HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 23:47:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.221519.507@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.193341.2754@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep14.153557.26010@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>>>>Ah.  So can we accept as an axioms that totalitarianism and fascism
>>>>are to be avoided?
>>>No, they're theorems.
>>>And I'd phrase them as "I would rather not have totalitarianism or
>>>fascism." You see the difference?
>>Yes, the difference between your wording and mine is useless nitpicking.
>No, I don't agree.
>Your formulation implies that this belief is common to --or should
>be common to--everyone. Mine doesn't.

This is getting awfully tedious.  I guess you win.  Or at least I
give up.

>>But I disagree that that these are theorems.  I'm not too familiar with
>>the appropriate terminology, but it seems to me that any discussion of
>>morality must include goals as well as axioms.  You can't prove the goals
>>from the axioms.
>
>Goals are essentially axiomatic in nature. Of the form: It is axiomatic
>that I desire X.
>
>>  But once you've decided on the goals, you may be able
>>to use them in conjunction with the axioms in order to prove that certain
>>behaviour is wrong.  I would guess that to deal with the system logically,
>>you'd treat the goals as axioms.
>
>The goal is that I wish to be left alone. The theorem is that
>totalitarian systems will likely result in me not being left alone
>therefore I desire that they do not exist.

Fair enough.  So, since your goal is to be left alone, could we not
also agree on the theorem that says that irrational hatred is very
likely to result in your not being left alone?  And from that, could
we not then conclude that bigotry is "wrong?"
--
Doug Graham          Unk, the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they
dgraham@bnr.ca       are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being
My own opinions.     smart.    --Kurt Vonnegut from _The Sirens of Titan_
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (Wild Child)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: End of the World... US only, apparently
Date: 13 Sep 92 05:47:49 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: sirius.itd.adelaide.edu.au
Originator: daemon@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au

In article <1992Sep11.140939.9757@digibd.com>, merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
> millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Neal Miller) writes:
>>Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
> ..[quoting EOW material]

> Bar codes have three solid bars used as scanning delimiters; one at each
> end, and one in the middle.  People with little knowledge of computer bar
> codes claim the solid bars code a digit "6", thus 6xx6xx6 is embedded in
> all bar codes.  They don't, of course; 666 refers to Unix universal rw-rw-rw-
> permissions :-)

I think this is just an American thing. After reading that, I went to
check out a couple of barcodes - NONE of the real digits looked anything like
the three guard bars - ours consist of two thin lines extending lower than the
rest of the barcode. My guess is somebody at the development stage in US was a
theist trying to bring about the Revelation prophesy....

> Merlyn LeRoy
-- 
John McVey, Whyalla campus, Uni S.Australia
Electronic Engineering Student & Terror Tekkie G1 (at 19!)
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au, or try
9051467f@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au
'An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.'  Don Marquis
'Those who believe in an afterlife won't be disappointed'  Me
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Obligatory disclaimer : UniSA hates my opinions...			     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
#! rnews 6797
Newsgroups: news.software.nn,comp.sourc
Subject: <None>
From: peter@zeus.DIALix.oz.au (Peter Wemm)
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:29:33 +0930

#! rnews 4141
From: Rollo.Ross@levels.unisa.edu.au
Newsgroups: unisa.system,unisa.general
Subject: Re: Rollo here for 20 years today
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:56:08 +0930
Organization: University of South Australia

In article <18664.2ab08520@levels.unisa.edu.au>, ccdps@levels.unisa.edu.au
writes:

> The sudden appearance of hundreds of different sizes of paper labelled "20"
> in Rollo's office this morning is entirely coinci dental and has nothing
> whatsoever to do with his pet rock.
	This is so much of an "in" joke that it had to be explained to me:

"Coinci dental" because I was at the dentist.
"Pet rock" because that's apparently Dan's name for his boss, Rocky Stone.

						Rollo
#! rnews 1807
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (Wild Child)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,rec.humor
Subject: Re: Thoughts - Aussies have it better both ways!
Date: 13 Sep 92 22:23:32 +0930
Organization: University of South Australia

In article <1992Sep13.051133.5035@cs.uow.edu.au>, david@cs.uow.edu.au (David E A Wilson) writes:
> u734120@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (John Lamp) writes:
>>>peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>>> Hibberts Law #14:
>>>> 	When two technologies are competing for the marketplace,
>>>> 	the inferior one always succeeds.
>>And VHS winning over Beta ;->
> 
> But VHS had the superior running time (2 hrs vs 1 hr) when first introduced
> and movies usually run for more than 1 hr... Here is Australia we can now get
> E-300 (5 hour) tapes that will run for 10 hours at LP speed. What can US
> VHS & Beta machines reach?
> -- 
> David Wilson				(042) 21 3802 voice, (042) 21 3262 fax
> Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong	david@cs.uow.edu.au

We Australians also get 625 line PAL instead of the crappy 500 odd lines dummy
Americans get with NTSC.

-- 
John McVey, Whyalla campus, Uni S.Australia
Electronic Engineering Student & Terror Tekkie G1 (at 19!)
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au, or try
9051467f@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au
'An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.'  Don Marquis
'Those who believe in an afterlife won't be disappointed'  Me
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Obligatory disclaimer : UniSA hates my opinions...			     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: assholes
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<ocTiqB7w165w@mantis.co.uk> <1992Sep5.212728.3127@cs.yale.edu>
	<graham.715833468@galois> <TORKEL.92Sep7180250@bast.sics.se>
	<graham.715923740@galois>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 06:07:54 GMT

In article <graham.715923740@galois> graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
 writes:

   >Seriously all I am saying is that from a constructivist point of view
   >that claim that "square circles do not exist" is not only a logical
   >question it is an empirical one, because you must produce an object x
   >satisfying circle(x), and an object y satisfying square(y), to verify
   >the claim. Producing these x and y is an empirical question.

  What would be the point of producing a square object and a circle in
verifying that a square circle does not exist? Anyway, constructivism doesn't
enter into it. Proving a statement "there do not exist P that are Q" does
not involve producing any P or Q, even from a constructivist point of
view, unlike proving a statement "there do exist P that are Q". For
example, it is easily proved constructively that there are no odd numbers
with property P that are even numbers with property P, even if we have no
idea whether or not there are any numbers with property P.

  As is too frequently the case when logic or mathematics creeps into
the group, I'm afraid this doesn't have a whole lot to do with
atheism.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Neal Miller)
Subject: End of the World...
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:57:23 GMT

	After a fellow atheist whose name eludes me referred me to take a 
look at the current trend in soc.christian.religion, I must say that I'm
mighty shocked.  There are people out there who are utterly sure that the
world will end, a la Revelation, Judgement Day, the Second Coming, and all
that jazz... next year.  These people are voting, for crying out loud...  
Teaching our children with all the wholeheartedness of someone who is spending
hours each day teaching youths, even though they think the kids will never get
a chance to use the knowledge, because they'll all be dead in a year or so.
I, for one, am scared.  Not of October, 1994, but of the decisions that
people in power might make, in the false knowledge of impeding death.  If
our next president believes this crap, I think it's a safe bet that the
environmental agencies won't be seeing much funding.

	In any case, anyone interested in forming an alt.atheism party for
November, 1994?  ;-)


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Neal Miller         | "Why not go mad?"  | millernw@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
 Clarkson University |     - Ford Prefect |     dark@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:28:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.134535.8927@maths.tcd.ie> dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek Bell) writes:
>bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams) writes:
>>Oh yeh... I'll give you some advice so you can answer quick on your feet
>>to the question (by a misty eyed Mother) :
>>"Well then, if you think there is no god, then whre did Granpa go when he
>>died?"
>>--- Answer : "I guess he went wherever he thinks he went"
>
>	Mother:"He thought he was going to heaven; so you think there's a
>heaven, how can you be an atheist?"
> 
>>DO NOT SAY HE ROTTED IN THE GROUND, to your mother.
>
>	But your solution allows her to pull the mat from under you in a
>debate.

Why should you wish to get in a debate with your mother? If she finds comfort
in mythology, let her. You do not have to have respect for her beliefs, but
you can certainly show respect for her and her feelings. 

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
From: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff)
Subject: Re: I still seem to be God
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:00:35 GMT

jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary) writes:
: 
: No, no, no! Let's get something straight! I'M God! (Well, actually,
: the Messiah, which in my case isn't quite the same thing.) I would KNOW
: who God was, and currently Her computer is down, so She's obviously not
: the one posting on Usenet.

This reminds me I have a book on my reading list I still need to
check out.  Dr. Milton Rokeach, "The Three Christs of Ypsilanti".
Apparently, this doc decided to put three mental patients who were
convinced they were each Christ in the same room to see what happened.
Neat idea, huh?  There was also a similar situation in the Peter O'Toole 
movie, "The Ruling Class".  Check them out.

-- 
Jeff Young                         |          God is coming
Opinions expressed are mine alone. |      and boy is She Pissed!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro)
Subject: Re: Stephen Hawking - National Public Radio
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 15:08:50 GMT

In article <Bu0sEq.IzJ@cmptrc.lonestar.org> jspence@cmptrc.lonestar.org (John Spence) writes:
>In article <ksand-240892202955@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug23.154527.25699@walter.bellcore.com>,
>>arturo@alcor.bellcore.com (A. Cisneros) wrote:
>>> 
>>> What concerms me about this is that it tends to attribute
>>> to Hawking a belief he apparently does not hold. I read
>>> "A Brief History of Time" and it is pretty clear to me that
>>> he does not believe in a personal god. Is there anyone who
>>> knows him that can tell us whether Hawking uses "God"
>>> metaphorically for Nature? Is the NPR report inaccurate?
>>
>>A TV program abut Hawking gave us a good insight into how
>>his wife -- a Christian -- was worried that Hawking was not
>>convinced that a God had created the universe. And that his
>>theories might suddenly kill the notion of a creator based
>>Big Bang (note, not Band!). While Stephen pointed out the view
>>that Big Band could be explained scientifically. I got the feeling
>>he was either a skeptic or a true agnostic/atheist.
>>
>>It also showed that families where the parts have opposite world views
>>works! Take note, Bush, family values at it's best.

Oops! Hawking split up with his wife recently and moved in with one his
nurses! I read it in a Readers Digest article about him. The article
also described an occasion where Shirley Maclaine visited him to talk
about the origin of the universe.  Apparently she's got into
metaphysics and stuff and was travelling round talking to all sorts of
gurus and scientists about it. Anyway, she asked Hawking whether or not
he though a god had created the universe, he answered in the negative,
which would seem to indicate atheism/agnosticism.

-- 
Bruce Munro.  <bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!uknet!stc!bruce
BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. 
Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174
"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Discrimination vs. homo/bi: justified?
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:12:51 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <18qtneINNdsm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> jmm25@po.CWRU.Edu (Jessica M. Mcgeary) writes:
>
>Hell, we can't even tell what causes bleedin' ALZHEIMER'S, or ALS!
>Environmental? Genetic? What? Homosexuality is a lot less dangerous,
>nonfatal (unless you are stupid enough to have unprotected sex with
>an HIV-infected person, or get caught in the path of rampaging Jesus
>freaks), and can be dealt with. Most importantly, it ISN'T a disease.
>Morality or not, I wish people would stop thinking of it as something
>whose causes should be isolated and destroyed, or its 'victims' subjected
>to 'cures'. Geez.
We spend quite a lot of time trying to figure out what controls sex
in humans(M or F), and that's clearly not a disease. It's an interesting
problem, ok?
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Would you do ANYTHING God told you....?
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:54:30 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1937njINNhbe@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips) writes:
>
>	Jessica sez:
>
>>	I can honestly say that no, I wouldn't..........
>
>
>	HOLY S&@# ! JESSICA IS THE FIRST PERSON TO EVER ANSWER THE
>QUESTION instead of going around it. Yes, instead of ducking the question,
>she answered it..........

At least as importantly, she got the right answer. Nice one Jessica.

You are sane and I claim my $10.

Now to read the replies from the decent, right-thinking, family-valued
crazies who *would* slaughter their children and mine, and sink back
into astonished, blank, helpless, despair for our species.

Doom doom doom, gloom gloom gloom.


>A. Trent Phillips     |personal E-mail:bb099@cleveland.freenet.edu
>alias:White Rook      |   NWROC E-mail:usr6418a@tso.uc.edu

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Undecidability and the FAQ
Date: 7 Sep 92 12:02:58 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
> Thus, it does provide a counter-example to the FAQ which states that
> the undecidability of a statement is, in itself, undecidable.

Did you catch Torkel's comment that the FAQ file actually says that the
undecidability of a statement S in T is itself undecidable in T?

That is, if S is a statement in T, "S is undecidable in T" is undecidable in
T.  (This, of course, assumes that "S is undecidable in T" can be expressed in
T.)

I think that you're probably mistaking the FAQ comment for something really
profound.  Actually, it's exactly as shallow as it appears on first
inspection.


mathew
[ I got lost in all the ZFC stuff.  Let me know when you've sorted it out
  between yourselves, and I'll try and understand it. ]
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:25:55 -0400 
From: Jad Nehme <jn1a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: god is not relevant
	<exukjb.131.715981096@exu.ericsson.se>

My previous response got erased.  Here it goes again:

Excerpts from netnews.alt.atheism: 8-Sep-92 Re: god is not relevant ken
bell@exu.ericsson.se (3486)

>  if we could answer the question of 
> the existence of God [provided the "answer" included or entailed a 
> sufficiently elaborated or at least clear conception of "God"], this would 
> immediately be of enormous importance for the solution of many of the most 
> contentious problems of philosophy, or would at least provide the main 
> body of a solution to them

Very true.  But, when researching human nature, do you see any reason to
put money, time effort into research on god?  It is true that a lot of
questions could be answered if the question of its existence were to be
determined.  But god's theory is certainly not the only one one that
would have that kind of effect on our understanding of the world. 

> But, as it is always worth repeating and emphasizing, it is not so 
> much the question of God's existence per se, but of his nature [what God 
> is], that is really in question, and is the truly prior and fundamental one 
> that must be settled first. ---The most important ingredient to success in 
> any enterprize, is to ask the right first questions (my paraphrase of 
> Aristotle).

Exactly (though I missed the Aristotle paraphrase.)  The objection I
would have is why do you call it god.  The word carries a lot
connotation and restrictions.
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: assholes
Date: 6 Sep 92 15:25:19 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <JLTiqB8w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>> (the more fuckheads I see like this, the more convinced I am that we need 
>> a moderated group...<sigh>)
>
>We *have* a moderated group.  alt.atheism.moderated.

  *You* have a moderated group.  Doesn't show up at my site.


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Undecidability and the FAQ
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.92Sep7145557@isis.sics.se> <6lsn6yh@lynx.unm.edu>
	<11SEP199212471885@juliet.caltech.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 07:12:06 GMT

In article <11SEP199212471885@juliet.caltech.edu> waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu 
(Broughton, Wayne Jeremy) writes:

   >The sentence that really seems to be the bone of contention is the one
   >"Note that if a proposition is undecidable, the formal system cannot
   >deduce anything about it -- not even that it is undecidable."  I hold 
   >that, strictly speaking, this statement is true, though it is sufficiently
   >vague that its truth seems more accidental than intentional, and it could
   >stand to be rewritten.

  This is a fair comment on the FAQ statement. Indeed it doesn't seem to
have any particular role to play in the entry and might as well be deleted.

   >An aside: does anyone know of a generally accepted proof, outside
   >of ZFC, that ZFC is consistent?

  There is no such.

   >Finally, I don't think I have ever actually seen the G.I.T.'s used in an
   >atheism-related argument.  WHO exactly uses these theorems?

  We've had atheists as well as theists invoke Godel's theorem in
nonsensical ways.
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Save The Planet! Eat Toxic Waste!
Date: 9 Sep 92 09:25:20 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992

In article <Bts2FL.E98@world.std.com>, believer@world.std.com
(Frank G Sesco) writes:
>
> How can I become involved in the fight to remove this dangerous
> Pagan teaching from our schools? The fight against evolutionism
> must be an essential component of the fight for our families and
> this country.
>
> We must work to rid the world of Communism, Secular Humanism,
> Homosexualism, Evolutionism, and Atheism. All pose a grave threat
> to our faith and therefore our very existance.
   
You're a dear. If "our" faith were so weak, perhaps that is telling "us"
something?!

--- Maximus 2.00
From: hjort@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christianic Sacrifices
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:33:00 EDT

In article <BuBz67.Gvv@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, brumleve@gauss (Danny Brumleve) writes:
> cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG) writes:
> 
>>>I wonder if these are some of the "Traditional Family Values"
>>>Kind George "baby butcher" Bush want to force Americans to
>>>adopt?
>>>
>>>--- Maximus 2.00
> 
>>Be careful about generalizing Christians b/c of some bad apples.
>>I could no more say that atheists were all incestious (sp) if the
>>news reported that an atheist raped his/her daughter.
> 
> 
>>Chris
> 
>      But the murders reported were commited as a result of the killers being 
> Christians.  Ever heard of an atheist killing someone because they believed
> in "god"?
>
Look out! I see a flamewar coming! Next thing someone will drag out Stalin,
and a flamewar about is it permissible to blame Christianity/Atheism for
the actions of self-proclaimed christians/atheists.

Actually I think the orginal post was a jub at Bush and the party platform
for chanting "Family Values" as if it was some magic formula that would
solve everything, where "Family" generally means a christian family.
These reports point out it's not that simple, even if everybody joined
nice christian heterosexual families, you won't get rid of the bad
apples. The bad apples will still be there, they will just be
"Traditional Family Values" brand of bad apples.

							- Hans H Hjort
From: MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: assholes revisited
Date: 9 Sep 92 00:08:40 GMT
 <PJ2RqB9w165w@mantis.co.uk>
Organization: Penn State University

I have only one bit of advice for everyone: let it die. The original poster
evidently enjoys cluttering up this group, and he's not going to change.
Some of you know this already. Conclusion: a worthless subject. Let it die...

Martin Schulte