old systems.

Tom
--
There is nothing wrong with talking to yourself...
I met and interesting person that way!
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright:" field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Summary: Quoting William Shakespeare
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:37:42 GMT

In article <uoaDPB3w165w@freds.cojones.com> system@freds.cojones.com (George W. Hayduke) writes:
>Perhaps it would be wise to include something like "Only public domain
>submissions will be accepted" in new newsgroup charters..

Never, never, never, never, never.

THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC DOMAIN ONLY NET.

And the people on both sides who keep claiming it is, or should be, or
shouldn't be, or that their opponents are saying it is, are just muddying
the waters.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:34:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.154143.11941@wolves.uucp> news@wolves.uucp (The Wolfe of the Den) writes:
>	I was interested to see Peter Da Silva point out that the
>"poster does the copying by using lent resouces" is not really a "new
>model" for the net's operation.  It has not previously been pointed out
>that this is a better model than "implicit grant of permission to copy"
>which has been the most common interpretation since the founding of the
>netnews net.

Well, I thought that was pretty much implicit in the understanding that
you should give something back to the net (even if only an occasional
long-distance news feed) in exchange for what you get from it. I guess
that cooperative ethic has become muddied in these days for for-pay news
feeds and the like (the net just hasn't been the same since NNTP), but
it *was* the common model some years back.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: alt.culture.usenet,news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-pr