HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lonczews@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Frank Lonczewski)
Subject: Hypertext for Unix & X11 
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Informatik
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:31:09 GMT

Sorry, perhaps this is often asked, but I'm not a regular reader of this group.

I'm looking out for a public-domain hypertext-system running under Unix together
with the X-Window-System.

The information i have gathered so far is that there are some hypertext-like
browers like the one included in the hman-example (browser for unix-man).

Would appreciate very much if anyone of you have a hint for me.
  
Frank

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Lonczewski, E-mail: lonczews@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
		  TU Muenchen
		  Institut fuer Informatik
		  8000 DW Muenchen 2
		  Germany
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 00ajklumpe@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.hypertext
Subject: What is it?
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:12:18 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

Recently in one of my classes, a brief presentation on
hypertext was done.  I do not understand what hypertext
is exactly.  Can you briefly explain this technology
and descripe the type of machine necessary for the use
of it?  Thank you.
Newsgroups: alt.hypertext
Subject: TOOLBOOK USERS???
From: C636WRT <C636WRT@SEMOVM.SEMO.EDU>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:51:53 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City

I've just begun to use Toolbook to develop hypertext applications
for college-level reading and writing (e.g., The Philosophy of
Thomas Jefferson: An Interactive Tutorial with Commentary).
Is there a bitnet or internet news group for Toolbook users?
I am especially interested in humanities applications.
Dennis Holt
c636wrt@semovm.semo.edu
From: borchert@walt.MsState.Edu (Chris Borchert)
Newsgroups: alt.hypertext
Subject: Hypertext package for Sun (KMS)
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:12:10 GMT
Organization: /home/grad/borchert/.organization

I am looking for an address for a manufacturer of Hypertext software for
the Sun.  I tried to locate KMS in Pittsburgh, PA, but they seem to have
moved (or gone out of bussiness) without a forwarding address or phone number.
Does anyone have their address or any other manufacturer's address?

Thanks,
Chris Borchert
borchert@CS.MsState.Edu
--
Chris Borchert
borchert@CS.MsState.Edu
From: WOODWAMM@ctrvx1.Vanderbilt.Edu (WOODWAMM)
Newsgroups: alt.hypertext
Subject: Toolbook group
Date: 12 Nov 92 11:58:46 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University

I hate to appear uninformed, but what is ToolBook? I assume some sort of Hypem
but could you leave a brief description like what machine it's for, and what
it's strengths/weakness are? Thanks

Also, would anyone here be able to direct me to any research papers, or other
similar articles on hypertext? From what I have read it seems like UNC and
Brown are pretty active with hypertext research, but I've been unable to
find any papers on this...
Mark Woodward -WOODWAMM@CTRVAX.VANDERBILT.EDU
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: re: morality
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:16:20 GMT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

In article <1992Nov4.124342.737@blurt.oswego.edu>,
hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu writes:
|>In article <1992Nov02.195239.8940@bnr.ca>, bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA
(Brian Cash) writes:
|>> From: hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu
|>>> |>when the tao is lost, there is goodness.
|>>> |>when goodness is lost, there is morality.
|>> (Me)
|>>> Let's see.  According to that, "goodness" > "morality".
|>>> How is goodness different than morality?  I put these in 
|>>> the same pot. (The Tao is the Way, a specific path of
|>>> goodness; so I can see how they can say "tao" > "goodness")
|>> 
|>> |>okay, as far as i can figure, "goodness" seems to refer to actions
which flow
|>> |>naturally from the core of one's being, whereas "morality" seems to be an
|>> |>imposed set of behavioral expectations. the whole point of taoism
being that
|>> |>one  acts from one's center. i think. i could be wrong.
|>> |>-diedre hauptfuehrer
|>> 
|>> So maybe "morality" is better translated as "law"?
|>> So internal law > external law?  I can buy that.
|>> So how is the Tao figured in?  Isn't that external?
|>> 
|>> Brian /-|-\
|>> 
|>> (P.S.  This is a CS101 trap.  I am an AI program. ;^} )
|>
|>
|>
|>again, as far as i can figure, the tao is an immanent life-force type
of thing:
|>present in all things whether they're alive or not (as opposed to most
|>religions' concept of god as a separate and distant being). if that's
correct,
|>then the tao is not external, but internal, as an essential part of one's
|>being. it's sort of similar to the hindu atman-brahman. i think.
|>
|>-diedre hauptfuehrer
|>
|>there's a hell of a universe next door- let's go!
|>                                                 -e.e. cummings
                                    
Then how can it be lost?

Brian /-|-\
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "God is unfair" Bible passages.
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:38:53 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Nov6.175349.4663@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> In article <Bx8nwn.8q6@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.A.Gilman@newcastle.ac.uk (J.M.A. Gilman) writes:
> 
>>    In the case of Lot, God did NOT destroy a city of innocent people,
>>they were a bunch of gang-rapists, ...
> 
> God did not limit himself to destroying just the gang-rapists in the city.
> Even if every adult man in the city was a rapist, he also destroyed all the
> women and children when he destroyed the city.  This no doubt included a
> number of innocent people.

   Not only that, he was ready to kill Lot too until Abraham pointed
him out.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 11:51:14 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:

> What is the value of a human life? What if a person is sentanced to life 
> imprisonment, escapes, and kills someone else? I don't know specific 
> instances, but I'm certain that this has happened.

Since hanging was abolished in the UK in the '50s, some 47 people
have been murdered by people who had been given life sentences for
murder and subsequently given parole. This is according to Britain's
last hangman, who I believe has recently died.

Of course this is not necessarily an argument in favour of capital
punishment; it is just as much an argiment for life sentences to mean
litterally, life in jail.

I don't have any figures on anyone escaping and murdering again.

--
Tony Lezard IS tony@mantis.co.uk OR tony%mantis.co.uk@uknet.ac.uk OR things
like tony%uk.co.mantis@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay OR (last resort) arl10@phx.cam.ac.uk
       "Christians have Jesus, dogs have Pavlov." -- Bill Berbenich
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: An apology
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:06:57 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Nov2.140310.24045@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>I am new to this news group, and what is really striking about it is all the
>fundies who write here. I myself am a theist, but I feel almost ashamed to call 
>myself a theist when reading all the ignorant crap from my supposedly
>"likewises". I therefore have a great urge to apologize on behalf of all the
>fundies for their apparently braindead behaviour.  
>

  IF it were only that simple, Onar.


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: leave us alone!!!!
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:42:42 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <parsons.720996187@cygnus.cis.ksu.edu.cis.ksu.edu> parsons@cis.ksu.edu (Scott S Parish ) writes:

Scott, this was a very nice post. I cannot speak for other atheists, of
course, but I will not object to postings of this caliber from
theists of any stripe.

>>why oh why oh why can't you just live your own lives being comfortable
>>in what YOU believe in?
>
>Well, for some of us we can't; our motivation is the Great Commission.
>Another reason is because we have found something that is so life changing
>and real in Jesus Christ, that we can't understand why anyone wouldn't 
>want it or can't see it.  For me at least, it is also a learning experience 
>reading and posting here; and I've learned quite a bit about how an atheist
>views religion and life.  I'm sure there are other reasons. 

You understand, I'm sure, that most atheists will regard your
belief in the Great Commission as a delusion, and an irritating
one by the time they have encountered it a few hundred times.

>I challenge you to name a topic(s) that are important to an atheist 
>that are not as important to or doesn't impact a Christian, anyone?  
>Like I recommended before, make a kill file.  I also dare say that 
>most of the regular (if there are any besides me) Christian readers/
>posters don't try to convert someone someone with every post.  Most 
>I dare say are just expressing their Christian view of the topic 
>being presented. 

No doubt; but, of course, the quality of posting varies wildly,
whether the author is atheist or theist. I think that much of
the rancor you see against Christians and other theists is
simply annoyance at an unending (and, I might add, inevitable)
stream of conversion attempts.

>We don't bug you because 
>we hate you; we bug you because we love you.

Pardon my skepticism, but I really don't think you are in a
position to love me. You might perhaps love the abstract
idea of me, for some definition of the word 'love'.
From: oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Bible Buying
Date: 12 Nov 1992 19:47:16 GMT
Organization: Washington University Astrophysics
NNTP-Posting-Host: fermi.wustl.edu

I'm considering (gasp!) buying a Bible.  What translations do readers of this
group recommend, and why?

-Scott Oser
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Iraq Murders
Date: 13 Nov 92 11:14:24 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Mark McCullough (mccullou@cae.wisc.edu) wrote:
: THESE ARE MILITARY TARGETS!  DON'T TRY TO CLAIM OTHERWISE!

  Why are we not allowed to claim otherwise? Should we not be allowed
  to use anything we like in constructing an argument to counter yours.
  Perhaps you should have said 
  'I BELIEVE THAT THESE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED MILITAY TARGETS!
   DON'T TRY TO CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE'

: I have yet to hear that figure.  [..of 20% bomb accuracy...]

  They are from DoD sources.

: Do you know what smart bomb means?

  It is a military buzz word.
  Laser-guided-has-a-fairly-good-chance-of-hitting-the-target-if-all-the
  technology-is-working-and-it-isn't-raining-too-hard-or-god-forbid-
  snowing-bomb is more honest but doesn't impress the public.
 
: That 20% is still an incredible number of hits. 

  Which means that there were 10,000s of tons of explosives landing 
  somewhere is populated areas. Wonderful. Glad to know the allies were
  being so careful.

: Again, I have yet to hear of this, even from many british people I know.
: Any British people care to comment on that?

  Yes, I saw it. Also the bombing of a baby milk factory that the US claimed
  was a chemical weapons factory (as if bombing a chemical weapons factory
  in a populated area would be a good way to avoid civilian casualties)
  Their evidence that it was a weapons facility was the fact that it was
  camouflaged. Iraq had recently been at war with Iran. All factories were
  camouflaged.

: The US didn't force Japan.  The US requested monetary support.  NO JAPANESE
: MILITARY UNITS WERE INVOLVED.  We wouldn't have wanted them anyways.  

  Questions were asked in Congress as to why the Japanese were not providing
  forces. Someone pointed out that they were not allowed by their constitution
  which was imposed by the US. In fact their warships took over some patrol
  duties in the Pacific to relieve US ships. They are also not allowed to do
  this under their constitution but noone noticed.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: epowers@huey.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re:  Top Ten Reasons to Bash Atheists
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:30:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.011407.11927@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi  
Hausmann) writes:
> epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes: >
> 0eyrBfG00iUz49aYU=@andrew.cmu.edu  writes: >>
> >> One difference.  The first post(TTRTBF)was funny.  The second one was not.
> >> -JW
> >
> >		Sorry, you must have them mixed up.
> 
> No, you're just reading the wrong board.  
> Alt.religion.christian.fundamentalist.bigot is a few more groups down.
> -- 
> Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
> Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.
> 
> Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553

	I remain unconvinced by your enthralling argument.  However, I must  
admit that I was reading your explanation of what humor was and why the second  
post was not funny, and I did find THAT amusing.  For the first few lines, and  
then I realized I was laughing because it reminded me of Mein Kampf, another  
excursion into literature I found quite funny.  And just like Mein Kampf, I  
never finished reading it.  For that I am sorry, because one should always  
allow the defense of another's ideas.  So if you or anyone who kept it would  
email me that post, I will read it and I will respond.  I may even put up a Top  
Ten Reasons to Not Be Intimidated By Atheists, based on my personal experience.
What the heck, I'll put that up whether you send me anything or not.

						Erik Powers

Disclaimer:  All my posts are entirely devoid of humor.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology,sci.research
From: zoltan@psychnet.psychol.utas.edu.au (Zoltan Schreter)
Subject: Re: Chaotic brain behaviour and its influence on duplicating a person
Summary: Does chaos in the brain make duplication impossible?
Organization: Psychology Department, University of Tasmania
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:11:13 GMT

In article <RICHARD.92Nov9172845@cantor.harlqn.co.uk> richard@harlqn.co.uk (Richard Brooksby) writes:
>Xref: newsroom.utas.edu.au alt.atheism:33596 sci.cognitive:501 sci.psychology:6856 sci.research:2050
>Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.cognitive,sci.psychology,sci.research
>Path: newsroom.utas.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.hawaii.edu!ames!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!hermes.chpc.utexas.edu!news.utdallas.edu!corpgate!bnrgate!bnr.co.uk!pipex!harlqn.co.uk!harlqn!richard
>From: richard@harlqn.co.uk (Richard Brooksby)
>Subject: Chaotic brain behaviour and its influence on duplicating a person
>         (was: Questions about other stuff(sorry, lousy title!))
>In-Reply-To: jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu's message of 4 Nov 92 21:31:43 GMT
>Message-ID: <RICHARD.92Nov9172845@cantor.harlqn.co.uk>
>Followup-To: alt.atheism
>Summary: Does chaos in the brain make duplication impossible?
>Lines: 30
>Sender: news@harlqn.co.uk (Usenet News Account)
>Organization: Harlequin Limited, Cambridge, England
>References: <Uey44zu00WBME6MNZq@andrew.cmu.edu>
>Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:28:45 GMT
>In alt.atheism jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jordan M. Wolbrum) wrote:
>
>> 2) Without a soul, could it be possible to clone a human and copy
>> all of the original's memories into the clone, creating two of the
>> same person?  I think so.  I'm just tired of hearing people say "It
>> just wouldn't be me," w/o any justification.
>
>I have a friend who is doing neuroscientific research.  He once told
>me about chaotic behaviour observed in the olfactory lobe.  His claim
>was that the brain was using a strange attractor to somehow control
>perception.  I didn't take in much of what he said -- it was just a
>brief conversation about what he was working on.
>
>Anyway, if the brain were to make use of chaotic behaviour, or at
>least be influenced by chaotic functions, then it is unlikely that
>duplicating a person completely (setting aside quantum physics for the
>moment, *ahem*) would duplicate their behaviour.  Their chaotic nature
>would cause them to diverge unpredictably.
>
>I would be interested in any references to documents describing
>chaotic brain behaviour.  

Take a look at 
Freeman, W.J.,  and Skarda, C.A.(1987). 
How brains make chaos in order to make sense of the world. 
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 16-195.


Zoltan Schreter
Department of Psychology
University of Tasmania at Hobart
Australia



It would be even better if someone could
>explain and/or challenge this work in terms which I am likely to
>understand.
>
>[Note the followup line -- edit it if you want to take this discussion
> elsewhere.]
>---
>richard@harlqn.co.uk              (Internet)
>RPTB1@UK.AC.CAMBRIDGE.PHOENIX     (JANET)
>Zen Buddhist
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen)
Subject: Re: Earth gains a retinue of Mini-Asteroids
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:29:31 GMT

In <1992Nov6.042829.3399@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> hwong@euler.Berkeley.EDU (Harris Wong) writes:

>Hi,
>	Where is the boundary of the universe? Is this a meaningful question
>to ask? 
>	Any comment?
>Harris


>Harris Wong	201 Gilman Hall, Dept. Chem. Eng.
>510-6420853	U.C.Berkeley, Berkeley, CA94720

Simply answered...

In every direction that nothing travels.

---Xeno

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Reply-To: johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:25:57 GMT

In article 19188@cs.joensuu.fi, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	Atheists commonly ignore that they live in a dream-world by themselves.

This isn't quite a loaded question. Perhaps a loaded assertion.
We don't ignore it; we aren't living in a dream-world. Honest honest.
But YOU are! You aren't even really reading this. Its just a dream.
:)

>	Quite common is the belief that you could save this earth.

From what? And why atheists and not, say, plumbers?


>	This is 
>	rubbish. There is no method to save mankind from Greenhouse effect or
>	lack of Ozone (for decades).

Oh, from THIS. Well, sure there is- we can stop mucking about with
our atmosphere, go back to a medieval existance. It would work
reasonably well, I think. The worst we'd have to face then is an
ice-age. We can handle that. I'd be rather surprised if we'd done
so much damage that mother nature couldn't fix it, given enough
time. (like, say, unlimited)

>	People refuse to believe this. 

Hey, Im sorry if not everyone agrees with you, but, well...

>	What is the philosophy with atheists ? Consume ! Spend more !

Is this meant as an insult, a statement you really believe, or
a challenge for your grammer checker? (it failed, btw)

On the assumption that you really believe this: Again,
why Atheists and not plumbers?

>-- 
>
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
>
>	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !

Does this mean something?

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
From: dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:19:51 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

Live and Let Live?  I think NOT!
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Cure the Believers!
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:04:37 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Nov10.184658.19188@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) wrote:
> 	Atheists commonly ignore that they live in a dream-world by themselves.
 
> 	Quite common is the belief that you could save this earth. This is 
> 	rubbish. There is no method to save mankind from Greenhouse effect or
> 	lack of Ozone (for decades). People refuse to believe this. 

Note that it was also people that caused this problem in the first
place, so if you are the origin of the problem, you should also
fix it. Why believe in a deux-ex-machina solution, when we could 
fix things ourselves. I'm sure that if we end up in a sad situation
where we are slowly dying of radiation, Christians will sit and 
wait for their messiah to clean up the mess.

> 	What is the philosophy with atheists ? Consume ! Spend more !

Sigh, I hope people like Antti would spend more time figuring
out what atheism is, instead of assuming things...

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bt@bailey.u.washington.edu (bt garner)
Subject: Re: *TRUE* Christians
Keywords: Who needs 'em?
Organization: Process Modeling Group
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:43:00 GMT

In the yet unpublished autobiography titled <92316.015308RXS127@psuvm.psu.edu>,
<RXS127@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
#> I haven't read all the posts on this topic yet, but I'll try to get my two 
#> cents in.  Well, the first thing about becoming a Christian is an 
#> acknowledgement of sin.  
I though that the acceptance of Christ in your heart (and as the ultimate
forgiver of your sins) was the first thing about becoming a Christian.

#> "The wages of all sin is death."
And all this time I thought it was, "The wages of all life is death."

#> This means that all sin is equal.  So don't try to go up to a Christian 
#> and say that they did evil things in the past Because they should know 
#> that already.  Sin is sin no matter what a Christian is doing.
"Sin is sin no matter what a Christian is doing?!"  You mean, like posting
to alt.atheism?  Mark that gents, another good reason to stay away; increased
guilt trip regardless of what you do.

#> So to say that Christians err is like going up to a cook and say that
#> he just cooked something.  How dumb is this subject?  
Wouldn't a cook only cook something for proper compensation (be it money
for living expenses, or his/her own dining pleasure, etc)?  Can we make
the same assumption for sin and Christians?  By the way, just what is
your compensation for sin?  Do you have to join a union for that?
(Sinners, Local 151.  Oh nevermind, it's just the Baptists!)  Quoting
that old saying "To Err is Human," it's not a Christian thing.  

#> It is only secular moralists like yourselves that try to blame sin 
#> on Christians and get the last laugh in.  In reality, we don't care 
#> what you think.
OK, one last time, if you don't care what we think then why are posting 
to ALT.ATHEISM?

#> We just care that we have acknowledged our sins.  Haven't you ever done 
#> anything wrong in your life???
Well, once I spelled "Potato" with an extra "E" (but I was told that was 
correct way by a popular world leader!), or do you mean more like, not
hitting the return key after 75 (give or take a few) characters?  Or
maybe something even more vile, say like, *Thinking* for myself?

Honestly, every person reading this has "sinned" (your word, not mine).  It
kind of goes with the territory of being "human."  As for acknowledging your
"sins," I guess I don't see what that has to do with Christianity, I 
see it having more to do with how sane you are, and how honest you are
with yourself and others.  Which, I might add, I don't exactly give high
marks to Christianity on either account.

bt garner
President, Sinners, Local 666
bt@cpac.washington.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.censorship,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic