HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Roman Priesthoods (Flamen Dialis)
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:36:50 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <JMC.92Jul25201550@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> Flamen Dialis includes in his signature:
> 
>      Technomad.  Portmanteau word from a novel I'm roughing out,
>      about a nomadic culture in a "cyberpunk" dark future.
> 
> Here I thought it was an adjective used by the deep ecologists
> to characterize people who favor nuclear reactors, the SCSC
> and the genome projects.
> --
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> *
> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> 

They got slew of newsgroups where they, among other things, debate the
meaning of that word.  A quick search of the string "cyber" generates
a list below.  === Al

alt.cyberpunk
alt.cyberpunk.chatsubo
alt.cyberpunk.movement
alt.cyberpunk.tech
alt.cyberspace
alt.cyberspace.tech
alt.cybertoon
From: kkniaz@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Krzysztof W. Kniaz)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Paul Von Hindenburg
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:33:03 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Jul29.113513.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>[...] It's only fair to add that, as President, he
>was obliged to appoint Hitler because his party had a majority in that
>country's equivalent of Parliament (I don't think it was called the
>Riechstag then).
>                    === Al Sparks

Wrong! NSDAP had never achieved a majority in the Reichstag (same name since
1848). In fact Hitler's party lost many seats in 1930 elections and was
on the verge of financial collapse. Hitler was given a chance to lead a 
MINORITY goverment. German rightwingers decided to use Hitler as a 
bully against communists. Unfortunately for everyone he was much smarter
(or perhaps luckier) than they thought.

Chris.
--

Krzysztof Kniaz, University of Pennsylvania | If you can't learn  
Lab for Research on the Structure of Matter | to do it well,
Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA                | learn to enjoy doing it badly.
From: miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman )
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Population of Rome, et al
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:07:19 GMT
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California

fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:

>define "early").  You've got to start somewhere.  During the time of
>the Roman Empire, there were few "big" cities.  What was the population of
>Rome at that time?  20,000?  === Al Sparks

	The Roman Empire extended a long time.  I believe that around the
	time of Julius Caesar the population of Rome was around 250,000.
	I think Pericles' Athens was around 50,000.  Italy around 0 AD
	was around 10-15 million, counting slaves.  Both Italy and Rome
	grew and shrank in population over the several hundred years of
	the Roman Empire.

	These are remembrances of books past, so I can't give sources,
	and I could be off.  (But I don't think so :))

	- Michael Goldman

-- 
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have
exhausted all other alternatives." - Abba Eban
	Disclaimer:  All views are solely my own & not the views of Acuson.
	<sun!sono!miklg>  or  [miklg@acuson.com]
From: vvirrank@cc.Helsinki.FI (Ville Virrankoski)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: NATO/Warsaw Pact forces (was Re: Greatest Prez...)
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:03:41 GMT
	<1992Jul8.153227.2698@desire.wright.edu>
	<JMC.92Jul14002258@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Jul21.201752.12569@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
	<l6p7osINN60u@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
Organization: University of Helsinki, Finland

In article <l6p7osINN60u@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.201752.12569@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey) writes:
>>
>>I believe the 10-1 figure either refers to the massive numerical superiority
>>of WP artillery to NATO artillery (wasn't it more like 11-1?) or the ratio
>>of WP tanks in Europe to UNITED STATES tanks in Europe.  
>
>The Soviets sure do like their arty...

Has this anything to do with the fact that Finnsh arty vaporized half a
Arm Guards Div and parts of other forces in Tali-Ihantala 1944? :-)
(Only Soviet strategic offensive that didn't succeed (partly success)
 in WWII.)
Xref: sparky soc.history:6798 talk.politics.misc:36604 ca.politics:6144 rec.arts.books:13449 misc.legal:15188
From: chucks@uars2.acd.ucar.edu (Chuck Smythe)
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,rec.arts.books,misc.legal
Subject: Re: _A Constitutional History of the United States_
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:17:01 GMT
Organization: Ntl Center for Atmospheric Research, Atmospheric Chemistry

>In article <1992Jul29.151532.2789@aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

> It frustrates when I hear people condemning those who don't read. 

> Though I grew up in an era when reading was the norm, I am not
> blinded to the fact that the world has changed. The written
> word is no longer the primary means of extended communication.
> That, as a fact, is neither good or bad. It is only different.

I'm afraid I can't agree.  I get frustrated when I watch television or
vidio, because 

- The bandwidth is low: I can read several times as rapidly as anyone can talk.
  Granted, a picture is occasionally worth a thousand words, but in general
  ideas and information dribble in painfully slowly.  
 
- It is difficult to present a complex, sustained argument or a dense array
  of facts, if only because the viewer can't quickly and easily go back to
  review something said earlier.  And in any case, this sort of thing is
  rarely attempted in video media.

- On the other hand, it is difficult to skim uninteresting material and
  hasten on to the meat of the matter.  I'm stuck sitting through ads, "human
  interest" bits, trivial banter, and all.  Incredibly time consuming.

- Finally (and this difficulty is not inherent in the medium, merely a        
  consequence of the way it is commonly used today) _everything_  is for
  beginners.  There is no television show, no video tape on any subject that
  assumes any prior background.  Even a decent general education is rarely
  taken for granted.  The basic, 101 level material is covered over and
  over and the next step is never taken.

All this applies, of course, to "non-fiction".  Entirely different problems
arise in comparing video fiction to printed fiction.  But for communicating  
ideas and information, video is terribly unsatisfactory.  For this reason,
I fear that a generation that will not read is a generation condemned to
ignorance, and that this great change in the world is very much a change for
the worse.

			Chuck Smythe
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,rec.arts.books,misc.legal
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: _A Constitutional History of the United States_
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:15:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.045850.8606@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <11425@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>
>>
....
>>    It is a sad fact of life in contemporary America that reading
>>    is neither the favorite activity nor the most common skill
>>    among college students.  It is pointless to write a book or 
>>    clear and readily comprehensible.[p. 2]

>>.....

>>While a sad commentary on the state of education, it also means
>>that the book is nearly painless to read, even for those who are
>>only somewhat interested in constitutional history, and are reading
>>such a book because they should, rather than because of unbounded
>>interest.

It frustrates when I hear people condemning those who don't read. Though I
grew up in an era when reading was the norm, I am not blinded to the fact
that the world has changed. The written word is no longer the primary means
of extended communication. That, as a fact, is neither good or bad. It is
only different.

It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. If that is true,
a half hour TV show is worth 108,000 words or the equivalent of 2 to 6
hours of reading. I am sure many will get negative images of couch potatoes
mindlessly sitting in front of sitcoms when they read this. There are other
other images that this thought should bring to mind.

Think of the images of brutality in South Africa captured by handycams
which have done so much to change that culture. Think how much Los Angeles
was changed by 1 minute of amatuer video captured over a year ago. much of
the changes in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact were due to people
there seeing sitcoms playing on TV stations in Finland, in West Germany and
elsewhere. These are the realities of todays communication. It does not
good to moan and groan about the good old days when people read. One can
not put the genie back in the bottle.

Those who have important ideas to communicate would do well to think about
they can communicate them through video rather hopelessly wishing for the
good old days.


Nora writes:
>
>You, and he, should speak for yourselves. I'm a college student currently
>on leave of absence, which means I'm not required to read anything -- and
>still go through four or five nonfiction books a week and am reading fic-
>tion almost constantly. (Do not walk softly in front of me. I may bump into
>you without lifting my head.)
>
>Generalizations should be handled with care. 
>
>>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>
>	-Nora
>
>

Not all ideas can be well expressed by video. Thus I admire people of
today like Nora who can and do read. I admire most of all those who can
work well, both with the written word and in the visual world.

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer



Newsgroups: soc.history
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japanese atrocities)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<STEINLY.92Jul20183207@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Jul23.163123.2447@island.COM>
Date: 23 Jul 92 11:57:50

Also the occupations of Eastern Poland (in collaboration with Hitler)
and the occupations of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and the attack
on Finland don't count.  Soviet support for the North Korean attack
on South Korea doesn't count either.  Neither does Soviet support for
the Egyptian surprise attack on Israel in 1973.

By the way wasn't the Russo-Japanese war initiated with the conventional
declarations of war?  I'm not sure about this one.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky soc.history:6534 talk.bizarre:22557
From: bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann)
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Columbus?
Date: 20 Jul 92 14:53:35 EST
Followup-To: talk.bizarre,soc.history
Organization: Logicon Technical Services, Inc.

In article <1992Jul8.065412.27978@news.Hawaii.Edu>, rigler@payne.ifa.hawaii.edu (Michael A. Rigler) writes:
> (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>>
>>  ...It was on the conclusion that Asia was only a 
>> 'short' disrance to the west that he got his funding.
> 
> Columbus had to submit a grant proposal?

I think he finally received the King -n- Queen scholarship.

Brett--------------------------------------------------------------------------
	"Why the courts don't tell a husband who has been living off his wife
to go out and get a job is beyond my comprehension."--Joan Lunden
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek)
Subject: Re: Relativity of Pearl Harbor
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:11:31 GMT

dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:

>In article <76518@ut-emx.uucp> zing@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Leon Z. Lee) writes:
>>In article <11362@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>If one takes the attempt to analyze historical events.....one will inevitably
>>come to the following conclusions:
>>
>>[2] Militarily-speaking....the attack on Pearl Harbor was a tremendous
>>military achievement !  The coordination, innonvations, and distance of
>>the attack was truly commendable.  The mere odds against the Japanese

	It failed, and failed utterly. The only thing it did was force the
U.S. to moderise its battleship fleet. After P.H. all the sunk battleships
were a 100% more effective than before.

>>launching a successful attack from the Kurile Islands .....over a distance
>>of 2500 miles...not to mention that the entire fleet had to refuel in the
>>middle of the Pacific and yet had to aviod detection...is a feat that
>>few countries had matched.

	Its easy to avoid detection when noone is looking for you. If they
did that during the war I would have been impressed.

>This argument implies that the Japanese attack is the fault of the US; that,
>given better preparedness, or management, or communications, it would not
>have occured.

	It still would have happened, but would have been more costly to
them and less lives would have been lost. P.H. is not the devasting attack
that everybody makes it out to be. The British lost more men on the H.M.S.
Hood, than the U.S. lost at P.H. Damage controll has always been excellant
on U.S. ships, we had the best record in WW2. Japan had the worst damage
controll record in WW2.


	In other words, Japan screwed up in attacking Pearl Harbor. Attacking
and sinking the American fleet in deep water would have been a better approach.

						James Dusek
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,rec.arts.books,misc.legal
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: _A Constitutional History of the United States_
Summary: Marshall McLuhan was a twit
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:50:07 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Jul30.151701.20803@ncar.ucar.edu> chucks@uars2.acd.ucar.edu (Chuck Smythe) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul29.151532.2789@aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

>> It frustrates when I hear people condemning those who don't read. 
>
>> Though I grew up in an era when reading was the norm, I am not
>> blinded to the fact that the world has changed. The written
>> word is no longer the primary means of extended communication.
>> That, as a fact, is neither good or bad. It is only different.

>I'm afraid I can't agree.  I get frustrated when I watch television or
>vidio, because 

...Excellent reasons deleted...

Well put! Those who say that video has replaced (or is going to replace)
text are blowing hot air. As Chuck says, text is much richer than images in
that it can convey complex arguments and explanations, and readers can
control their medium to a much greater degree than the video
watcher. Readers can skim over trivia and read complex arguments and
explanations repeatedly until they are understood. (Sure, VCRs have a
reverse and a fast forward button--but it's _much_ faster to do this with
text than with images.)

In addition to its other advantages, text is much more amenable to
information retrieval techniques than images are. Readers can do research;
but how can you find a specific piece of information among the images in a
video library?  Only if you have a very comprehensive textual index.

There _is_ a real revolution taking place--but it's not the replacement of
words by pictures. Rather, it is a revolution in the way words are created,
recorded, and retrieved. Computer technology has made it possible to create
text more easily, disseminate it more quickly, and find needed information
more rapidly than ever before. What has happened is that the invention of
Gutenberg has been carried forward an order of magnitude by electronic
means. The books of the future will not be on paper, and entire libraries
will be accessible from any "book". As always, the future belongs to those
who read.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com (Barone)
Subject: Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor
Organization: Raytheon Submarine Signal Division, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:54:41 GMT

In article <SMITTIE.92Jul22125147@lark.csulb.edu> smittie@beach.csulb.edu
(Smittie) writes:
[in regards to destroying more of Pearl...]
> It is easy, with 20/20 hindsight, to list what the Japanese should have done. 

The blame that Pearl wasn't a greater victory for Japan rests squarely
on Nagumo's shoulders.  After the last Japanese planes returned, Nagumo
was urged to launch a second attack.  The battleships were sunk (in
shallow water), but the vital tank farms and dry docks were intact.
More important, the US carriers were still at large.  In fact, the
Enterprise was only 200 miles away and one of its scout planes had
actually been shot down before the attack.  Because the dry docks were
intact, he would again see four of the "sunk" battleships at Saipan.

Nagumo had opposed the plan from the outset (from a military POV, not
moral) and had done the job assigned to him.  He did not wish to push
his luck.  So, 20/20 hindsight is not the issue -- Nagumo was just too
timid for the job.
-- 
Joe Barone
m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com
Look, when we was in the Bocage country, we was assaulted by them Tigers!
You know what I mean by assaulted, hunh?!  Well, I mean assaulted!!
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: zonker@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (thomas.m.harris)
Subject: Re: How many Indians?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:34:48 GMT

>> >In article <CB.92Jul28110837@tamarack13.timbuk>, cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
>> 
>> >> Lowie's text "Indians of the Plains" gives population estimates for the
>> >> various tribes of the Plains, such as the Mandan, Lakota, and Pawnee
>> >> tribes.  What's striking, by comparison with modern society, is how
>> >> small the numbers are.  A typical tribe had 2000 to 5000 people in its
>> >> heyday, including tribes whose names are very familiar to us today.  It
>> >> stands to reason that a tribe in the northern plains would be limited in
>> >> numbers, since the same land supports relatively few people even today.
>> >> But I find it interesting that our intense study of early "cultures" can
>> >> be based on such small societies.  Does anyone have any basis for
>> >> disputing Lowie's numbers?
Actually they seem quite accurate for the 19th century nomadic tribes.  
These tribes are OK a study of typical nomads (which would
be a good reflection on early mankind), they are not a good study for
the typical Native American pre-Columbus.  You should also note
that these cultures are somewhat abberant (being caused by
population displacement due to white expansion.  The classic 
plains nomadic tribe is a phenomina that lasts about a century
1780s to 1880s).  Virtually every Native American is primarily a
farmer or fisher in the 1490s there are virtually no nomadic
tribes.  The sad part is that the progress made toward
civilization by the Native Americans in the U.S. has been so
totally lost (since it was destroyed by disease prior to the
appearance of the white man in this part of the world).  Instead
it is the plains tribes who have captured our attention.  Granted
they were also mainly what was left to study.

In article <1992Jul29.215440.6867@cbfsb.cb.att.com> kja@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (krista.j.anderson) writes:
>First of all, please note that "the Americas" are not the same as
>"the US".  Populations in the area that is now Mexico and Guatemala
>were dense.  Populations in the area that is now the US, Canada and
>Alaska were sparse.
Actually the Mississippi drainage basin should be considered densely
populated as well this would have been the heyday of the Mississippian
culture.

					Non Cuniculus Est,
					    Tom Harris
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.revisionism
From: wtangel@well.sf.ca.us (William Thomas Angel)
Subject: Re: Goebbels' diaries reviewed by Irving??
Keywords: Chelmno,Eichmann,Goebbels,Irving
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:22:59 GMT


dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>As for Hitler's responsibility for the Holocaust - I have not read enough
>to form an opinion. From what I *have* read, it seems that his attitude
>was "do it but don't tell me about it". Irving makes a large effort to
>shift the blame on Himmler and Heydrich, but it does not make a lot of
>sense to assume that Hitler wouldn't know what was going on.

The "number two" man in the Nazi hierarchy was Goering, and the same
questions concerning Hitler's involvement in the "final solution" can
be asked about Goering.  Did Goering authorize the mass exterminations?
Did he shield Hitler from the truth about what form the "final
solution" took? Goering's primary motivation in most of his actions as
a Nazi seems to have been greed: greed for power, greed for honor,
greed for materialistic possessions.  It is quite possible that he
approved of the liquidation of the jews primarily out of greed for
their possessions; racism and ideology didn't really enter into his
motives.  Wealthy jews possessed art, jewelry, and large homes, and he
approved of their extermination simply to acquire their wealth.
--Bill Angel


Newsgroups: soc.history
From: sachs@tanner.berkeley.edu (Rainer Sachs)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: The history of bathing and baths
Date: 29 Jul 1992 03:14:57 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
NNTP-Posting-Host: tanner.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Jul28.104149.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> wknowling@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:
>I am doing research on bathing and the history of baths, saunas, turkish 
>baths, medicinal baths, etc. But I have found that there is almost no 
>information on this subject area. If anyone has a reference or even misc. 
>information about baths, historical events that happened in a bath I would 

Marat spend most of his time in one, and was assasinated in one.

Churchill, when accidentally caught in one by FDR, said
"The Prime Minister of Great Britain has nothing to hide
from the President of the United States".

Rasputin needed one.

Catherine the great is sometimes (euphemistically) said to have
died in one.

A famous Byzantine ruler was plauged by the rumor that as a baby
he had, at baptism, misbehaved in one (Coprynomous was his
nickname).

Cicero (?) loved them.

The English empire was based on them (before dinner)

cholera was spread by taking them in the ghats of the Ganges

etc.  (I would like to hear more).

Newsgroups: soc.history
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: Egyptian Civilization from 5000 B.C. to 3000 B.C.
In-reply-to: tom@europa.lonestar.org's message of Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:00:30 GMT
Organization: pubs
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:53:59 CDT

Tom Kimball writes:

   My "Wall Chart of Science and Invention" says that:

   "the first Egyptian Nile civilization arose before 5000 BC.
   [...] it lasted 26 dynasties.  It was conquered by the Persians
   in 525 BC."

   I had always thought that Egyptian civilization began in 3000 BC.,
   but I now suppose that 3000 BC was merely the approx year that they
   invented writing.

   Now I am wondering: If 3000 BC was the year they invented writing,
   and thus began recording their history,

   (1) How do historians know that 5000 BC was when the civilization
   began?

   (2) How do historians know that they had a total of 26 dynasties
   from 5000 BC to 525 BC?

From what I know, you're right and they're wrong.  3000 is the
conventional date for the beginning of the dynastic period.  Obviously
there had to be a long development before that, since the great pyramids
were built right around then; but anything before 3000 is considered the
"pre" phase of Egyptian history.

Chris Brewster