HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kirkpatr@thyroid.serum.kodak.com (Dan Kirkpatrick (x37370))
Subject: QUESTION on engagement ring...
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:43:25 GMT


Where should one go to look for an engagement ring?

What's the difference between the so called "mall" jewelry stores and
the discount places?   How can I be sure they are selling me a good 
stone that is worth it's price?


please... SEND to kirkpatr@clpd.kodak.com   or  call (716) 224-0732 after 5pm
(REPLY does NOT WORK unless you are within the Kodak network)

______________________________________________________________________________
       
 ///// |     -=-DAN KIRKPATRICK-=-        | *** kirkpatr@clpd.KODAK.COM ***  |
|  @ @ | "We conserve only what we love.  |     kirkpa89@snypotva.bitnet     |
c   _) | We love only what we understand. | LOCKOVM1.449486@KodakO.Kodak.Com | 
 \  o  |We understand only what we learn!"| ***  Phone: (716) 253-7550  ***  |
______________________________________________________________________________

          (If mail bounces, make sure it's sent to address marked above)
From: dumic@cc.swarthmore.edu (Mark J. Dumic)
Newsgroups: soc.couples
Subject: Non-Traditional Wedding Ceremonies
Date: 16 Nov 92 23:27:46 GMT
Followup-To: soc.couples
Organization: Swarthmore College

My fiancee and I are planning what I guess you would call a non-traditional
wedding ceremony.  While I was raised by Catholic parents and she was
raised by Protestant ones, we are not actually involved in these religious
orientations.  Spiritual issues are important to us and we value all the
Eastern and Western religious traditions.  We want a wedding with a
spititual orientation but don't want a "church wedding."  We'd appreciate
hearing from others who have developed their own ceremony.  What kind of
structure did you use?  One line that we are trying to walk is to be
sensitive to parents and guests who are more comfortable with "standard"
weddings yet we want to incorporate something that makes sense for us. 
Stories, suggestions, ideas are welcome.
Newsgroups: soc.couples
From: CMIS27@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Roda Farrell)
Subject: Re: Non-Traditional Wedding Ceremonies
Organization: Motorola
Date: 17 Nov 1992 09:33:48 CST

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
Subject: Non-Traditional Wedding Ceremonies
Eastern and Western religious traditions.  We want a wedding with a
spititual orientation but don't want a "church wedding."  We'd appreciate
hearing from others who have developed their own ceremony.  What kind of
structure did you use?  One line that we are trying to walk is to be
sensitive to parents and guests who are more comfortable with "standard"
weddings yet we want to incorporate something that makes sense for us.
Stories, suggestions, ideas are welcome.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
My husband was raised Catholic, I grew up in the United Methodist
denomination.  In order to please both sides of the family, we had a
minister and a priest co-officiate at our wedding.  A very helpful
resource was _The_Interfaith_Wedding_.  It's a paperback that I've
lent to several people (it's on loan to someone right now!).

Our only regret was not having shared communion since we didn't want
to highlight the differences by having a Protestant line and an R.C
line.  We've since attended a wedding where only the bride and groom
had communion.  They chose it as their first sacrament as husband and
wife.

Good luck!
Roda Farrell
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: What technology did the American Indians have?
Date: 16 Nov 92 04:56:05 GMT
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA


I recently watched a Nova episode on TV about the European Iceman from 3300 BC.
It turns out he had a copper axe.

Eastern Hemisphere civilizations progressed from stone tools to copper tools
to bronze tools to iron tools.  Which of these tools did the Western Hemosphere
natives possess in 1491?

I would like to get a sense of how advanced Western Hemisphere technology was
in 1491 compared to the Eastern Hemisphere.  Did the Europeans have greater
technology in 3300 BC than the Americans in 1491 AD?  How did the Aztec and
Incan civilizations compare with the Roman or Egyptian civilizations, for
example?

-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Xref: sparky soc.history:9602 talk.politics.theory:5022 misc.legal:20203
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:59:52 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov19.072009.799@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> In article <1992Nov19.010222.10042@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
# #Either of you
# #may be right, as a definitive Supreme Court decision has not been made.
# 
# US v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1934). The Second Amendment applies to
                            ^^^^
                            1939

# weapons have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
# efficiency of a well-regulated militia", and that "militia" as used
# in the Second Amendment includes everyone "physically capable of acting
# in concert for the common defense..."
# 
# #The presence of various gun control laws in the statute books is an
# #argument that the Supreme Court may decide in favor position 2. 
# 
# Why? The existance of unconstitutional laws does not make them
# constitutional.

Actually, the Supreme Court hasn't heard a state gun control law
case in almost a century.  A great many state supreme courts HAVE
struck down a variety of gun control laws, based on the state
constitutional provisions.  Some of those courts have recognized
that their provision is derived from the Second Amendment.

#                                                Frank Crary



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
We could say that Congress spends money like drunken sailors.  But that would
be unfair -- to the sailors.  They, at least, are spending their own money.
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: KILLing Sendar
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:11:32

I suspect the original poster didn't understand what killing means in
a newsreader.  I suspect he thought it meant removing the article in
such a way that no-one could read it.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: soc.history
From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Re: Founding Fathers
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 19 Nov 92 11:48:15 CST

In article 21608@Princeton.EDU, glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes:
|
|If you think about it, the US *did* lose a few colonies -- East & West
|Florida, Nova Scotia, Canada, Quebec, not to mention the Caribbean.  In
|addition, slavery was legal in all of the 13 colonies in 1774 when the
|"United States" came into existence with the meeting of the Continental
|Congress and when these decisions would have had to have been made
|(don't you just love that syntax -- 5 helping verbs!).
|

What kind of a stake or interest did each of these colonies manifest
in joining the union?  It seems to me that there was some point where
we tried to force part of Canada to join and got beaten badly.  I 
could be wrong.  I don't remember clearly.

---
--David C. Adams  Statistician  Cray Research Inc.  dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       Old Sourdoughs never die.  They just ferment away.



Xref: sparky soc.history:9492 misc.legal:20089
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Libertarians in WW2
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:54:09 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov16.235843.2228@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <1992Nov16.204210.11462@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> >, it is not
> >fair to call the 1920's and Hoover laissez-faire capitalists. The
> >Sherman anti-trust laws and all kinds of other things had been passed
> >by this point. 
> 
> You're telling me the fifteen fines imposed in the 1920's for antitrust
> cases (average size: $98,000) caused the Great Depression?  Please.

You mean that the Sherman Antitrust Act had no influence on business
decisions, other than fines?  That no one was restrained by fear of
suit?  I think "all kinds of other things" in Mr. Thomas' posting
refers to such entities as the Federal Trade Commission, the various
regulatory agencies (FDA, ICC, etc.)

> We'll even leave aside the argument that the Sherman Act had a positive
> effect on the economy in its first forty years. 

How could it?  Into the 1920s, corporations weren't subject to the
Sherman Act -- only unions were.  Remember how the 14th Amendment
was perverted to find that corporations were "persons", and therefore
exempted?

> ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Foxes prefer rabbits with short claws." -- Nadja Adolf
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago: Wednesday, 4 November, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:37:52 GMT

In article <BxtK1E.14n@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) writes:
> 
> A British Merchant Seaman is hanged after being convicted under the 1940
> Treachery Act.  The sailor had admitted taking 18 pounds from a Nazi agent
> in Portugal.
> 

This brings up more questions.  Is that all he did?  Did he give
information out that would have resulted in ships getting sunk?
==== Al Sparks
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: KILLing Sendar
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:13:06 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
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 <92323.115652DXZ102@psuvm.psu.edu> <DXZ102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

+>Please do not even think of KILLing Sendar's articles. No one in this group has
+>the right to block the flow of information; you are not Popes. This is not a
+>monestary. I, too, tire of seeing SERA ZUMA SERA ZUMA SERA ZUMA all the time,
+>but I would never think of forbidding him the right the express his thoughts,
+>which do reflect an historical intelligence. Don't burn book as Adolph did.

	Seders material is racist and exposes hate against a wide variety
of ethnic groups whose only common thread is that they had the misfortune
of being ruled by the Ottoman Turks.

	To compare going after his hate-postings, which the true author
	does not have the courage to put his own name on, to Hitler
	is bizzare.

	There is no Serdar Argic, just as there was no "real" Multu
	writing this material.  The real person behind all of these
	postings is afraid of putting his name to them.  I have nothing
	against people expressing opinions, but I have a great deal 
	against material designed to stir up ethnic hate being posted
	by someone who hides both their name and there site.

+>If you don't like Sendar's stuff,  DONT READ IT!

	The problem is that somebody has to at least keep the fight up
	to some degree.  Otherwise there is the great danger that ignorant
	people may be taken by the racism he represents.



+>Respectfully of others.....

		Respect ends when the only end of the material being
		posted is to stir up hate against groups and the Author
		is such a coward that:

		1. He will not answer challanges to his material
		2. He will continue to re-post material proven to
		be either incorrect or just plain wrong.
		3. He will not post under his own name or from his
		own site. 

	


Xref: sparky soc.history:9514 misc.legal:20112 sci.econ:8741
From: edwardk@cup.portal.com (edward chungfan kwok)
Newsgroups: soc.history,misc.legal,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Sherman Act
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 08:25:49 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Nov16.235843.2228@midway.uchicago.edu> <13221@optilink.UUCP>
  <1992Nov18.042647.17597@midway.uchicago.edu>

>>
>>How could it?  Into the 1920s, corporations weren't subject to the
>>Sherman Act -- only unions were.  
>
>I suspect American Tobacco Corp. would be surprised by this characterization.
>
And of course, they tricked the Rockefellers into splitting up Standard Oil
thinking that the Sherman Act may actually apply to them, Clayton Cramer 
notwithstanding..
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: More Pseudo Scholars in Action defending the Ottomans
Date: 22 Nov 1992 01:33:17 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

sera@zuma.UUCP (Serdar Argic, actually AT&T's very own Hasan B Mutlu) writes:

> >How's this different from the forced religion changes caused by the
> >angelic Ottomans (tm)? 
> 
> Is this the "perlman-ian" of the week? The following observations by 
> Westerners were written in French by Ahmet Cevat: 

Does it make it more credible if it is in French, Mutlu? Is Mr. Ahmet Cevat 
a Turk or not? Nah, he's a Turk alright, but he's objective (in French!)

(* [Many patronising statements] These facts demonstrate that Muslim
(* countries provided spiritually far better living conditions than Christian
(* countries."[1]

And, 

(* On account of this, the autonomy of minorities in Turkey is better and 
(* more complete than any in the most advanced European countries."[2]

And,

(* Turks never oppress anybody on account of his religion. [3]

And, 

(* "In that vast and calm country of the sultan, all religions and nations are
(* living together peacefully. [4]"

Of course, "(*" is Turkiye's very own..... But some of Djevat's stuff was
actually written by A. Ubicini.... Any info on Signor Ubicini, Mutlu?

(* [1]  Ah. Djevat, "Yabancilara Gore Eski Turkler," 3rd ed. (Istanbul, 1978),
(*      pp. 70-71.
(* [2]  Ibid., p.91.
(* [3]  Ibid., pp. 214-
(* [4]  Ibid., pp. 215-216.

As usual, I won't challenge your statements above. I'll just challenge
you to produce a NON-Turkish source for any of the stuff above. I am
sure  I can read BAGDHAT NEWS or IRAQI FREE PRESS and see "objectivism"
all over the place about Iraq winning the MOTHER OF ALL WARS. But coming
from a country where freedom of expression is questionable at best 
newspapers being collected before publication,  movies, poems, Kurdish
language, etc all censored/forbidden until very recently, etc) I'd have
a hard time accepting Djevat Bey as anything other than a career paid
propagandist. 

> Serdar Argic

Surely, you jest.

Spiros
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Founding Fathers
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:37:07 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1ek1ijINNrjo@fido.asd.sgi.com>  
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> In article <1eg4tvINNg8h@transfer.stratus.com>,  
jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
> |> Cynical, no. Realistic, yes.  The Founders realized they had
> |> to compromise on the Constitution, that getting most of what  
they
> |> wanted (though not all) is better than getting none of what
> |> they wanted.
> 
> Please explain the difference here between cynical and realistic.

Cynical has much more negative conotations, realistic does not.
One can admit the need for compromise without being cyncial 
about it.

From Webster's:

Cyncial: having or showing the attitude or temper of a cynic; esp:  
contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives 

syn CYNICAL, MISANTHROPIC, PESSIMISTIC.  CYNICAL implies having a  
sneering disbelief in sincerity or integrity.



--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Copernicus and Heliocentricity
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:09:57 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <23874@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:
>Copernicus was said to have "invented" a heliocentric universe simply because
>it was more appealing to him.  Being that he believed that light was a symbol
>of God, he would put that representation of God at the center of the universe
>and hence put the sun at the center of the solar system.  However, the
>Protestants, being literalists of the Bible, rejected this notion because the
>Bible specifically stated that the earth was at the center of the universe...

Reference, please?

Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|		"Never" is about six months.   -- Charlie Gibbs		      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Founding Fathers
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:51:46 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1eckbfINNgr3@fido.asd.sgi.com>  
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> In article <1992Nov16.203743.16005@acuson.com>, miklg@acuson.com >  
|> >Well, one recent example springs to mind.   When Spain, Portugal
> |> >and Greece applied for membership of the EC, they were told to  
clean
> |> >up their acts and re-establish democracy first.   
> |> 
> |> 	This wasn't a pre-existing federation accepting members.  If
> |> 	Virginia (the most populous state at the time) hadn't joined,
> |> 	it might have been the US of New England, and Great Britain
> |> 	might have regained some errant children.
> 
> That strikes me as a distinction without a difference.   What's so
> different between A, B and C deciding to welcome D into their fold,
> and A, B, C and D deciding to unite?
> 

But there is a very big difference.  The EC is not worried that
they'll collapse or be conquered by a foreign power if Spain
doesn't join.  The strongest economic powers in Europe are now
in the EC, and it'll do fine without those few countries are
not members.

The US, at the time of the Constitution, was very worried about
the collapse of the country, and subsequent takeover by
European powers.  Furthermore, the compromise was needed to get
several of the most important states into the fold.  Virginia
and the Carolinas were important to the new country. If, for 
example, only Georgia was holding out, the union may have gone
on without them. We couldn't have gone on without Virginia.  It
would have been a lot like France or Germany holding out from
the EC.  The EC would have much more trouble surviving without
one of those countries than they will in surviving without
Spain.


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: vzhivov@alfred.carleton.ca (Vladimir Zhivov)
Subject: Re: Pearl Harbor
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 22:53:48 GMT

In <visser.721857914@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:

>In <1992Nov15.133710.15@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:

>+>> Yes, but England wouldn't have withstood as long as it did if the
>+>> US hadn't taken sides long before Pearl Harbor.  Japan wouldn't
>+>> have even bombed Pearl Harbor if it wasn't for the United States
>+>> refusing to sell oil to it -- but that's "meddling" in the 
>+>> Libertarian view of the world.

>	A question about Japanese behavior that has always bothered 
>me is why after the embargo went on Japan didn't just walk into
>Indonesia in retaliation and dare the americans (or the british) to do 
>anything about it.  Its true that the supply lines from Japan to Indonesia
>would have been endangered by american and british forces in the region
>potentially, but its hard to see anyone declaring war on Japan because
>of it.
>	It would have been difficult to "sell" a war over a Dutch colonial 
>possession in the united states.
>	Once in Indonesia, Japan would have had all the oil it would have
>ever needed.

>	The biggest irony of the war in regard to oil is probably that
>the Italians and Germans, while being desperatly short of it, were in
>control of huge (but then undiscovered) quantities of it in Libya.

          The reasoning behind Pearl Harbour went something like this:
the Japanese Navy, and especially Admiral Yamamoto, realized that the
vastly superior U.S. economic base would in the long run defeat Japan.
Thus the only hope was to score a decisive early triumph and cripple
U.S. power significantly enough in the Pacific to allow Japan to
expand.
          The historical precedent of Port Arthur at the outbreak of
the outbreakof the Russo-Japanese War in 1904 also played a role no
doubt. To be fair the Japanese did achieve toal control of Western
Pacific as a result of Pearl Harbour; it was errors, bad luck, and
U.S. code-breaking leading up to the Battle of Midway that doomed
Japan. Had the U.S. carriers been in Pearl Harbour on Dec. 7 (and been
sunk or seriously damaged) and had the Japanese launched a second
strike to destroy the fuel drums at the harbour, the Americans would
have been forced to abandon Hawaii as a fleet base and move to San
Francisco.
          Japan would have still lost the war in the long run in all
probability, but once the Japanese determined to challenge U.S. power
in the Pacific, the Pearl Harbour strategy was the only hope, and
could have been even more successful with greater luck and better
leadership on the part of Nagumo, the task force commander.

                                                  Vladimir


Xref: sparky soc.history:9524 alt.society.civil-liberty:6616