HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bblumenf@ems.cdc.com (Robert Blumenfeld)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: re: Gardner on Evolution
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:15:57 GMT
Reply-To: bblumenf@ems.cdc.com
Followup-To: alt.news-media
Distribution: na
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC

In article <1992Aug26.190115.15019@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham) writes:
|> 
|>                                    
|> In article <1992Aug26.120101@cozy.Prime.COM> dwolff@cozy (David Wolff) writes:
|> >In article <1992Aug25.223154.1867@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>,
|> >tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham) writes:
|> >>                                      
|> >> This is the root of the issue.  A person who rules out supernaturalistic
|> >> origins must settle for evolution, because there is no other conceivable
|> >> naturalistic solution.  Even when evolution violates fundamental
|> >                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >> naturalistic, verifiable laws such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics 
|> >  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >> (i.e. closed systems tend to move toward disorder, or randomness, or 
|> >> unusable forms of energy, depending on application), it still must be
|> >> accepted because the only alternative is a supernaturalistic 
|> >> explanantion, no matter its scope.  The profound transition from
|> >> evolution to creation is not scientific, but _philosophical_.
|> >
|> >Thank you for making your intellectual bankruptcy clear beyond
|> >any possible misunderstanding.
|> >
|> >The Earth is not a closed system.  It has a thermonuclear fusion only
|> >a few light-minutes away constantly spewing energy onto one side, and it
|> >radiates toward a blackbody absorber (the universe) on the other side.
|> >
|> >Really, if you want to disguise your rampant fundie-ism, you should
|> >make sure you never use this argument.
|> >
|> 
|> Give me a little credit....  The conditions that supposedly produce evolutionary
|> change are supposedly based in universal principles, and Dr. Who and others aside,
|> I think the universe is a closed system.  To allow the part of evolution which 
|> hypothesizes a move from less complex structures to more complex, you also must
|> allow a massive local cessation of entropy.
|> 

I'm sorry, but I can't see why the Laws of Thermodynamics (i.e., 
entropy) should apply to biology.

-- Bob
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1058 alt.rush-limbaugh:4038
From: goodrich@lynx.larc.nasa.gov (Mike Goodrich)
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:06:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.233853.8688@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
|> In article <SLEATOR.92Aug23153500@SPADE.PC.CS.CMU.EDU> sleator@CS.CMU.EDU (Daniel Sleator) writes:
|> >To the extent that you described the story, this does *not* strike me
|> >as an example of of a liberal media bias.
|> >
|> >Suppose that the reporter called up 20 economists at major
|> >universities and that, say, 19 of them expressed "doubt that Bush plan
|> >will fly".  Then the headline would be entirely appropriate, and the
|> >article would be accurate.
|> >
|> Hmm, an unfortunate choice for an example.  You must admit that calling
|> up professors at universities is 19 times out of 20 going to result in
|> a conversation with a liberal.
|> 
|> Mike Best {mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best

The FOUNDATIONAL principle of statistical sampling REQUIRES that the sample
be RANDOM. If the sample is biased, the 'statistics' and any conclusions
are worthless...


...mike
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1034 alt.activism:15496 alt.activism.d:2924
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:56:11 GMT


	[In a desprate need to show that the right is being persecuted,
	 Chips Switzer says ...]

>   Of all forms of bias in the media, this is an example of the worst.  The 
>kind where, unless you have some other source and receive a balance, you 
>will never even know it *was* bias.
>   Front page headline (Aug 22) in Dayton Daily News (article from Knight-
>Ridder): 
>
>                     "ANALYSTS DOUBT BUSH PLAN WILL FLY.  

	[article deleted]

>   This approach betrays the underlying political bias of the reporter.  
>"Analysts say..."  What analysts?!  The ones this reporter listens to and 
>deems reliable.  Hmmm, could a propensity toward liberal ideas possibly skew 
>a reporter's feelings about who he deems a reliable source?  Probably not 
>going to look to that looney bin, the Heritage Foundation for any second 
>opinions...  

	Well, I heard a very similar opinion of Bushs plan from an economist
at the CATO institute, so it's not just liberals. I haven't heard too many
positive opinions on that plan, except those that were clearly politically
motivated. Most economists seem to doubt that Bush will restrain the deficit.
The article is a bit cynical, perhaps, but not necessarily liberal, kind
of like the "liberal Bias" that moved Bush to talk about Voodoo economics
in 1980.

-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

                                        Alex Crain
                                        UMBC Academic Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1046 alt.rush-limbaugh:4019 alt.activism.d:2937
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Creationists
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:25:11 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:

>In article <1992Aug24.202953.2120@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>>Evolution is NOT a proven fact, along with creation, because it is
>   Personally, I believe in evolution, but consider it possible
>(tolerance of other views--makes me a liberal I guess) that God exists
>and took a special interest in our species and may have short-circuited
>evolution to create us.  I do believe that it is much more elegant to
>think that He created a universe 15 Billion years ago knowing that it
>would eventually lead to "us", certainly most fundamentalists would
>believe that this is not too much to ask of an ALL-POWERFUL, ALL-KNOWING
>God.  In my opinion, people are creationists because they want to be
>told what to think by the church, thinking for yourself is much to
>dangerous.
>-- 

You are certainly entitled to that opinion of creationists.  And believe
it or not, there is much more tolerance of the theory of evolution in
the church than you seem to be aware of.  Evolution does not, and
cannot, rule out the possibility that God created us.  It is only when
those who believe that evolution effectively replaces God that many 
Christians take exception. 

I, of course, am not speaking for any other Christians who may have a 
more literal view of how man was created...  but I can respect that.

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available: Software Engineer or MIS. MSCE, 1 year C++, Unix Experience
	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
	             Seattle area, only.  513-233-4502

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Sep2.004917.14289@afit.af.mil>
	<1992Sep2.150220.26388@burrhus.harvard.edu>
	<1992Sep3.022500.27511@afit.af.mil>
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:13:10

My opinion about citing unnamed experts agrees with Chip Switzer's.
I think the experts are unnamed about 1/4 of the time.  I'll look
in Clarinet to see what I can find.

As for headlines, my favorite two headlines were from the San Francisco
Examiner.

When the Ford budget was leaked in 1976, the headline was "Ford
Budget Hits Poor".  This for a 1,000 page document.

When the Brinks' robbery killers were caught the headline was
"Boudin Caught in Daring Brinks Caper."  That's not only leftist,
but in-group leftist.  How many know who "Boudin" refers to.

Probably the same guy wrote both, and the editor, (the famous Ralph
McGill wasn't it?), didn't give a damn.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi)
Subject: What behind Shen Tong's arrest
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:45:30 GMT


Article 873 of talk.politics.china:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Shen Tong's Arrest Confirmed
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:23:53 GMT

>>   2. According to BBC this morning, in the interview with Rose Terrill, who
>>has very strong British accent, a border memeber of the Organization  and 
>>went China with Shen Tong, Rose Terrill
>>said that Shen Tong felt strang that why had not CG interven what He had been
>>doing in China for Month before the arrest. It indicated that His purpose of
>>the trip was to get arrested, to create another "human Right abuse" incident,
>>for the sake of "Protection Bill".
>>   4. In this scheme, they even had coded word for their success: "Is this
>>Andrea" to indicate Shen was arrested;
>>   5. Qute Marshall Strauss after their success, in a conference: "The Chinese
>>are faced with a public relations disaster and the rest of the world must
>>exert presure for his(shen) release". That is the real purpose, "PR disaster"
>>for the Chinese.
>>
>
>I view it differently. First Shen Tong is obviously not for PR in his
>trip to China. Most PRers are for good life in America (nothing to blame,
>human nature). He is not that type of person. He is a Robinson. He
>is adventurous.
>
>His arrest may actually benefits the course of Protection Bill, but I
>doubt it was his original purpose. In fact, I personally admire his
>courage because I don't have it. I believe he is a hero and I am not.
>
>He is not a pupet, he is a soldier, a willing soldier. I think he
>has some belief in his heart, although not as sophisticated as yours.
>His act is quite pure, he is only 24 years old.
>
>Xiao Li
>
More evidence for my argument:
    6. Today's New York Times(sept 2nd), had an claimed Shen Tong article,
titled "The Next Revolution". I have question about the it:
      a. It claimed to be written by Shend Tong and "handed to a friend
several hours before his arrest", His arrest was the day before yesterday 1pm(
East Time of U.S.). His coordinate in Newton got the info. Why took so long(
around 36 hours until last night) to
reach press when we consider a fax could do it right away? Was that a work of
Ross Terill, an white Anglo Sexon, the kind tend to be british eximperilism
apologists and defame ex-victims to distract public attension away from the
crimes committed by british before;
      b. Why is it written in English? the article's aim was to call upon 
Chinese in China?
      c. The English is beyound a non-native english speaking's ablility.
      d. It used words like "Old man", "Far more than the world realizes,
corruption, strikes, dissent, HUNGER, violence and unbalanced development are
forming storm clounds over China", "(call others to build) civil society"
(for China). Those are standard words used by Westeners, e.g. they call them
selves as "civilized world" when talking about China.
I do not think he did it for himself, I think he was sincere on his beliefe. 
I think he is a victim of West(UK, US)'s "Pyschological Warfare" and was
insulated from reality by people around him(Strauss, Terill etc).




Newsgroups: alt.news-media
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Sources of Bias
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:47:53 GMT

People go into media because they believe that there is important
information out there that everyone should hear about.  Whatever
a person thinks is important is what they will notice and report.
This is the inherant bias of the media.

People are especially likely to notice threats to their own well
being.  If a group seeking political office repeatedly attacks
the media they are likely to receive negative coverage.
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
From: packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer)
Subject: Odd headline non-followup
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Dept. of Independence
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:08:00 GMT

A front page headline in Tuesday's NY Times says

  Hurricane Rips Through Florida and Heads into Gulf
   At Least 8 Killed -- Houses Left in Splinters

I searched the story in vain for any further reference to the
deaths. I've never before seen something stated as a fact
like this in a headline and not dealt with in the story itself.
This seems to be an interesting case of an editor getting
carried away, possibly anticipating a story he knew would
be under the headline in the late edition but that wasn't quite
ready for the early edition.

Newsgroups: alt.news-media
From: dave@pipi.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp (David Wuertele)
Subject: The Perot Phenomenon?
Organization: Institute of Industrial Science, University of tokyo.
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 08:53:07 GMT

I have just subscribed to this group, so I wasn't around during any Perot
discussions that might have gone on.

Were there any threads (that might be archived) about how the media
created the Perot phenomenon?

Dave
-----
David Wuertele, Yasuda Lab, Electronic Engineering, Institute of Industrial Science,
University of Tokyo.				dave@windsor.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Gardner on Evolution
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Aug26.190115.15019@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1992Aug27.154012.12355@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 18:47:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.154012.12355@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:

[...]
	   There is a decrease in entropy in living systems while the net entropy
   of the universe still increases.  The universe is a closed system , but the
   earth and living systems are not.  The massive influx of energy from the sun
   allows living systems to increase their complexity and maintain an ordered
   state for a finite period of time (until they die:( . 
	   By the same logic used to discredit evolution, life would be
   impossible, according to the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.

	   ....for that matter, you wouldn't be able to make a hot cup of tea
   either.....

Minor quibble in an otherwise correct set of statements.  You could
indeed make a hot cup of tea, heat is a manifestation of increasing
entropy, but you couldn't make an ice cube.

Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1045 alt.rush-limbaugh:4018 alt.activism.d:2936
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Creationists
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:50:36 GMT
Organization: Chevron

Just a thought to those Physics Fundamentalists who keep quoting the 2nd
Law:  How do you explain photosynthesis?  I can prove that it exists.
Inside a plant, simple carbon dioxide and water are combined into
complex a complex molecule (sugar).  How?  By adding energy.  Just like
exposing simple chemicals to ultraviolet light.  Innumerable experiments
have shown this.  Factoid at the very least.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1036 alt.rush-limbaugh:3999 alt.activism.d:2926
From: bblumenf@ems.cdc.com (Robert Blumenfeld)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:29:56 GMT
Reply-To: bblumenf@ems.cdc.com
Followup-To: alt.news-media
Distribution: na
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC

In article <crb2.714859903@Ra.MsState.Edu>, crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
|> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
|> 
|>  
|> 
|> >iii. The Republicans claiming that the Democrats are against
|> >     "family values" is valid.  [What kind of workable definition
|> >     of family values can be introduced for this to be sensible?]
|> 
|> Al Gore was voted as 3rd best senator (behind Ted Kennedy and
|> Barney Frank) by one group of individuals (in California..)
|> 

"Best senator" doesn't necessarily imply good "family values"
(whatever THEY are).  "Best senator" could well imply that he's a good
legislator no matter what his morals.  Jefferson had a mistress, 
Eisenhower had an affair; neither one could be said to have been 
deficient in their duties.

-- Bob
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Sources of Bias
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:58:16 GMT

maxwell@fnala.fnal.gov writes:

>I keep putting this one off, let's see how it goes ...

>Let's start with the given that the news media is biased.  Furthermore, let's 
>jettison the ad infinitum ad nauseum floor-wax/dessert-topping citations.

>What would cause the media to bias its reportage?
>The need to stay in business. 

>Media organisms stay in business by selling a product.  People have to buy the
>product. Therefore one bias in reportage will be to provide a product that
>people are willing to buy.  Since most people don't like challenges to their
>world-view, reportage will tend to support the world-view of the people who
>consume the reporting.
> The logical consequence of repeatedly and profoundly challenging the world-
> view of the consumers of a media product will be that the consumers will 
> find a product more to their liking. 
> Similarly, the media organism will not produce a product hostile to its 
> subscriber base.

[rest of theory deleted]
>Well, Sirs, what do you think?

It is an interesting discussion and and a fairly well thought out
proof(?) of "popular" bias.  There is, howver, one major and in my
opinion, fatal flaw in the argument.  The media is not a common
commodity.  It should not be compared to, say, what brand of ice cream
you like and therfor support with you dollars.  If this were the case,
you would be right on and we would most likely see a more balanced 
coverage (read: not alienating consumers).  

But, the news media is much more like your local utility than a brand of
ice cream.  They are usually a monopoly in a community (even broadcast
news is pretty much so...).  And most people *have* to have news.  So,
you buy what is available and try to make a difference by writing to the
editor or you just accept that the bias is there and be sceptical of the
information you're getting.  The paper (or whatever) will stay in
business even though it may in reality alienate many of its consumers.
I am a prime example.  Even though my newspaper regularly insults my
intelligence and leans way to the left, I still have a subscription.
Your theory works, but in a very limited sense.  I do know people who
have cancelled their subscriptions and just rely on news broadcasts.
And newpaper and broadcast news consumers are (I think) still on the
decline, but won't go away.


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available: Software Engineer or MIS. MSCE, 1 year C++, Unix Experience
	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
	             Seattle area, only.  513-233-4502
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Sources of Bias
From: dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 02:16:16 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Jack Campin rebuts Max's argument about the economic necessities facing
newspapers by saying that papers could print anything as long as it
would sell issues.  Unfortunately, Jack, this probably isn't strictly
true.  Very few, if any (I don't know about the "Socialist Worker"),
newspapers in the United States support themselves with subscription
proceeds or street sales.  It varies from publication to publication,
but far more than half of a publication's revenue comes from
advertisements, which is more responsive to content than the readership.

Steve Voss

Xref: sparky alt.news-media:921 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4773 alt.activism.d:2795
From: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Date: 24 Aug 92 02:03:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <1992Aug24.005257.29219@afit.af.mil> sbrady@afit.af.mil (Stephan P. Brady) writes:
>
>For those with a lean to the left, and a short term memory comparable to
>volatile RAM, Al Gore (then (unsuccesful) candidate for the presidency)
>FIRST brought up the Willy Horton issue against Dukakis in the
>PRIMARIES.  So, that little bit of mud-slinging so oft attributed to the
>"bad-boys of the Bush campaign" has a more "leftist" origin.
>

Well, yes and no. Gore referred to prison furloughs in Massachusetts
(and maybe to prisoners committing crimes while out, i'm not sure), but
did not mention Horton by name.

Yeah, he's not squeaky clean on the topic, but he has less dirt than
Bush. 
-- 
The world is not analog. The world is digital,
with an incredible number of bits.
Arthur C. Adams (not the comic-book artist)                        <fnord>
E-Mail acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:54:52 GMT

fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes) writes:

>cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:

>: 'Pro-choice' is hardly a justified label for that movement. Most pro-choice  
>: activists are _not_ for school choice or even for a womens right to own her own  
>: body (or where were they when the FDA outlawed breast implants ?).

Nor do they clamor for legalized prostitution. They feel it degrades women.
But they can't have it both ways. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL	is a liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU
CLARKSON '95	     
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU

When two people CHOOSE to have sex, they CHOOSE to accept the consequences
of their actions. (yes, there is such a thing as a pro-life liberal. Please 
send flames to the above address)	

 						


Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1067 alt.rush-limbaugh:4054 alt.activism.d:2953