HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Message Clutter
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:45:44 GMT

In article <724134655.AA04902@mcws.fidonet.org>, Ron.Landers@f851.n102.z1.fidonet.org (Ron Landers) writes:
>         I'm a new user, 

  No kidding.

> and this BBS program is also new to me.  One
> particular thing I've noticed that I don't like is the amount of clutter the
> posts contain.  I assume that part of this "problem" is unavoidable, with
> respect to the initial NET information that apparently appears in every
> message, regardless.

  And your messages are always posted twice. Physician heal thyself.
 
>         However, one thing I've noticed that IS under the control of users
> is the practice of quoting from the post one is responding to.  It seems
> that virtually EVERY post contains way too much quoting.  

  Sez you.

> For example, I've
> seen countless messages where the user quotes a long passage from the
> original post,followed by their ONE LINE comment.  Is this really
> necessary?

  Yes.
 
>         To exaggerate my point.  It's like quoting an entire chapter of "War
> and Peace," and at the end of the passage, typing in a line that says: "I
> really like this chapter..."  Couldn't you just say; "I really liked Chapter
> Seven of War and Peace," and spare us the entire chapter?

  No. If you are making a point about somebody's work, it is very
applicable to quote it. Not everybody has reference to the quotable
material.

>         When I first logged on here and began reading the posts, it seemed
> like there were dozens and dozens of posts, that ALL quoted major sections
> of the same ORIGINAL POST, and we're talking a screen full or two.  So, I
> had to wade through the same message over and over and over again, as quoted
> by all the responders to that post.  This is ridiculous.

  Get used to it. Or go away.
> 
>         In my opinion, the feature which allows you to "grab" partial or
> entire quotes from an original message is mostly a CRUTCH.  It comes in
> handy sometimes, but some of you seem to be ABUSING the advantage, to a
> point which seems to smack of intellectual LAZINESS.

  Yawn.
-- 

		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)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Gay/Lesbian Equal Rights Needed
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:17:44 GMT

In article <13676@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#> Do you consider 4000 *NEW* AIDS cases amoung heterosexuals to be "a
#> few"? 
#> 
#> -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
#
#Subtract out the prostitutes and those having sex with IV drug
#abusers, and it isn't 4000, and you know it.

Err, after thinking about this, why *SHOULD* those having sex with IV
drug users be subtracted out? The transmission mechanism is the same
as in with sex with non  IV drug users, the only difference is that
those having sex with IV drug users, and actually just people who ONCE
were IV drug users, they may not use drugs anymore, is that the
percentage of the partner being HIV+ is higher.

However, with a million people being HIV+ in the US, unless you are in
a permanently monogomous relationship, you need to take the
precautions anyway.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Message Clutter
Date: 21 Dec 92 03:11:26 GMT
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Organization: N.I.C.E.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

You're _all_ wrong.
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: "Earthquake Risks Called Exaggerated"
Date: 14 Dec 1992 08:19:22 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <51636@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>However, I still have to side a little with Jackson in that it is
>certainly true that if we restrict the tests to just plate bounding
>faults, 10 years is far too short, and it may take 100 years to get
>any reliable statistics.
It may be hard to test the model, but that doesn't justify testing it
incorrectly.  One could conclude that the model is untestable for
practical purposes which may make it hard to use even if it is correct.
However, one can't say it is wrong.

>Also, the seismic gap hypothesis is based
>in part on pre-instrumental quakes, which may or may not have occurred
>on the plate bounding fault.
This is a good point I haven't heard addressed.

>Finally, if the seismic gap hypothesis
>is restricted to plate-bounding faults its use in seismic hazard
>estimation and prediction becomes limited as well.
This was agreed on by all at the AGU session.  The question is if
we are just trying to do direct hazard assessment or also trying
to understand the physics.

>I agree that
>the hypothesis is designed with a single fault in mind, but nature
>is rarely so cooperative.  If it turns out to be true when properly
>limited, it may become little more than a scientific curiosity.
Sub-parallel faults that have similar mechanisms could easily
be grouped.  The important difference to separate is faults that
do the same tectonic motion and faults that do something else.
If it demonstrates basic physical principles I would expect that
it will have substantial, if indirect, applications.

Pallet Creek discussion deleted for brevity
>From theoretical grounds, I prefer bunching because I think it would
>be hard to avoid in a stick-slip model with healing.  The idea here
>would be that at low stress, the fault's healing processes can keep
>ahead of the stress buildup, allowing a large stress to accumulate.
>However, once that finally gives way, the fault would still be at
>relatively high stress and healing will not procede quickly enough
>to prevent more large quakes until the regime returns to a very low
>stress.  Then the pattern would more or less repeat.
A valid theory, IMHO.

I'm off to another meeting so I won't be able to respond until
Thursday.  However, I don't think we disagree on much.  The only
contentious point was Kagan and Jackson claiming they had refuted
the gap theory.  Instead they have shown that it is limited and so
far untested.

Andy
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: types of earthquake predictions
Date: 19 Dec 92 22:19:52 GMT
Distribution: ca

In article <1992Dec18.225447.23143@gordian.com>, mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>   <snicker>
> 
>   Wouldn't a magnitude 15 sort of, er, split the earth in half?
> But just for fun, is there any guestimate as to what the largest
> magnitude earthquake was in, say recent geological history? I've
> heard that the Chilean quake was close to 9 but is there any 
> evidence of quakes much bigger than that?

The 1960 Chile quake had Mw=9.6 (Mw is an open-ended magnitude scale,
Richter magnitude saturates at about 8.5 and cannot get larger).  It
is the biggest quake during instrumental seismology.  But there is evidence
it may well be the largest quake in several centuries.  It broke a fault
area 800 km long and 200 km wide, and the sides slipped about 20 meters.
Hard to beat that for size.  It was so big it made the earth wobble measurably,
and the rang like a bell for weeks.  Now, imagine 240 million of those
all at once - that's a magnitude 15 (energy goes up by a factor of 30
for each unit of magnitude).

Just so's you know, that's more energy than splitting the earth in half.
It's enough energy to melt the earth.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: types of earthquake predictions
Date: 20 Dec 1992 07:43:51 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <51678@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>The 1960 Chile quake had Mw=9.6 (Mw is an open-ended magnitude scale,
>Richter magnitude saturates at about 8.5 and cannot get larger).  It
>is the biggest quake during instrumental seismology.  But there is evidence
>it may well be the largest quake in several centuries....

Richard, wasn't the pre-Columbian earthquake in the Pacific Northwest
guessed at being 9ish? The one for which evidence (sunken forests, etc.)
was found in the last couple of years?
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Newly Mapped "San Jose Fault?"
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:28:19 GMT
Distribution: ca

In article <1gll3tINNdsr@gap.caltech.edu>, hough@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Susan Hough) writes:
> >> In article <-288709981@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com> stachnik@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (George Stachnik) writes:
> >> >	well, as "active".  How can it be active if it
> >> >	hasn't moved in 1000 years?)  
> 
> The magnitude 7.4 1992 "Landers" earthquake occurred on 
> a series of fault segments that probably had not ruptured 
> in the last 3000-5000 years.  The faults that produced the

I haven't seen any articles published on this, and couldn't go to the
AGU this year.  Did someone do some paleoseismology on the faults out
there?  What kind of evidence pointed to a 3000-5000 year repeat?

> 1811-12 New Madrid earthquakes probably have a repeat time
> on the order of 5000-10,000 years.  Repeat times of active fault 
> segments can easily exceed several thousand years.

I agree with your second statement here, but the jury is still out
on New Madrid - Wesnousky and Leffler surveyed much of the liquefaction
zone and found no evidence for a quake for at least 5000-10000 years
before 1811, but Kelson, et al. found some evidence that may indicate
an event 200-600 years before 1811.  This may be difficult to resolve
because the 1811 quake was so powerful that it may have destroyed
previous evidence and may have re-activated the earlier structures.
It may be that 1811 was uncharacteristically large, and that the normal
size quakes for the region do occur every few hundred years.

I'll second the idea that while these individual events maybe have
long repeats, that they are not unique and we can expect similar events
elsewhere all the time.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Newly Mapped "San Jose Fault?"
Date: 17 Dec 1992 08:04:00 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <51641@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <1gihhuINN78h@morrow.stanford.edu>, jeff@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Jeff Freymueller) writes:
>> In article <-288709981@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com> stachnik@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (George Stachnik) writes:
>I don't know how they can tell the age of faulting from aeromag, I assume
>they did other work (at least checking historical seismicity).  There
>are a couple things that can be done to see if the fault is active.
>the best would be to trench it (see below), but it would also be productive
>to investigate and pre-development maps of the region.  This technique
>was used to help identify the two new faults in LA.  The old maps often
>indicate scarps, offset streams, sag ponds, etc., that existed along
>a fault trace before these indicators were oblitorated.  This is something
>that an amatuer with a basic understanding of fault geomorphology and access
>to old maps can do - it doesn't necessarily take a PhD.
Can someone send this to Jim Dolan (who with Kerry Sieh found those
faults in LA.  He's apparently already steamed over being called a
student in one news report.)?

The dating, which is very vague, on the Bay Area faults comes from
offsets in shallow marine layers in SF Bay imaged with seismic methods
near Coyote Point.  These faults appear to line up with the aeromag
lineament.  Until they core the marine layers the dates are really
quite vague.  The last event on the order of 1000 to a few 1000 years
ago.

>I could hazard a guess on this - I would peg the maximum at about 7.  That's
>an educated guess based on the maximum length of fault I could put in the
>region you described, and assumes the entire fault breaks in the quake.
>If the fault is really an extension of other faults north and south, then
>maybe 7.5.  No more than that, because I'm somewhat familiar with the known
>faults in the surrounding area and can't construct a through-going fault
>much larger than that.
That's about right.

>Andy can answer you on computer maps, but a good paper map of all the known
>faults (apart from the new one) can be obtained from the CDMG.
I don't know of a computer postable map.  Besides the resolution would
be lousy.  There are lots of known faults and lots of ones we will
learn about.  But the main hazards will always be the San Andreas and
the Hayward.  They very simply carry most of the deformation and will
have most of the big earthquakes.  The rest is details that we learn
about from time to time.

Andy
From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Looking for data from a seismograph
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:40:25 GMT
Distribution: ca

In article <1992Dec17.025144.4377@leland.Stanford.EDU>, kob@leland.Stanford.EDU (Walter Kob) writes:
> I would be interested to obtain the output of a seismograph, i.e.
> the plot of the displacements (in whatever units) as a function of 
> time or the whole data in binary form. Any ideas where I can find 

Being at Stanford, your best source would be Stanford geophysics dept.
Before going over there, be sure you have some idea of what kind of
seismogram you want.  Asking a seismologist for a seismogram is a little
like asking a curator at the Louvre for "some art".


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
From: jeff@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Jeff Freymueller)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: "Earthquake Risks Called Exaggerated"
Date: 13 Dec 1992 18:27:00 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1992Dec10.075333.6706@netcom.com> bverreau@netcom.com (stargazer) writes:
>From the "San Francisco Chronicle", 12-9-92, p. A3 [w/o perm]:
>
>  "Scientists using a computer to simulate 10,000 years of earthquake
>   history on the San Andreas Fault proposed yesterday that the chances
>   of disastrous quakes occurring in California are far lower than
>   official forecasts have indicated.
>
>  "Major quakes happen so randomly, the scientists said, that long-range
>   forecasts based on the assumption that temblors repeat themselves at
>   regular intervals tend to exaggerate the risks."
>
>The article then goes on to quote a UCSC geophysicist who, together with a
>grad student, have developed a computer model based on "every quake known
>to have hit every segment of the fault since the first ones were reported
>150 years ago".
>
>  "The two scientists then ran their 'synthetic seismicity' computer program
>   back for 10,000 years and found that the pattern of repeated quakes could
>   vary by hundreds of years.  Official calculations assume that fault
>   segments tend to rupture at fairly regular intervals."
>
>They conclude that all current forecasts are much too pessimistic.  The
>mid-peninsula segment of the SA, for example, had been predicted to have
>a 23-37% chance of producing a major earthquake by 2020, but a more
>realistic number would be 15-18%.  Similarly, Parkfield should have been
>given a 66% chance for a quake by 1993 rather than the 90% estimate (1985).
>All of this was reported at yesterday's San Francisco meeting of the
>American Geophysical Union.
>
>So what do the experts have to say about all this?  I thought the seismic
>gap theory - which relates to long term probabilities - was  pretty well
>confirmed on different faults and quakes around the world.  Does this mean
>that *both* short term and long term predictions are impossible?  Or are
>there holes in the new theory?
>
The UCSC geophysicist is Steven Ward - I'm not sure who the student is. The
problem with their model as I see it is they use a particular model for the
"physics" of strain accumulation and release in their model - so if they have
it right their conclusions are fine, but if they have it wrong their predictions
may have little merit. One thing I think they HAVE demonstrated is that there
is probably a lot mor variability than other people have thought (regardless
of the applicability of their particular physical model). I'm not
really an expert here - but I think it is safe to say that this work is
somewhat controversial (and interesting as well!).

Jeff
From: jeff@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Jeff Freymueller)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: Newly Mapped "San Jose Fault?"
Date: 16 Dec 1992 19:44:52 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <51641@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <1gihhuINN78h@morrow.stanford.edu>, jeff@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Jeff Freymueller) writes:
>> In article <-288709981@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com> stachnik@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (George Stachnik) writes:

[several lines removed]

>> >	indicated that the fault can't be mapped accurately
>> >	because it hasn't moved, and because the area it is
>> >	in is so highly developed (unlike San Andreas which
>> The discontinuity in magnetic properties can be tracked, although the
>> lack of ground control makes it difficult to see the details. The resolution
>> of the magnetic survey is determined by a number of factors - I would
>> imagine that the location of the fault would be known to at best a few
>> hundred meters, perhaps no better than a kilometer or two.
>
>They probably did not fly this survey at more than a few hundred meters
>elevation, and should know the fault location to within a few 10s or hundreds
>of meters.  I don't know for sure, having not read the report, but that's
>how these things normally run.  It looks likes it's time for one of the
>Geophysics profs in the area to take a geophysical field methods class
>out there and do a simple survey with a portable magnetometer or perhaps
>magnetotelluric survey.  That would pinpoint the fault.  Then it could be
>trenched and its activity evaluated that way.  Any of the .edu folks out
>there know a prof that needs a simple and interesting project?
>
Aeromag is sensitive only to magnetic contrasts, so what is important is
the depth of the uppermost magnetic contrast across the fault. This could be
at a few km depth, limiting the resolution from the aeromag survey. Also,
the aeromag survey probably wasn't undertaken to look for this particular
fault, so the trackline spacing is probably worse than you could get from
ground or shipboard (w/good navigation) measurements. So furhter measurements
will certainly enhance the knowledge of the fault's location, but I don't think
a few 10s of meters will be possible. There is still room for trenching, which
will pinpoint it exactly.

Jeff
From: gsroka@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gregory Sroka)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Quake felt in Menlo Park 1pm Sunday
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:28:41 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

I felt a small but very noticeable amount of shaking while
watching the Bills-New Orleans game. It was a bit unusual in that
it's the first one I've felt in quite a few months, and that it
was small and quick, but the leaves on our plants kept vibrating
for several seconds after we felt it. We heard the (2nd floor apt.)
walls creak, then a gentle wiggling through the couch I was on.
The initial shakes were very slight, which is why I was surprised at 
how long the plants picked up the higher frequency shaking. Could
this be from a long distance medium quake, or from a very close but small
one?  Does anyone know if and where the epicenter was?

-- 
Greg Sroka
Menlo Park, CA
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
From: kob@leland.Stanford.EDU (Walter Kob)
Subject: Looking for data from a seismograph
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 02:51:44 GMT

Hi there,

I would be interested to obtain the output of a seismograph, i.e.
the plot of the displacements (in whatever units) as a function of 
time or the whole data in binary form. Any ideas where I can find 
this?

Thank you for your help.

Walter
From: jim@specialix.com (Jim Maurer)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Re: types of earthquake predictions
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:32:20 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Specialix Inc.

fretts@willee.enet.dec.com (Carole Fretts) writes:


>Also, I recently read an article describing research done by a woman
>connecting eclipses to major earthquakes.  This research is astrologically
>based using astro-carto-graphy, which tracks planetary/angular placements
>on earth locations.  When particular planetary/angular combinations occur
>during an eclipse, there is a very high percentage of earthquake/volcanic
>activity in the area where this placement falls.  The eclipse of Dec. 9,
>1992 and the eclipse of Nov. 29, 1993 have these combinations falling right
>across California.  Based on her research, the events can occur up to
>12 months after the event, but most often they are sooner.

Gee, with a window that big even *I* can predict earthquakes!  :-)
Let me try it right now.  I predict a major earthquake will happen
in California on Jan. 2, 1993.  It could happen within 12 months after
that date, but more than likely will happen sooner.  My next California
earthquake prediction will be made next year.  That should about cover
it, since we usually have *at least* one major earthquake in California
every year.  I bet my prediction has an equal amount of happening
as the astro-carto-graphy based prediction.  :-)
Xref: sparky ca.earthquakes:1460 sci.geo.geology:2584
From: phil@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com (Phil English)
Subject: Earthquake
Keywords: Seismic Swarm
Organization: Lockheed Santa Cruz, CA.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 18:48:57 GMT

   I am pleased to read the Earthquake Report dated 12-3-92. I live on the 
edge of the Vergales Fault system west of San Juan Bautista and experienced 
the swarm mentioned in that report ocurring at night. located in 
Spring Canyon off of Crazy Horse Road, (Aromas Sandstones overlaying 
granites and fractured granites), we frequently feel quakes here unreported 
by the Berkeley Seismographic Observatory. This last swarm represents a 
marked increase in the last 96 hours starting Tuesday 12-8-92.
   I want to be able to phone a source of timely seismic observation for my 
area that can estimate M#, epicenter and hypocenter for these "local" 
events.
   I sometimes feel I'm living atop batho-troll that no one else believes 
exists. Please E-mail with Ph # info if avail..

			Thanks Phil