HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 21:09:04 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <1992Sep8.233533.13620@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.194108.19862@mdd.comm.mot.com> booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:
>>	Noisemakers, and "weapons" like car keys jutting out of
>>your fingers are quite useless. Buy a good quality ($40 - $100) 3" or 4"
>>blade SHARP double-edged boot knife WITH A GOOD SHEATH (one it CAN'T
>>cut its way out of). Carry it and a folded paper bag in your purse.
>>MAKE SURE THAT AT LEAST THREE PEOPLE WITNESS YOU USING IT TO OPEN
>>LETTERS - BECAUSE THAT'S WHY YOU OWN IT. IT'S UNLAWFUL TO CARRY A
>>WEAPON, BUT NOT A TOOL YOU WORK WITH.
>>
>   Nobody.. Repeat: nobody will be fooled into thinking that a 4" boot knife
>is a letter opener.  BTW, $40-100 dollars for a 4" knife is _way_ too
>expensive. Something deadly like an 8" Gerber MkII only costs about $53.
>(or was that canadian dollars?? oh, well...)
>
>>	When you have to walk into danger, take the knife out and put 
>>it in the fluffed-out paper bag. Roll the bag around the handle, and
>>carry it by that handle. If you're walking on ice, or anywhere where
>>you might fall, DON'T carry it unsheathed, you can fall and sever
>>your femoral artery, causing death. Leave the sheath on, but
>>UNFASTENED. Slit the bottom of the bag so the sheath can be shaken
>>off the blade and out of the bag.
>>
>   This is ludicrous. You would look _so_ suspicious doing this. If you got
>stopped by the cops while doing this you would be sure to get a free ride
>to the police station, photograph, and other fun, free stuff.
>
>>	If grabbed from the rear, DRIVE YOUR KNIFE INTO HIS LEG
>>MUSCLES; that makes him unable to chase you, and marks him for police.
>>
>    But it is still in the sheath...


And in Massachusetts, a double edged knife longer than 1 inch is an
illegal weapon.

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: habegger@bernina.ethz.ch (Andreas Habegger)
Subject: sorry, test too
Summary: test two
Keywords: test two
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:14:54 GMT

sorry this is a test.


Xref: sparky talk.rape:2404 soc.women:16315
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.women
Subject: Re: Lioness method (monthly)
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:35:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.

In article <1992Sep4.194108.19862@mdd.comm.mot.com> booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:
>	Noisemakers, and "weapons" like car keys jutting out of
>your fingers are quite useless. Buy a good quality ($40 - $100) 3" or 4"
>blade SHARP double-edged boot knife WITH A GOOD SHEATH (one it CAN'T
>cut its way out of). Carry it and a folded paper bag in your purse.
>MAKE SURE THAT AT LEAST THREE PEOPLE WITNESS YOU USING IT TO OPEN
>LETTERS - BECAUSE THAT'S WHY YOU OWN IT. IT'S UNLAWFUL TO CARRY A
>WEAPON, BUT NOT A TOOL YOU WORK WITH.
>
   Nobody.. Repeat: nobody will be fooled into thinking that a 4" boot knife
is a letter opener.  BTW, $40-100 dollars for a 4" knife is _way_ too
expensive. Something deadly like an 8" Gerber MkII only costs about $53.
(or was that canadian dollars?? oh, well...)

>	When you have to walk into danger, take the knife out and put 
>it in the fluffed-out paper bag. Roll the bag around the handle, and
>carry it by that handle. If you're walking on ice, or anywhere where
>you might fall, DON'T carry it unsheathed, you can fall and sever
>your femoral artery, causing death. Leave the sheath on, but
>UNFASTENED. Slit the bottom of the bag so the sheath can be shaken
>off the blade and out of the bag.
>
   This is ludicrous. You would look _so_ suspicious doing this. If you got
stopped by the cops while doing this you would be sure to get a free ride
to the police station, photograph, and other fun, free stuff.

>	If grabbed from the rear, DRIVE YOUR KNIFE INTO HIS LEG
>MUSCLES; that makes him unable to chase you, and marks him for police.
>
    But it is still in the sheath...
 

DanZ
  
-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: SCALES@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu
Subject: sorry - test
Organization: SYSTEMS & COMPUTING
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 15:41:38 PDT

 
test
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Family Values
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:18:57 GMT

It seems to me that rapists, and violent criminals in general, blame their
problems on a bad home life while growing up.  They were beaten, molested,
their parents were alcoholics, etc.  Perhaps "Family Values" are important
after all.
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: the meaning of "freewill"
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:02:51 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 <18hinvINNn0j@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ak254@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ralph A. Gardner-Chavis) writes:
...
>As an example, I once had a dog, a cocker spaniel.  At a friends house, as 
...story about the dog and the cheese deleted...

>I claim that people really do not believe in freewill.  When considering
>someones action, after asking what happened, the next question is,  "Why
>did he/she do that?"  This question in itself precludes the concept of
>freewill in the questioners mind for an answer is expected.  

So you think that whenever someone has a reason to do something, then the
action is not "free"? Only totally capricious actions are "free"? Why, then
only a madman could be really "free", for only a madman acts without
reason. 

Don't you think it's time to introduce a few more categories, and maybe
even wonder what you're asking when you talk about whether actions are
"free"? 

>Furthermore, 
>I have never heard anyone in commenting on someones actions say he/she 
>did it because of his/her freewill,have you? 

Why would anyone say anything so silly--except in naive philosophical
discussion like this?


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:1711 soc.men:15999
From: andy.liddiard@almac.co.uk
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: response to peter cash
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:34:05 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: ALMAC BBS Ltd

[Plato's "Universals"]

AH/*     As to your question about images, I would point you to the last
AH/*part of Book VI of the Republic.  The book I'm using is the translation
AH/*by Allan Bloom.  Perhaps some translators would not use the term
AH/*"image" as he does.  I would hope that my quotation from Schopenhauer
AH/*clears up your questions as to why "images" are not the same thing as
AH/*"appearances."  In a sense they are; they are simply what is perceived
AH/*through the faculty of sight.  Plato calls them "images", because they
AH/*simply are unreal and simply must be reflections of a higher reality,
AH/*the reality of the Platonic "Idea-Forms."   In response to your

In addition, I'd like to point out that there is a heirarchy here
(ref. Plato _The Republic_, Book 10 _Theory of Art_ p597), where
Plato insists that an artists impression is at a "third remove from
reality". A painting is an "image" of an "appearance" of "reality".
For a fuller exposition of his ideas of Universals, read Plato's
_Phaedo_.

 ndy ~ london ~ uk                        andy.liddiard@almac.co.uk

---
 ~ SLMR 2.1a #112 ~ Whale Oil Beef Hooked.
--
ALMAC BBS Ltd. 0324-665371
Dos based USENET access,  call for details!
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: the meaning of "freewill"
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:12:28 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 <exukjb.143.716081235@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.150251.25472@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
...
>>Why would anyone say anything so silly--except in naive philosophical
>>discussion like this?

>Pete, shouldn't you be ashamed using your outstanding talent and 
>imposing ability in philosophy [an ability and talent probably similar to my 
>own] to crash in so cavilierly on these "naive discussions"?  

Perhaps you haven't heard as many naive discussions as I have. Do you have
any idea how frustrating it is to hear the same tired ideas propounded by
successive generations of young philosophers as though they were the
cutting edge of conceptual inquiry? (To hear them say the very same things
you were saying when you were twenty?!) It's hard to hold back, Kenny. But
no matter--luckily, everyone ignores me.

>Philosophy is there to help people work through their confusions and 
>muddles, to help them ask the right questions.  People have to begin 
>somewhere, and that's where they are.  I enjoy dropping in on this informal 
>newsgroup once in a while because it's refreshing to see and exchange posts 
>with people who have at least honestly, if sometimes naively, formulated, 
>the problems, uncorrupted by philosophe academe or tradition. 

"Uncorrupted by philosphical tradition?" Surely you mean "uninformed".  

What if the discussion had been about astrophysics, and people had been
arguing about whether the sun burns coal or oil to produce its energy.
Would you say that this was a delightfully naive discussion that was
"uncorrupted" by scientific inquiry? That we should let it proceed because,
after all, everyone has to start somewhere? I rather think that if you had
any respect for the participants at all, you would point out that
astrophysics has something to teach them, and that they would benefit by
studying this discipline.

I think philosophy also has something to teach, and that people who are
interested in such questions as "free will" would benefit by studying this
discipline, and by learning what others have said about this set of issues.
Sure, people have to "begin somewhere"--but the way to make progress isn't
to keep saying the same things over and over. 

>-- See you in alt.phil.tech on determinism and free will later. [*grin*]

They do philosophy over there? I hadn't noticed.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: the meaning of "freewill"
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:16:28 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <0096075D.6F4145A0@Msu.oscs.montana.edu> uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu (Me) writes:
>
>      I find it an untennable position to deny the existance of
> Free Will. To say that you have no free will implies that only
> outside events affect your actions.

I don't think that's quite right.  Sure, if your actions were
determined by external causes, it might be reasonable to say you
had no free will.  But having _some_ internal causes is not
enough for free will.  And so you could have no free will despite
having some internal causes.

An example of an internal event that would affect your actions
but not imply free will might be a stroke that wiped out part
of your brain.

> In this case, "you" do not
> have any impact on anything. If a thing has no influence what-
> soever, it may as well not exist, as you can never say anything
> about it.  You effectively commit suicide.

"You" might just be along for the ride.  Your body, your conscious
experience, etc, would all still exist.

>      Naturally we all feel constrained by the interactions we
> have with other people, but at some level there is a DECISION
> to act (or not act) in a given way. 

Ok, you make a decision.  But what makes you decide one way
rather than the other?  Indeed, where does a thought like
"should I post a reply or not?" come from?  Did I decide to
have that thought?  Did I, for instance, think "what shall
I think?  How about `should I reply?'."?  If so, how did I
come to think _that_?

In short, at key points, your thoughts and decisions are produced
by unconscious processes in your brain.  How do you know those
processes are free?

-- jd
From: myempire@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Matt J. Martin)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Machiavelli
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:04:44 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Sep15.232741.2214@usl.edu> mih8447@usl.edu (Hebert Marc I) writes:
>After reading The Prince, I would like to find more opinion on the premise of
>the book, what I would naively call amoral pragmatism.  

   To me, The Price has one basic truth:  Commit all your atrocities at once.

  ##########################################################################   
  ##   /   ##               Progress Before Peace!               ##   /   ## 
  ##  //   ## Matt J. Martin, Technosociology and Space Politics ##  //   ## 
  ## ///// ######################################################## ///// ##
  ##   //  ##        Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN       ##   //  ##
  ##   /   ##           myempire@mentor.cc.purdue.edu            ##   /   ##
  ##########################################################################

-- 
  ##########################################################################   
  ##   /   ##               Progress Before Peace!               ##   /   ## 
  ##  //   ## Matt J. Martin, Technosociology and Space Politics ##  //   ## 
  ## ///// ######################################################## ///// ##
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: the meaning of "freewill"
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:35:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.151228.29297@news.eng.convex.com>, cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

>>-- See you in alt.phil.tech on determinism and free will later. [*grin*]

    My computer says there is no alt.phil (or philosophy).tech. Can anyone help?
Does anyone have a list of philosophy groups? Does anyone know the address of
sci.philosophy.meta? Thanks.
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Aquinas' proof on the Existence of God
Keywords: St.Thomas Aquinas
Date: 6 Sep 92 00:09:49 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <1553@rwja.umdnj.edu> gopal@rwja.umdnj.edu (Srihari Gopal) writes:
>Can anyone help me out please?
>
>I once took a philosophy class once, and my professor mentioned to me
>that St. Thomas Aquinas once wrote a proof on the existence of God.
>Can anyone tell me where I can find that proof, or better yet, can anyone
>out there give me a succint summary of that proof?
>

Aquinas had more than one proof of God, (he usually had more than one proof
of anything). The originals can be found in the Summa Theologica, and there are
many summaries by more recent authors. In addition to these, the recent book
_How to think about God_ by Mortimer Adler is very closely related to your
question, since Adler's argument for God is based on those known to Aquinas.

For all questions about proofs/disproofs/refutations of the existence of God,
I tend to recommend checking out Hans Kung's theological view of the question
_Does God Exist?_. Otherwise you can fall for grown-up refutations of childish
notions of God (e.g. Freud).

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,soc.men
From: mikel@col.hp.com (Mike Lopke)
Subject: Re: Shmamily Values
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:02:59 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

<RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
> 
>          There has recently been an ongoing controversy between Dan  Quayle
>     and Murphy Brown, regarding family values and single mothers.  Now I do

       ...
> 
>          This is fine and  no doubt the Democrats  are right about this  as
>     they are about everything else.  But we are still left with a  problem.

      ... sarcasm appreciated ...

>     And if we  impoverish our own  vocabulary for political  reasons - then
>     free speech ceases  to have any  meaning.  We can  make sounds, but  we
>     cannot say what we  WANTED to say by  making such sounds -  because the
>     meaning has been taken away.  Thomas Mann used to complain that  Hitler
>     had ruined the  German language.  It  would be a  pity if this  happens
>     also to English.
> 
>     Rohit Parikh

My understanding is that politics does three things with language.  To appeal
to the masses with minimal effort.

1) simplify  - catered to short attention spans
2) codify    - catered to mental lazyness 
3) identify  - create (hopefully) a warm fuzzy with the voter 

   simplify + codify -> identify

The statement "I believe in family values" is just that, a simplified code
designed to win people over.  No issues are really discussed reguardless
of which meaning one gives to such a statement.  The amount of information
and content of such statements is minimal and vague.  

I suggest that the existance these slogans does not in itself impoverish
vocabulary.  Reliance on them for any type of discussion, however, can.  
Personally I try to first recognize such phrases for what they are, and
avoid them.

Reguards,
Mike Lopke

PS.  I wouldn't worry about Hitler ruining the English language. :-)
From: ak254@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ralph A. Gardner-Chavis)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: the meaning of "freewill"
Date: 8 Sep 1992 06:54:55 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ak254@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ralph A. Gardner-Chavis)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu



>>In a previous article, bf479@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Russell Jackson II) says:


>>I am new here so don't flame me if I'm saying something that has already 
>>been noted.
>>
>>There appears to be the question of the meaning of "freewill."
>> 
>>Freewill is a will that is free. Free from what? Obstruction? No, freewill is 
>>a will that is free from cause.
>> 
>>What does it mean to be free from cause. It means spontaneaous generation. It 
>>means something from nothing. Who could ever offer the slightest proof of 
>>such nonsense?
>> 
>>Russell Jackson II
>>bf479@cleveland.freenet.edu
>>

What is wrong with the definition, (from some dictionary) that `freewill is
action without antecedents'. 

I consider that the antecedents to action are the determining factors that 
bring about our decision to take action A rather than action B and that 
these determining factors are the resut of our past experiences, 
whatever they were and however large or small they were.

As an example, I once had a dog, a cocker spaniel.  At a friends house, as 
I started to leave, Teddy, the dog, followed about half a rooms length 
behind me.  Just as I neared the door, the friend who was at the opposite 
end of the room said, "Teddy do you want some cheese?"  Teddy stopped
immediately and looked first at me, and then at the cheese in my friend's
hand. Teddy looked back and forth several times as if he could not 
make up his mind whether to go for the cheese or to follow me without 
the cheese.  Everyone stood still for the decision was Teddy's.  Was
his resulting action indicated by freewill?  If so then dogs have freewill.

I consider that Teddy, faced at that instant with two opposing desires
of apparently equal magnitude had to reach back into his past memory to
find a reason for doing one or the other action.  Whatever reason(s)
he came up with were necessary for him to take aaction or we would still
be standing there transfixed by Teddy's indecision.  Luckily for us, Teddy
decided to run and get the cheese and then hurry to me at the door. I
don't know his thought processes but apparently he considered that he
could solve the problem that way.  Perhaps had the cheese been thirty feet
away he might have come to a different conclusion.

I claim that people really do not believe in freewill.  When considering
someones action, after asking what happened, the next question is,  "Why
did he/she do that?"  This question in itself precludes the concept of
freewill in the questioners mind for an answer is expected.  Furthermore, 
I have never heard anyone in commenting on someones actions say he/she 
did it because of his/her freewill,have you? 


-- 
Intelligent life on Mars? 
I didn't think there was intelligent life on Earth!
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: the meaning of "freewill"
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:27:15 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep8.150251.25472@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
>From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
>Subject: Re: the meaning of "freewill"
>Date: 8 Sep 92 15:02:51 GMT

>In article <18hinvINNn0j@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ak254@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ralph A. Gardner-Chavis) writes:
>...
>>As an example, I once had a dog, a cocker spaniel.  At a friends house, as 
>...story about the dog and the cheese deleted...

>>I claim that people really do not believe in freewill.  When considering
>>someones action, after asking what happened, the next question is,  "Why
>>did he/she do that?"  This question in itself precludes the concept of
>>freewill in the questioners mind for an answer is expected.  

>So you think that whenever someone has a reason to do something, then the
>action is not "free"? Only totally capricious actions are "free"? Why, then
>only a madman could be really "free", for only a madman acts without
>reason. 

>Don't you think it's time to introduce a few more categories, and maybe
>even wonder what you're asking when you talk about whether actions are
>"free"? 

>>Furthermore, 
>>I have never heard anyone in commenting on someones actions say he/she 
>>did it because of his/her freewill,have you? 

>Why would anyone say anything so silly--except in naive philosophical
>discussion like this?


>-- 
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
>Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pete, shouldn't you be ashamed using your outstanding talent and 
imposing ability in philosophy [an ability and talent probably similar to my 
own] to crash in so cavilierly on these "naive discussions"?  

Philosophy is there to help people work through their confusions and 
muddles, to help them ask the right questions.  People have to begin 
somewhere, and that's where they are.  I enjoy dropping in on this informal 
newsgroup once in a while because it's refreshing to see and exchange posts 
with people who have at least honestly, if sometimes naively, formulated, 
the problems, uncorrupted by philosophe academe or tradition. 

-- See you in alt.phil.tech on determinism and free will later. [*grin*]

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------