HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rburns@finess.Corp.Sun.COM (Randy Burns)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Voting -- what does it accomplish?
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:25:23 GMT
Reply-To: rburns@finess.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: finess.corp.sun.com


The big thing that is accomplished by voting, is that people obtain information
they couldn't easily obtain on their own.  Certain types of voting
(i.e. voting under conditions of anonymity where voters have a chance to change
their minds  until the results of the last poll don't affect their vote again)
have been credited in some studies to produce accurate information. Essentially,
a bunch of studies were done at Rand Corporation in the 60's on what they called
the Delpha method, they found that the process of voting could help a group of 
experts create more accurate predictions of future events than other processes 
they tried (including voting without secret ballot or allowing each person to 
make a prediction without knowing how the group voted or knowing only the 
opinions of the most vocal participants). Their studies are a strong indication
that charismatic leadership without democracy is usually counter productive.
From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Info on preferential voting
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 01:28:31 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

I'm looking for information on preferential voting, the so-called Australian
ballot. In particular, I'm interested in the effect of this method on small
political parties and in experience in countries that are using it.

My local library is a bit limited in research materials, but pointers to
refernces that can be gotten through inter-library loan would be very helpful.

  Thanks,
    ++PLS
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas)
Subject: Re: It's time for the Turkey Ballot, folks!
Reply-To: mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:35:52 GMT

In article <167CACE3C.YOUNG@ricevm1.rice.edu>, YOUNG@ricevm1.rice.edu (Garry Young) writes:
|> In article <15APR199214094696@jane.uh.edu>
|> mece3d@jane.uh.edu (Chris Struble) writes:
|> 
|> [discussion of turkey ballot deleted]
|> 
|> But what makes you think that the next group of candidates, some
|> of whom probably got rejected during the initial primaries anyway,
|> would be better than the first two turkeys?

   Well, the worst that could happen is that you would have an endless
cycle of no candidate winning. That doesn't necessarily seem bad: if
they're not in session, they can't do any _more_ harm. 
   If you continue this till the next budget deadline, and then call for
a quorum... hmm...
-- 


		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:1968 sci.econ:3552
From: fagin@coos.dartmouth.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,dartmouth.politics,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Libernet bi-monthly announcement
Date: 13 Apr 92 13:16:22 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Originator: fagin@coos.dartmouth.edu

This is an announcement for Libernet, posted every couple of months
or so to the Usenet politics newsgroups.

***
Members of the network community should know about Libernet,
a mailing-list/discussion group.  Libernet is intended to be a
real-world, high-quality forum for libertarians, classical liberals, and others
interested in applying the philosophy of liberty to tough
policy questions. 

Libernet is for anyone interested in good discussion and provocative ideas, 
including (especially) non-libertarians who are curious about the libertarian 
perspective.  Criticism is not only tolerated but encouraged, provided it is 
kept civil and does not choke the list.  

Libernet is available in two subscription modes: "reflected" and "batch".
"reflected" mode subscribers will receive Libernet messages one at a time,
as they are sent out.  "batch" mode subscribers receive groups of Libernet 
messages in RFC 1154 Digest format, the defacto standard for e-mail digests.
These batches are published daily.  Subscribers should indicate which mode 
they prefer.

If interested, send mail to libernet-request@dartmouth.edu.  Thank you.

--Barry Fagin (libernet-request@dartmouth.edu)
From: corey@athena.mit.edu (Corey L Lofdahl)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What are our goals?
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:25:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Apr16.012528.28387
Distribution: na
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Apr15.021332.11074@access.usask.ca> choy@skorpio.Usask.CA writes:
>
>Who can identify goals that we should attain and justify the
>identifications?
>
>Who can give a fast algorithm for reaching the goals?
>
>Henry Choy
>choy@skorpio.usask.ca

Q1: The goal is continued existence

Q2: The algorithm is called life, and it happens in real time
hope that's fast enough.

	--Corey
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: vkitzing@mpimfhd.UUCP (Eberhard von Kitzing - MPImF - Heidelberg - FRG)
Subject: Re: Revelation versus Reason
Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 01:31:19 GMT


Radu T. Tomescu at UCBerkeley postet the following question:

RTT> 1) Is there or not factual or logical proof of existence of God?

I think this is a very good question!  But before coming to an answer
we should first look,  what a "logical proof" really does.  It allways
has the following structure:
   If I assume A, by means of reason I have also to accept B!

This basically means that the most important things, the basic
assumptions, the "A"'s I must believe.  There is no way to prove them.

Or how would you prove that our universe has not been created or came 
into being by a pure accident just fife minutes before you received 
this mail?  All the factual historical "documents" are thus only fife 
minutes old.  

With this introduction in mind, it is possible to give some logical
proofs of the existence of God. The holy Writing of the Baha'i-Faith
contain several of them.  If you are interested in, we could
discuss them.

------------------------------------------------------------

Eberhard von Kitzing
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Medizische Forschung
Jahnstr. 29, D6900 Heidelberg, FRG

FAX : +49-6221-486 459  (work)
Tel.: +49-6221-486 467  (work)
Tel.: +49-6221-385 129  (home)

email: vkitzing@mpimfhd.EU.net 


Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:33:18 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

>smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>>etc.   Are the Jehovah's Witnesses on the list?  Is there anyone
>>besides the Jehovah's Witnesses who is *not* on the list?

>	I don't know why you insist this, when you know the answer yourself.

>	"Neither am I telling YOU by what authority I do these things."

>			- Mark 11:33

OUT OF CONTEXT!  The chief priests, teachers of the law and elders tried to
trap Jesus in blasphemy, or force Him to deny who He was.  He challenged
them to answer a question which they could not, due to the potential
(deadly) repurcussions.  Had they answered his question, he would have
responded.  Here is the exchange:

[Mark 11, NIV]

    "(29)Jesus replied, 'I will ask you one question.  Answer me, and I
     will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. (30)John's 
     baptism - was it from heaven, or from men?  Tell me!"  (31)They
     discussed it among themselves and said, 'If we say `From Heaven`,
     he will ask `Why didn't you believe him?`  (32)But if we say 'From
     men...`'  (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really
     was a prophet.)  (33)So they answered Jesus, 'We don't know.'  Jesus
     said, 'Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these
     things.'"

So, Andreas, you're quoting way out of context.  Additionally, you are not
God.  Answer the question.  I say John's baptism was from Heaven.  I have
answered the counterquestion.  Your turn.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:50:25 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>In article <1992Apr13.151704.26809@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>	Yes, but the case is not mine, Jesus himself said it (Luke 6:43,44).
>>	"For there is not a fine tree producing rotten fruit; again there is
>>	not a rotten tree producing fine fruit. 
>>
>>	False religion can only produce works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21 :

>Andreas,

>Since the "tree" of the Catholic Church has produced such fine fruits
>as Mother Theresa, who has given her life to serving God and the needy,
>have you now proven that the Catholic Church is "true religion"?

	Why don't you read what I write ? I said that if you refer Mother 
	Theresa as a fine fruit of the RC church, how are the other one 
	billion fruits ?

>And since the Catholic Church requires an oath of chastidy and poverty
>from its nuns and priests, thus shunning the works of the flesh,
>have you again proven them to be "true religion"?

	No, the Bible doesn't tell us to avoid being rich, but to avoid 
	materialism. 

>The Southern Baptist church I've been to strongly encourages charity 
>from its members, and promotes the fruit of a strong faith in Christ, 
>have you now proven that the Southern Baptists are "true religion"?

	No, for instance I know Moonies collect money for kindergartens, but
	actually the money goes to moonies themselves. 

>And the Mormons I know live clean lives, even avoiding caffeine;
>they seem very concerned with avoiding the works of the flesh.
>Have you now proven that the Mormons are "true religion"?

	No, because the same people support nationalism. 

>Shall we continue?  Have you also managed to prove E. Orthodox,
>Islam, Hindu, etc as "true"?  How many others?  

>If no rotton tree produces fine fruit, and all the religions I know
>of produce at least some good fruit, what have you proven?                                    
	You got it - you said "at least some". I admit that. But are the 
	"ordinary" Catholics, Mormons, Southern Baptists etc. true followers
	of Christ in their lives ?
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:10:39 GMT
Distribution: talk.religion.misc
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <MIB.92Apr14104130@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>Now, given that the Churches claim to aim at the inclusion of all
>humanity,
and given that many of us gay people *are* Christians, and
>given that we are *already* members of our respective Churches, since
>our baptisms, what then?  

"Purge out therefore the old leaven that ye may be a new lump, as ye are
unleavened. "
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:6254 rec.arts.comics:12122
From: charyma@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.comics
Subject: Re: SANDMAN: LUCIFER'S NAME
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:52:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: wkuvx1.1992Apr6.125231.1227
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <1992Apr5.214100.7832@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, kieran@cmatter.physics.indiana.edu (kieran) writes:
> In article <1992Apr2.215050.8288@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>>In article <REUS.92Mar23165135@klein.euromath.dk>, reus@klein.euromath.dk (Jens Peter Reus Christensen) writes:
>>
>>|>Last night I was reading issue 22 of _The Sandman_, and I came across a part
>>|>where Morpheus said that Lucifer was also called Samael when he was still an
>>|>angel.  I have never heard the name Samael before and was wondering if this
>>|>referance can be found in the bible.  Anyone who knows, either post the 
>>|>answer
>>
>>A better question is this: Where in the bible does it mention Lucifer???  No, 
>>I don't mean in the translations - I mean in the original Hebrew, Aramaic,
>>and Greek.  Where does the name Lucifer or a variant of it occur? It doesn't!
>>It was an invention of translators, and was the name of a pagan god, purhaps
>>of the Druids.  
>>
>      Well, that depends upon what you mean.  The tradition of the rebellion
> of the angels is part of the Hebrew Haggadah.  The edition I checked dated it
> back to around the year 200 CE, but I don't know from when the tradition 
> originally dates.  The name Samael is not in the concordance that I checked.
> "Lucifer" is referenced in Isaiah 14:12,  
> 
> "How you are fallen from heaven 
>  O Day Star, son of Dawn!
>  How you are cut down to the ground, you
>  who laid the nations low! 
>  You said in your heart, 
>   `I will ascend to heaven; 
>    You said in your heart, 
>    above the stars of God 
>    I will set my throne on high ... 
>    I will make myself like the Most High.' "  (OAB)
> 
>   This is part of a dirge against a tyrant (exact name unknown).  The
> names Day Star and Dawn are "Helal" and "Shahar", names of Canaanite 
> deities.  In the Vulgate the name "Day Star" is translated as "Lucifer"
> (the Vulgate dates from 389 CE).  (Jerome Bib. Comment.)

Yay, someone with a library card lives.  This is it.  I think I e-mailed
a bunch of people referencing Job.  That was WRONG.  Job has a reference
to Satan (Heb. for adversary) and I always screw the two references up.
(The Septuagint translates Satan as diablo (translit.) which is Greek
for, you guessed it "adversary.") 
> 
>   The Hebrew tradition of a rebellion of the angels is quite old, and I
> am nearly certain that it predates the birth of Christ.  Any OT scholars
> in this newsgroup?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Court rules JW booklet recommends "untrue" testimony under oath
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:56:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.181624.20670@apollo.hp.com>, smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter
Smith) writes:
> In article <1992Apr13.152258.27058@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
> >	You said that they are DISFELLOWSHIPPED, that is, no longer a JW. 
> 
> Ah, so if the "tree" cuts away the "rotton fruit" that it has produced,
> it is no longer responsible for having produced it?   

  Sorry for cutting in here, but the whole argument seems to be rather moot. 
Jesus was speaking of individuals, not organizations.  True "people" provide
good fruits, any organization can have some bad seeds.

  If you want a good example consider Russel, the founder of JWs.  H ewas caught
lying under oath.  Does that invalidate the entire religion?  No more than if
the pope was caught lying it would invalidate Catholocism.  In other words: an
organization is not responsible, the individuals in it are.

                                   -Kurt
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Unfounded Biblical Faith
Summary: response to the challenge
Keywords: prophecy, Matthew
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:46:31 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

Mitchell S Todd offered a challenge for us dealing with the "Out
of Egypt" prophecy.  I assume he does not think that Matthew is
correct in referring to the prophecy of Hosea.  In the first
place, you have to realize that Matthew was a Jew, writing to
Christians of Jewish origin, wishing to give them more comfort in
their new faith by saying "See, this is what our prophets said,
and this is what happened with Jesus, so he IS the Messiah"
 
OK, Mitchell, we look at Matthew 2:15 which is...
Matthew 2:15   and remained there until the death of Herod. This
was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the
prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son." 
 
    Then we look at the prophet Hosea, who said.....
Hosea 11:1   When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of
Egypt I called my son.
 
     I don't think it takes too much imagination to see that
Matthew was referring directly of an earlier prophecy.
 
     What is your problem with it?
 
Shalom,                    Len Howard
 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: discrimination by Utah Mormons
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:02:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.103535.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fscdh3@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>
>	Ok, I have a question for all of you Mormons out there.
>Particularly the ones that were born, bred, and raised in Utah.
>I lived (past tense) in Utah for 3 1/2 years, and through all that
>time, I was consistantly descriminated against by others because 
>I was not of the Mormon faith.  Now, what I want to know is this:
>
>	If the Mormon faith believes that all people should be treated
>fairly, then why was not only I, but EVERY SINGLE gentile (non-mormon)
>I knew treated like dirt?  Is this a common way to get people to convert
>to Mormonism in general, or was I just in a bad neighborhood?
>(I lived in Ogden, by the way.)
>

  Me, I don't particlary LIKE Utah, I do have family there. Could you
  describe what type of decrimination you expierenced while you lived
  in Ogden. My understanding is that Ogden is less than 40% LDS. Is it
  possible that you were discriminated against not because you were not
  LDS but because you are male, white and over 16. Would girls go out
  with you because you were gentile?  You could get housing in the LDS
  part of town because of your religion and you were forced to live
  in a Catholic gheto. Were you denied work because you smoked and drank
  heavily.  What type of descrimination did you and every other gentile
  that *you* knew on a constant basis.

  Please give out, I need the ammo for the family reunion this summer.

  Your obivously the source of all the good gossip about life in Happy
  Valley.   :-)

-- 
Kermit Tensmeyer                                  | Intergraph Corporation
SomeWhere in the South (it's a Civilized place)   | "It's only MY opinion"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dust In The Wind)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, Christianity, and Judaism
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:18:33 GMT


Leon Gross writes about Jack Carroll:

> Sorry, but the quote says "anybody who claims to be a Christian or a Jew",

The quote ALSO says "and cannot or will not demonstrate that he has repudiated
the power-lusting part of his heritage" -- that's what we call a `qualifier'.
(In Computer Science lingo, the conditional fails if one side of the AND is
false.)  It specifically eliminates the interpretation that _all_ Christians
or Jews are being criticised.  Certainly, you can rip Mr Carroll's comments
out of context and twist them so they say other things, and you can even claim
that the result is the only way to read what he wrote -- but not many people
will be stupid enough to believe you.


In reply to the comment that nobody has called Mr Carroll a Christian-hater,
Mr Gross says:

> No, the cases are different.  The Catholic church throughout many centuries
> was very powerful and coercive, and frequently used violence in the name 
> of religion. (e.g. crusades, inquisition, etc.)  
> This simply isn't true for Jews in the same period.  

   The Jewish State was very powerful and coercive, and frequently used
   violence in the name of religion (eg, the genocide of the Midianites).

The Jews didn't kill anybody in the Middle Ages, but the armed invasion of
Caanan included atrocities that haven't been attributed to the Crusades (can
anybody cite an instance of the RCC executing infants?).  I rather suspect
that if you add up all the victims reported in Joshua, you'll get a much
higher death toll than for the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition combined.

Why does it matter when a religious group kills people?  If it's not hateful
to describe recent atrocities as bloody, why is it hateful to describe ancient
atrocities as bloody?


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: LDS response to John Meulhausen (part 2 of 2)
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:08:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.233934.29945@javelin.sim.es.com> gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp) writes:
>In article <parsons.703317754@harry.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:
>>mark@yvax.byu.edu writes:
>>
>>>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>>>> 
>>>> True - I am relying on the Sackets research.
>>>> 
>>
>>> Could they be....biased?  Would it be too much to ask of you to get
>>>some more information from a different (and I might add more reliable) source? 
>I don't get this position.  It seems that if something disagrees with
>mormonism, then it is biased, but if it agrees it is thourough research,
>objectively done, and highly credible.  So, if I point out that Mormon
>big-shot Brigham H. Roberts said that the Book of Mormon is the product
>of Joseph Smith imagination with help form the KJV Bible and Ethan
>Smith's View of the Hebrews (as published in "Studies of the Book
>of Mormon" published by the University of Ill. Press (with original
>manuscripts available at the University of Utah library), this is
>poo-pooed as unreliable, 

 1. BH Roberts didn't say it. He said something else. Gee he had said
    what you've quoted him as saying, it would be the end of the world,
    wouldn't

 2. "View of the Hebrews" isn't even close. Have you ever read the book?

 3. Which volume of "Studies of the Book of Mormon" are you refering to?
    University of Ill. as well as Indiana University publish a lot about
    Mormon history.

Clapp has made this claim before and other sort's before. When pressed,
his resources have not borne scruinty. When Put up comes to Shut up, Glen
usally disappears for a while.

It's not only the information that's deemed unreliable....


>
>


-- 
Kermit Tensmeyer                                  | Intergraph Corporation
SomeWhere in the South (it's a Civilized place)   | "It's only MY opinion"