HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu (Benjamin John McCall)
Subject: Summer Conference!!!
Keywords: it's on
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world, local
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:54:34 GMT

Well, it's my fault.  I forgot :-(

It seems to be on.  I did get a number of favorable responses to the
survey I sent out (when did I send that out?)...

Thank you for reminding me.  I will make decisions within the week.

Ben MCCall

P.S. - If you are interested in attending and never mailed in a survey,
please mail me ASAP!!!!!!!
From: jester@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Jester)
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: Re: You are all my subjects...
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:40:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.44603
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

bahn@edit.mndly.umn.edu (Christopher Bahn) writes:
>I declare that all of you are my subjects unless you specifically say that 
>you aren't. So there.
>Arch-Pope Ringo George I of the United Churches of Chaos

I beg to differ. Me and my fellow overlords created this group. You are
more than a little late. You must follow us or perish.....

Jester aka Imperious Leader
-- 
|Join the Omnipotent Overlords of the Omniverse today. Add to intelligent   |
|political, environmental, and social discussions. Buck the growing trend of|
|apathy in the world today, and most importantly have some well earned fun. |
|Read all about us on alt.overlords or e-mail : jester@sage.cc.purdue.edu   |
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
From: marquada@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (David A Marquam)
Subject: Isaac Asimov is DEAD!  
Reply-To: marquada@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (David A Marquam)
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 02:02:27 GMT


	He was only 72!  I wanted to meet him someday.  He once said that  
he could not stop writing or his head would explode.  Apparently he had  
too many good ideas at once and his brain just said NO MORE.  Actually I  
don't know how he died but I figure a heart attack since he has had some  
trouble in the past with that.  All the papers that I have access to only  
have a couple of lines about his death saying "Asimov the writer is dead.  
He was 72."  Does anybody else know more about it?  I wonder what the last  
thing he wrote was.  Oh well, at least I have a chance to catch up reading  
his stuff!  Does anybody know how many books he has written?  Last I heard  
it was over 500.  Well, I know that I will at least miss him.  
	Good bye Asimov from a Dear Reader.

				David
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
From: mayojr@cs.rose-hulman.edu (John R. Mayo)
Subject: Re: May the best man win
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:09:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.182527.6973@cs.rose-hulman.edu> drewmc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Matthew C. Drew) writes:
>What is wrong with a little anarchy now and again?
>
>    Anarchy is a viable social arrangement which has its roots in 
>capitalism and the liberal tradition.  The liberal tradition -- the 
>conception of self-ownership -- developed governments which were supposed 
>to protect as much as possible the natural rights of citizens.  There is 
>always the reservation against abolishing ALL government because of the 
>common misconception that government is a 'necessary evil': certain 
>functions of government, such as the courts and police, cannot be provided 
>in the absence of a government.  An Anarchist, being essentially a radical 
>capitalist, believes that all services the government now provides 
>(including police and courts) can be provided better and cheaper through 
>competition.
	Ah, yes, but how does an anarchy protect itself from foriegn
armed forces? I'd love to see everyone play nice, but I doubt that
everyone will. I agree with you in most respects, and I wish armed
forces were not needed, but it seems in this day and age, they are.

*grin*


-- 
John Mayo -------> mayojr@cs.rose-hulman.edu
"It's 10 o'clock, do you know what time it is?"
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: Re: You are all my subjects...
From: tneeck@math.macalstr.edu (The sound of hoofprints 'cross the glade...)
Date: 14 Apr 92 09:57:05 -0600
Reply-To: tneeck@math.macalstr.edu (The face behind the mask)
Distribution: world

In article <bahn.62@edit.mndly.umn.edu>  writes:
> I declare that all of you are my subjects unless you specifically say  
that 
> you aren't. So there.
> 
> Arch-Pope Ringo George I of the United Churches of Chaos

	So, what exactly are you saying?  I think it's a call for help.  Here  
at the Ministry of Neural Reconfiguration, Selective Sanity, and Superior  
Reality (MNRSSSR), we can help.  Just grovel and send a $2 million contribution  
and you, too, can come under my supreme guidance--a bargain, actually...

--
+------------------------------------------v------------------------+
|Doctor Stomper  (aka T. M. Neeck)         |                        |
|NeXT:  tneeck@math.macalstr.edu           |      Isaac Asimov      |
|VAX:  tneeck@mac.cc.macalstr.edu          |       1920--1992       |
|DISCLAIMER:  I'm Too Sexy For Opinions... |                        |
>------------------------------------------^------------------------<
|WARNING:  This message will decay into its component quarks 12.2   |
| 	 seconds after you finish reading it.  So hurry up.         |
>-------------------------------------------------------------------<
|Macalester College doesn't neccesarily hold these opinions.  Which |
|	 is OK, since I sure as hell don't hold theirs.  And in some|
|	 cases, I don't even hold these.  So nyah.                  |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
From: boltonja@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Jerry A. Bolton)
Subject: Re: I may have been a bit hasty...(was Re: You are all my subjects...)
Keywords: It's, dead, Jim
Reply-To: boltonja@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Jerry A. Bolton)
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:55:12 GMT

In article <45233@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> thwang@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Tommy  
Hwang) writes:
> In article <bahn.68@edit.mndly.umn.edu> bahn@edit.mndly.umn.edu  
(Christopher Bahn) writes:
> >t have to tithe. However, I have decided to be my own subject (as in  
"Be 
> >Your Own Best Friend) and will demand a tithe from myself, to be spent  
on 
> 
>      Friends?  Fine, but... "Never trust anyone, not even yourself."  
(somebody,
> Stalin I think??)  :-) :-)

	IT'S DEAD, JIM.

--
/* Jerry Bolton, Jr.			boltonja@cs.rose-hulman.edu
	"One person's error is another's data."
        "When putting into memory, remember where you put it." */

#define DISCLAIMER=STD_DISCLAIMER
	/* The opinions above are not necessarily anyone's but mine.*/
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: Re: Perot info by FTP
From: phygod72@nic.gac.edu (Phil )
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:14:45 -0600

In article <167C47470.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>  writes:
}
} Could you guys get this drivel out of alt.politics.elections, please?
} It has nothing to do with this group, and could easily go to e-mail.

The hell it doesn't!!!  To quote Jester's .sig:

|Join the Omnipotent Overlords of the Omniverse today. Add to intelligent   |
|political, environmental, and social discussions. Buck the growing trend of|
|apathy in the world today, and most importantly have some well earned fun. |
|Read all about us on alt.overlords or e-mail : jester@sage.cc.purdue.edu   |

Sure, perhaps the title *isn't* the most descriptive, but the original intent  
of this group is not for people to have ego trips.  This "I am God" crap  
probably entered when the number of discussion posts dropped.  Perhaps there  
needs to be an article always in the group like "THE PURPOSE OF THIS  
NEWSGROUP".  

I'm getting rather sick of the "I am God" crap.  Any one else?  Suggestions on 
how to fix the problem?

Phil Miesle
Ambassador to the Intergalatic Planning Commission
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: QOTD
From: csteffen@hotspur.gac.edu (Craig P Steffen)
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:00:05 -0600

Quote of the Day

"I guess this thing doesn't stop real bullets..."
                                                        Captain Jack Flack
                                                          CLOAK AND DAGGER

Craig Steffen
Wielder of the Grand Unification Theory
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: Re: You are all my subjects...
From: robynn1@perdita.gac.edu (Robyn Ness)
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:15:54 -0600

In article <bahn.62@edit.mndly.umn.edu>  writes:
> I declare that all of you are my subjects unless you specifically say  
that 
> you aren't. So there.
> 
> Arch-Pope Ringo George I of the United Churches of Chaos

I AM no one's subject.
(I have been a verb at times, even a preposition, but never-ever a  
subject.  And I don't plan to start now.)

Newsgroups: alt.overlords
From: mfm0@ellis.uchicago.edu (martin frederic melhus)
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov is DEAD!
Summary: Asimov stories
Keywords: Asimov
Reply-To: mfm0@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 06:07:03 GMT

In one of his collections of short stories, Harlan Ellison claims
that Hari Seldon, of the Foundation Trilogy+, was loosely named after
him.  Ellison mentions this in the introduction to a story whose
villian is named Rike Akisimov (note: Isaac is often Ike.)  There
were many other writers who had a soft spot for Asimov; I'm surprised
that the popular press coverage didn't mention them, and some of their
anecdotes.

As another aside, how many of you out there are familiar with Harlan
Ellison's work?  If I remember correctly, he has won the most Hugo's
(or Nebulae, or some other prize) with 7; Roger Zelazny has 6.  But
few SF readers seem to know about him.

A friend of mine's father got his MD from Boston University.  He had
Asimov as a prof for a class.  On one oral exam, Asimov explained,
"To pass this section of the test, you have to correctly identify
seven of the ten specimens I will show you."  My friend's dad said,
"Oh, that's easy.  I can get them all."  He got 9 out of the 10 right,
and Asimov failed him on that section of the test.

Martin F. Melhus - - - - - - - - mfm0@midway.uchicago.edu |
Chancellor of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Lord of Odious |      Never
Poetry, and Master of Trilobite Affairs (CoWoMDLoOPMoTA). |   Generalize!!
-- 
                          | You have all the time from when you remove the |
     Martin F. Melhus     | card(s) from your hand until you put it (them) |
 mfm0@midway.uchicago.edu | on the pile to say "Last Card".  If you don't, |
                          | take your two. - Hidden texts, Book of MauMau. |
From: bahn@edit.mndly.umn.edu (Christopher Bahn)
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: Re:  You are all my subjects...
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:51:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: edit.bahn.65
Organization: the Minnesota Daily (U of MN Student Newspaper)

In article <1992Apr11.111344.791@gacvx2.gac.edu> csteffen@hotspur.gac.edu (Craig P Steffen) writes:

>I have successfully destroyed his claim to soverienty over other  
>overlords.  He SAID that he had knowledge of the office of Vice President;  
>however, he was unable to produce it upon request.

>Therefore, we can safely ignore him...

>Craig Steffen 
>Wielder of the Grand Unification Theory

try, "he was unable to get back to you for a few days..." dan quayle's 
office telephone number has been sent to you via the magic of e-mail.
From: mfm0@ellis.uchicago.edu (martin frederic melhus)
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov is DEAD!
Keywords: Asimov
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:41:16 GMT
Reply-To: mfm0@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr8.020227.4360@cs.rose-hulman.edu> marquada@NeXTwork.
Rose-Hulman.Edu (David A Marquam) writes: [concerning the death of Asimov]

>Actually, I
>don't know how he died but I figure a heart attack since he has had some  
>trouble in the past with that. 

Yes, that's right.  NPR reported that the cause of death was heart and
kidney failure.

NPR gave Asimov a lot of airplay Monday.  Terry Gross rebroadcast an
interview with IA from 1987, and ATC called Arthur C. Clarke for his
comments.  Both were very interesting.

I am sure that many of us were saddened by this news.  Asimov made some
very nice contributions to mankind, and touched many of us with his words.

Martin F. Melhus - - - - - - - - mfm0@midway.uchicago.edu |
Chancellor of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Lord of Odious |      Never
Poetry, and Master of Trilobite Affairs (CoWoMDLoOPMoTA). |   Generalize!!
-- 
Martin F. Melhus          |  Ted is the false Bob, as Elvis is the false Ted.
mfm0@midway.uchicago.edu  |  The False bob is not false Elvis  - The Ted Bob.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:29:23 GMT

In article <72857@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jack Kerouac) writes:

Your tone sounded different in your books, Jack.


>>     "Can there be a person without a brain?" Jaworski inquires.
>
>>     "No, no way," replies Bennett.  "You can't be a person
>>     without a brain, you can't be a dog without a brain,
>>     you can't be a cat without a brain or a chicken without
>>     a brain."
>
>Bennett has just admitted that at 4 weeks, when a brain is present
>in the fetus, that it is a person.  At five weeks when the brain
>is more developed, it is a person.  At 8 weeks, when the brain shows
>electrical activity, the fetus is a person.

If there is a brain, but it doesn't work, it's not much of a brain, then is
it? The existence of the brain is academic if it does not function as a brain.
If I may assume that you do not believe your 'soul' is physically situated in
your heart and that all of you being is contained entirely by your brain,
we can see that if a brain does not function, there is no being.

Inasmuch as a fetus of 8 weeks has no functioning brain, in any sense, it is
not a being. You might as well call a sea slug an entity if you call an 8
week fetus and entity. Acutally the slug has more of a brain in that at least
it knows how to go out and feed itself.

If your brain *defines* all that you are as a person, and is *required* to 
function for you to exist, why would you say an 8 week fetus is a 'person'
when it has no brain?

Don't use 'potential' till we settle the sperm and egg thing either.


-- 

**************************************************************************
Corrected .sig for those who did not see the absurdity of the original one.
**************************************************************************
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: wasting money on propaganda (was Hello?)
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:27:53 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Apr06.065219.18253@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com said:
><1992Apr5.165603.14049@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  rayres@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Russell W Ayres) writes:
My sig:
...
>You seem to have missed the point.  Some moron was babbling about
>"pro-abortion" people, and Gordon was pointing out that Gordon is
>the only one who claims to be pro-abortion.  There are lots of us
>pro-*choice* people posting.  But if someone talks about pro-abortion
>rather than pro-choice, they're talking about Gordon.  (Not having
>met him, I don't know if he could be considered a group.  :-)

Come on.  150lbs hardly qualifies as a "group".  Although I do talk to
myself when coding. :-)


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boyfriend of Susan,
Muriel, Cathi, and Nora, and married to the sweetest woman in the world,
and darn proud of it.
-- 

The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: kevin C. Welch Does History, Like Debby did Dallas
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 20:26:12 GMT

In article <72959@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jack Kerouac) writes:
>David
>
>>Not to mention the billions upon billions of unborn children due to
>>masturbaton and menstruation. I mean if we are going to talk about the 
>>UNBORN, let's talk about the *unborn*.
>
>Hey, Dave, get a clue.
>
>To be born, you have to be a fetus.  To be a fetus, you have to have been
>an embryo.  To be an embryo, you have to have been a zygote.  To be a zygote,
>you have to have been unified by two gametes.  

And... to be a unification of two gametes, you have to have been a sperm and 
an egg in close proximity. To be a sperm in close proximity to an egg, you
(presumably) must avoid being dumped into the city sewer system. To be an
egg in close proximity to a sperm, you must avoid the same fate.

Ergo, masturbation and menstruation break the chain of causality and "kill
the unborn". QED.

>So when YOU masturbate, you don't kill the unborn.
>
>"They" are not unborn...

Surely, if sperm aren't "born", it follows that they are UNborn, doesn't it??? 

								- Kevin
From: kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Lenny Bruce)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: The Article Attribution Game (formerly: Flogging an Undecided)
Date: 14 Apr 92 03:04:05 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Jay

>I would like to point out to the net readership that Kevin Welch insists
>on deliberately misattributing my posts and (imo deliberately) attributing
>things to me that I have not said.

Where did I misquote you?

>I present the following:

>article <73855@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Mr. President):

>>Ron
>>>Kevin B.
>>>>Judi
>   ====
>   ====  I've asked you on the net.  And now I've asked you by email, to stop
>         playing this game.  The name is Jay.

>>>At 8 weeks, it's not much more than a blob.
>>
>>No, at about 10 days it's pretty much a blob.  At 8 weeks, it looks pretty
>>human...maybe that's...because it IS human.  I dunno, Judi.  What do you
>                                                       =====
>                                                       =====
>Obviously you have no interest in whether or not I respect anything you
>might have to say.  But I'll make a humble guess that I'm not the only
>one who thinks that you're acting like a child.

okay...your opinion.

>Not to mention the fact that you're responding to something I didn't write
>anyway.

Okay, I realize I should have addressed that question to Ron, not you
Jay.

Sorry.


>When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

choose Z adoption and keeping.

>     _____     __      __      Pro-woman,      /   -=* Jay T Stein *=-

kcw


--
Laocoon and her two sons                                 -=( Kevin C. Welch )=-
Pressured by the storm try to move          -=( kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu )=-
Love them more emotion bound
Martyr misconstrued							-R.E.M.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:852 talk.abortion:15448
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Constitution
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:53:22 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsh@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.165737.9990@ncsu.edu>
>        kcjaget@eos.ncsu.edu (KEVIN CHRISTOPHE JAGET) writes:

>Your reasoning is flawed. Your argument is basically:

>(1)  Born Person => Person has rights
>     A => B

No problem with this...

>(2)  Not born person => Person has no rights
>     !A => !B

Excuse me, since when was a person not born? Did they hatch? Or did 
a fetus become a person all of a sudden. 2 does not hold water, unless
you're implying something here I'm completely missing.

>(2) does not follow from (1).

Irrelevant til you clarify (2)

Ron
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:889 talk.abortion:15549
From: roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Unplanned Parenthood Quote
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:39:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: University of Delaware

>that force the animal to have to gnaw off its own leg. Well,
>in society, we must remove the stigmas and concepts of the unwanted
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>child so that a mother doesn't feel pressured into an abortion. 
 ^^^^^
>
> - SteveFranklin

I thought those stigmas and concepts were removed permanently in 
the 60's.  I can't think of anyone I respect who would look down 
on an unwed parent and their child in the 90's.

I personally believe in life-long commitment via marriage.  Perhaps 
that's because my parents have been happily married for 47 years.  
But that's for me -- others have a right to do whatever works for 
them.

Now I live in the northeast US.  Perhaps these antiquated stigmas 
are still prevalent in other parts of the country?  


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: What needs to happen to discuss these issues productively.
Organization: Encore Computer
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:56:34

In article <72976@netnews.upenn.edu> kwelch@eniac.seas.upenn.edu writes:
>Larry
>>Kevin
>>> Larry

>>> >     "Can there be a person without a brain?" Jaworski inquires.

>>> >     "No, no way," replies Bennett.  "You can't be a person
>>> >     without a brain, you can't be a dog without a brain,
>>> >     you can't be a cat without a brain or a chicken without
>>> >     a brain."

>>> Bennett has just admitted that at 4 weeks, when a brain is present
>>> in the fetus, that it is a person.  At five weeks when the brain
>>> is more developed, it is a person.  At 8 weeks, when the brain shows
>>> electrical activity, the fetus is a person.

>>One would think that after being corrected many times for making the
>>same logical error, you would learn something.  Dr. Bennet said that
>>no brain implies no person; this does *not* say that brain implies
>>person.  (In fact, he said you can't be a dog or a cat or a chicken
>>without a brain, so by Welch's reasoning, something with a brain is
>>a person *and* a dog *and* a cat *and* a chicken.  :-)

>So, it is incorrect to state that since we all have brains, we are all
>persons.  You're not a person, Larry.  Neither am I.  You said it
>yourself:  "this does *not* say that brain implies person."  Bing!
>No bananna.

	No, Kevin, one more time. Bennett says that no brain implies no 
person. This can also be restated as person implies brain. It says 
nothing about the statements that brain implies person, or no person 
implies no brain.

	Let's try the simple analogy again. "A dog is an animal" is
equivalent to "You can't be a dog without being an animal (To use 
Bennett's phrasing)" or "not an animal implies not a dog".
You are trying to proceed from "Dog implies animal" to "Animal implies 
dog". 

	Since we are all persons, we all have brains. Now eat your banana.

John
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion