HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjp@cray.com (Patrick Perro)
Subject: Re: Re-wiring an OLD snowmobile
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 10 Sep 92 08:23:09 CDT

In article <108540002@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM--> ec@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Edgar Circenis) writes:
-->I have a late 60's (???) AMF Ski-Daddler that I recently acquired as a
-->rebuild project.  I just started yesterday to re-wire the thing and came
-->across something I don't understand.  (FYI: someone had unplugged every
-->wire that could possibly be plugged in to anything)
-->
-->The starter switch has four positions: off, lights on, lights off, and start.
-->There are six terminals on the back of the switch, and the connections
-->are as follows for each switch position:
-->
-->	position	connections
-->	----------------------------
-->	off		2 - 4
-->	lights on	1 - 3 - 5
-->	lights off	none
-->	start		1 - 6
-->
-->Based on this information, I have gotten the lights and starter to
-->work correctly by assuming that 1=hot, 3/5=lights, and 6=starter.
-->
-->I haven't had the guts to actually put gasoline in the sled yet because
-->there are still a bunch of wires that aren't connected to anything.  Of concern
-->are two more wires in the vicinity of the starter switch, and the existance
-->of the 2-4 connection when the switch is off.
-->
-->My question is: with modern ignition switches, isn't there some sort of
-->contact that is made to keep the enging running when the switch is in
-->one of the run positions?  I figure that there must be, otherwise turning
-->the switch to "off" wouldn't stop the engine.
-->

No!! The 2-4 connect shorts out the ignition (points or CD stator) to
stop the engine. With the engine unplugged, the engine will run on its
own. Please note! most lighting coil wires are yellow, DO NOT GROUND these
wires while the engine is running you'll fry the coils. Ingition wires are
red (and white for two cylinders these will go to the 2-4 terminals if you
have a twin).

-->
-->From my ignition switch, it is apparent that no special connection is
-->required to keep the engine running, but the connection between switch
-->terminals 2 and 4 in the off position leads me to believe that the 
-->manufacturer intended to ground the spark plugs (thus stopping the
-->engine) with the switch in the off position.  Does this make sense?
-->

Again, it does not ground the secondary coils (those going to the plugs) but
the primary coil. It shorts the circut going to the points so they can't
trigger the plugs to fire.

-->I'll test this hypothesis soon, but was wondering if anyone had experience
-->with _old_ snowmobiles.
-->
-->Edgar




=================================================================================

Patrick J. Perro              Indy 580 XLT                 The comments listed
Cray Research Inc.             				   above are my own. Not
655F Lone Oak Dr.  					   that of my employer
Eagan, MN. 55121					   (unless specifically
pjp@fig.cray.com					   noted).

=================================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.snowmobiles
From: dougr@meaddata.com (Doug Ritter)
Subject: M10 Mach 1
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:34:00 GMT
Distribution: na


I'm curious as to what y'all thought of the FAST M10 that "debuted"
in the latest issue of Snow Week.  There have been rumors about a
long-travel Ski Doo for several years now that was supposed to be
tearing up the cross-country competition in Europe.  It doesn't surprise
me that Karpik is behind it, but it does surprise me that the suspension
is an "add-on" available only through FAST.

A couple of things about it do really surprise me though, the most
important was the review that John Sandberg of Snow Goer gave it.
Not that any of the magazine writers are prone to hyperbole or
anything ;-), but don't you think he went a little too far when he 
said this suspension will totally change snowmobiling over the next 
5 years?  There are a *few* questions I'd like answered before I rush 
out and order this setup, like:

How durable is this thing?  It *looks*, and granted looks are no
measure of strength, fragile.  It can't be if it's been winning cross-
country races, but I'm not a cross-country racer.  I want my suspension
to last 4 or 5 years *minimum* without a major component failure.
There's a difference between a part standing up to a pounding for
a few hours or days, and standing up to a lighter pounding for 4 years.

How does it affect cornering?  It looks to me like you could snap the
whole thing right off your sled if you hit a good-sized bump in the
middle of a high-speed turn.  Again, that obviously can't be true,
but it would worry me if I were riding an M10.  It also seems like
you would need a major redesign of the entire sled to work correctly
with the M10 - seems like it would significantly raise the center
of gravity, which would reduce cornering ability.

And even if it is a good match for the Mach 1, they're selling the thing
to work on *any* sled with a 121 inch track.

Not to mention the fact that the sled looks *bizzare* without a rider,
sort of like it's trying to do a head-stand.

I thought that the next major innovation/evolution in snowmobiles
would be weight reduction.  I really didn't think that there would
be a major change in suspensions in the near future - that snowmobiles
were as good as they could get, ride-wise.  Maybe I was wrong?
After all, I thought my '80 Blizzard was as good as they could get. ;-)

But according to Sandberg, the M10 is orders of magnitude better than
today's sleds.  I'm not saying that's impossible, I just wonder if
it's really ready for consumers, and if it is, how soon will we see
it on a production machine.

And just how much are they going to charge us for it?

Think snow!
--
===============================================================================
Douglas N. Ritter                                  Bo don't know snowmobiles!
dougr@meaddata.com
..!uunet!meaddata!dougr                          No, I'm not speaking for MDC!
From: randy@raven.alaska.edu (Randy Hayman)
Newsgroups: alt.snowmobiles
Subject: Winter may be here!
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:08:39 GMT
Reply-To: randy@raven.alaska.edu (Randy Hayman)
Organization: U of AK - Fairbanks

**********
Weather Report from the North
**********

Think Snow!

Since last Friday, I've gotten about 8 inches of snow at my house. 
Temps in the 20s and 30s,
don't know what the forecast is, so can't tell if this is the start of a
long winter, or just
teasing...

Randy
sxrmh1@orca.alaska.edu
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: alt.snowmobiles
Subject: NOTICE:"Bigfoot/Sasquatch" Sightings Request
Date: 14 Sep 1992 02:44:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


   Our research group is currently investigating reports and sightings of the
animal known as "Bigfoot" or "Sasquatch". If you or somebody you know has had
such a sighting, or come across what may be evidence supporting the existance
of such an animal, please get in contact with us in one of the following
formats:
 
o Leave a private message in electronic mail.
o Call Thomas Hill at 216-362-6529.
o Or write:
 
  Thomas E. Hill
  16124 Richard Dr.
  Brook Park, OH 44142
 
 Contact with us can be totally anonymous if you wish. We are especially
interested in Ohio sightings but are by no means limited to investigations in
that state. Please, serious responses only.
-- 
"A large creature about 7 1/2 to 8 foot tall. It was greyish black in color,
and as it went away from me I seen the backside of it walking as a man would
walk on it's hind legs."- Former Sheriff Oliver Potter, Vancouver, Washington
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:42:11 GMT

In article <BuFEvu.KG0@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>In article <1992Sep11.155546.22384@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>>pn> Peter Nelson
>>gs> Gary Strand
>>
>>gs> When it comes time to vote, I'm sure you're comfortable knowing that *you*
>>    haven't been influenced by the biased coverage of the latest Big News
>>    Story, but millions of others have been, and they'll outvote you every 
>>    time. Your conscience is clear, but that doesn't give you more votes.
>>
>>pn> What do you propose -- blow up a TV transmitter?  Jam their transmissions?
>>    Shoot down a satellite?   Nowhere have you suggested any alternative to 
>>    bad, biased, or stupid TV.
>>
>>  Let's start with a real free market. No more FCC. Place TV and radio, and
>>  any other broadcast medium, under the protection of the 1st amendment. No
>>  restrictions of any kind on content.
>
>   There ARE no restrictions which are relevant to our discussion on
>   the leftward bias of TV news.

     Yes there are.  There are restrictions which govern who can participate
in the market.

>>gs> Perhaps the reason TV is so uniform is because people like you don't make
>>    their choices known.
>>
>>pn> I used to write lots of letters to TV networks and advertisers and I al-
>>    ready detailed by calls to the networks in 1988 and to CNN.  I've paid a
>>    lot more dues than most people as far as "making my choices known".   
>>
>>  "Used to"? Why did you quit? They didn't recognize your obvious intelligence
>>  and eloquence?
>
>  Obviously not. (I think you're starting to froth at the mouth, Gary)  But
>  as I said, how do YOU suggest people "make their choices known".   To
>  most people that phrase implies letters and phone calls.  I rejected
>  pipe bombs as being outside my area of expertise.

     Get the Nielson families to stop watching.


===========================================================================
|David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  University of Tennessee             |  
|            veal@cs.utk.edu          Division of Continuing Education    |
===========================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: "Dan Gillmor" <p00107@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Organization: Detroit Free Press
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 18:25:24 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>
>One of my personal favorite news techniques is where the reporter
>finishes a story with, "of course critics would say that ..."  Where the
>reporter just inserts his opinion of what he believes a critic would
>most likely say.  Is there a more obvious way to insert some personal
>bias into a story?
>
>-- 
>
>Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 

Would you provide us with a specific example of this?

Dan Gillmor
Detroit Free Press

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: sleator@CS.CMU.EDU (Daniel Sleator)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Originator: sleator@SPADE.PC.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Sep7.200625.14617@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Sep7.110455.2113@afit.af.mil>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 06:00:26 GMT

Chip, you keep harping about this pervasive liberal bias.  You keep
saying that we're blind if we don't see it, etc.  But you've given us
exactly one example in which several economists were consulted about
Bush's economic plan.  This was not a convincing example to me and a
lot of other people.

If it's so pervasive, it should be easy to find many examples, even in
one issue of, say, the NY Times.  Since you're continuing to harp
about this, I give you the following challenge: read tomorrow's NY
Times (Tuesday, September 8) and find as many examples of "liberal
bias" as you can, and post them to this newsgroup.  This way we'll get
a better idea of what you mean by "liberal bias", and some light will
be shed.

By the way, have you read "Unreliable Sources" by Lee and Solomon and
Herman and Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent"?  These are essential
reading for anybody who purports to know something about the news
media.

                                Danny
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 12:50:06 GMT

In <2924889870.0.p00107@psilink.com> "Dan Gillmor" <p00107@psilink.com> writes:

>>
>>One of my personal favorite news techniques is where the reporter
>>finishes a story with, "of course critics would say that ..."  Where the
>>reporter just inserts his opinion of what he believes a critic would
>>most likely say.  Is there a more obvious way to insert some personal
>>bias into a story?
>>
>>-- 
>>
>>Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 

>Would you provide us with a specific example of this?

I think The Boys on the Bus mentions something like this...a TV
reporter closing a report saying "insiders believe that...." and his
"insiders" were simply his fellow reporters on the tour.

Michael Jenkinson
Graduate Student, Journalism
Carleton University

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:14:29 GMT

dp> Don Pajerek
gs> Gary Strand

dp> I didn't say that the average American was 'liberal'. What I said was that
dp> the average American was moderate, with a slight leftward tilt. By slight,
dp> I mean poll numbers in the low 50's in support of some 'liberal' position.

  Is simply being pro-choice a "liberal" position? Heck, if you define the
  liberal position as being that which 50%-55% of those polled support, then,
  wow, you get your majority of Americans thinking like good liberals.

dp> The principal mass media consistently reflect this same 'bias', if the 
dp> long-held beliefs of the vast majority can be called a 'bias'. 

gs> No. The mass-media differs on a large number of issues with the majority.

dp> Give me the media 'opinions' on these subjects and tell me where they dif-
dp> fer from the polls. And I don't mean Dan Rather's personal opinion, or 
dp> Peter Jennings'. I mean: what is ABC News' official position on abortion.
dp> Is ABC pro-choice?

  Yes, and 'twould seem that without conditions or restrictions. At least,
  when Pennsylvania's abortion law was reported, all the networks described
  it as "draconian" and "punitive", when in fact, it had no restrictions that
  are not found palatable by the majority of Americans.

dp> Can you, Gary Strand, imagine yourself doing a report on Bill Clinton with-
dp> out your utter contempt for Clinton coming through?

  Of course not. But I wouldn't pretend I was being objective, nor would I see
  my duty as being an agent of social change. I could easily be at least as
  objective as these media types, because it's pretty obvious that they don't
  really live up to their self-professed ideal.

dp> There is nothing larger that reflects a different bias. All alternatives 
dp> that are clearly different in tone from the big guys are also smaller.

  Not true. A good number of magazines and politically-oriented books are all
  read by much larger numbers of people than view the national evening news.

dp> ...if the mass media isn't really 'mass', then this supposed liberal bias
dp> is even less important, since so few people actually are exposed to it.

  Basically, it comes down to whether or not the media is powerful. Since our
  political leaders live and die by what the media perceives them to be, I'd
  say it's plenty powerful. And, therefore, its bias distorts what political
  leaders do and say, thus, our political system is different than what it
  would be if the media were less biased toward a liberal view.
--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
From: sleator@CS.CMU.EDU (Daniel Sleator)
Subject: My challenge to Chip
Originator: sleator@SPADE.PC.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Sep7.200625.14617@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Sep7.110455.2113@afit.af.mil>
	<SLEATOR.92Sep8010026@SPADE.PC.CS.CMU.EDU>
	<1992Sep9.121940.16639@afit.af.mil>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:37:45 GMT

You wrote:

>I still maintain that no honest person can objectively watch or read the
>majority of the news and *not* see a liberal bias.  It's there, and
>plenty of people in the news media know it and admit it.

I paraphrased this as:

>You keep saying that we're blind if we don't see it, etc.

I think this was a fair characterization, but let's not quibble.

The reason that I asked you to point out more examples of what you
consider liberal bias is because I don't see it, and I want to
understand what you're talking about.  You say I'm probably not seeing
it because I "agree" with the bias.  Maybe you're right, but I need
some examples.  I selected the NY Times because it's a paper I have
access to, so I can read the stories myself.  (Your previous example
came from a local paper in Texas.)  The reason I suggested a
particular day is to limit the amount of work that you'd have to do,
and to let the readers gauge the magnitude of the bias.

I don't think my request was unreasonable given the strength of your
convictions.  Of course your thesis work is more important than this.
But it's also more important than posting on these newsgroups!

                                Danny
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 17:56:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

	Chip States:

==>Contrived Example:  A reporter is going over the Republican platform
==>and is giving an objective view of how they contend that the Cold War
==>has been won by conservatives and that the arms race served its 
==>purpose, etc.  He might easily close with, "Of course critics of the
==>arms race would tell you that the Soviet Union was already on the way
==>down and the Conservatives had nothing to do with it."
==>
==>This is not necessarily a reporter's attempt to slant the story to the
==>left.  It is most likely caused by some conviction that the story 
==>needs to be balanced out.  My points are: 1) If a personal bias is
==>going to make itself evident in a story, this vehicle is about the 
==>easiest and most straight-forward way of doing it.  And 2) I see this
==>happening at the end of stories covering conservative ideas much
==>more than their opposites.  

	Two points:

	1. The primary question is not whether the reporter DOES make such a
statement, but whether such a statement is true. Clearly in the example
given above it IS true. I does not represent bias to provide this factual
input, it would only represent bias if the _original_ event was reported in
a manner which was not factual, or if the Reporter used a statement such as
"Of course critics of the arms race can demonstrate that the Soviet Union
was already on the way down, and thus claims that the Conservatives had
anything to do with it are clearly inaccurate." THAT would be a biased
statement.

	2. RE: Point 2 above, it may be that the reporters perceive a
greater distortion of fact in the Conservative stories than in Liberal ones,
and thus feel a greater need to balance them with a presentation of the
opposing view. Whether that perception is an accurate one or not (based on
an unscientific personal evaluation of the news stories of the past few
years, I personally would feel it to be VERY accurate) is irrelevent. If a
reporter believes that both sides of an issue are NOT accessible to the
public, that reporter is certainly acting legitimately in presenting them.
Since the administration has a higher access to the media than those of
other political persuasions, and since the administration has been
Conservative for the past 12 years, it isn't unreasonable to believe that
the Conservative side of most issues is generally more accessible to the
public than the Liberal one.

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\  Reliable and affordable public access to 
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \  telecommunications services is the 
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  first step toward a global community.
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  Send Email for files on GEnie and Netcom.

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Explanation for not reporting SC rally
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:32:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Louisville
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton

 In article <22921@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, bblumenf@ems.cdc.com (Robert Blumenfeld) writes:
> In article <1992Sep14.192349.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> |> right to endorse a candidate.  The problem I have is with the 
> |> credibility of claiming to be unbiased (which is what the Courier-Journal 
> |> did) and then having a 6 to 0 bias in favor of Clinton in the op-ed
> |> pieces.
> 
> Question:  did the Courier-Journal claim to be unbiased in its Op-Ed,
> or in its reporting?
> 
> -- Bob
 
      From what I gather, the reporter (or news writer) included the
 incident in the original story.  An *EDITORIAL* decision was made
 not to print the statement regarding the incident due to lack of space 
 (i.e. they ran the story about Clinton in SC but deleted the heckling 
 incident lines).  So, I do not believe there is a problem with the news 
 writers, but rather with the editorial staff.
 
      Cary Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: "Dan Gillmor" <p00107@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Organization: Detroit Free Press
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 16:03:52 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>>>
>>>One of my personal favorite news techniques is where the reporter
>>>finishes a story with, "of course critics would say that ..."  Where the
>>>reporter just inserts his opinion of what he believes a critic would
>>>most likely say.  Is there a more obvious way to insert some personal
>>>bias into a story?
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>
>>>Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
>
>>Would you provide us with a specific example of this?
>
>I think The Boys on the Bus mentions something like this...a TV
>reporter closing a report saying "insiders believe that...." and his
>"insiders" were simply his fellow reporters on the tour.
>
>Michael Jenkinson
>Graduate Student, Journalism
>Carleton University
>
Do you have anything more recent than the late 1960s (or is it early 70s)?

Dan Gillmor                                      Internet: p00107@psilink.com
Detroit Free Press                               Compuserve: 73240,334
Voice: 313-222-6659                              Genie: d.gillmor1

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,misc.headlines
From: packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer)
Subject: Re: What is "widespread attention"?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Dept. of Independence
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:50:00 GMT

In article <14SEP199207552941@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov>, packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes...
>In article <1992Sep13.233944.3982@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes...
>>I remember the story being on all the major TV networks after if happened.  It 

>you're remembering stories published three months afterward,


Oops, I meant =five= months afterward.

Also, I'm glad at least somebody watches all the networks 
simultaneously.