HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: entpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.hypertext
Subject: Re: Not desperately seeking Intermedia anymore
Date: 30 Aug 92 23:32:44 GMT
Reply-To: entpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

Re: Intermedia Alternative

I'm told that Brown replaced Intermedia with Storyspace from Eastgate
Systems, Inc. PO Box 1307 Cambridge Ma, 02238, 800-562-1638.

For free they sent me a demo disk w/o documentation and for $10.00
(applicable to purchase) they sent me a manual with lots of minor
errors and unclearnesses.  Documentation is not this outfit's long
suit.

I liked the program.  At the touch of a mouse button it squirts out
"cards" or storyspaces each of which is named (by you) and can hold
6500 words.  Story spaces may be placed inside one another.  Another
tool allows lines to connect spaces in a given order.  Documents may
be viewed as storyspaces, outlines or charts.  Paths through the
document may be built by the author and conditions set for users navigating
the document.  Storyspace also tracks one's progress through a document.

One especially nifty feature is that a reader may attach notes to
any storyspace without marring the text.

The authors of the program leave all font and formatting questions
to your fave dtp program.

There's more, but I suggest you see for yourself.  The program
sells for $295 or $125 to educational purchasers. Site licenses
are available.

Best regards,

Erik Timmerman
Film/Video Department
RIT
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
From: Steve Wart <swart@prodigy.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Contents of the 'Death Sea Scrolls': claim by Australian
     scientist
Organization: PTC Vancouver
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.0
     <18474.2a9e3ca8@levels.unisa.edu.au> <graham.715150073@galois>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:27:46 GMT


I find it quite interesting that the consensus position is considered to 
be 'scientific' while an argument based on carbon dating is written of by 
most of the respondents to this thread, simply because the poster is 
presenting an argument posited by (gasp!) a theologian.  What gives?  I 
was under the impression that paleography is an inexact science at best, 
at worst, it is ranked with numerology in its reliability.  Since I'm at 
work, I don't have any references handy, so can someone please summarize 
the paleographic methodology, explaining why it is superior to carbon 
dating, and how it provides the proof that the "reasonable" position 
accepted as the consensus is the correct one.

I haven't read Thiering's work, but it seems to have a superficial 
correspondence at least to other theories I've encountered, which are far 
more plausible than miracles and Catholic doctrine.

As far as the credibility of the consensus position is concerned, Geza 
Vermes and other such 'reputable scholars' have been under fire lately; 
their methods and objectivity are questionable, their loyalties are to 
the Vatican and Papal infallibility, not to scientific illumination.  I 
find the entire situation quite pitiful:  historians with legitimate 
research and ideas are ridiculed or ignored, while religious fanatics 
with clearly political motivations are allowed to propogate a consensus 
that is ridiculous and inconsistent.  They have a network of "experts" 
who have convinced the apathetic media that the scrolls really do not 
present a view of the past much different than what they have fed us all 
along.

Naturally, my employer does not care about this subject at all.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Is atheism experimentally refutable?
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:19:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep2.045811.5524@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>In article <92245.005237U55870@uicvm.uic.edu>
>U55870@uicvm.uic.edu (David James Alexander Hanley) writes:
>
>>   The fine point you seem to miss is that atheism, in the sense most users
>> here use it IS NOT A BELIEF!  It is the LACK of one.  Therefore 'faith'
>> hardly gets involved.
>
>Actually, a survey of alt.atheism readers found that the "Belief that
>god(s) do not exist" definition was preferred to the "Lack of belief in
>existence of god(s)" definition.  Your claim about "most users here" is
>on a rather weak footing.

Actually, a minor clarification is in order here: this is true across
all respondents, but the "Lack of belief" position was preferred by
those who identified themselves as atheists.  Since the usual argument
on this score is on what *atheists* consider their position to be,
this is significant.  "Most users here" is somewhat ambiguous, but I
would guess the intent was "Most self-styled atheists here".

More to the point, the "survey" was not particularly conclusive,
especially since it was simultaneously aimed at addressing "agnostic",
which introduces significant areas of gray.  As John Johnson
concluded, 

 The moral of this story is that, given the diverse opinions on the
 best definitions of atheism and agnosticism, one must be careful to
 define these terms in argument, or serious misunderstandings can cloud
 the discussions.
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: amck@mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
Subject: Re: Bush no friend of atheists (but Clinton no better)
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:48:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.201713.8190@adobe.com> mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
>
>Whoa, back up a bit. If you are in favor of individual rights, voting
>Republican is not the way to go! Republican presidents have been
>systematically stripping away our individual rights and protections
>(mostly by stacking the court systems) for the last twelve years. Just
>look at the War on Drugs fiasco for an indication of how far the
>Republicans are willing to go to regulate our behaviour.
>
>-- 
>Michael Wang
>mmwang@adobe.com


I completely agree.  Perhaps you missed my sentence immediately
following the paragraph you quoted in which I said I see the upcoming
elction as a "no-win situation".  Let me assure you, I plan on firmly
not voting for either major party's candidate this time around.  They
differ only in which of my rights they want to take away first (with
the others to follow).  I prefer to keep them all.

Alan
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Objectivity
Date: 23 Aug 92 01:25:19 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <sNBNPB4w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) wrote:
> 
> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Bob Beauchaine) writes:
> > In article <l8frfdINN3vg@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM| danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Da
> > |And this argument taken to its logical conclusion would
> > |seem to suggest that the word "objective" is useless.
> > |Right?
> > 
> >   Not at all.  Take a large rock, say 20 pounds.  Hold it directly
> >   over your foot.  Now drop it.  You *will* hit your foot.  In any
> >   culture, at any time, under any circumstances.
> 
> Hmm.  What about in 2090, in a culture which lives in a space station in
> geostationary orbit under zero gravity?
> 
> What about in a Virtuality virtual reality system?

Hmm, my business card states as my title "Cyberspace engineer", so I
guess I have to answer. One important aspect of Virtual Reality (VR)
and user interfaces is consistency, in other words *firm rules*. The
nearer we model it based on the non-VR world, the easier to learn
the rules of the VR-world. It is true that in VR rules are bound to
be broken, however it should be in most cases the responsibility of
the VR-user to introduce non-standard elements. I'm excluding 
"World of Tiers" style fantasy games VR systems.

So either one gets the stone on the foot, or not. But the case
should be consistent. 

I personally do think that the introduction of real-world modelled
VR systems will make the ordinary man think about the issue of
reality and non-reality. And where things based on nomadic God
worshipping schemes suddenly sounds oh so primitive.

Cheers,
Kent
---
"Read my lips... No Willie Horton..."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Contents of the 'Death Sea Scrolls': claim by Australian scientist
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 09:11:33 GMT

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
> A410JACQ@HASARA11.BITNET (Jacqueline Cote) writes:

[stuff about 'Dead Sea Scrolls' and Merovingian dynasty deleted]

>If you are gullible enough to believe that story, I have a question for you.
>Would you be interested in buying some beach-front property in Arizona?
>(There's lots of "beach" down there you know.)  Or how about the Brooklin
>Bridge?  Or closer to home perhaps, the Eiffel Tower?

Compared to the shit _you_ believe in, that's pretty normal. You really
can't talk.

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<17dm64INNcau@apollo.ksu.ksu.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:49:24 GMT

In article <17dm64INNcau@apollo.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@apollo.ksu.ksu.edu
 (Jonathan W Newton) writes:

  >What is your definition of evidence?  Do you want to read it in a Medical
  >Journal?  Logical arguements can act as legitimate evidence,

  You're babbling. The statement "logical arguments can act as legitimate
evidence" is sadly lacking in meaning. Please try to make contact with
reality.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Virgin Goddess ....
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:39:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.175355.24369@adobe.com> mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:
}In article <1992Sep1.165250.14591@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
}>BTW, I heard on the radio this morning (normal secular radio,
}>mind you) that JC and his mom made an appearance yesterday
}>somewhere in Kentucky.  Lots of people claimed to see the
}>wonderful apparition.  When one of the lucky viewers was 
}>asked why some people saw the sight and others did not,
}>the answer was that you had to be a believer to see it.

Does the phrase "emperor's new clothes" ring a bell?

}Yes, I saw this on the local news last night. They interviewed some of
}the people who "saw" the Virigin Mary and, of course, they gave completely
}different descriptions of what she looked like.

Hard to be more different than "was" and "wasn't"...
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Date: 23 Aug 92 21:52:43 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <SPACE.92Aug23153944@ncc1701.stgt.sub.org> space@ncc1701.stgt.sub.org (Lars Soltau) writes:
>Someone insisting on a random guy,
>one supposedly of the highest possible moral standards at that, being tortured
>to death before being willing to forgive someone long death looks like the
>biggest jerk on earth to me.

Correction One.  The guy in question deserves neither praise nor
respect for his high moral standards.  We are told that his morality
(sinlessness, whatever) was conditioned by his extraordinary birth,
and he did nothing to earn that.

Correction Two.  Being tortured to death implies dying, and dying
implies remaining dead for the rest of your life.  The guy supposedly
experienced some physical pain for a few hours, then was withdrawn
from circulation for two days, and after that was alive and walking,
and fit to return to his usual schedule.  So what's the big deal?  It
doesn't sound like much to me at all.  I'm sure most people would
agree to go through it for a reasonable fee, and no money can buy the
publicity this guy got.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: assholes
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:50:30 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <j1moody-010992233350@lafmac15.lafortune.lab.nd.edu>,
j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) says:
>Wouldn't you really have to see all of existence to make
>such a pompous claim as "there is no god"?
>
>But for some bag of blood and bones that hasn't lived more than 100 years
>on this blue ball of earth to reject the idea of "god" altogether. . .
>

Pompous?
I would say that you are pompous if you think that some "God" created all this
just for a bunch of "assholes" (your word) like you.  You think you're the
center of this universe?!  It matters if you go to this fairy tale land "Heaven
" or "Hell"?  Just because some of us have the "balls" to question, it doesn't
make us pompous!

By the way, THERE IS NO GOD!

                     So there!
                         Eylon
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: LIFE GOES ON UNTIL YOU DIE
Date: 1 Sep 1992 20:20:53 GMT
Organization: Hmmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

I had written:

  Do you not despair that one day the "you" that is uniquely
  you will be gone forever?
 
(Allen Ethridge) replied:

 The "me" that was uniquely me years ago already is gone forever.  The "me"
 that i am today will soon be gone.  Such a notion of Self is illusory, and if
 you give up that illusion you have no reason to fear death.
 
 If i could believe in a permanent, unique "me" then i could also believe in
 immortality and maybe even in god.
 
Granted that the totality of who a person is changes from moment
to moment, one could make the case that (just as we sleep and
later awaken), one is constantly dying and being reborn all
the time.

I think this misses the point however. For example if the "you"
that was uniquely "you" two years ago is gone forever, the 
"you" that is still uniquely "you *remembers* that "you"
from two years ago.

Eventually, there will be no historical "you", no consciousness
whatsoever: this is the basic anxiety which informs all
sub/un consciousness.

Dano
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:24:50 GMT

fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:

>======================================================================
>Extract from 'Seal of God' by F.C.Payne (1974):

>BIBLE NUMERICS - FIRST ASPECT

>The New Testament begins with the genealogy of Christ back to
>Abraham. It is interesting to note that this genealogy itself is
>divided into three sets of 14: Abraham to David (14), David to
>Babylon (14), Babylon to Christ (14). See Matt. 1:17. It has two
>natural sectiond, verses 1-11 and 12-17. I am but giving some
>examples from the section 1 to 11, the latter section contains
>similar phenomena which need not be enumerated. The following now is
>from the Greek, in whick the N.T. is written. The actual numerics are
>by Dr. Panin.

	And what does this prove ? I dunno. (7 words). 

		Andreas (7 letters). "letters" has 7 letters. 

Bye, dude ! 

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik (Hacker))
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reply to Gregg Skinner
Date: 23 Aug 92 01:29:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Apple

In article <Bt8qsu.App@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, skinner@symcom.math.uiuc.edu
(Gregg Skinner) wrote:
> Let me clarify.  Note that the original law came from God via a man,
> Moses.  Christianity holds Paul to be at least as important as Moses.
> Detaching ourselves from the religion Christianity, we can talk about
> Paul's opinions as just the opinions of one man.  Under the umbrella
> of Christianity, though, Paul holds considerable authority, that of an
> apostle.

A hypothetical question. What would Christianity look like today
*without* the intervention of Paul? I hope some Christians would
spend a couple of seconds thinking about this, because it is the
key to the success of Christianity today.

Cheers,
Kent

---
"Read my lips... No Willie Horton..."
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.pagan,alt.religion.emacs,rec.games.frp,sci.physics,soc.motss,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage
From: erc@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: Where it came from (was Re: Survey)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:21:58 GMT

Matthew D. Goldman (goldman@orac.CRAY.COM) wrote:

: In article <STDKAP1.92Aug29160913@icarus.spc.uchicago.edu> stdkap1@icarus.spc.uchicago.edu (Dietrich Kappe) writes:
: >>When you die, where will you go?  (in the ground is not a valid answer)
: >
: >The answer is obvious. You go in the background.
: 
: Naah, just catch the signals and ignore them!  Unix even has undead
: processes...

Yeah, they're called zombies.  I just wish had a call like:

	signal(ISG_IGN, John_Emory);

		or

	signal(SIG_IGN, RELIGIOUS_BIGOTS);

(the above message is smiley-captioned for the humor-impaired) :) :)
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG     erc@apple.com                801/538-0177
"This is the final task I will ever give you, and it  goes  on  forever.   Act
happy, feel happy, be happy, without a reason in the world. Then you can love,
and do what you will."           -- Dan Millman, "Way Of The Peaceful Warrior"
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:26:17 EDT
From: <EXG106@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: In the Infinite Universe
 <schinder.714759872@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov>

According to the Bing Bang theory, there are three possible  "futures" for this
 universe of ours.  Assuming that enough mass exists in the universe and a big
Crunch results (I personally would like to believe that this senario will occur
), space would be in a sense, infinite.  Consider this: you draw dots on the su
rface of a balloon.  Each of those dots represents a galaxy (or a cluster or su
per-cluster: irrelevent).  As you inflate the balloon the space between the bal
loons expands.  If you start at one point and begin moving in a straight line (
 which in this case would be restricted to the surface of the balloon, so it wo
uld actually be a curved line which would be the shortest distance between two
points: non-euclidean geometry), you would go on forever, hence infinity.  Now
just imagine that on a three dimensional scale. (good luck)
:)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: LORD, LIAR, OR LUNATIC?
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:54:44 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <92244.153222U19807@uicvm.uic.edu> U19807@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>Uh....I don't want to even come close to touching the argument that Joyce's,
>er,"argument" is taken wholesale from "Evidence That Demands A Verdict",but
>has anyone noticed that the argument-no matter its ultimate source-runs into
>the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority (or whatever the hell it's called in Latin)
>more than once?

Yes, absolutely.  The reason for the reaction here to the posting from
Evidence... is that this particular work is so well-known here, and
generally considered to be a remarkable example of the use of fallacy.
As for appeal to authority, we need only observe the characteristic
style of McDowell's argument, which is essentially a series of quotes
of the form:

    "Jones, the historian, has written '(opinion of Jones)'"
    "Smith, the Christian apologist, has written '(opinion of Smith)'"
    "Napoleon, cited in Smith, wrote '(opinion of Napoleon)'"

One of the features of McDowell's work, and of the Trilemma argument
in particular, is that it is so deeply and complexly flawed that it is
very difficult to know where to begin criticizing it.  A complete
rebuttal would require an order of magnitude, at least, more words
than are present in the original argument.  It is also very clever, in
a dishonest way, in that those promoting it are perfectly willing to
turn the argument on its head.  The argument ultimately comes down to
a purported attempt to perform a complete decision-tree search
eliminating all branches and leaving the extraordinary claim that
Jesus was God as the only remaining rational possibility, however
implausible.  And yet, the grounds for discarding huge clusters of
branches of the tree come down to things like "it seems unlikely that
anyone would follow someone who appeared to be insane", ignoring first
the obvious fact that people clearly *do* follow apparently insane
leaders (Jim Jones comes to mind), and second that even if that is
considered unlikely, it is less so than the intended conclusion.  This
is typical of the historical apologetic argument ("But how could a
wounded but alive Jesus move the stone from the tomb?  Nope, it must
have been a physical manifestation of the almighty creator of the
universe.")

Enough, already, I could run on all day...
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jedwards@ms.uky.edu (Jonathan Edwards)
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Keywords: creationist propaganda
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:46:51 GMT

danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:

>   Week ago Sunday I was reading the paper and enjoying my coffee when I
>noticed the comic strip B.C. (by J. Hart) had Wiley doing a poem that said (my
>paraphrase) "The world just got here by accident.  Right.  Suuurrre".  Since
>this is a standard creationist line I started paying attention and sure enough,
>one of the daily strips was Wiley doing a poem about prayer in schools.  He was
>bitchiong that the establishment clause of the first amendment didn't contain
>the phrase "wall of seperation between church and state" and deducing that that
>notion had, as a result, no constitutional weight.

>... How long has B.C. been pulling this stuff?

This is certainly not Johnny Hart's first time...

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15840 talk.religion.misc:14794
From: entropy@world.std.com (Lawrence C Foard)
Subject: Pythagorean Reform Church
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:51:12 GMT

I have a wonderful message to bring to the world!

Last night the number 4 came to me in a dream and told me that I
must bring the pythagorean Gospel to the world!

The number 4 said that the message must be spread throughout the
whole of the world, passed out in Airports, in Harvard Square
and on the internet. The number 4 was saddened to see that the
world has reverted to eating BEANS, and belief in false numbers!

With the divine guidance of 4 I am starting the Pythagorean Reform
church to spread the Gospel far and wide. With the guidance of 4
I hope we can soon bring the message to the world over the PBN
(Pythagorean Broadcasting Network).



-- 
----          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!         ----
\  /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers        \  /
 \/   and bean eating ways. Accept the #4 into your heart! \/
     Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568        
Newsgroups: alt.atheism