HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zfs60@cas.org (John Shen)
Subject: Double click button1 for 2 words
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:14:02 GMT

Is it possible to get 2 words highlighted if I click the space between
them?  If it is, how do I set it up?  (Or how in general do I change
the behavior of mouse highlighting syntax?)  Thanks for any info.
--John
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from help-lucid-emacs to alt.lucid-emacs.help; Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:28:55 EST
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:30:11 GMT
From: ori@marvin.technion.ac.il (Ori Degani)
Subject: Fatal error (11).Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Newsgroups: alt.lucid-emacs.help
Hi,
  I tried to run emacs in the background, and it suspendend because of ttyoutput
so I (fg)'d it, and then it did the fatal error 11
Fatal error (11).Segmentation fault (core dumped)

(I might have presses ctrl-c but I'm not sure).

I also got this same error when I tried something like:

emacs -batch -f byte-compile-file abc.el

Ori
   |  ----      Ori Degani
   |  |___      ori@eddie.technion.ac.il   (Ship Computer on the HOG)
   |  |         ori@marvin.technion.ac.il  (Who else) 
   |  ----      s2973229@techst02.technion.ac.il (Ech..)
From: rouquett@overcat.alt (Nicolas Rouquette)
Subject: multiple displays
Organization: /home/users/rouquett/.organization
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:50:28 GMT


Once lemacs is started, does it support creating and deleting screens
on other displays? For example, John Doe starts lemacs from his local
workstation, foobar. After a while, he moves to the lab where he
resumes his furious foobar hacking from snafu, a lab workstation. 

A variant of this scenario could also take place over a PPP link between
workstations. For those interested, lemacs works fine with dp-2.2 beta
from purdue with a small patch which presumably will be in the next version.


--
----------Nicolas Rouquette----------rouquett@aig.jpl.nasa.gov
    Artificial Intelligence Group
      Jet Propulsion Laboratory
From: rct@fulcrum.co.uk (Richard Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.lucid-emacs.help
Subject: Minibuffer cut and paste
Date: 6 Jan 93 10:28:50 GMT
Organization: Fulcrum Communications

Anyone know how to cut and paste from/to the minibuffer? It appears that the
mouse buttons have been defined as something useless (to me anyway!) in
the minibuffer.

Thanks in advance.
Regards,
============================================================================
Richard Taylor                  DoD #981                 (rct@fulcrum.co.uk)
"HELP! I've fallen, and I can't reach my beer."
============================================================================
Fulcrum Communications Ltd., Fordrough Lane, Birmingham, B9 5LD, ENGLAND.
Newsgroups: alt.lucid-emacs.help
From: rct@fulcrum.co.uk (Richard Taylor)
Subject: Middle mouse button - clash of actions
Organization: Fulcrum Communications
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:51:46 GMT

I noticed that I seem to get clashes between the lemacs and X actions
of the middle mouse button, which are:

X:		paste 'primary selection'
lemacs:		select 'hyperlink'	(apologies for the loose terminology)


I'm confused as to how lemacs decides which is the 'correct' action.
Is it decided by the buffer's current mode?

My main confusion is in dired and manual modes (so far), where I have
seen both actions, at different times (although in different lemacs
processes). I would rather have the hyperlinks in dired than the paste
action, but usually paste the action I get. Rats.

Any help via email would be appreciated.
Regards,
============================================================================
Richard Taylor                  DoD #981                 (rct@fulcrum.co.uk)
"HELP! I've fallen, and I can't reach my beer."
============================================================================
Fulcrum Communications Ltd., Fordrough Lane, Birmingham, B9 5LD, ENGLAND.


x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from help-lucid-emacs to alt.lucid-emacs.help; Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:15:16 EST
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 09:08:36 GMT
From: djh@CIS.Prime.COM (David Hughes)
Subject: Re: Double click button1 for 2 words
	<ZFS60.93Jan5131402@zfs60mws.cas.org>
Newsgroups: alt.lucid-emacs.help
Excerpt of message (sent 5 January 1993) by John Shen:
> Is it possible to get 2 words highlighted if I click the space between
> them?  If it is, how do I set it up?  (Or how in general do I change
> the behavior of mouse highlighting syntax?)  Thanks for any info.
> --John

What you need here is djh-imouse, a package I released some time ago to a
select few for beta test. If you wish to be a tester please get in touch.

The package offers the following features :

    * The usual drag or double click select

    * Extending currently selected text

    * Selection of logical things (words, lines, strings, sexps etc)
      with a single mouse click

    * Text cutting with the mouse

    * Paste or Move of selected text

    * Smart context specific mouse actions

    * Window splitting at arbitary positions with a single mouse click

    * Automatic dynamic line numbering in the mode line (current line &
      total number of lines)

    * Resizing a window by dragging the modeline up or down

    * Scrolling of arbitary windows by clicking on the modeline

    * Yanking the buffer or file-path-name by clicking on the modeline

    * Configurable mouse buttons - you choose which behave as "SELECT",
      "PASTE" and "MODIFY" as I know this is highly controversial...

--
Regards, David
From: tlp00@ras.amdahl.com (Tibor Polgar)
Newsgroups: alt.lucid-emacs.help
Subject: Calling djh@CIS.Prime.COM (David Hughes)
Date: 8 Jan 93 03:16:22 GMT
Reply-To: tlp00@ras.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

I'd like to beta test your djh-imouse package but my mail to you gets rejected as 
follows:
 <@columbia.edu,@rutgers:harvard!m2c!frog!cpoint!crackers!compres!primerd!CIS.Prime.COM!djh@mit-eddie> ... transport smtp: 554 <@columbia.edu,@rutgers:harvard!m2c!frog!cpoint!crackers!compres!primerd!CIS.Prime.COM!djh@mit-eddie>... Never heard of rutgers in domain
|
thanks.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Tibor L. Polgar    |  (408) 746-8649     | tlp00@climb.ras.amdahl.com
| Amdahl Corporation
| 1250 East Arques Avenue (M/S 281)
| P.O. Box 3470
| Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3470
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Religion?
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:46:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan3.053202.1416@news2.cis.umn.edu>, rob@dexter.psych.umn.edu (Robert Stephens) writes...
> 
>I first profess no real knowledge of exactly
>what the difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism
>is.  I AM vaguely aware of the accusation that Libertarianism
>does arrive at some conclusions on the basis of religion.

	The accusation is: *some* Libertarians come to accept Libertarianism
for religious reasons.

	There are plenty of atheistic Libertarians, thank-you-very-much.
Libertarianism is NOT based on religion.


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:10:40 GMT

In article <MERRITT.93Jan4125207@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>&In article <C0CB8s.8Jz@SSD.intel.com> pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:
> &  I believe from "Atlas Shrugged" that the fundamental axiom of
> &  Objectivism is Aristotle's statement, "Existence exists."  In other
> &  words, there is an objective reality independent of human perceptions
> &  of it.
>
>By this do you mean that what the human mind precieves as red is only
>an approximation of the `true' redness in Plato's world of forms?
>And do such absolutes exist? So that even abstarct ideas and concepts
>can be ultimatly `true' (although not provable within an axiomatic
>system of logic)?

I haven't read "Atlas Shrugged" in a long time, and when I did, I
didn't attempt to critique Rand's logic.  I think what Rand and
Aristotle mean is that an object which the senses perceive as 'red'
cannot be made blue simply by every one agreeing it is blue.  This is
more than just semantics.  Just because a person, or every person,
refuses to acknowledge the existence of something doesn't mean it
doesn't exist.  In her novel, the antagonists are people who deny such
an objective reality by refusing to admit that their actions have
effects for which they are responsible.

-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Health Care Rights?
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:55:31 GMT

   I think you should know that Ayn Rand is dead. What have we to do
with the dead?

Atlas Shrugged ...


Bill
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: A=A
Date: 6 Jan 93 11:14:48 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <2m8VwB3w165w@momad.li.ny.us> siphon@momad.li.ny.us 
(Stimpson J. Katz) writes:

   >If you complain that little can be drawn from this axiom, then I 
   >submit you would be demonstrating further ignorance. Euclidean Geometry 
   >proceeds from amazingly few axioms.
   >The specific axiom to which you are complaining, "A is A", is a 
   >demand the concepts have clear meaning before they are subjected to 
   >logical manipulations. The acceptance of this axiom in mathematics could 
   >have eliminated much the problems it has been running into with respect 
   >to internal contradictions.

 The formula "A is A" is indeed one of startling flexibility.
Already it has been variously spoken of by Objectivists as a "law", a
"demand", a "concept", and in each of these guises held to have large
consequences. This of course hardly inspires confidence in the non-believer,
if only because of the extreme intellectual sloppiness exhibited.

  Since you invoke Euclidean geometry, it would seem that you believe
that something similar to the proofs in Euclidean geometry can be
achieved in Objectivism by logical reasoning from "A is A" (suitably
interpreted) in conjunction, I suppose, with other Objectivist axioms.
Perhaps you would care to exhibit such a logical deduction, so as to
allow us to make a comparison with the proofs in Euclidean geometry?

  >My post discussing this issue was just distributed on Jimmy 
  >Wales' Objectivism list and is available to anyone who is interested.

  Why not give the world (or at least the alt-receiving world) the benefit
of your demonstrations?
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philosophy)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1993Jan04.214429.11578@news.mentorg.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:52:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan04.214429.11578@news.mentorg.com> madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.
com (Madhav Nerurkar) writes:

  >I agree that the post you are responding to is not accurate. I disagree that
  >Godel's theorem is not relevant to Objectivism. Ayn Rand intended to provide
  >a sound and complete theory of reality. According to Godel's theorem it can
  >never be complete if it is formal and consistent as it was intended to be.

  1) There are many complete and consistent formal theories.
  2) Objectivism has nothing whatever to do with formal theories in
     any sense of "formal theory" to which Godel's theorem applies.
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the group
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:20:21 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

[anarchism vis a vis objectivism]

>I'm a small-o objectivist, and also an anarchocapitalist.

>I see no contradiction. From my perspective, being a small-o
>objectivist means that I believe in things like the virtue of
>selfishness, capitalism, and the non-coercion principle. I don't see
>any reason all those can't be promoted by an anarchist system, and
>indeed, I believe that they would be promoted MORE effectively in such
>a system.

The first problem anarchism always runs into is that of social
stability, especially when dealing with large enough systems
that iterated prisoner's dilemmas become inapplicable.  When
combined with an ethical system based on selfishness, it becomes
incumbent to show why many people in the society wouldn't turn
to use of force; there would be no external constraints, and
few internal ones (you can't guarantee everyone would want to
have the same non-coercive goals as yourself).

I haven't seen this done, though that doesn't mean it can't be.

>My reading and research over the last few years has lead me
>to conclude that there is no more reason to believe that you need or
>even desire a government to manage law courts than there is to believe
>that you desire or need a government to manage supermarkets.

Sanitary regulations were introduced for a reason...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Some ideas are frost giants: pouring cold water on them helps them to grow.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: Objectivism, the Handicapped, and Unwanted Children
Date: 08 Jan 93 21:40:55 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article rad2r@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Robert DeLine) writes:
| 1) Mary is a young woman of limited means.  She gives birth to
| a son, but quickly discovers she cannot take care of him. 
| What is to become of the child?

Adoption, charity, or death.  The right to life means you
get to play the game, not win.

| 2) Residents of a neighborhood in New York discover a man
| wandering their street one morning.  He is quite
| out-of-control (because of severe schizophrenia, not
| because of any form intoxication) and putting the residents in
| danger.  What is to become of him?

If he attacks someone he would be treated as any other
criminal.

-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman)
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown
Organization: Sometimes
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:26:21 GMT

In article <106742@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
}madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar) submits:
} 
}>Given the value placed on individuals and minds capable of rationality, to
}>save a drowning person would be an act of high virtue for an Objectivism
}> provided
}>it is an emrgency situation. If a person tries to blackmail another with a
}>suicide threat and then jumps in water after the bluff is called, I do not thin
}>would be worth saving at risk to one's life according to Objectivism.
} 
}I'm not sure why you feel it appropriate to mention this sort of
}hypothetical situation, but it raises another question in my mind:
} 
}In my (painful!) reading of "Atlas Shrugged", I have learned that
}Rand strongly disapproved of using force as a means by which
}to control other people. But what about the withholding of
}assistance in such emergencies? Is that acceptable as a means
}by which to get what one wants? E.g. -
} 
}Drowning man:   Help, help! I am a drowning man!
}                Please, throw me that life preserver!
} 
}Roark:          (hair blowing in the wind dramatically)
}                Why should I? If I save you, will you
}                build my buildings?
} 
}Drowning man:   Yes, yes, anything you say, just help me!
} 
}Roark:          Deal! Here you go...
}                (tosses life preserver into water)
} 
}Comments, anyone?

You answered your own question by saying Rand "strongly disapproved of
using force as a means by which to control other people".  The scenario you
present is one of extortion, something she was definitely against.




-- 
   ---------------------------------------------
  | Richard B. Schwartzman, RBS Communications  |
  |  Media Coordinator, DE. Libertarian Party   |
  |         rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu            |
  |              (302) 455-0354                 |
   ---------------------------------------------
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the group
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:11:00 GMT
	<1993Jan7.203839.6974@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu's message of 7 Jan 93 20:38:39 GMT



#In article <1993Jan7.203839.6974@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sconley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:

   In article <TORKEL.93Jan6213720@bugs.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) 
   writes:
   >
   >   >It seems to me that there are a bunch of people
   >   >participating in this news group who are not objectivists and
   >   >show no indications of having in any desire to do anything but
   >   >cause trouble.
   >
   >  Certainly, and I'm one of them. More precisely, I'm interested in
   >troubling Objectivists with some outside viewpoints, with criticism
   >of nonsensical talk about logic, and with invitations to produce some
   >of their fabled logical deductions from philosophical axioms. I'm
   >sure you don't want this kind of trouble, but it's part of the net.
   >Stick to the Objectivist mailing lists if you wish to mingle only with
   >the faithful.

#   Replace the word "Objectivist" with the word "homosexual" and Mr. Torkel
#   Franzen sounds like another Clayton Cramer, which is precisely what he is.
#   The best thing to do with these people is just ignore them.

You are outta line here Bub! The tone and content of your post adds
nothing to the group or the subject being discussed in this thread.
I think that Mr. Franzen is sadly misinformed but he hasn't
exhibited a fear(or hatred) of Objectivist on some irrational basis.
Infact it was because of him and others that I have consulted
my copy of an Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology and dug out
my copy of Atlas Shrugged.

A devil's advocate can serve the person who is willing to attempt
to reason.

-sjm

--
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson)
Subject: Re: On the subject of Kant..
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 18:00:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.190000.23047@news2.cis.umn.edu>, rob@dexter.psych.umn.edu (Robert Stephens) writes:
 
|> I am
|> curious as to exactly where he contradicts
|> Objectivism.

Well, I'd say first and foremost, Kant refutes the idea of objective reality.
He suggests that reality is shaped by our perceptions, thus if we imagined that
an apple were an orange, it would become so, for the perceiver that is.  This
goes back to what everyone is yelling about lately here because it contradicts
the Law of Identity.  Based upon Kant's work, many philosophers created some
extremely mind-numbing work of their own.  Examples would be Hegel and Nietzche.

In any event, I suggest reading The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff.  It's
a wonderful study of German history and concentrates on the philosophical
progression there.  The book discusses in detail the philosophies of Kant and
his epistomological children.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Religion?
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:07:05 GMT


   A "strict Libertarian" ??? Is that an oxymoron or what! I think
your claim to be an atheist probably best explains your confusion
about a moral as opposed to a political philosophy, which you can no
doubt explain. But if your confusion can be electronically propagated,
it would be best I think, if your explainations remain private.

Bill


Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Subject: Re: Private Roads in an Objectivist Society
Keywords: Private Roads
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:46:18 GMT

====================================
 frankp@galena.bellcore.com (Frank Perez) writes:
>
>I could see this implementable for turnpikes,
> highways, or long-distance roads.
>But what about local roads like city streets and streets next to your house,
>let's say.
>
>This might sound a little ridiculous, but what if I own a house and the local
>road is owned by someone else and that person does not let me use his road.
>I now have a house but I cannot enter it because all the local streets 
>surrounding the house are owned by this person who will not let me use his 
>road. Do you see a possible problem ?

 This is similar to the scenarios: what if I own a house and the gas company
 refuses to sell me heating oil/fuel, the utility company refuses to sell
 me electricity, etc. etc.; or I buy health insurance but the doctor
 refuses to see me ........ we can conceptualise numerous scenarios.

 One answer (tell me, if I don't make sense):
    When you buy a house, the purchase contract should take care of these
    things. Because you don't buy "rooms, walls and roof," you buy a place
    to live in - and living includes all luxuries that you desire. The
    ease of commuting out of your house adds value to your house. The value
    of the house to you is zero if you can't use the street roads around it.
    (unless of course, you plan to build a heli-strip on your roof and
     commute with a chopper - chopper ride is a cool ride tho :) ; or may
     be you might be thinking of tunnels, hmmmm )

    This answer may seem strange, but you do it now - for example, when you
    buy health insurance.

 The other answer is, perhaps in understanding, why any one would refuse to
 let you use the road:
 [1] You refuse to pay what everyone is paying.
 [2] You misuse/damage the road heavily (Reminds me of the AAA road emergency
     sevices contract)
 [3] Some emotional/harassment problem. 

 Well, I do not pardon irresponsibility. And, I don't believe in limitless
 forgiveness. Somebody always pays for every negligence/irresponsibility. Why
 shouldn't the perpetrator? That takes care of [1] and [2], doesn't it?

 If the road owner has emotional problem - the contract and courts should
 solve "you can't use my street road" problem. Actually, I sometimes wonder
 if in a free market - such irrational "road owners" could ever survive.

---------------
 This question raises another interesting secondary question:
  How would the local/city streets be funded?

 May be with: [1] street parking tolls [2] License fees from real estate
 "road use" contracts.... ???   

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism