HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 06:21:39 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <69301@cup.portal.com> <BxK8r5.6MG@acsu.buffalo.edu>
  <69354@cup.portal.com> <roelle.721602222@uars_mag>

Dear People: You flamers are really sharp. My compliments to you for
keeping me on the straight and narrow. I did some material last night 
about the use of Vertual Reality with our space ships we are sending to 
other planets. I had dream last night that warned me not to insult or 
talk about anything or anybody or they would sue me so from now on out 
I'm going to be a good boy.
John Winston.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: serb@polisci.umn.edu (Scott Erb)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:30:56 GMT

In article <VyJoTB3w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:


>Spiritual Intelligence Test.

>(Please answer each question in 25 words or less)

>1) What is the soul?

A misused concept.  Spirit creates flesh and we are multi-dimensional beings 
free to create our reality.  We call 'soul' those parts of us not evident in 
the material world.

>2) What is the purpose of human life?

To have fun, learn, and realize that freedom is absolute and we are all a 
part of each other.

These are very simple questions, I think.

-- Scott, U. of Minnesota
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
From: serb@polisci.umn.edu (Scott Erb)
Subject: Re: What's your SIQ?
Organization: Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:14:28 GMT

In article <F9uyTB2w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

(Much deleted...)

>> > We are not "part of each other" at all. The soul is eternally an
>> > individual, and it never at any time loses this individuality.

These are not necessarily contradictory.  Think about it.

(more deleted)

>No. God is male. It is a fact. God is not a human being. Duality in 
>material world does not refer to male/female but to spirit/matter. 
>In the kingdom of God, there are males and females, but there is no matter.>
>God Himself is the supreme male, and His consort is called Yogamaya, who>is 
>the internal energy of God. Yogamaya is the supreme female. There>should be 
>no problem with this.

This seems sexist to me, and how the heck do you know these entities or 
whatever they are exist?  Why do we humans have to try to personify love 
with myths and stories, choosing to believe a certain book or rendition 
simply because it somehow corresponds to a subjective spiritual experience.  
If we really have self-esteem, can't we simply take responsibility for 
focusing on our own works and beliefs, not on ritual and myth?  I believe 
there is a spiritual unity and that love is god/spirit/whatever.  I may be 
wrong, but with that belief I can act to try to improve myself and make this 
world better.  That seems practical and no less spiritual than those who 
argue about whether certain books or myths are right, or if god is male or 
female.  Love is neither and both, love is not a possession but a guiding 
impulse.  If we let love rather than a myth rule our lives, then I don't see 
how we can go wrong.  Also, how can you say "that is a fact."  Especially 
when one talks about these things, we have no epistemological ground to 
state that something is a fact (just as there can be no ontological proof on 
the existence of any particular non-material entity).  That moves us beyond 
the realm of science and into intuition, feeling and belief, where 
scientific proof no longer applies and we have to playfully explore.

>>   Kalki's overall grade: 57.5%
>>   Thank you very much!  You have provide an oppertunity for us all to jump in
>>   and spout dogmatic beliefs.  Always great fun if not taken too seriously or
>>   personally.

>No. Complete waste of time if not taken absolutely seriously.

One has to take their own beliefs seriously, but if you are dogmatic towards 
others you forget one thing: YOU MIGHT BE WRONG.  We all might be wrong.  
That admission is called tolerance.  I can respect any belief and argue any 
point as long as that tolerance is present.  If it isn't, then I'm afraid 
that's a sign that an individual is hiding behind a belief because they are 
afraid to accept the inherent uncertainty of the material world.

peace and love,   Scott, University of Minnesota
(Minnesota:  the only state that has never voted for Reagan or Bush!)
From: pope@slab.unt.edu (TIMOTHY POPE)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Environmental Databases ?
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:16:13 GMT
Organization: School of Library & Info Sci, UNT

Does anyone know where to find databases that contain information on the 
environment ??  What about BBS that are environmentally oriented ??
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.energy
From: ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 01:57:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.221451.5280@inel.gov>, dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
ct
|> [.....]
|> Greenpeace and other similar organizations have in the past disreguarded 
|> international law on the open sea in order to meet their goals.

Wouldn't be surprised ... isn't this known as civil disobedience?

|> [....]
|> It was strikingly
|> clear that the Greenpeace ship was acting illegally by being in the area and
|> refusing the lawful orders of the US Navy vessel.  But Greenpeace reason was
|> that their actions superceeded the rights of the US Navy to freely test 
|> their weapon systems *in accordance to all international laws*.  In summary,
|> Greenpeace was completely and absolutely wrong in this case.

No they were just being weenies, if your gonna break the law to make a point
seems to me you should let it be known that you've broken the law and will
go on breaking the law until you achieve your goal.

Larry Edwards
Xref: sparky talk.environment:4553 sci.environment:12638 sci.energy:5321
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:26:16 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Nov9.145946.4373@inel.gov> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>In article <JMC.92Nov8204409@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>> 
>> They tried to get between the plutonium ship and its escort, got
>> bumped and accused the Japanese of brutality or something
>> like that.  I assume the reporters on Greenpeace boat will tell
>> the story the Greenpeace way.
>> 
>> They are better than the terrorists - somewhat.
>
>Let's try to remember that their are international rules governing the safe
>navigation on the open and coastal seas.  A ship cannot just go willy-nilly
>anywhere it wants to travel.  Who ever was in charge on each ship must know
>and understand this.  It is something that Greenpeace has convienently over-
>looked in the past because "their protest is above international law" type of
>attitude.  The end result is if Greenpeace is not careful on how they operate 
>their ships, the Japanese will be well within international law to take them 
>to court for intentional violations of the international rules-of-the-road.

As I understand it, the vessel coming from starboard has the right of
way, except that ships under sail always have the right of way over
motor vessels, except that in practice big ships always have the right
of way over little ships period, because they can't stop or turn quickly.
If you pull in front of a supertanker, regardless if you think you have
the right of way or not, you're going to get a free ride on the bow of
the tanker for at least the ten miles it takes him to stop.

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.energy
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:44:09

They tried to get between the plutonium ship and its escort, got
bumped and accused the Japanese of brutality or something
like that.  I assume the reporters on Greenpeace boat will tell
the story the Greenpeace way.

They are better than the terrorists - somewhat.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.energy
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Nov9.145946.4373@inel.gov> <1992Nov9.210320.481@netcom.com>
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:13:41

If the U.S. were transporting the plutonium, and a U.S. ship jostled
the Greenpeace ship, the Greenpeace people could hope to find a U.S.
judge who would declare their actions necessary to save the world no
matter how much they violated the rules of navigation.  In a French or
Japanese court, the case would probably be thrown out right away.
Also whatever happened, if it were a U.S. matter, the newspapers, e.g.
the Washington Post (which some years ago declared itself committed
rather than objective in environmental matters) would take their part
strongly enough so that Greenpeace would come out ahead financially
regardless of what happened in court.

It may still work out to Greenpeace's financial benefit.  How many
readers find that Greenpeace attempts at interfering with the
transport, over and above issuing statements of objection, make these
readers more likely to contribute to Greenpeace?  The key thing in
discouraging Greenpeace would be for the French to keep the boat they
boarded tied up in dock in legal proceedings long enough for dockage
charges to eat up the value of the boat.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky talk.environment:4558 sci.environment:12643 sci.energy:5329
From: ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu (DANIEL M. DEOCAMPO)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Summary: Do we want an increase in plutonium trade?
Date: 11 Nov 92 04:31:00 GMT
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I think a more relevant discussion, particularly in the sci. groups, would be
about the merits and dangers of the growing plutonium trade the Japanese
transport signals.

Today's (maybe yesterday's) NY Times had an article on how other Asian nations
are perceiving this.  There are especially sticky issues with regard to
non-proliferation and the pressures on North Korea.

While the current transport is being well monitored and symbolically protected
(if a Greenpeace boat could get at it, how about a paramilitary assault?), will
it be so on future trips, especially if the frequency increases?

Also, I'm wondering who in Japan has been pushing the hardest in their
plutonium projects with France and England.  While they constitutionally forbid
posession of nuclear weapons, in any future crisis they would not be difficult
for them to produce.

Daniel Deocampo                          Undergrad (I have an excuse for    
ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu                            any silly comments.)
                                         Department of Geology
---------------------|                   Environmental Studies Program
"Be gneiss to me,    |                   Tufts University
 I'm going through   |
 a lot of schist."   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.environment:4576 sci.energy:5367
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:55:32 GMT
	<1992Nov9.145946.4373@inel.gov> <Jym.12Nov1992.0901@naughty-peahen>
Followup-To: talk.environment,sci.energy
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: Jym Dyer's message of 12 Nov 1992 17:01:55 GMT

In article <Jym.12Nov1992.0901@naughty-peahen> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:

   >> They tried to get between the plutonium ship and its escort,
   >> got bumped and accused the Japanese of brutality or something
   >> like that.  I assume the reporters on Greenpeace boat will
   >> tell the story the Greenpeace way.

 ...

   =/= Greenpeace's version of events is that the Shikishima has
   been bullying the Greenpeace ship (the SOLO) during the voyage.
   The collision occurred when the Shikishima *rammed* the SOLO.

The reports here were that the Japanese ship sustained damage
to the right side of its helideck, that would be at the back
of the ship - suggesting the bow of the Solo hit the rear of
the Shikishama - I don't suppose anyone filmed the incident?
Has the Shikishima returned to harbour or are there pictures of
the damage to the respective ships?

   > Let's try to remember that [there] are international rules
   > governing the safe navigation on the open and coastal seas.
   > A ship cannot just go willy-nilly anywhere it wants to travel.
   > Who ever was in charge on each ship must know and understand
   > this.  It is something that Greenpeace has convienently
   > overlooked in the past because "their protest is above
   > international law" type of attitude.

   =/= Oh?  Can you give any examples of this that might be germane

I have no idea what actually happened and would not be surprised
if the Japanese had orders to get the Solo away, or if the Solo
had bumped the Japanese ship. It is however possible to take a
course on which either ship has legal right of way but which
guarantees a collision, in particular (if I remember the rules
right...) if the Japanese ship is to the left of the Solo and
turns right across the Solo's bow it has right of way, this could
also lead to the Solo's bow hitting the Japanese ship on the right
side to the rear if the Solo didn't (or couldn't) maneuver away fast
enough, if done right the ship with right of way can turn sharply
enough to hit the other ship square on the side with its bow,
which would be a case of ramming - albeit legal! Letting the other
ship ram your stern is clumsy and dangerous, it is more likely to lead
to your own ship being disabled. 

Any reason why the Solo would not stand off if requested to by
the Japanese? If they go far enough away the escort has to back off
or it loses sight of its escortee!

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	* 
Xref: sparky talk.environment:4538 sci.environment:12600 sci.energy:5299
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Keywords: yep, they sure know how to fuck things up
Date: 9 Nov 92 03:44:42 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network


Just reported on CNN:

     The Greenpeace ship following the shipment of plutonium from England
to Japan has collided with the craft in the English Channel. Those were all
the details given at the time. 


Weren't they out there protesting the safeguards of shipping plutonium from  
terrorists? This surely looks like a terrorist activity to me. I think that
this is a good time for national governments to evaluate their tolerance
towards these worldwide eco-guerrillas.

If it is shown that Greenpeace violated international law and hit the
freighter, drastic action should be taken against this organization. They
are no better than the "terrorists" that they are afraid of.

Tino
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 11:43:50 -0500 
From: Truman Fenton <tf26+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Animal Ethics?

I have heard a great deal of talk about ethics and animal treatment.  I
agree that no animal should be tortured.  That I WILL take for granted.
However,  why is it unethical to hunt?  I will agree that standing back
fro 300 yards with a dear rifle is not cunning or sporty, but is it
unethical?  If an animal is killed only for a trophy and the body is
left, then that defies the many peoples ethics.  In addition, killing an
endangered species may be considered wrong by others.  But deer, turkey,
fowl, etc. are usually consumed and are hardly considered endangered.

I welcome dicussion in order to understand others' views on the issue.  

Truman

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truman Fenton                         ||   Home/Work Phone:  (412) 268-4936
INTERNET:  tf26@andrew.cmu.edu        || 
                                      ||   1060 Morewood Ave 
"The Eternal Optimist"                ||   Box 1705
(self-titled but others have agreed)  ||   Pittsburgh, PA 15213
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I believe:  (A comprehensive list.)
  a)  An examined life is worth living.
  b)  True love DOES exist, you just have to find it.  (Or let it find you.)
  c)  Our environment MUST be preserved, restored, conserved.
  d)  There is a piece of wilderness in all of us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.energy
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 21:32:53 GMT

In article <JMC.92Nov12102213@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Many of us consider that it is "Speak lies to power".  Moreover, Greenpeace
>has the money and publicity to be a considerable power itself and uses
>it for bullying people whose livelihoods they decide to interfere with.
>
>The slogan "Speak truth to power" expresses arrogance as to who has
>the truth.

Who's more arrogant, a Quaker speaking their own truth (and our own
truths are all we have) or John McCarthy telling us what this phrase,
belonging to a 300+ year old religious and social tradition actually
expresses ?

-- paul

ps. I'm not a Quaker, although my wife and her family are.
-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Ruskin
From: wstuartj@lucky.ecn.purdue.edu (W Stuart Jones)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Pictures of endangered species?
Summary: I need pictures of endangered species...
Keywords: gif pictures species endangered
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:30:30 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Does anyone have any pictures (gifs, macpaint, eps, etc...) of endangered
species that they could mail me?  I need to make a Hypercard stack of these
species and the reasons why they are endangered.  Can anyone help?
 
Is there an ftp site which would have files that would be applicable?
  
Thank-you very much in advance,
 
Wesley Stuart Jones
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%  Wesley Stuart Jones         jonesw@hasbro.wes.mot.com               %%
%%                              wstuartj@ecn.purdue.edu                 %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: pld@fc.hp.com (Paul_Dineen)
Subject: Articles on companies that pollute?
Organization: HP CLO/CoLL, Fort Collins, CO
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:14:40 GMT

 Does anyone have references to articles on large companies that release
 toxic/carcinogenic substances into the atmosphere?

 My wife a grad student a Colorado State University here in Fort
 Collins, Colorado.  She is participating in a research project on
 boards of directors of large corporations.  One thing the researchers
 want to examine is the links, if any, between the members of boards of
 directors of such corporations.  They are intending to publish the
 results of this research.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: hagemann@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Brian Hagemann)
Subject: BP Boycott Announcement
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:54:00 GMT


                     TOXIC TUESDAY
              BP BOYCOTT NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION!
               (It's not just in Ohio anymore)

                   NOVEMBER 10, 1992

	By now, you've probably heard of the BP BOYCOTT, a part of Ohio's
corporate accountability campaign of British Petroleum.  In an attempt to
unite campus environmental groups aroung the state and in an effor to 
build a livale future, BP is targeted for its pollution record and practices.
SEACers have struggled to mobilize a powerful force of grassroots pressure
to demand that BP be more responsible both socially and ecologically.

                 WHAT'S SO BAD ABOUT BP?...Take your pick...

1. BP produces 5 times more toxics per $1000 sale than the oil industry's
    average.
2. BP ranks as the largest polluter in Ohio, the 4th largest polluter in the
    United States, and the 3rd largest polluter of toxic waste on Earth.\
3. BP is leading the charge to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
    (ANWR) to oil drilling.
4. BP is the 2nd largest oil company fueling the Apartheid government in
    South Africa.
5. BP is the majority owner of Alyeska, the consortium of oil companies
    responsible for the botched cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
6. BP fueled the Persian Gulf War.
7. BP refuses to comply with the MacBride principles, which assure fair
    hiring practices of Irish workers in Ireland.
8. In Brazil, BP has been criticized for destroying several thousand acres 
    of rainforest.  BP has also been charged with rainforest destruction
    in Southeast Asia.

The campaign has been growing and now several groups around the country
have shown interest in expanding the Boycott to a National scale.  In
response, Ohio SEAC is organizing Toxic Tuesday on November 10 as a Day of
Action on which grassroots environmental groups can join the Boycott with
actions such as station pickets.  All that is needed to participate in 
Toxic Tuesday is a free afternoon, some facts sheets, and the desire
to bring Corporate America's pollution habits into the spotlight.

SUGGESTED ACTIONS FOR TOXIC TUESDAY:

-BP station pickets 
-Teach-ins
-Guerrilla Theater (toxic suits)
-Go carless
-Have a local politician pledge to boycott BP
-Cut up a BP credit card.  Send the leftovers to BP and tell them what
  you think
-Invent your own toxic tuesday actions.


More information is available, including the history of the boycott, BP's
actions toward Ohio SEAC, and information packets and flyers.  If any of
you SEACers out there DO want more information, PLEASE CONTACT:

Ohio U. SEAC
57 1/2 N. Court St.
Athens, OH. 45701
614-59-GREEN


            THANKS and HAVE FUN!


-- 
---     Brian Hagemann -email:  hagemann@ucunix.san.uc.edu        ---
Steal this .sig | Never Stop Howling! -Earth First! | Love & be loved.
I'm just a Earth loving, drum playing, computer using, incense burning,
philosophical deadhead rainbow college kid with an internet account.
Xref: sparky talk.environment:4565 sci.environment:12659 sci.energy:5342