HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 8942227g@levels.unisa.edu.au
Newsgroups: unisa.system
Subject: Re: AARNet access from PC/Mac pools
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:31:47 +1030
Organization: University of South Australia

In article <19221.2afa454d@levels.unisa.edu.au>, Rollo.Ross@levels.unisa.edu.au writes:
>            The University of South Australia has received an increasing
> number of complaints from Network Managers in other organisations about the
> behaviour of some PC/Mac users here. Users taking advantage of the
> anonymity of PCs have been connecting to systems elsewhere in the world
> and doing such  things as sending forged mail messages, writing data to FTP
> areas made available for legitimate users on computers in other
> organisations, and playing games which place considerable load on networks
> and facilities elsewhere. As a result of these activities, some
> organisations have put filters in place to keep out traffic from
> University of South Australia systems. Our reputation is suffering as a
> result.
>       To prevent further abuse of this sort, we have implemented
> filtering in our connection to AARNet which prevents external access from
> machines in the PC and Mac pools. Legitimate users of external facilities
> can still use them, by first logging on to a system which has identifiable
> users, such as the Unix or VMS systems supported by the Information
> Technology Branch (eg, lux, ntx, hopper, zorba, or one of the Levels
> VAXes) and then connecting to the external system.
>                                                       Rollo Ross

Since games like MUD are the worst culprits as far as AARNet is involved (and as
much as I love them they ought to be stopped) Is it possible to limit anonymous
ftp to "read only"?  This would stop users being able to interact with muds and
also stop the forged mail messages.  Those that are legitimate users of FTP
would still have write access through their vax, lux or other mainframe link.
The thing is that there are many useful applications available out there, but
the only way to get to them is through anonymous FTP.  Some of the more popular
sites have mirror sites (such as the well known wuarchive site) scattered around
the world which are a lot closer than having to ftp overseas and contain the
same files.  Either that or could we set up a unisa newsgroup for requests and
binaries?  I'm sure that someone in the Unisa system would have a copy of a
program that everyone has heard of and wants and would be able to post.

Paul Utry

(what's a sig anyhow? :-) )
#! rnews 2194
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: YO DODIE! Do you want a ticket to Bangkok?
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:54:09 +1030
Organization: That damn kid is still here!

In article <1992Nov1.175830.2861@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) writes:

> No, because refusing to save another person's life is not
> equivalent to killing that person.  If a person is going
> to die as a consequence of my actions, it doesn't necessarily
> follow that I should have the right to kill them outright.  
> In addition, the donation of bodily resources has already
> begun in the case of pregnancy, unlike forced organ donation. 

There I was, taking a wonderful walk down a street in Bangkok,
I know it's a little dangerous, I might get robbed or even
killed but I DO love this place. Next thing I know, BANG!...

....ooooh...my head....

I look up..what??..NO! You B***RDS! That's my kidney! STOP!
Oh, waitaminute, it's in the middle of being taken away from
me, soooo, according to DODie I cannot interfere with the
taking of my bodily resources to bring about the life of
another. I DON'T CARE! "NO YOU DON'T" foams DODie as I try
to stop them, "YOUR ACTIONS WILL KILL ANOTHER!!" and they
hit me wth some drug called Biblenium....


'YOU KNEW THE RISKS! YOU KNEW THAT YOU COULD BE ROBBED! SO
IT WAS IMPLICIT ACCEPTANCE OF WHAT HAPPENED' spewed some
pro-lifer, as if that justified the theft of my bodily
resources. I just hope I don't get some disease that affects
my remaining kidney because I have no spare anymore.
-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
+-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
+-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Marquis
#! rnews 1295
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What if there is a god?
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:12:17 +1030
Organization: That damn kid is still here!

In article <Bx0s7E.9zp@umassd.edu>, rolls@cis.umassd.edu (Frank Pinto) writes:

> As a fresheman in the subject, let me pose a
> question : 
> 
> SupDose there is a god.
> Then what?

Simple!

If we think there is no god, then we will only realise our 'mistake'
when we die or this god decides to show it's ugly mug.

 - If we are dead at the time, we have no choice but to accept whatever
   judgement it passes down.
 - If it proves its own existance then that nullifies any conversion
   since it was not done without full faith.

-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
+-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
+-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Marquis
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Help
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:08:04 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: b63519.student.cwru.edu

In article <1992Nov12.192506.26872@samba.oit.unc.edu> Mic.Oettinger@launchpad.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>Thirdly, and I ask this out of sheer confusion myself (and I'd really like
>true opinions on what you make of this), I am aware that your wonderful
>scientists have now discovered a way to tap the area of the brain that
>triggers out-of-body experiences, and that they now in fact have a laboratory
>where one (with much money to blow) can experience an OOB. Given that
>after coming back from one of these the person can relay information which
>occured in other rooms/states/countries/etc while they were 'gone', what
>do you make of this obvious proof that the human body entails more than
>its physical being? How would you explain this, and does this not provide
>a damn good proof that when we die we are only leaving our physical body?

A "laboratory" that charges its experimental subjects? This sounds fishy 
from the start. I'll echo Ekr's request for a paper in a respectable journal.
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Chaotic brain behaviour and its influence on duplicating a person
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:32:46 GMT
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.

In article <RICHARD.92Nov9172845@cantor.harlqn.co.uk>,
richard@harlqn.co.uk (Richard Brooksby) writes:
|>In alt.atheism jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jordan M. Wolbrum) wrote:
|>
|>> 2) Without a soul, could it be possible to clone a human and copy
|>> all of the original's memories into the clone, creating two of the
|>> same person?  I think so.  I'm just tired of hearing people say "It
|>> just wouldn't be me," w/o any justification.
|>
|>I have a friend who is doing neuroscientific research.  He once told
|>me about chaotic behaviour observed in the olfactory lobe.  His claim
|>was that the brain was using a strange attractor to somehow control
|>perception.  I didn't take in much of what he said -- it was just a
|>brief conversation about what he was working on.
|>
|>Anyway, if the brain were to make use of chaotic behaviour, or at
|>least be influenced by chaotic functions, then it is unlikely that
|>duplicating a person completely (setting aside quantum physics for the
|>moment, *ahem*) would duplicate their behaviour.  Their chaotic nature
|>would cause them to diverge unpredictably.
|>
|>I would be interested in any references to documents describing
|>chaotic brain behaviour.  It would be even better if someone could
|>explain and/or challenge this work in terms which I am likely to
|>understand.
|>
|>[Note the followup line -- edit it if you want to take this discussion
|> elsewhere.]
|>---
|>richard@harlqn.co.uk              (Internet)
|>RPTB1@UK.AC.CAMBRIDGE.PHOENIX     (JANET)
|>Zen Buddhist
                              
I beleive ALL neurologic fuctions are chaotic: to have
non-chaotic waveforms produces effects like epilepsy.
As an EE, I can see how the nervous system can be
seen as a very, very complex control system (bit of a 
stretch, I know).  Chaotic systems are relative to 
how much information you have and how precice that
info is.  If the replica is an EXACT duplicate, then
they would match.  Any difference will make them diverge
(as you stated).  Of course, each "copy" is subject to
different input, so they will diverge regardless.  I don't
think a persons behaviour is static, so the copies will
act alike at first, but will become more and more separated 
as time goes on.  I don't think this is any different than
what happens to identical twins.  While the divergence will
be unpredictable, it won't be that great, and probably influenced
most by the differences in the environment.  
The chaos just means that they won't be thinking the same
things at the same time (sychronisity).

Brian /-|-\

PS sorry, but I don't have any refs.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: Asserting No Gods
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 11 Nov 92 02:41:06 GMT

jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:

>In article <1992Nov8.221216.1657@nmsu.edu> epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:
>>
>>	I think it's just because you're stuck.  I've looked everywhere, and I  
>>can't find alt.a-invisible-pink-unicornism.  Maybe it got taken off due to lack  
>>of posters.
>>
>>						Erik Powers

>No, its because it is _Invisible_!
>jc
>-- 

No, it's just that our monitors are in black and white and not pink!

>I sink like a stone
>That's been thrown in the ocean
>My logic has drowned
>In a sea of emotion                   -- Sting

Jeff.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20815 talk.religion.misc:20614
From: dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Date: 7 Nov 1992 13:25:50 GMT
Organization: University of Natal (Durban), South Africa
NNTP-Posting-Host: shrike.und.ac.za
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:
: 
: I must also beg to differ.  Nothing science does precludes anything religion
: teaches.  Science only considers natural phenomena and therefore any acts of
: God (supernatural) are, BY CONSTRUCTION, excluded from consideration.  One

How many times must we listen to this kind of thing?  Everything (rain,
wind, gravity eyc) is ``supernatural' until someone finds a better
explanation.
 
: 
:                            I asked Jesus,
:                      "How much do you love me?"
:                      "This much," He answered;
:                         and He stretched out
:                          His arms and died.

As did uncountably many at the hands of his worshippers.

	-Hal
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20977 talk.religion.misc:20789
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:28:57 GMT
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

In article <1992Nov10.022114.13498@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) writes:
>>  All we can do is interpret.  For me, the existence of the 
>>universe is clearly from God.
>
>But for you God exists first, and everything else follows, including you
>interpretations.
>
>>  You choose to interpret observations 
>>differently.  Fine.  It's not important.  I can't prove God anymore than you 
>>can disprove Him (or prove any physical law for that matter).
>>  -- Scott @Brandeis
>
>This is where we can see you for who you truly are.  Your interpretations
>are clouded by faith.  As if your belief becomes stronger because no one
>can prove a universal negative (no gods exist), it is logically impossible.
>I am not asking for proof, just evidence.  You have still refused to say why
>you believe that the supernatural exists.  Why?

You are getting one of my points entirely!  My faith impacts my interpretation 
of phenomena.  Your faith in science (probably just as strong
as my faith in God) impacts your interpretation by demanding only natural
phenomena to exist.  That's fine as long as you understand your assumptions.
We both have faith that clouds (I prefer "influences") our interpretation.  It's
called having a paradigm.

If you read my posts again, I have never stated that I believe in the super-
natural.  I proposed that, if the supernatural exists, it does not contradict
the claims of science.  I thought it was pretty obvious and should threaten
no one.  Apparantly I was wrong on both counts.

I inadvertantly deleted your Occam's razor comment.  You feel I need to prove
that the supernatural exists.  But, to say that something doesn't exist is
the statement that demands evidence/proof because it is the stronger statement.
I have claimed that the supernatural may or may not exist.  You have claimed
that it doesn't.  You have drawn a conclusion whereas I have not.  Drawing
a conclusion requires support, stating a possibility does not.  Occam's razor
does not come into play.

>What exactly do you mean by prove any physical law?  I suggest an experiment
>-- jump off of a tall building, if you fall to the ground, I would consider
>it evidence of gravity.  If, on the other hand, you should fly up into the
>sky and be whisked into heaven, then I shall  become a believer.
>Care to try?  Didn't think so.

Evidence for gravity is not proof of gravity.  One cannot prove anything in
science because everything in science is based on assumptions which are stated
without proof.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
From: MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: God Is Silly
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:56:00 GMT
 <1dse44INNftm@gap.caltech.edu>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1dse44INNftm@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan
Schneider) says:
>
>I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>
>>Martin Schulte typed:
>>>In article <n0de5t@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org says:
>>>>
>>>> I don't care if I have no evidence that God does
>>>>not exist, though I assert God does not exist. I assert the negative,
>>>>and it is up to the theist, whom asserts the positive, to produce the
>>>>evidence.
>
>>>Where do you get this? Does no one understand that there are more than
>>>two sides to this? Anyone who asserts something had better be prepared
>>>to back it up. I don't understand why you think that the other side has
>>>to prove you wrong. As if you can assert a belief and get away with it.
>>>Both sides, since they are asserting something, need to prove their
>>>assertions. Otherwise, I'm left with nothing at all--my present stance.
>
>Who's asserting anything?  Whether or not God actually exists, I choose

Who's asserting? Why don't you carefully read the post I followed, which
states: "I assert the negative". So explain how despite this you actually
aren't asserting anything.

>not to believe in Him.  It is up to you to convince me that I *should*
>believe in this thing.  The burden is thus on you.  I'm not telling
>you NOT to believe in God, I'm just working with the fact that
>there isn't enough evidence to convinve ME to believe.  Care to help?

On this note, I'm giving up on this thread. It's obvious that I'm being
thrown in with the god-believers simply because I don't agree with the
atheists. You can email me if you really think a resolution is possible.

Martin Schulte
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: Sun,  8 Nov 1992 23:17:08 -0500 
From: "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Asserting No Gods
 <1992Nov6.164252.27622@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
 <92312.020054MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Nov07.201705.17726@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
	<92313.043021MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>

>>Is it rational to assume that glurfles do not exist?  Is is rational
>>to assume that they do?
> 
>Neither is rational.
The world really becomes a scary place when the only way to be rational
is to sit the fence on every issue that you can't fully define.  It's
impossible to know everything about every issue before you make a
decision.  And the middle of the issue doesn't exist in some cases. 
Example: Is abortion acceptable under a defined set of
circumstances(like, convicted rape)?  There's nothing between a yes and
a no.
I happen to think that is is very rational to assume that gurfles do not
exist, based of my current experiences with gurfles(ie none).  I also
think that it's completely irrational to say that gurfles do exist,
because I've never experienced them with any of my five senses.
The point is: just because you don't have all the answers, doesn't mean
you can't have a strong opinion without being a hypocrite.
Are you comfortable with the idea of holding no opinions?
No offense intended. :)
:) extra for good luck
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The Bible In Minnesota
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:29:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: b64746.student.cwru.edu

In article <cscope.721097690@camelot> cscope@camelot.bradley.edu (William Twentyman) writes:
>
>>I was flipping through the channels on tv this morning, and came across
>>the Family Channel (sic) with Pat Robertson and some lawyer fellow.
>>They were discussing a case in Minnesota about the American Atheists
>>suing to remove bibles from schools and/or classrooms (I didn't see
>>the whole discussion). Of course, they weren't too happy about it,
>>and complained about how Christians are being repressed these days.
>>Anyway, I was wondering if anyone knows of this case, because I'm *sure*
>>they weren't telling the whole story (naturally).
>
>Funny, I don't recall ever seeing a bible while I was in school for 12 years
>in Minnesota.  I don't see what the problem is or what the point of the 
>law suit is.

	If there are the major works of all the world's major religions, and 
some atheistic sources ( logic and rational thought text's would be 
sufficient ) present, then I do not see a problem either. If, however, 
taxpayers money is being used to only represent one religion, in effect, 
supporting only one religion, then I think it's wrong. Not only wrong, but I 
consider it to be immoral.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: <None>
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 12 Nov 92 03:42:17 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <t-q1r0=@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec321.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
> In article 1@cubldr.colorado.edu, miller_jh@cubldr.colorado.edu () writes:
> 
>>Still, I would incline in my "heart" (the metaphysical projection separate from
>>yet connected to the large muscle situated in the center of my chest!) and
>>"soul" (the non-emperical projection of the metaphysical into no particular
>>material metaphor; i.e.; what is the "organ" of soul?)

   It's the pineal gland, according to the Greeks.  One of the
few non-paired glands, located in between the brain hemispheres.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20727 talk.religion.misc:20536 sci.skeptic:19103
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:35:15 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <dpn2.34.720674224@po.CWRU.Edu> dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
>
>Pardon me, but in what way is a serial killer a victim?

  He becomes one as soon as you throw the switch or administer the
  injection.


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
doing something wrong?"
			James Nicoll

Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!
From: dwjurkat@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Jurkat)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: *TRUE* Christians
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:34:30 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY

In article <92316.015308RXS127@psuvm.psu.edu> <RXS127@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>I haven't read all the posts on this topic yet, but I'll try to get my two cent
>s in.  Well, the first thing about becoming a Christian is an acknowledgement o
>f sin.  "The wages of all sin is death."  This means that all sin is equal.  So
>don't try to go up to a Christian and say that they did evil things in the past
>Because they should know that already.  Sin is sin no matter what a Christian i
>s doing.  So to say that Christians err is like going up to a cook and say that
> he just cooked something.  How dumb is this subject?  It is only secular moral
>ists like yourselves that try to blame sin on Christians and get the last laugh
> in.  In reality, we don't care what you think.  We just care that we have ackn
>owledged our sins.  Haven't you ever done anything wrong in your life???
>
>Bob Surh
>rxs127@psuvm.psu.edu
Nonsense!  All sins are not equal.  Murder is not equal to theft.  
With your logic it would be allright to commit murder as long as you
acknowledge it.
Also sin is defined as a transgression of divine law and therefore does
apply to Christians but not Atheists. 
Hope you enjoy hell, sinner.:)
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20854 talk.religion.misc:20676 sci.skeptic:19197
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: re: Homosexuality - genetic?
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 17:06:04 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

hbcs1010@blurt.oswego.edu writes:
> how can homosexuality be genetic? forgive me if i'm diplaying my ignorance
> here, but isn't it a bit difficult for a homosexual to be the biological pare
> of a child?

Yup, but it could be a recessive gene.


mathew

Newsgroups: alt.atheism,sci.skeptic