HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tbrowne@jarthur.claremont.edu (T. Erik Browne)
Subject: Re: MY VIEW: Cyberpapacy
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:41:05 GMT

In article <rose.702587414@acf9> rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose) writes:
>  What about
>
>3) Reducing the effect so that a rather substantial congregation is
>   required to make a Many-on-One faith role to sanction significant
>   amounts of high technology?
>
>   That way a lone priest might be able to sanction the odd screwdriver
> or pocket penknife or flashlight, but requires a parish church to sanction
> computer or cybertechnology.
>

Another solution would be to make the ritual something like what the Catholic
church does with candles and holy water.  Don't they have a big thing each
year where they bless the entire year's supply of candles in this ceremony.
You could make it the same way with the tech, where somebody consecrates a
bunch of cyberdecks, or godmeeters, or whatever.

I like the idea you've come up with for the Cyberpapacy, the only problem
being the mechanic to get around the tech axiom.  But I have one question:
how do you explain the origin of these circumstances?  Can the origin be
explained with the meeting of Hachi Mara-Two and Malreax(sp?)?  It's your
cosm, Dave, so what are your ideas?

>--
>David Rose
>Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
>251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
>rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Erik Browne                          | Harvey Mudd College
tbrowne@hmcvax.claremont.edu            | Claremont, CA  91711
tbrowne@jarthur.claremont.edu           | Best college west of Upland
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry.  No .sig today.
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: tnev2@isuvax.iastate.edu
Subject: Re: Astec Empire
Reply-To: tnev2@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:52:24 GMT

We didn't waste too much time with him either.  After a few rounds of 
climbing, falling and being thrown...our whole group, with the exception
of my character, ended up on the top of the pyramid with Kane.  My 
character was at the bottom, using the steps as cover.  Kane went after
our cyber-kung fu meat grinder.  My character, Nick Kamen, shot him in
the back at long range with his trusty Beretta.  It was one of those 
really nice possibility charged rolls that really hurts the bad guys.
Kane, now Wounded(tm) turned to face our CE mercenary, who promptly
ventilated him from stem to stern with his MAC-10.  End of fight.
	We had a _much_ tougher time dealing with that same mercenary
when he succumbed to the Darkness Device......

			-CJ
From: snark@bmerh327.BNR.CA (Eric Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: A can of worms to detonate
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:39:09 GMT
Reply-To: snark@bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fiber Systems Development


In article <1992Apr12.020349.8973@muddcs.claremont.edu>,
tbrowne@jarthur.claremont.edu (T. Erik Browne) writes:
|> In article <rose.702960818@acf9> rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose) writes:
|> >Michael P Collins <mc7f+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> >
|> >>I'll regret this tomorrow, but anyway...
|> >
|> >>Doesn't the Ayslish Law Of Observation make Quantomechanical systems
|> >>contradictory in Aysle?
|> >>--Evil Incarnate
|> >
|> >  Rather the contrary, I should think.
|> 
|> I've never seen a quark.  Nobody I know has seen a quark.  If you can't
|> observe it, then it doesn't exit.  Therefore, quantum particles don't exist
|> in Aysle.  Which I think is a good idea, since quantum mechanics is one of
|> the screwiest sciences I have ever encountered.

   Does this mean that invisibility spells are impossible?

Eric Nelson (snark@bnr.ca)       "Men must be pampered or crushed"
FWP OSI AIF for OAM&P                          -- Machievelli
These my opinions, and are endorsed by the evil twin of my employer
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: tbrowne@jarthur.claremont.edu (T. Erik Browne)
Subject: Re: A can of worms to detonate
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 05:23:33 GMT

In article <kufnesINNoc8@aludra.usc.edu> soholt@aludra.usc.edu (Timothy Soholt) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.020349.8973@muddcs.claremont.edu>
>tbrowne@jarthur.claremont.edu (T. Erik Browne) writes:
>
>>I've never seen a quark.  Nobody I know has seen a quark.  If you can't
>>observe it, then it doesn't exist.  
>
>There's a big difference between seeing and observing, though. I can't 
>_see_ the cold air moving through the room I'm in as I write this, but
>I still _observe_ that the air conditioner is working.

What's air conditioning?  If I come from Aysle, I've never heard of it.

But seriously, in Aysle the Law of Observation says that nothing exists unless
it can be observed.  Since sub-atomic particles can't be observed, then they
don't exist.  You have to remeber that the laws of physics are different, or
might not even exist in other cosms.  A lot of the physics discussions going
on about the Living Land have got to remember that.

>
>-- Tim Soholt (soholt@aludra.usc.edu), The Man With No .sig
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Erik Browne                          | Harvey Mudd College
tbrowne@hmcvax.claremont.edu            | Claremont, CA  91711
tbrowne@jarthur.claremont.edu           | Best college west of Upland
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry.  No .sig today.
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: oakes@jupiter.nmt.edu (David Oakes)
Subject: Re: How do axioms really work?
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:39:50 GMT

Sean Malloy(malloy@nprdc.navy.mil) rebutts:
 ! Consider the fact that only a very thin layer in the trunk of a tree
 ! is alive -- the heart of the tree, which provides all its strength, is
 ! dead wood. What makes dead wood different if it's inside a layer of
 ! living tissue?

realise that yes, the interior "dead" wood will bend 
according to whatever "law of physics" exists at tech 7,
but the outer live wood is exempt, and can therefore
support its own weight, and that of others
(one of your counterpoints, if i remember)

 ! More fundamentally, if the force that is required to bend an object is
 ! constant, regardless of size, then the Tech axiom is 2, not 7. How do
 ! you make a stone tool? By striking it properly with a stone, wood, or
 ! bone tool. But that relies on the fact that stone will break before it
 ! will bend; but that's not true in this cosm. Equally important, before
 ! you can apply enough force to break the stone, your hammerstone or
 ! wood/bone tool will bend. You wouldn't be able to make usable spears,
 ! because the shaft will bend too easily when you attempt to drive home
 ! the point, which will bend on the tough hide of some animals.

my engineering/physics major of a wife wishes to point out that 
everything bends before it breaks, the chipping of stone is an
artifact of impact loading over constant loading
(hitting it over pushing it)
and any way, i did not say this was so in the LL,
just a possibility at low tech (you say 2, i say 5-6)

 ! If you're going to change one aspect of physical law, you have to
 ! carefully examine the change to see what other effects that it will
 ! have on the world; they don't exist in isolation.

there is absolutely no reason that physics connot exsist in isolation,
this is tech 7 we're talking about. continuity is at least tech 10.
(primative scientists worked on a case by case basis -
 newton was the first to "unify" different cases with one equation)
(in TORG terms, different things WERE different, until then!)

i promised that i would not get into this, but...

the wife also wishes to point out that what makes birds fly
(the bouyancy of air - keeps leaves up as well!)
has very little to do with forces on a sail boat
(variable drag coefficient across the surface area)

this would also explain why the airplane in the text did not immediately fall
when disconected, it conforms to tech 7, and, while it cannot FLY, it
is still a wing, and it WILL glide.
(a twenty ton glider, but it will glide - for a little ways...)

dave "physics and gaming dont mix" oakes
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: Rick Jones <albert@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu>
Subject: Re: Test
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:33:53 GMT

> I think someone must have ripped up one of the Black Marble Wombat's stelae
> and they're still reeling from the backlash.... 8-)

	Either that or the Delphi Council weasels are intercepting
my email again.  If it's one thing I hate it's the a2q43U09@$#

NO CARRIER 

-- 
Rick Jones				Systems Support Center
albert@bcm.tmc.edu			Baylor College of Medicine
Voice: 713-798-7352			standard disclaimers apply
Thank you all for coming, I'll spend your money foolishly.-J.Buffett
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: Rick Jones <albert@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu>
Subject: Re: How do axioms really work?
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:23:23 GMT

> On Apr 12,  1:06am, Carl Rigney wrote:
> 
> You're dodging the question -- unless you believe that a Tech axiom of
> 7 also _must_ create a deity named Lanala to explain why a given
> object does or doesn't work.
> 
> But isn't the existence (or lack thereof) a function of the Spiritual
> axiom? It sounds like you've fallen victim to the "Any Tech 7 cosm is
> the Living Land" mindset and fallacy.

	Okay, well, since every time we've seen cosms with a _really_
low axiom in something (living land and nippon tech), there's been 
an explanation as to why the cosm can support life with such a low
axiom in (magic, tech, etc).  Perhaps axiom levels that low are 
unsupportable without other high axioms to support them.

	So the Living Land with a Spiritual Axiom of 0 would be 
impossible, unless there was perhaps a _VERY_ high magic axiom 
to support the "unnaturally" low tech and spiritual axioms.

	The Living Land is possible only through the 'will of 
Lanala.'  Why worry?  It makes the disgustingly low tech axiom 
explainable.  (Occam's Razor and all that stuff.)

-- 
Rick Jones				Systems Support Center
albert@bcm.tmc.edu			Baylor College of Medicine
Voice: 713-798-7352			standard disclaimers apply
Thank you all for coming, I'll spend your money foolishly.-J.Buffett
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: bpostow@dino.cs.oberlin.edu (Brian Postow)
Subject: Re: the rose sand mage
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:28:08 GMT

the problem comes up that all of this mage's spells will be based
upon the Earth knowledge, so there is no way that he can use more than
one at a time... that could be a big problem
--
--

Brian Postow :: The Pasta Knight - that noodle head in shiny armour
reachable at:
bpostow@occs.oberlin.edu
sbp2530@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu		this space left unintentionally blank.
sbp2530@oberlin.bitnet.edu

 	Cleveland: real weather for REAL people!






Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: jogle@dopey.vlba.nrao.edu (Jim Ogle (Ks. Jim))
Subject: Re: Aztec Empire
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 05:59:05 GMT

Mark C. writes:

> >The World Laws of the Aztec Empire will be in the May issue of
> Infiniverse.
> 
> Great. Now, does somebdy want to fill in a poor man who can't afford to buy
> adventures and who doesn't subscribe to Infiniverse, and tell me what the
> Aztec Empire is? 

It's out of the _High Lord of Earth_ module.  Guess I shouldn't assume
everyone has been on this list forever and/or buys everything for
Torg.

Spoilers (just in case Mark isn't alone):



The Darkness Device that the Gaunt Man offered in the Torg novels (you
have read those?) turns out to be in Mexico and its got a fixation on
the Aztec culture (blood sacrifices, pyramids, that kind of thing).
The purpose of the adventure is to of course prevent the DD from
gaining a High Lord and establishing a new realm on Core Earth.

I don't remember the axiom levels offhand but they were similar to
Aysle.  No world laws were given in the module though so there has
been a demand for them of course (several possible ideas were come up
with here on the list; it will be interesting to see how close people
came).

Kansas Jim (jogle@nrao.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy)
Subject: Re: Axioms
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:46:11 GMT

On Apr 16,  1:46am, Bronis Vidugiris wrote:
> It's not clear that the earth orbiting the sun or vice-versa makes any
> observable differences.  [Ramblings about General Relativity and the
> non-preference of inertial frames deleted for brevity.]

If you look at the original geocentric model of the solar system, it
had the Sun and planets moving around the Earth in perfect circles. To
an observer on the Earth, the planets would each move across the
sphere of fixed stars at their own rates. This, however, had one
_glaring_ flaw. At different times, a planet will stop its motion
across the fixed stars, reverse its motion, then stop again before
resuming its normal path. To explain this, the theory of epicycles
was created, where each planet moved in a small circle around a point
that moved around the Earth. As further defects of the heliocentric
model were discovered, it was patched again and again until it was
more complex than the US tax code. The heliocentric model did away
with all of thes patches, explaining the observed behaviour of the
planets without all of the 'cosmic clockworks' that the geocentric
model required.

-- 
random sig #106:
Sean Malloy                                  |           THINK
Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | If you are already thinking,
San Diego, CA 92152-6800                     | please disregard this message
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil                        |
From: rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: Axiom mania!
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:14:35 GMT
Organization: New York University

oakes@jupiter.nmt.edu (David Oakes) writes:

>i have some difficulty with the personal axiom theory
>in that you never disco "up" (the axiom gradient)

>i see disco as the first step in transformation,
>and not being able to raise your "personal" axioms would be bad
>(all those CE's in the LL, forced to use SPIRIT 9!)
>...

  Relevant to this is that when LL creature discos in CE they are
no longer able to use CE tech (as well as LL miracles) being constrained
by the lowest of the two axiom systems.  It is like the LL creature is
in a mini-cosm which is intersection of LL and CE.
--
David Rose
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: bpostow@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Brian Postow)
Subject: Re: Psionics and Magic
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
	<EdtbcqS00awFEx610N@andrew.cmu.edu> <rose.703009225@acf9>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 20:10:16 GMT

whoah, I have a BIG PROBLEM (tm) with set axiom levels... I have a
feeling that this is oh, about 4 months late, but anyway...

If axiom levels are a pre-set ceiling. then what are the CE say, tech
axiom. [sorry for the grammer] I mean, if there is a glass cieling for
tech for each cosm, then what is CEs. Why do we have any reason to
believe that the tech that we are at now is the highest we can be? we
have been progresing in tech pretty much steadily since the middle
ages. So, why is what we are at now the top?? why isn't 28 the top? or
24? who can know??? 

The way that I learned axioms was that when a High Lord takes a
Darkness device and takes a cosm, he/she/it can play with the axioms
and world laws. Now, he/she/it can change axioms to whatever it wants,
and KEEP THEM THERE. that is why cosms with highlords tend not to
change much. However, CE has no highlord [assuming we all succeded in
that adventure] so, therefore there is nothing that is keeping us from
continuing to progress. albiet, because Torg is Logarithmic, the axiom
is progressing ever more slowly, and we just recently got to this
axiom level, etc, but still, there is no reason why in 50-75 years, CE
shouldn't have a tex of 24. in 100-150 we might have 25. assuming we
live that long ;-) but CE should IMNSHO be still progressing. 


--
Brian Postow :: The Pasta Knight - that noodle head in shiny armour
reachable at:
bpostow@occs.oberlin.edu
sbp2530@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu		this space left unintentionally blank.
sbp2530@oberlin.bitnet.edu

Computer scientist do it backwards -- [Mathmatician's point of view]






Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy)
Subject: Re: How do axioms really work?
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 14:52:37 GMT

> [ Various sets of comments and counter-comments omitted]
> 
> Several things seem to have emerged.
> 
> Firstly, remember that technology includes materials. In the solo
> adventure, the airplane is not only a machine too complicated for the tech
> axiom, but a machine made of materials too sophisticated for the tech
> axioms. Gliding is a function of shape, not technology; if technology
> produces the shape, and the technology (materials) that maintain the
> gliding shape are not supported, then the shape will decay: the aeroplane
> should have rusted, disintegrated, or whatever. (similarly with synthetic
> fabrics in clothing)

Over a period of time, yes; but the process isn't generally going to
be rapid enough to force creation of a reality bubble to preserve the
plane long enough to get it to the ground. By the time you finish
dead-sticking the plane in (essentially without instruments, because
they'd go with the engine), it would have deteriorated to the point of
being unsafe to fly, and would relatively quickly come to resemble the
WWII wrecks that are periodically discovered on islands in the Pacific.

> I think that the axioms _limit_ both possibility and understanding; so not
> only will a sailboat not work in the Living Land, anyone operating under
> those axioms won't even be able to understand how it could work.

The motion of a sailboat in response to the wind is, like your example
of gliding above, a function of _shape_, not technology; you're
allowing your preconceptions about the required technology blind you
to the minimal requirements for a sailboat.

And looking at the Tech axiom chart again, I have to say that there
are a some _really_ idiotic decisions about where some 'machines' are
placed. For example, the lever, placed at Tech 8; it can be shown
from historical sources that the lever was in _use_ before the
invention of the wheel; understanding _why_ and _how_ it worked came
much later. Or the magnetic compass becoming possible at Tech 13;
magnetism was known on Earth back to the equivalent of Tech 7, and it
had been demonstrated that a piece of magnetite would turn to point in
the same direction when hung the same way from a cord -- was the
Earth's Tech axiom always 23, and it simply took the incremental
development of technology to reach it? 

-- 
random sig #103:
Sean Malloy                                  | There are very few problems which
Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | can't be solved by a suitable
San Diego, CA 92152-6800                     | application of high explosives.
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil                        | 
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: Rick Jones <albert@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu>
Subject: Tancred and others stuff
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:28:07 GMT

	I was at the museum yesterday and discovered where the name 
Tancred was taken from.  There was a medieval knight named Tancred,
who had a 'famous' poem writtem about him.  There was more about him,
but I can't remember the rest.  Any classics majors out there?

	Why am I smiling?  Because my players just volunteered to 
go to Orrorsh.  Bwah-hah-hah.  No more of this blowing away hordes
of shocktroopers and ninja.  I get to snuff some PC's.  The book 
says I can.  

	"It is not I who am crazy.  It is I who am MAD!"
				- Ren Hoek

-- 
Rick Jones				Systems Support Center
albert@bcm.tmc.edu			Baylor College of Medicine
Voice: 713-798-7352			standard disclaimers apply
Thank you all for coming, I'll spend your money foolishly.-J.Buffett
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: cdr@kpc.com (Carl Rigney)
Subject: Re: How do axioms really work?
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 08:06:16 GMT

In article <gatemail1.0b96113332764@morticia> you write:
>Why would a 3' bowstave work as a bow at Tech 7 while a 6' bowstave -- the
>same shape, the same wood -- wouldn't?

Whats a 3?  What's a 6?  What's a '?  All three are missing at Tech 7 /
Social 7, so both bows are the same in the eyes of Lanala.

I think trying to shoehorn all the cosms into our Tech level's
understanding of Physics is the wrong approach.  When the airplane
disconnects in the Living Land solo adventure of course it descends to
the ground, because it doesn't belong in the sky, and the easiest way
to resolve the contradiction is to have it fall.  Fast sink rate vs.
slow sink rate doesn't exist because rates require the measurement of time.

Here, have a berry.

--
Carl Rigney
cdr@kpc.com

"Get with the Genre!"
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose)
Subject: Re: Another Kanawa Product (for Internal Purchase only)
Keywords: kanawa
Organization: New York University
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 16:40:20 GMT

  I'm submitting this to morticia under the filename "drone".
Enjoy!


--
David Rose
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: oakes@jupiter.nmt.edu (David Oakes)
Subject: Re:  How do axioms really work?
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:47:42 GMT

[disscussion on axioms between mark and rick deleted]

one thing to remember about TORG, is that, as a possiblity rated person,
a character can "learn" anything it wants, no "teaching" involved.

so while the general populace may not be building cyberware in their basements,
the possibilty rated ones may just have "an intuitive knowledge"
of how things work, and those Ords who were on the right track will find 
their research MUCH easier (bonus to Sci/Scholar skills is by AXIOM!)

IMHO (not!), there has to be some level of intuition, not because of axioms,
but world laws - you choose to use some (Action), and others are in effect alwa(Suspicion).  add to that the fact WEG claims you are bound by foreign WL
when in a foreign cosm, and you have to understand something!
(how can i CHOOSE to roll 2 dice, if i never have before?)

dave "what do you mean 'Use Inclination Seduction?' I'm CE edinos!" oakes