HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: End of the World... US only, apparently
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:08:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.132946.12962@digibd.com> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>pjm@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) writes:
>>but two thin lines extending lower than the rest of the barcode
>>IS a six. two thin lines is the code for a six.
>>they DO extend below the barcode, that is why they are CONTROL codes.
>>does anyone know the ISO for this thing?
>
>[apologies for earlier saying the delimiters were solid bars; they are 2 lines]
>[I didn't have a barcode handy, it was from memory]
>
>They don't actually decode as sixes.  Bar codes for the same digit are
>different on the other side of the center bar (reflected, so you can scan
>it either orientation).  The "6" stuff is just baloney, they are delimiters.
>

i just looked at 666.pbm.
on the right (after the center 6 :-), i see two thin "dark" lines
start on what would be the top-left corner of the six.
on the left, i see two thin "white" lines.
it seems the images are inverted on the left.

-- 
-- Pat Monardo
-- pjm@cshl.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: what, me thee asshole?
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:12:56 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep9.123906.6595@iscsvax.uni.edu>, 
marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>> In his first post, he demonstrated he couldn't reason.
> 
> Maybe so, what was the posting number?

The message is no longer sotred on my disk, but was entitled "assholes."  If
you look at the thread it generated, you should be able to glean his actual
words.
 
>> In his second, that he couldn't empathize.
> 
> Again, the posting number?

j1moody-07099201737@lafmacconsultant.lafortune.lab.nd.edu, entitled "assholes
revisited"
 
>> In his third, that couldn't write.
> 
> Do you expect prize-winning work here?

If someone's going to go to the trouble to post a poem publily, at elast they
cna make it a good one.
 
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: assholes
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 23:44:34 GMT

In article <LsHqqB4w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>> The nonexistence of God--unless one accepts Brian Evans's proof--is
>> an empirical question . The claim that square circles
>> do not exist is a logical one.
>
>Care to explain why?  It seems to me that I can build an empirical circle
>using compasses, paper and scissors, and then check experimentally whether it
>has four corners each of which is a right angle.  No theory is involved.
An "empirical circle" is technically not a circle, but rather a
physical approximation of a mathematical construct.

>How about the claim "No tessalating circles exist"?  I'm willing to let you
>use empirical circles of a radius x constant to within 1mm, and made out of
>any material you want.  I'll also let you empirically tile them with your own
>hands rather than working out on paper whether they would theoretically tile
>according to logic.
Same problem.

Physical circles do not exist. The ultimate arbiter of mathematical
truth is proof not experiment. That is the difference between
mathematics and say, physics.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:33:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.050122.1347@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.193841.22336@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>Which part of his claim do you want substantiated?
>
>  That telling a gay teenager that s/he is immoral, sinful, sick,
>  going to hell, etc. destroys the kid's self esteem and often leads
>  the kid to suicide, or
This has not been proven, but it seems pretty intuitive, so I'm
prepared to stipulate it.

>  That it is wrong to teach kids things that destroy their self
>  esteem and lead them to suicide?
This part.
After all, it would seem to me that if one indeed believed
that homosexuality was sinful and imperilled another's soul,
he would have a duty to inform him of that, at the very least.
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Is atheism experimentally refutable?
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 13:00:45 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

Where's my Linguistics book when I need it....

In article <yaHqqB2w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>> People expect other people to reveal all
>> relevant information.  If I asked you how many pets you had and you
>> replied, "I have two cats," I'd have every reason to feel deceived if
>> you also had four dogs and a llama.

>If you ask *how many*, yes.  But if you ask "Do you have any pets?" the
>answer "I have two cats" is perfectly reasonable, even if the person does
>have four dogs and a llama.  One might tend to expect a pet owner to
>enumurate all his pets, but it's not unreasonable not to.

I'd disagree and so would my Linguistics profs.

From _Language:  it's Structure and Use_ by Edward Finegan and Niko
Besnier:

First, speakers are expected to give as much information as is
necessary for their interlocutors to understand their utterances but
to give no more information than is necessary.  If we ask someone
whether she has any pets and she answers, "I have two cats," it is the
*maxim of quantity* that permits us to assume that she has no other
animals.  If it turned out that she had three dogs and llama as well,
we would have every reason to feel deceived.  While what she said was
not false as far as it went, the unspoken commandment not to conceal
relevant information would have been violated.  Listeners expect
speakers to abide by this rule, and speakers assume that their
interlocutors believe they are abiding by it.  Indeed, without such a
belief lying would not be possible.

The only possible reason the speaker would have for not mentioning the
dogs and the llama would be if the person didn't consider them to be
pets.

>Consider "Do you have any animals on your farm?"  "I have over five hundred
>sheep".  Is the farmer deceiving you by failing to mention a sheepdog, two
>chickens and a farmer's wife?

Yes, it would be perfectly reasonable to feel deceived.  While what he
said is true as far as it went, it isn't that accurate (whether or not
we consider the farmer's wife to be an animal).

The "expected" response to this question would be either a simple
"yes" (and possibly eliciting another question asking what kinds of
animals the farmer has) or an affirmative answer and a list of what
kinds of animals...possibly the amounts of said animals.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: dead JW and evolution (was: benefits of religious belief)
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:50:54 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>In article <asZiqB13w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

>>   A Jehovah's Witness bled to death for his beliefs, despite hospital 
>>   doctors' warnings that his life was at stake if he refused blood 
>>   transfusions, an inquest in London heard yesterday.

>>   The inquest heard that Mr Hunt, aged 49, a technician, of Bromley, 
>                                    ^^^^^^^
>>Evolution in action, as Pournelle might say.

>Nope, at age 49 Mr. Hunt has probably made all the contributions
>to the gene pool he would have had he not died(*). In addition, his
>offspring (if any) are unlikely to suffer any fitness consequence
>from a father dying at 49. Natural selection does not operate on
>traits that express themselves after the average age of reproduction
>in most species (although it can act indirectly on traits in species
>that exhibit parental care). This is, in fact, why we -- as sexual
>organisms -- are destined to die.

>But, most importantly, this is not an example of evolution because 
>it is highly unlikely that there is a Jehovah's Witness gene that 
>causes these people to refuse blood.

With tongue firmly in cheek, it could be argued that Mr. Hunt might
have been the carrier for the "Jehovah's Witness" meme, which he
still could have spread significantly in his remaining years.  We
can't really determine what effect the death of a carrier of this
meme might have on future generations (I am reminded of the 
butterfly in a certain Ray Bradbury story :-).  But maybe this
will give his offspring some pause for thought.

Mark Schnitzius
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Marx? was: Re: Dealing with theistic relatives
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 23:56:48 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <esposito.3.716504399@uncg.edu> esposito@uncg.edu (Andrew Joseph Esposito) writes:
>
>The audience makes the arguement.  I'd quote Marx in an Academic setting, 
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Which Marx?  Was it Groucho, Chico, Zeppo, Harpo (did he use a horn, or his
harp?), or that muscian Richard?
From: dfm2@jaguar.uofs.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re:Re:Physics?(not 2 anyone,scott)
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:58:26 GMT
Organization: University of Scranton

Scott Lochlin writes a letter about the argument between physics
and belief.

I find that the physics deal with "what" and the bible deals with "why."
Christians merely discuss physics when others use it to disprove christian
teachings.  Many try to be rational, and create conciliatory positions and 
discuss differences between truth and literal meanings.  Others have viwed
the challenging of biblical authority as a hostile attack on Christianity
and have tried to demonstrate contradictions in science.  Anyone who truly
understands physics and the bible need not attack either.  Today, most
catholics, even (or especially) the heirarchy, believe in evolution, and
most of  the great scientists believe in God (I won't burden you with quotes
they are so easy to find, one would think Einstein was a theologian.)

Incidentally, and this is not aimed at Mr. Lochlin, many atheists cast doubt
in the bible because they say a loving God wouldn't wipe out every man,
woman and child in the battle of Jericho.  This is rubbish.  All die, 
all are loved, all will share in the resurrection and there will be judged.
Read about the seven children in Maccabees, or Job, or even the death of
God's own son.  People chose to know good and evil.  When we have learned of
both, we shall be as God, but first we must learn evil.  This life is meant
to suck, but it is only a short time compared to infinite bliss.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Atheist Clubs at universities
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:47:40 GMT

nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:

>Some friends of mine and I have been considering forming an
>'Athiest Club' on campus (as Clubs Day draws near), and are
>looking for some imput from people who either have ideas or
>experience with this.

>I must add that I was inspired to suggest we start such a group
>because of the prevalence of Christian groups on campus--it
>tends to be a bit intimidating.  Paranoia overcomes me when
>the pressure is on, and I envision a 'Handmaid's Tale'esque
>future...  And now all this talk of milleniumism.  Eek.

>So, are there any individuals out there who have organised/
>participated in/ known of such a club on their campuses?

>We would like suggestions as to what the goals of this club  
>should be, what kinds of activities it should organise, etc.

I've always thought about this.  But then, I don't know what we'd do in such
a club.  I suppose it could just be like a social club.  Could theists join?
Unless you talked about religion, or lack thereof, I don't know how this
would work.  I suppose the religious clubs do some fun things.  An atheists'
club could also do fun things.  But, the religious groups often get together
for Bible studies, etc.  Would an atheists' club get together to reinforce
their lack of belief, or gripe about religion or something?

See, I just take the lack of God as a fact.  I don't really ever try to prove
it to myself of reinforce my belief.  I mean, no one goes around trying to
prove that Zeus doesn't exist.  Other animals don't need to be told that
there is no God.

In an atheists' group, I would think there would (as in here) be lots of talk
about there being no God.  I don't know if I'd like this or not.  It seems
to me that it would quickly turn to insults of religion and religious
people.  This may not be so good.

I don't know.  I think it would be like having a "blue-eyed" club, or a 
"White" club or something like that.  Many of these culture clubs don't seem
to do anything related to that culture.  There is a Chinese club, or something
here on campus, but other than consisting mostly of "Chinese" people (many
of whom don't speak Chinese and probably can't use chopsticks), or at
least Chinese-looking people, I don't see anyting very special about this
group.  Non-Chinese-looking people can certainly join...

Oh well.
keith
From: marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The End of the World is Nigh!!!
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:51:15 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Sep9.173254.12259@tcom.stc.co.uk>, bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro) writes:
> If anyone wants a good laugh then I suggest popping over to
> soc.religion.christian and reading about how the world is going to
> end next year (again :-)). Apparently some bible-thumping radio host
> called Harold Camping has it all sussed from some biblical verses and
> has written a book all about it.  The funny thing is seeing all the
> crowd over there taking it deadly seriously. What a bunch of losers!

Isn't there a verse about how "you will not know that day or hour" ?

> 
> On a related note, hasn't some Korean church predicted the end of the
> world next month? Someone told me a story that the followers of the church
> are so convinced of it that they're giving away all their wordly goods
> before it happens. They're going to feel pretty bloody stupid in
> November, the silly sods!

It's kind of a cool thing that they are willing to give up everything for God,
but again they can't say what the day or hour is.

The Bible tells us that we should live life with Christ's commandments as if
any day might be the last, but to plan in our lives as if the end won't come
until after we have gone.

Many persons are making some rash statements about the coming of Christ. 
Perhaps many of these people are not Christians, but greedy individuals looking
to mislead others for their own gain.  Perhaps they also need much prayer and
discipline.

> 
> -- 
> Bruce Munro.  <bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!uknet!stc!bruce
> BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. 
> Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174
> "There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford

In Him,
Evan Marshall
marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: what, me thee asshole?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:01:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.112031.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>In article <j1moody-080992232050@lafmacconsultant.lafortune.lab.nd.edu>, 
>j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty) whines:
>
>[bad attempt at peotry deleted]
>
>In his first post, he demonstrated he couldn't reason.
>In his second, that he couldn't empathize.
>In his third, that couldn't write.
>
>Ladies and gentlemen, we may well be looking at the single most useless person
>on the planet.
>-- 
>Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:

Uh, the second most useless.  For uplifting discussions of the
absolutely most useless person, consult alt.fan.dan-quayle.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: j1moody@darwin.cc.nd.edu (Humpty Dumpty)
Subject: what, me thee asshole?
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: The Wall
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:38:52 GMT

Me thinks me not appreciated by these wanna-be-void-heads. (((!)))

I think I'm getting a shell-ache (hee hee) from all the babble.

Before I go, you all must know

what happened after Humpty Dumpty broke into a million pieces

and all those intellectual king's men couldn't figure it out:

After the fall

from the wall 

his spirit was freed

. . . Godspeed.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: assholes
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 08:25:44 GMT

graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
>Seriously all I am saying is that from a constructivist point of view
>that claim that "square circles do not exist" is not only a logical
>question it is an empirical one, because you must produce an object x
>satisfying circle(x), and an object y satisfying square(y), to verify
>the claim. Producing these x and y is an empirical question.

torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>What would be the point of producing a square object and a circle in
>verifying that a square circle does not exist? 

Without producing the objects you do not have a constructivist proof.

>Anyway, constructivism doesn't
>enter into it. Proving a statement "there do not exist P that are Q" does
>not involve producing any P or Q, even from a constructivist point of
>view, unlike proving a statement "there do exist P that are Q". For
>example, it is easily proved constructively that there are no odd numbers
>with property P that are even numbers with property P, even if we have no
>idea whether or not there are any numbers with property P.

I disagree. The point of the constructivist proof is that to say
that "there do not exist P that are Q" is meaningless unless you can
produce at leat on object staisfying P and one satisfying Q. 

>  As is too frequently the case when logic or mathematics creeps into
>the group, I'm afraid this doesn't have a whole lot to do with
>atheism.

Perhaps not ...

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: I still seem to be God
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:17:50 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Sep15.180639.23502@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <BuMH89.Kq1@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> Colleen Davis <cisc124@jeff-lab.queensu.ca> writes:
>}bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams)
>}
>}Erm, well, I don't really care for that cutting out of tongues
>}and eyes stuff.  
>
>Ah, unlike Yahweh you are a kind and loving diety!
>
>

And, also unlike YHWH, the Sanctified Colleen answers prayers
on Internet!


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:16895 talk.religion.misc:15978
From: cmhaar@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Christopher Haar)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Atheism and religion
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:50:56 GMT
Followup-To: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

In article <exukjb.132.715988829@exu.ericsson.se>, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se
(ken bell) wrote:

> Just the other day a fundamentalist relative of mine made the following 
> argument: To assert the nonexistence of god, one would have to presume 
> omniscience, that is, one would have to claim divinity for oneself. For who 
> else but a god could claim to have scoured the entire universe and, finding 
> no god in it, thus be in a position to affirm this negative existential?
> But, the argument ran, if one would have to *be* god in order to be in a 
> position reasonably to deny god's existence, it would appear that the 
> the proposition 'no god exists' is either just self-defeating or  
> necessarily false. [A wierd new kind of ontological argument?]
> [...]
> Anyway, I strongly 
> suspect, not only that the above arguments' conclusion is false but this 
> reasoning is flawed, it's just that I don't see the flaws in it, and my 
> time is presently being spent on analyzing a whole slew of arguments on 
> different topics.  Could someone debug this one for me?  Whoever might want 
> to do this should consider posting the analysis in alt.atheism. Thanks in 
> advance to whom it may concern. Keeping up with arguments can sometimes be 
> a dull business. 
>
> Kenny Bell

     I'm not sure exactly which of the above argument's conclusions you
suspect to be false, but it must be that you have to be god "to be in a
position reasonably to deny god's existence."  Omniscience is a necessary
but not a sufficient attribute for a deity such as the One in which a 
fundamentalist (Christian, I assume) would beleive.  The Judeo-Christian 
God is both omniscient and omnipotent.  Omniscience does not necessarily 
imply omnipotence; therefore, one does not necessarily have to be god to 
assert that god does not exist.  (Whether omniscience is possible for a 
human or any other "natural" being is highly questionable and another line 
of inquiry altogether.)
     If the conclusion you suspect to be false is "therefore there is a god
(namely, the one that asserted god's nonexistence)", go on and suspect all
you want: Negative evidence is not a proof.
     As far as the reasoning goes: It's circular.  In your relative's
assertion that "only a god could claim to have scoured the entire
universe...", he is postulating as true his conclusion that god exists.

cmh
Vote, dammit!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: atdhb@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Did the world end already?
Date: 5 Sep 92 14:04:43 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska

In article <dabrowsk.715213828@liveboard10>, dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski) writes:


 Solution: This world ends TO YOU when you die. 


You, too, you mad dreamer.


> 
> 
> Best wishes,
>              Jarek


Don
Newsgroups: alt.atheism