HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 04:04:17 GMT
Followup-To: alt.aliens.visitors

In article <62762@cup.portal.com>, John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
> Dear Astral Folks: The results of the first weekly Astral Convoy was as
> follows the person we called E started his astral journey in good order
> hitching up with me (I think) and I got a picture of a male person sort of

How does this astral travel work, i.e., "you think" you hooked up
with E? Are you in a fog?

> handsome, looking out to his left and my right. He is white. We then went

Just curious, how can this guy be perceived as handsome, when you
are not even sure who you hook up with?

> over to Hawaii and woke up a lady whoes first name starts with the letter
> K (I think).  She woke up at 3:30 am with E. by her side. Gregg didn't 

How do you know you were in hawaii?

> make contact as far as he knows. I don't know what happened to Shannon

Greg might have hooked-up but doesn't know?

> and I didn't send him a picture of myself yet. I thought Kumar was in
> Germany but he was actually in Penn. USA and he couldn't get himself in 

So you quickly left germany and headed for penn?

> the proper mood to receive me. We now have Linda in England that wants to
> get in on this. Remember anybody that wants in, each Wed. 1100 PM  


Maybe you were hooked-up with sannon and didn't know it?
Is LSD a prerequisite to astral travel? How much is taken?
I'm curious 'cause your report sounds disjointed and rather vague.

Thanks

P.S. No thanks on the astral offer. If you don't even know who
you are traveling with, you could run into some astral thugs,
unless of course thugs don't travel astral.

Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3499 alt.alien.visitors:4811 sci.skeptic:13229
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: 25 Jul 92 22:50:06 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Followup-To: talk.religion.newage
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

In <62580@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:

    Dear Dan: Your pretty cotton picking funny. Sounds like your having
    a good laugh out of all of this.

I hope we all are.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     Being a BALD HERO is almost as FESTIVE as a TATTOOED
 |warren@      KNOCKWURST.
/ nysernet.org 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson)
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Organization: International Shared Information Service (Ottawa)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 18:34:45 GMT

moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz) writes:

> Doug Thompson writes:

> >Descartes' little attempt to find a starting point to 'certainty' strikes me
> >as rather silly, and missing the point. All he really manages to do, to my
> >mind, is demonstrate that the only things one can really be completely
> >certain of are trivial and unimportant. Again, who needs to prove to himself
> >that he exists? Does not doubting one's own existence suggest a bit of
> >mental imbalance?
> 
> Hardly.  It speaks to the foundations of philosophy.  I think that

Well yes, of course it does. That's the whole point! If the foundation of
philosophy for the last 300 years is silly - and you have suggested as much
by pointing out that the unquestioned assumption of independent existence is
actually an error (error=silly?) - then the foundation point of philosophy
is - well - silly. Or to put it another way, starts from a very fundamental
error.

If one starts off with an erroneous assumption, it follows that everything
you build on that foundation will be erroneous.

Descartes seeks certainty without first questioning the independent
existence of the self, or ego, or that which might 'possess' certainty. The
result may be knowledge of a kind, but in the absence of knowledge of the
knower, that which is known suffers from almost inevitable error.

It is certainly my opinion, that aside from the Philosophy of Science, from
which a great deal of knowledge about logic has derived, Western Philosophy
for the past 300 years has been remarkably sterile concerning the questions
that philosophy used to apply its attention to: "What is life?" "What is
man?" "What is the good life?" "What is a good society?" "How do we achieve
that?"

And I would characterize a main cause of that sterility in much the same
words you use - getting confused about the knower in relation to the
assumption of 'independent existence' on the part of the knower.

=Doug

----------------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP: uunet.ca!uuisis.isis.org!doug                Voice: 613-722-4724
DNS:  doug@uuisis.isis.org, doug@uuisis.UUCP, doug@isishq.fidonet.org
                      SKAN Communications Inc
      POST: P.0. Box 3041, Stn C., Ottawa, K1Y 4J3, CANADA 
----------------------------------------------------------------------



> authors of the book that I mentioned would say that the perspective
> from which Descartes proceeded assured his erring.  I don't completely
> agree but it is thought provoking.
> 
> -- 
> Len Moskowitz
> moskowit@panix.com

Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:3495 alt.alien.visitors:4804 sci.skeptic:13218
From: ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: 25 Jul 92 18:31:50 GMT
Reply-To: ingria@BBN.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com
In-reply-to: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com's message of Sat, 25 Jul 1992 04:04:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.040417.22282@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:

   P.S. No thanks on the astral offer. If you don't even know who
   you are traveling with, you could run into some astral thugs,
   unless of course thugs don't travel astral.

``This is the Mind Spider, checking in!''
	-- Fritz Leiber, ``The Mind Spider''

-30-
Bob
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 09:03:59 GMT

walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:

>> walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:

>>>for an excellant overview of this from a scientific point of view,
>>>check out the latest SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN - the article on
>>>Quantum Philosophy. Great stuff. 
>> 
>>   well, i've quite the background in quantum philosophy--enough to know
>> that it leads to more despair than hope.

>please explain. do you mean despair in finding your "absolute truth?"
>existential despair? are you looking for some sort of god whose
>picture you have in your mind and are being driven to despair
>when you don't find him? If He's not in quantum mechanics, where
>is He? Is "absolute truth" your codeword for something divorced from
>the reality we see around us?  

  quantum philosophy as part of a collection of developments of 20th century
physics has served to undermine many notions inherent in classical fizzix.
the entire paradigms of understanding we have been applying to the universe
and hence being questioned and removed from the artificially sanctified
state of true.  kinda like the flat earth idea being corrected.  the despair
comes with the observation that 1.) humanity [lacking omniscience as it is]
is unable to come up with an absolute, exhaustive, objective description
of the true nature of reality, and 2.) since we are inextricably connected
with the universe, our measuring and assessment of what reality really is
supports my observation that we can never for ourselves fully know anything.
hence the despair of quantum philosophy.  it's great for pub conversations
and speculation about unified field theory tho.  i'm afraid the rest of your
questions belong in alt.conspiracy.

>there seems to be a great deal of background to this thread that 
>you are not communicating.

  do you have a specific question in mind for me hidden in that comment?
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Sweeping Generalization Alert!
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:18:33 GMT
Organization: Bureau of Sweeping Generalizations!
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Doug Thompson) writes:

>3) Many Jews today recognize Jesus as Messiah, so I quibble with your 'from
>the Jewish perspective'. "From the perspective of non-believing Jews . . ."
>ok.

Oh? No religious jews I have heard about (with the minor exception
of "Jews for Jesus") believe that Jesus was >the< Christ (i.e.,
"the anointed one"). 

If you have other information, I'd be interested to read it.

---
Dano
1st Warning Department
Sub-Assistant 3rd Class to the
Junior Associate Undersecretary
Petty Offenses Division
Bureau of Sweeping Generalizations
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:36:00 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <19106@ector.cs.purdue.edu>, sjc@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin) writes:

>If we had the libertarian system in place today, how many businessmen
>would hold onto old-growth forests because they might someday provide
>a monetary gain because they consume CO2?  They can sell the lumber,
>today, and make mucho bucks, or they can hold onto it in the hopes
>that future societal changes implement CO2 property rights, and that
>under that future system they can make money off their forests.

If we had a Liberatarian system in place today, the entertainment business
would buy up huge tracts of such land and charge tree-huggers for camping and
admiring raw nature.  Or organizations funded by hunters would buy them for
hunting preserves, or organizations funded by universities and schools would
buy them for forestry research or nature study, or organizations of tree-
huggers could STOP giving money to lobbyists trying to get the gov't to steal
land and instead give it to an organization that would just BUY the damn land
and let the treehuggers sit and contemplate it in rapture.

If the auctioning of CO2 were permitted, as many people in this group has
suggested, then it is logical that anyone owning a forest would be granted
some CO2-sink options every year to sell to the highest bidder.  It may well
be the Wyerhauser might leave some old growth intact if the Long Island
Lighting Company would pay them more for the CO2 sink than builders would for
the lumber.

Libertarians don't spoon-feed solutions to people, they are interested in
making it possible for people to devise and implement their own without having
to run a gamut of gov't regulation.  But you need an imagination and some
brains.  I realize the country has a dearth of both, but no system is perfect.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily I'd go over to Congress - that grand old benevolent national asylum - and
report on the inmates there.  Never seen a body of men with tongues more handy,
or information more uncertain.  If one of those men had been present when the
Deity was on the point of saying "Let there be light" we never would've had it.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Guilt of the West
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 17:35:57 GMT

In article <3600@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>$4/gal wouldn't bother me personally, but the US standard of living
>would go down quite a bit and I assume that the "poor" people in
>the US would suffer the most.  Since the current market price is
>$1.15 or so, who would get to keep the $2.85 difference?  

Well, for starters, maybe it could be used to payback some of the
costs of road construction that are currently supported by property
taxes. After that, maybe it could be used to fund research into ways
of cleaning up the atmosphere and building cleaner, more efficient
cars. After that, it could be used to help sustain the road
infrastructure at a higher level than has been the case to date. After
that, maybe it could be used to fund payments for those critically
injured by car accidents where no driver was clearly at fault.

I imagie that that might take care of most of the $2.85, but I haven't
followed McCarthy's dictum, so we may be out one way or another.

-- paul
-- 
"Fun" is a word invented by advertising executives to sell soft drinks.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: "Keep Your Pollution!" (Article)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<3596@execu.execu.com>
	<1992Jul29.184512.13509@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:57:01

British exploitation of their colonies was more than compensated for
by the introduction of railroads, capitalism and a proper legal system.
The real damage that Britain did to its former colonies occurred towards
the end of its rule and was the propagation of the ideology of the
British Labour Party.  That probably did even more harm in the former
colonies than it did in Britain.  In many of them it still dominates,
as is shown by the Maneka Gandhi nonsense.

As for Paul Barton-Davis's guilt feelings, I started to write
a parody of the Hippopotamus Song by Flanders and Swan. It's
chorus goes

Guilt, guilt, middle class guilt
Whether it's milk or it's blood that's been spilt
Come follow me, follow, to where we will wallow,
Yes, we will wallow in middle class guilt.

Pehaps he or someone else will help complete the guilt song.
The Labour Party could sing it at congresses in place of The Red Flag;
it would lose them fewer votes.

Somehow I doubt the sincerity of Barton-Davis's claim that the left
Britain for political reasons.  It's possible, but I still doubt it.


As to the United Nations, the democracies dominated the UN when it
was first formed, about through the end of the Korean War.  After
that, the Security Council was stalemated until the collapse of
communism when it again became dominated by the democracies.
After the Korean War, poisonous Third World politics came to dominate
the General Assembly abetted by the communists.  It still dominates
it.  It seems to me that the greatest triumph of ideology over interest
in history occurred when the poor nations supported the rise in oil
prices that further impoverished them, perhaps on the basis of some
vague notion that it would hurt the developed world more.

Finally exactly what countries do you claim were "screwed over by the west"
and in what way?

Specifically, what about Puerto Rico?  Do you demand its independence
from the U.S. in opposition to the great majority of its inhabitants.
Independence got 6 percent in the last election, and the country is
divided between those who want statehood and those who want to preserve
the economic privileges of it present "commonwealth" status.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Rainforest Crunch ice cream, was Re: Whole Foods ...
Organization: Save the Humans!
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 08:39:05 GMT
Summary: it's real; cute story too

Here's the scoop on Ben & Jerry's rainforest sustaining ice cream.

In article <92204.202718MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu>, Mark
Kubiske is on the right track:
>
>I seem to recall that B&J's contributes a portion of their profits to
>alternative utilization of tropical forests - alternative to timber
>harvesting - such as commercial sale of fruits and nuts.

Ben & Jerry's contributes some fraction greater than 5% of their net to
relatively controversial charities involved in habitat conservation, cultural
exchanges, and conversion to a peacetime economy.  The movement is known as
"1% for Peace."  This idea infuriates the "keep your religion in church"
school of investing, who can't understand why Ben & Jerry's is such a
success when they seem to act like a bunch of hippies.

> ...  I think they even
> market a "tropical granola crunch" bar or "trail mix" of sorts.

One of the more successful Alternative Trading Organizations (see my recent
post on ATOs) markets a tasty nut brittle made with nuts sustainably harvested
by natives of tropical rainforests, Rainforest Crunch.

A few years ago, Ben & Jerry's introduced a flavor called "Cherry Garcia" 
labeled in rock-art style lettering.  Shortly they were in talks with the 
Grateful Dead organization, which had trademarked band leader Jerry Garcia's 
name.  In one of the most creative and constructive trademark infringement
settlements of all time, Ben & Jerry's (no relation!) agreed to introduce
Rainforest Crunch ice cream, which is full of the expensive nut brittle.
(Garcia, it turns out, is a rainforest activist...)

In other ice cream news, Ben & Jerry's won a rare antitrust case against
the multinational corporation which markets "Haagen Daas" brand.  It seems
Haagen Daas wouldn't distribute to any retailer who also carries Ben &
Jerry's at any location, and the judge said that's illegal restraint of trade
under the Sherman Act.  Which is why you can find Ben & Jerry's anyplace that
carries "Haagen Daas" now.  And there's not enough Rainforest Crunch to go
around.  So do your bit for Amazonia: run down to your nearby supermarket and
demand your Rainforest Crunch ice cream!

>Ben & Jerry's is too damn expensive anyway.

Be that way.  I'll eat your share.  :-)

>Mark
Cameron Spitzer in San Jose

For more information on products sustainably harvested by indigenous peoples,
contact Cultural Survival, 53 Church ST, Cambridge MA 02138    (617) 495-2562

For more information on "how to align buying and investing habits with
values of peace, cooperation, and environmental protection," contact Co-op
America, 2100 M ST NW STE 403, Washington DC 20037  (800) 424-2667

[Harmful Effects Assessment:  Too much ice cream will rot your teeth and
make you fat.  Don't forget to brush, and get some exercise.  :-) ]

Organization: Freshman, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: hank@well.sf.ca.us (Hank Roberts)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:25:26 GMT

In <JMC.92Jul22215026@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>A mere scientist should hesitate to intrude in this learned dialog
>about political and economic system is best for the environment, but
>what if old growth forests don't consume CO2 but are in equilibrium
>with the CO2 in the atmosphere?


>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Briefly, even assuming that old growth forests are in equilibrium
at any given time, they're producing topsoil (which is at least
half arthropod shit, in the temperate coniferous rain forests).
The steady conversion of CO2 into topsoil is the contribution that
old growth forests make (well, they also convert it into salmon,
and other interesting forms of solidified carbon).

Most of the CO2 released from intensive logging is from oxidation of
soils, not from the trees.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark )
Subject: Re: Cruise line dumping
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 10:45:50 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <92198.174045MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu> MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>Isn't it conceveable to you that empty beverage containers could (would)
>easily be tossed overboard by passengers who are "having a good time"?  Why
>would cruise lines dump garbage into shipping lanes knowing (as you and I
>do) that currents will carry their company logo to shore?  And if it IS the
>passengers that are doing this ...  how often do you drive the speed limit?
>The point is, that even facing rather severe penalties, probably most people
>have little regard for simple rules if they themselves don't see the harm.

Ummm... No, it's not conceivable.  Of course, I can't really understand
people so damn lazy that they toss garbage out of a car window, either.

Why would a cruise line dump garbage knowing that currents will carry
their logo to shore?  Why not?  Most of the garbage will eventually rot,
the people living on those shores don't have any power to stop the 
company, it's probably not illegal or enforceable.  Why should they
care?  They cater to people who are lazy, rich, and wasteful anyway.

I ALWAYS drive the speed limit (on those rare occasions when I drive).
Saves mongo on the gas bill (and pisses off the rest of the speeding
motorists to boot).

"... if they themselves don't see the harm."  At last, the real reason,
IGNORANCE.

Ken
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.politics.marrou
From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:50:45 GMT


In article <1992Jul21.213229.4946@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes...
>In article <1992Jul21.035335.25089@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
>>I am Libertarian on most issues, but their stance on the environment
>>does little for me. 
> 
>Unfortuneately, the environmental movement has allowed itself to become
>dominated by socialists like Al Gore, who thinks that government
>intervention is _a priori_ the answer to new problems.  It is much

Perhaps the most successful environment organization out there is The
Nature Conservancy.  Although they don't complete avoid government (in
particular, they partner with them when convenient) they function
primarily through the normal means of property rights.  The Nature
Conservancy quite simply purchases land to protect wildlife and
ecosystems, using privately donated funds.  Ducks Unlimited, another one
of the biggies, does similar things for wetlands.  In other words, there
are plenty of examples out there of where the private property model is
working.

.............................................................................

Hal Berenson	

Home: 71640.3535@compuserve.com
Work: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com

-- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's! If
I happen to communicate with you from work rather than home, its just
for convenience (just like asking for a "daytime phone number") and should
not be construed as representing the views of my employer or its
employees, officers, directors, or stockholders. --