HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com ("Johnson")
Subject: Re: Perot and trust
Reply-To: johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Wireless Enterprises, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:08:22 GMT

In article <Bw5Bot.JDq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis) writes:
=)
=)Unfortunately, no matter whether Marrou or Perot or Scott Tai
=)really would make a better president or not, a vote for them 
=)is essentially a vote for Bush. (or some fraction thereof)
=)
Well, look at it this way.  If there was one dominant party, which you
didn't like, would you consider it a waste of your vote to vote against
that candidate?  The current situation is not as far as we'd like to
think from this situation.

A couple of facts from a Libertarian propaganda sheet titled "Vote
Libertarian--FOR A CHANGE":

In the Presidential election of 1856, the Republican Party came in
fourth place, with John Fremont getting 5% of the vote.  In 1860,
they won with Lincoln.

In 1982, the Libertarian candidate for Governer of Alaska took a poll
asking voters who they were going to vote for.  The results (16%
Libertarian) corresponded closely to the actual result.  However, asked
who they would vote for if all candidates had an equal chance of winning,
the Libertarian candidate came out ahead.  If not for the myth of the
"wasted vote," the voters could have gotten the candidate they actually
wanted.

For reprints of this pamphlet, the first page suggests calling
1-800-735-1776.

Although I can't say I'm _entirely_ in agreement with the Libertarian
platform, I intend to vote Libertarian in order to register my
discontent with the more established parties.  If the Libertarians
become a credible threat to the status quo, perhaps the Republicans
and Democrats will be forced to offer a better selection of candidates
than they have in recent years.
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Johnson"                              | Don't say words you're gonna regret|
| johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com | Don't let fire rush to your head   |
|                                        |        -- The Alan Parsons Project |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  If I spoke for Motorola, things would be a lot different around here!      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: radams@BNR.CA (Rodney Adams)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Geneticism and free will
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:13:13 GMT
Reply-To: "Rodney Adams" <RADAMS@BNR.CA>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.

In article <01GPNTAYC9CI984PZQ@ccfvx3.draper.com>, seb@draper.com (Steve Bacher) writes:
|> Rodney Adams writes:
|> --- begin quote ---
|> If you are interested in pursuing this topic, you might also want to look at
|> the "Personal Intelligences" chapter in Howard Gardner's Frames of Mind: The 
|> Theory of Multiple Intelligences.  While Garder says little about sexual 
|> orientation, he does link such things as one's sense of self, wants, reactions
|> to others, and interpersonal relations to the frontal lobes of the brain, so
|> you might want to follow up on the researchers he cites as studying this region,
|> concentrating particularly on what things could affect the development of the
|> frontal lobes.
|> 
|> --- end quote ---
|> 
|> Now this is interesting.  Does this suggest that all human "choices" are
|> predetermined by hormonal inputs?  If so, then does this mean that we are
|> not responsible for our actions because all our inclinations are set at
|> or before birth?  Is there, then, no free will because all our actions
|> are functions of genetic + environmental phenomena?
|> 
|> OK, this is an age-old thread, but Gardner's musings put a new twist on it.
|> 
|> Idly I wonder how a Christian approaches this.  Does this mean that sin is
|> not possible since there are no "choices"?  Or does this merely confirm
|> "original sin", except that it is "original" on a case-by-case basis?
|> A kind of predeterminism?  Just curious, Rodney - how do YOU interpret it?
|> 
|> - seb

Chaos theory would imply that such a predeterminism could not exist, for
the states of all things can not be known with arbitrary precision at any
instant in time.  Thus, our inclinations and perception could be hormonally
influenced without requiring the predetermination of our thoughts, i.e. 
we may "feel" a certain way about people and things, but it is our "choice"
to react as we do.  For example, someone who, biologically speaking, should
be homosexual could, probably in yielding to societal or religious pressures,
choose to be heterosexual, although this would seem unnatural to the 
individual and might cause emotionally-related, sexual disfunction.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rodney G. Adams
The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of my employer.
As if you didn't already know that....
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: The Providence of Astrology
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 07:41:51 GMT

gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>>Grady McMurtry said, "If you can't drive a car while tripping, you don't
>>belong in the O.T.O." - well, I passed that test before I ever heard of it.
>>Drugs: the emotional frame changes, is all.
>
>I, like many other people, am very skeptical regarding drugs and
>motor vehicles.  Most folks can't drive sober, either.  But they're
>not aware of this.

This was Summer 1988, Half Moon Bay and US 1 down the coast (of CA) at 3AM.
Nary another soul except when we went thru 'the' intersection there - a
car stopped for gas. My friend 'copped it on the Haight' - I wouldn't know
how to solicit - well, anyway.

GMS:
>Excellent.  Keep us up on rec.nude, too.  It's much more bandwidth
>effective than trying to go through 1000 articles in other groups to
>get a particular exchange.

rec.nude is hysterically afraid of sex. That figures. James Watt is
(was) Secretary of the Interior, and nudists deny that the body connotes
sexuality to the subconscious mind. I just wish they would start reprinting
the Nixon $3 bill.

>Wayne's World.  Skeptical response:  "Sure.  I believe that.  And
>monkey's will fly out of my butt!"

Hmm. TV, right? ( <== Mr. Culturally deprived )
Wouldn't know. I get all my information from porn magazines.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: scott@tailab.org (Scott Tai)
Subject: t: Tai Game
Reply-To: scott@tailab.org (Scott Tai)
Organization: House of Tai
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:14:52 GMT


muchow@venus.iex.com writes:
: Stuff like Mr./Dr./Sir Tai's postings lead me to believe that there 
: are all too many of us out there who take seriously what was meant in 
: fun.

Amen!

(The one-posting-a-day restriction starts tomorrow, okay? :)

--
Scott Tai		``Living is easy with eyes closed,
scott@tailab.org	  Misunderstanding all you see.''
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: jt@fuw.edu.pl (Jerzy Tarasiuk)
Subject: Re: Geneticism and free will
Organization: Warsaw University Physics Dept.
	<wiegand.718556230@lido16>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:22:07 GMT

>>>>> On Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:57:10 GMT, wiegand@rtsg.mot.com (Robert Wiegand) said:
Robert> radams@BNR.CA (Rodney Adams) writes:
>Chaos theory would imply that such a predeterminism could not exist, for
>the states of all things can not be known with arbitrary precision at any
..
Robert> I don't quite agree with this. Chaos theory (as I understand it) doesn't
Robert> rule out predeterminism, it just prevents an outside observer from
Robert> predicting what will happen in the future (the predeterminism may be
Robert> "hidden", but still there).

But quantum mechanics rules it out. As I remember from handbook, there
was an example: game of billiards and author has computed how far can
predict results knowing balls position with full precision (there is a
limit which is a result of using coordinates which are non-commutative),
assuming first ball hits second, second hits third, ..., seventh (I don't
remember exactly, may be tenth or twentieth but surely not further, this
depends on table size and if ball runs its full length before hits next)
ball direction is unpredictable (assuming the table and balls are "ideal"
and their structure, temperature, and so on doesn't affect ball movement)
and cannot even predict if the last ball will be hit at all.
And human's brain is much more complicated than several balls on table.
Since, no predeterminism.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: crossgl@infonode.ingr.com (Gordon Cross)
Subject: Re: Perot and trust
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:42:30 GMT

In article <Bw5Bot.JDq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis) writes:

>Unfortunately, no matter whether Marrou or Perot or Scott Tai
>really would make a better president or not, a vote for them 
>is essentially a vote for Bush. (or some fraction thereof)

I've never really understood the logic in this reasoning.  What we have here
is a self-fulfilling prophesy.  We need to convence people that voting for a
third party is *not* a wasted vote.  As long as voters keep making decisions
based on which of the two majors they *don't* want in office and vote for the
other nothing will change.  In my opinion, casting your ballot for someone
you don't like simply to "cancel out" someone else's vote for the other *is*
wasting your vote.  I have to vote for who *I* believe in irregardless of
whether or not doing so would effectly put either Clinton or Bush in the white
house.  The evils I see coming are -

Clinton:  higher taxes, worsening economy, higher unemployment, higher
          inflation, more welfare, less defense, and a ruined health-care
          industry (as if it doesn't have its problems; though our medical
          technology is the envy of the world - currently)

Bush:     continued loss of our rights due to an escalating drug war, more
          government intrusion into our private lives, enforcement of
          "religious" morality

Perot:    this is hard to call though from what I've heard the man say we'll
          get military involvement in the drug war (with warrentless
          door-to-door searches), government meddling in the affairs of
          business, and a 50 cents per gallon gasoline tax (just imagine
          what that would do to the inflation rate - nearly everything we
          buy, especially food, must be trucked about)


By the way, if you are going to be in Chicago for HalloweeM, we could discuss
this more ...
-- 

Gordon Cross          UUCP:     uunet!ingr!infonode!crossgl   "all opinions are
111 Westminister Way  INTERNET: crossgl@infonode.ingr.com    mine and not those
Madison, AL 35758     MA BELL:  (205) 730-7842               of my employer."
From: Dave.Aronson@p11.f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Aronson)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Boycotting the Vote
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 11:44:54 -0500

moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:

 m> If you think none of the candidates is worth voting for,
 m> write in your own name, or Mickey Mouse, or Donald Duck or Scott Tai.
                                                               ^^^^^^^^^
Oooh, now THERE'S a way to get back at him for being such a nudnik here!  B-)
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Geneticism
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:32:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewse.1992Oct7.173222.8432
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct07.123041.4855@bnr.ca> "Rodney Adams" <RADAMS@BNR.CA> writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.225829.10222@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>|> In article <mike_steiner-061092103933@192.35.50.131> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
>|> >In article <1992Oct05.171136.4558@bnr.ca>,
>|> >radams@crchh404.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Rodney Adams) wrote:
>|> >
>|> >> Second, I realized after I had posted the article that "defect" was perhaps
>|> >> more "loaded" of a word than I had intended.  "Abnormality" would have been
>|> >> more appropriate.  However, it could be considered a defect in the sense that
>|> >> homosexuals are inclined to forbear reproduction, thus preventing society 
>|> >> from the genetic benefits that would accrue from the other traits these 
>|> >> individuals might have.
>|> >
>|> >Do you also consider celibates to be abnormal or defective?
>|> 
>|> Maybe.  If it's not by choice.
> 
>Come to think of it, yes, I can see it that way, too.  Not always, mind
>you.  I would not call an infant abnormal or defective for being celibate.
>Or perhaps you were very much the child prodigy and see the rest of us
>that way?

Amazing how much can be divined about a person from posts.

Seriously, I found it funny that someone (I thought it was you)
posted "Only if they choose to be celibate", I posted "only if
it's not by choice", and I agree with both.  Talk about your
Janusian thinking...


GMS
From: Dave.Aronson@p11.f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Aronson)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Personal to gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1992 15:22:10 -0500

ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:

 ECSD> Come get me Tai! HST-II will kill you long after deep-thought trashes
 ECSD> Kasparov. I'f I'm to be jealous, let's see if it's warranted.

Let's sic RACTER on him!

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: yoo@netcom.com (Young-Kyu Yoo)
Subject: Re: Doubters Of Astrology
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:16:01 GMT

From: crawdad@fncent (Matt Crawford)
>
>>>Young-Kyu Yoo:
>>>>The position that "astrology does NOT work" is as much an unsupported
>>>>position (logically, scientifically) as the assertion, without proof, that
>>>>it does.
>>>
>>Matt Crawford writes:
>>>That just isn't true.  A well-informed skeptic can cite a great many
>>>statistically valid tests which produced null results.
>
>Young-Kyu Yoo:
>>Take care in reading, please.  My remark concerned those who held 
>>opinions without informed knowledge, i.e., "without proof."  
>
>
>I did take care in reading, but I only read what you wrote.  I didn't
>read your mind.  If you want me to assume that what you write isn't
>necessarily what you mean, I can't think why you're writing at all.

Wrong, Matt.  Once again you demonstrate that:

1.  You read carelessly.

Or

2.  You deliberately ignore context for rhetorical purposes.

Here is the original context of my remark in question:


I wrote:
>Robert Wiegand writes:
>>
>>yoo@netcom.com (Young-Kyu Yoo) writes:
>>
>>>A true scientist and skeptic, I think, remains neutral on a question until
>>>the physical data tips the scale in one direction or the other.  To those
>>>who dismiss astrology without testing it empirically themselves or 
>>>critically examining the small body of serious scientific work on the
>>>subject (there have been many attempts to debunk it...but very few such
>>>attempts hold up under serious scientific or mathematical scrutiny...
>>>a consequence of the fact that most debunkers are not serious
>>>scientists), I would say that it is not skepticism they are practicing,
>>>but an UNscientific, unexamined prejudice against the so-called pseudo-sciences.
>>
>>The way I see it, its the supporters of astrology who must prove that
>>it works, its not up to the skeptics to disprove it.
>
>The position that "astrology does NOT work" is as much an unsupported
>position (logically, scientifically) as the assertion, without proof, that
>it does.  Invoke occam's razor if you wish, but bear in mind that occam's
>razor does not LOGICAL support for your position make.

Note, Matt, that my remark was in direct reply to the assertion that skeptics
do not need to "disprove" astrology.  Note, carefully, Matt, the content
of the paragraph to which Robert Wiegand responded.  

Reading takes a little practice, Matt; but I'm sure you'll catch on 
sooner or later.
 
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: The Providence of Astrology
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:08:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.043737.3382@ncsu.edu> cjdcosta@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA) writes:
>
>GMS writes:
>>Wayne's World.  Skeptical response:  "Sure.  I believe that.  And
>>monkey's will fly out of my butt!"
>
>NOT!
>
>Where there's a monkey's will, there's a monkey's way. 

Or a dead monkey.

GMS
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Magic, Intelligence, Perception and Reality
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:09:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewse.1992Oct15.150944.9768
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct14.180651.4944@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> johnson@sleipnir.mnesouth.corp.mot.com writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.224327.2180@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>=)
>=)Personally, the fact that we are filled with lots of information
>=)and memories that are plain false smacks of Bladerunner and Total
>=)Recall, and I find it completely fascinating.  Consider that the
>=)world in our heads really doesn't exist.  Think how uncomfortable
>=)that would make most people if they realized this.  Brings new
>=)meaning to the phrase, "Perception is Reality."
>=)
>=)GMS
>
>Okay, I guess it's time to jump into the fray here.  I've been
>(somewhat) inertly monitoring the occultist discussions to see
>where they went, but I guess I'll go proactive at this point--
>it seems ripe.
>
>Many profound insights such as this one are covered in the basic
>principles of natural magic.  First a definition:  Natural magic
>is the subset of magic which deals with direct interactions between

[ interesting model deleted ]

Quite frankly, I don't see anything magical about this at all, and
I don't see anything in it that isn't consistent with normal
psychology.  

I am, however, interested in the terminology.  I think you said
the model was original, so I'm assuming that terminology is as
well, true?

Thanks for an interesting post.

GMS
From: Dave.Aronson@p11.f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Aronson)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: T/ Who ya gonna vote for? (was: Re: Statistics ...)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 09:00:16 -0500

phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:

 PZ> One good reason why computers can do more work than people is that they
 PZ> never have to stop and answer the phone.

Oh yeah?  Mine does!
From: jlc5f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Jean L. Cooper)
Subject: Re: Dues Increase!
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:11:10 GMT

If you don't pay the membership dues, there are a few things
that you won't be able to do:

You won't be able to serve as an officer of American Mensa or
a local group.

You won't be able to affect policy.

You won't be able to vote in the election of national officers
and vote out the people you think are mismanaging the organization.

I guess which choice you make depends a lot on your attitude
toward the organization.
--
Jean L. Cooper    (BITNET: JLC5F@virginia.edu   CIS: 70253,1114)
"The true University of these days is a Collection of Books." 
                                           --Carlyle
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Part of a reply to Rodney - more later re: the dark side
Keywords: way long
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:23:18 GMT

gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>>dobbs@ast.saic.com (Lynn Dobbs) writes:
>>>ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:
>>>>reflect neither spiritual reality, nor human reality
>>
>>>OXYMORON ALERT ---
>>>    ... spiritual reality ....
>>
>>:) in advance, okay?
>>
>>yeah - it's left to those who perceive it, to make it known to others.
>>i.e. who understands why it is not an oxymoron, understands.
>
>Okay, place yourself in the frame of mind of someone who is skeptical
>about X, doesn't have a clue about X, is viewing postings asking about
>X, and sees the following response from a proponent of the existence
>of X:
>
>"who understands what X is, understands what X is"
>
>"Hmmm," thinks Skeptic, "I guess I'M SOLD!  I'VE BEEN TERRIBLY WRONG ABOUT X!"

Yeah, unfortunately there are just some things you can't comprehend without
them becoming a part of you - very curious. I *am* an occultist, I didn't
used to be. I had to learn how & why. I'm not sorry - my world is *vastly*
different and better than it would have been had I not done this.

That's why "show me analytically how this will work" does not cut it.
"Describe to me how I will feel," she said, "before I engage in this act
with you." - nope. Experiential. Gotta do it to know. That's why I suggest,
the curious go browse an occult bookstore - what a candyland - anything
you wanna do, it's all there.

*sigh* - more later.
Tsk.
-ecsd
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Famous Mensans
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:17:33 GMT

In article <718444781.F00008@blkcat.UUCP> Dave.Aronson@p11.f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Aronson) writes:
}suopanki@zombie.oulu.fi (Heikki Suopanki) writes:
} HS> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) said:
}
}Mike> F. Buckminster Fuller ...

} HS> just wondering who are these persons....
}
}Famous architect ...

I never thought of Bucky as an architect.  More of an eccentric genius
whose observations of the properties of triangular structures founded a
design movement (for which certain rural communities may never forgive him
(-: ).  I got to hear him speak in person when I was in grad school.
Quite a character.

BTW, that's _R._ Buckminster Fuller (as I'm sure you're aware by now (-:{ ).

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: "Genius" IQ (was: Re: Ad in Air & Space)
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:24:32 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In article <mike_steiner-121092100749@192.35.50.131> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:

>Actually, couldn't the descriptors be (from top to bottom)

>ISPE
>Intertel
>Mensa
>General Populace
>Politicians
>Densa
>Tai

Er....I'm in Mensa AND Densa.....that report on the membership package from 
Densa really will get typed in soon, guys, honest....


              Have another day    [Armageddon, the musical] 
  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44|0)61-275-6033  
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa