HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: question for Arabian Nights fans
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:13:53 GMT
Organization: Banzai Institute

In article <1992Dec14.045549.26815@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mritchie@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael S Ritchie) writes:
>Just curious; where do you all see this Burtonophilia in full
>bloom?

Actually, my phrase was "such as it is" rather than "in full bloom".
There aren't a lot of other 19th century explorers and adventurers who've
had half a dozen or more biographies written about them in the last three
decades, including two in the 90's so far -- not to mention another one
about his execrable wife, which I boycotted when I saw it at the used book
store... that'll teach 'em.  Besides this, there was the movie about his
early life that I mentioned -- Mountains of the Moon -- and the Riverworld
series.  The Huntington Library recently (for them) put out a
bibliography, as well as a set of several lectures/papers by Burton that
aren't generally available elsewhere.  For a crasser assessment, try
buying a first of one of his (many) books.  The prices are horrendous,
which suggests that there is considerable demand.

The reason he is consistently popular?  He did enough different things to
populate several impressive biographies.  Besides his celebrated
undercover trip to Mecca and al-Medina, he spoke around three dozen
languages, many learned in bed; was an expert swordsman -- perhaps the
best of his generation -- and wrote books and manuals about it; translated
numerous volumes from several languages, including Persian and Portuguese;
discovered Lake Tanganyika; had a celebrated set of interactions with the
discoverer of the source of the Nile that would have kept today's tabloids
buzzing for a year; and in general managed to shock and delight everybody
he met on several continents.  And I haven't gotten into his Foreign Office
career or the trip to see Brigham Young and his merry band.  Or his
experiences in the brothels of Sindh.  Better to read the biographies...
he did a lot more than translate the Arabian Nights!

-- 
	Jim Gillogly
	U.S. National Debt: $4,169,662,442,538
	Your Share: $16,291
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster)
Subject: Re: It fills us. We arrange it. It decays.
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:07:57 GMT

There've been a number of interesting avenues for discussion opened up
by John McCarthy and Ron Hogan here, and I look forward to following
them.  But before we get *too* far down the pike, let me try to head
off one area of possible misunderstanding--which is what we mean by
"real events."

McCarthy writes:
>3. If I were your student, it seems to me that I would also get
>exasperated.  Especially as I believe in real events, and I think
>robots should be programmed to believe in them also.

The distinction I was making was not between real events and imagined
events, but rather that between concrete, physical events, and events
that transpire in people's minds.  (Events in the mind having a
concrete, physical instantiation in brain substance, of course--but
that's not the level we're talking at...at least I hope not, or
we'll have to decamp to a philosophy-of-science newsgroup.)

Take the common example, from psychotherapy, of a person remembering
they were abused.  I, too, "believe" in reality, so of course, I
acknowledge that either A) that event did transpire as a concrete,
physical event, or B) that event exists, as a fact, only in the mind
of the person.  There's a continuum also--between various levels of
accuracy of memory--but let's not get *too* nuanced here!  :-)  But
while acknowledging that that event may or may not have physically
happened, I think the much more important "event" is the person's
memory of the abuse, and how that memory has changed them.  I don't
want us to get hung up on the word "real."  Events in the mind
are every bit as *real* as events in physical space.

With regard to my comments about preferring the realm of dreams to the
realm of action, I personally (subjectively) experience events in
the mind as more *real*--feeling more like they're really happening,
having more weight and substance, any number of other subjective
sensations that go with a sense of what's real--than events in
physical space.  On a trivial level, this is why I'm a shrink,
instead of some other kind of doctor.  To each his own gout, as
they say.

			*	*	*	  

There...'hope that doesn't make things worse!  :-)  I love the bit
about _Ragtime_ and "Malcolm X"--I'm curious to see what we can do
with the notion of a history of ideas (real events) vs. a history
of physical happenings (also real events).

							--Fiona
From: nevins@husc10.harvard.edu (Mark Nevins)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: question for Arabian Nights fans
Date: 12 Dec 92 18:28:14 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


Has interest in _The Arabian Nights_ been re-kindled by Disney's
_Aladdin_ and the mention of Burton in Coppola's _Dracula_, or
what?

Anyway, my experience with older Middle Eastern imaginative writing
is limited to the epic _The Shahnahme_, and the delightful collection
of animal fables _Kahlihla and Dimna_ (highly recommended, and a wonderful
Christmas present.  My edition is a beautifully-produced hardcover,
with an intro by J.C. Oates.  I *think* I've seen it remaindered)>

Well, the point of this note: of late, a few people have asked me

about the best translation of the _Arabian Nights_--complete,
unexpurgated, and readable.  I'm embarassed to say that my only
reading of the _AN_ is the Penguin selections.  Could the
person reading this list who knows about this offer us a list
of the various translations available, listing their pros and cons?
I actually have a shot at that ca. 1900 10-volume jobber for about
$50, but I'm wondering if it's any good--it's one of those privately-
printed-for-an-English-Literary-Club things--is it Burton's translation?
If one is intested in the Tales and not in Victoriana, is Burton
really the way to go?

Actually, since my interests in older texts probably tend to be
more scholarly than the average reader's, can someone just recommend
to me a good overview of the textual history and translation of
the _AN_?

Thanks much
(actually, I want to buy a good translation for a freind for Christmas!)

Mark Nevins


B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

recently about the best translation of the _Arabian Nights_--
From: jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey)
Subject: Re: Reality of imaginary events
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 19:18:28 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec14224313@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Indeed there is a similarity between imaginary events and real ones.
>However, I would imagine that treating them in exactly the same way
>in psychotherapy would lead greater and greater fantasies.
>
>     A major problem with the assumption (even in Freud's hands,
>     but especially in the hands of many followers) is the
>     uncertainty of criteria for determining when it is the
>     patient's associative networks that have been laid bare and
>     when it is the analyst's.
>
> - Nisbett and Ross, Human Inference, p.243.

	Psycho-analysts are very much aware of this problem.  That is why
part of the training for becoming an analyst is to be analysed yourself.
The analyst needs to become aware of his or her own unconscious "associative
networks" so that he/she does not project them on to the analysand.

	--  Jim C. <jchokey@leland.stanford.edu>
From: anita@devvax.mincom.oz.au (Anita Graham)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Quotes, quotes, quotes
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:24:33 GMT
Organization: Mincom

In article <1992Dec14.030242.3780@softway.sw.oz.au>, peterc@suite.sw.oz.au (Peter Chubb) writes:
> 
> 
> 	`The duke drained a dipper of brandy and water and became
> 	 again the perfect English gentleman'
> 
> Peter Chubb.

I have a feeling it may come from "The Young Visiters" by Daisy Ashford. I
don't know why and can't check as all our books, apart from the baby's and 
recently bought ones, are in boxes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Graham
anita@mincom.oz.au
From: rhine@gdc.com (Helen Rhine)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: _Body_
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:26:50 GMT
Organization: General DataComm Ind. Inc., Middlebury, CT 06762


 So, okay, it it Crewes or Crews?  I was so titillated by the review of
the book, _Body_ that I ran right down to the library to see if it was in.
But they had never heard of the book or the author, when spelled as Crewes.
The librarian asked if it was new, because a very new book might not yet be
purchased, but I didn't know.

 Help me please.

Helen Rhine
I'm the NRA, and I vote
From: wagner@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: 5 Proofs for the existence of Santa Claus
Date: 18 Dec 92 11:26:02 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <1992Dec17.175833.10305@athena.mit.edu>, kamorgan@athena.mit.edu (Keith Morgan) writes:
> A Christmas chestnut:
> 
> 		FIVE PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SANTA CLAUS
> 
[ Hilarious Aquinas spoof deleted ]
> 
> Keith
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Keith Morgan		 	|A nice man is a man of nasty ideas.
> kamorgan@athena.mit.edu  	|		Jonathan Swift
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was really special. Thanks.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: jean@noao.edu (Jean Goodrich)
Subject: Re: Making notations in your books?
Organization: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, USA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:01:52 GMT


	Count me in with the anal retentive. (Actually, I'm
	more neurotic than anal retentive, but that's another
	topic).

	I absolutely hate marking up my books. Writing inside
	the cover is one thing: a name or date is fine. But
	scribbling your own doo-dads in a piece of fiction
	breaks the mood or story for just long enough to
	distract me. I do not scribble in my books, I do
	not like reading books that have someone else's
	thoughts to distract me when I am busy absorbed in
	my own, and I certainly consider someone else writing
	in a book I leant them as an act of war.

	If someone else wants to deface their own book, well,
	it is their book. But I can only pity the disrespect
	given even the pulpiest of pulps, when one day, we may 
	find books a rarity, and e-books the only available
	outlet.

	jean

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster)
Subject: Re: excellent reading!
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 12:18:13 GMT

Heather Henderson writes:
>Hey, I bear no malice toward any of you folks, even after being told to "fuck
>off and die".  I just think you're an amusingly self-absorbed little clique. 

Ahh, now we're getting somewhere...would you care to elaborate on those
feelings, Ms. Henderson?

<pause>

Please go on.

<in my best stereotyped-psychoanalyst tone of voice>

				--the one with the teensy little notepad
Xref: sparky rec.arts.books:22771 sci.philosophy.tech:4586
From: PL436000@brownvm.brown.edu (Jamie)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: A note on Modal Logic that has nothing to
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:59:57 EST
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) said:

>J:
>>I know that Richard Cartwright has written about the issue, in a paper
>>I think is called "Speaking of everything." I thought there were
>>some problems in the paper.
>
>I find no such paper in his collection, of which I read exactly one
>half of a paper.

That's because it is a very recent paper.
In fact, it may be forthcoming still. I heard him give a version
of it last year. He claimed that we CAN speak of everything, though
there is no fixed totality of everything. No set, no class, no nothin'.

But he insisted that there can still be a quantifier that ranges
over the whole thing. Even though there is no "whole thing" there.

I thought this was obviously inadequate to avoid the contradiction.

>J:
>>I also know that Dummett has said some cryptic things about it.
>
>Has he been known to say any other sort of things?

No. Or not known by me, at least.

>J:
>>Does Zeleny think it is possible to quantify over everything?
>
>I think not.  "Everything" is an inconsistent multiplicity, which does
>not admit of reference, much less quantification.  (The reason we can
>understand this sort of discourse, is because it has the semantics of a
>figurative circumlocution.)

A figurative circumlocution, huh? Well, I'll wait until I have
a chance to do my assigned reading before following up on this.

>I believe that it is implicitly qualified to the contextually relevant
>universe of discourse.  Which is not to say that one cannot quantify
>over all sets, or all classes, or all cumquats, or all pubic hairs,
>or...

That I do understand.

I can't resist adding this before I do my reading:

It appears that no sentence of the type "We cannot quantify over
everything at once" is true. And yet, it also appears that we
cannot quantify over everything at once.
How odd.

>ObBook: Michael Hallett, _Cantorian set theory and limitation of size_.
>Reasonably accessible to the dedicated amateur, willing to look things
>up.

Thanks.

I am nothing if not a dedicated amateur. Professional, too, but
amateur nonetheless.

One last bit:
I have to agree that the Kripke theory of truth does not ultimately
avoid a Tarskian hierarchy. Kripke himself says something like,
"The ghost of the Tarski hierarchy still haunts us."

Jamie
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: kieran@world.std.com (Aaron L Dickey)
Subject: Making notations in your books?
Summary: Is it right or wrong to write in the books you own?
Keywords: books notations 
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:43:18 GMT

My mother and I have been arguing over something recently, and I'd like to
get some comments from the group on it...

What are your feelings about making notes, highlighting, etc., in the
books that you own?  Although I wish I could do so in my books (it does
make them easier to read, helps you recall important/compelling passages,
and so on), I just don't have the heart to "abuse" my books like that.  I
can't even bring myself to do it in college textbooks.  I just feel that
doing such things ruins the book, both in terms of financial value, and in
future readability by others (I personally cannot read books that have
been marked up by others...it's just too distracting to me).  My mother,
on the other hand, attacks her books so much they look like graffiti art
by the time she's done with them.

So who's right?  Am I just being anal-retentive, or is she destroying
good, expensive books?

--
Aaron Dickey
kieran@world.std.com
kieran@mindvox.phantom.com
New York by choice...New York University by mistake.

Al Roker is God.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster)
Subject: Re: Another club within a club! (Was: excellent reading!)
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:57:43 GMT

Meg Worley has a whim:
>Ah, I see it now.  Another r.a.b. club is forming in the
>distance.  Let me see if I can make it out....
>LOINRETSH -- Loyal Order of INdividuals Richly Earning
>the Scorn of Heather.

A most welcome suggestion, if only because I was feeling rather
left out of the spinning spinsters club for reasons of bein' 
a 15-year vet at bein' married...at least I know I belong to
this one.  (-:  But that raises a practical issue, Meg: how will
we evaluate whether aspiring loin-retchers (they of the wretched
loins? lions? literary lions? oops, I'm drifting into a defunct
thread here...)--anyway! how will we evaluate whether they're
worthy--whether they've really *earned* the scorn?  After all,
just having been a recipient of the scorn wouldn't be deemed
adequate, right?

More interesting, will be figuring out what sort of books the
loin-retchers would read.  I'm reading Tom Maddox's _Halo_ even
as we speak--that might be a good start.  Other ideas?

					--does this qualify as snotty?

							Fiona :-)
From: tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: (none)
Date: 12 Dec 92 19:04:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Dec12.190404.25693
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)


	Mark Taranto asseverates:

> NeWS (setenv NEWSUP; chdir ; news_server-`mach`) addpath set path = (
> $path !* ) bscSC scinit -s SCI3278.!* -o SC3278.!* -t !* -d
> !*.dribble -r cd cd !*; sprompt
[etc.]

	Sensible observations all.
-- 
				Tom Maddox
		    	    tmaddox@netcom.com
		"The Reptoids eat humans like we eat chickens."
				Alex Alexander
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Making a virtue of complacency
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:38:32 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Dec12.102919.10189@ircam.fr>, fingerhu@ircam.fr (Michel Fingerhut) writes:
> Gene W. Smith writes:
# #There are practical questions involved here as well.  Should the
# #Weimar Republic have taken a harder line against the Nazis?
# 
# Much more practically: should the _current_ german government have taken/take
# a harder line against the Neo-Nazis?  My answer: yes.  First, it is speech,
# and then when the critical mass is reached, it is action.  After it is crossed,
# the way back is hard, if impossible.
# 
# And, by analogy, any other type of hate speech.

Fascinating.  Does this mean that a government has the right to 
shut up groups that advocate repeal of sodomy laws?  "First, it is
speech, and then when the critical mass is reached, it is action."

The neo-Nazis are a reminder of why democracy and unlimited 
government power is an evil to be avoided.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Xref: sparky rec.arts.books:22498 rec.food.historic:884
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:28:03 CST
From: Barry Grau <U42054@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,rec.food.historic
Subject: Re: Goober, a Southernism??

this is what the oxford english dictionary says:
oed2> prt goober
1 match
goober ('gu:b&schwa.(r)). U.S. Also gouber (Cent. Dict.). The peanut, Arachis
hypogaea.
  1833 Louisville Publ. Advt. 7 Nov., A few bags Gouber Pea, or Ground Pea &for
salea. 1834 Cherokee Phoenix (New Echota, Ga.) 24 May 3/4 But he so seam I
frade of he, I guess he steal my goober. 1848 Rep. U.S. Comm. Patents 1847 190
The ground pea of the south, or as it is sometimes called, the gouber or
pindar pea. 1871 SCHELE DE VERE Americanisms (1872) 57 The peanuts or
earth-nuts known in North Carolina and the adjoining States as Goober peas, so
that during the late Civil War a conscript from the so-called `piney woods' of
that State was apt to be nick-named a Goober.1885 U.S. Cons. Rep. No. liv. 382
(Cent.) From the handling of our orchard crops to raking goobers out of the
ground, there is probably &etc.a. 1887 Boston (Mass.) Jrnl. 31 Dec. 2/4 Hogs
that had been fed on acorns and goobers. 1888 Century Mag. XXXVI. 770/2
Peanuts, known in the vernacular as `goobers'.
Xref: sparky rec.arts.books:22891 news.groups:24740
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,news.groups
Subject: Re: *Any* kind of r.a.b split, or at least a *serious* discussion
Date: 20 Dec 1992 21:45:22 GMT
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
NNTP-Posting-Host: oas.stanford.edu

Paul Callahan writes:

	Tom Maddox writes:

		Paul Callahan writes:

			At the time, I said it was not so much a *callous 
			disregard* for newcomers as a *whimsical disbelief* 
			in their existence. I could probably improve upon 
			the description, but it seems accurate enough.

		To you, perhaps.  But I've noticed that newcomers who simply 
		*post* prove their existence to their own and everyone's 
		satisfaction.

	Well, I've been posting off and on for years, and I'm not sure 
	people are convinced of my existence.  I don't mind anyway.  I'm 
	more interested in occasionally writing about *books* (and reading 
	daily what others have to say about them), than convincing others 
	of my existence.  I'm fairly convinced of it myself already, so I 
	don't need the affirmation.

Mr. Callahan is quite wrong. I have seen several of his postings in the 
last week or two, and the one thing they have in common, apart from
a certain whiny tone, is that not one of them mentioned a book. I am
reminded of Rene Descartes, who in his infamous *Le Discourse de la
Methode* of 1637 (a book) did not say, but might have:

		I do not mention books
		Therefore I do not exist.

	Here is the difference between r.a.b and other "polite" groups, 
	in my opinion....

Oh Puhhhhleeeese. As to cliquishness, it must be obvious to almost anybody
that I take great care not to suck up to other frequent posters. Check with
Markie, the Lesser Godwit, Baba Hlaugh-in, MacDogsnot and Mish' Zelanious
for confirmation of this last point. Lurkers? They're the Salt of the Earth
of any group and long may they prosper. Some of my best friends are lurkers.

						The RABworm
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: bobdev@hprpcd.rose.hp.com (Bob Devereaux)
Subject: Goober, a Southernism??
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:11:16 GMT
Organization: HP - Systems Technology Division
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

In Robert R. McCammon's _Boy's Life_, there a graffito referenced, something
like "Debbie Loves Goober."  The narrator says character X, an adult, most
likely thought Goober was a person.  I'm McCammon's age or a bit older, 
but this is a slang expression which I suspect may be Southern.  Can anyone
enlighten me as to its meaning?

Robert Devereaux
bobdev@hprpcd.rose.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,rec.food.historic
From: alisg@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Subject: Re: Goober, a Southernism??
Reply-To: alisg@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Organization: Montana State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:24:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.183538.15230@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (JKF) writes:
>In article <BzB6LH.6HD@icon.rose.hp.com> bobdev@hprpcd.rose.hp.com (Bob Devereaux) writes:
>>Gang--
>>
>>Yes, yes, I know that "goober" means peanut.  And I know that Goober was
>>a character on the Andy Griffith show.  My point is, neither of these
>>makes sense as a griffito.  Let me be more explicit:  Does "Debbie Loves
>>Goober" have a more specifically sexual connotation in Southern (or
>>elsewhere) slang?
>>
>>Robert Devereaux
>
>"Goober" is also a nickname.  I've known several "Goober"s in Georgia and
>Virginia.  No particular demeaning connotations associated as far as I
>know... it was just what we called them.


I agree. "Goober" may simply have been the nickname of someone who perhaps
liked peanuts a lot.

"Goober" has also been used as slang for various mucosal emanations, similar
to "booger" and -- well, what else do you call that which is spat out after
clearing one's throat -- I've never known it as anything but a "goober."

Sorry for the unpleasant definitions -- especially in a food group. But the
question went out ..... :)

george
alisg@trex.montana.edu

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books