HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Posted-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 14:47:06 -0800
X400-Trace: US**AEROSPACE; arrival Wed, 30 Dec 92 14:47:06 -0800 action Relayed
P1-Message-Id: US**AEROSPACE; 921230224706
Ua-Content-Id: CSI NC V2.1b
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:47:06 -0800
From:         Marken@COURIER4.AERO.ORG
Subject:      Belief Systems

[From Rick Marken (921230.1400)]

Ed Ford (921230:1320) --

>I don't believe a belief or value system (systems concept level)
>overpowers a person.

A belief and a system concept are not the same thing. A belief
in PCT(I think)  is an imagined perception: this means that
beliefs can occur at any level of the hierarchy (except for the
lowest); we can believe that the sky is blue (sensation), that it
will rain (fluid transitions?), that we're loved (relationship),
etc. We can also have beliefs that are system concept level
perceptions -- I can believe that I am a control theorist.

Beliefs (by my definition) can also differ in terms of one's
ability to produce or experience them as perceptions (rather
than just as imaginations). I believe my car is in the lot and
I can produce that perception; I believe that Mozart was the
means by which god spoke to humanity -- but I can't produce
that perception (I can certainly produce the imagination).

Our ability to "believe" is, I think, one of the things that makes
life fun; it makes it possible to be entertained by stories, plays
and such.  It think it also makes life a bit more tolerable (as Ed
said, it helps us "find that elusive peace and harmony that all
living control systems are trying to establish"). It does this by
"filling in" the unachieved aspects of the perceptions we are
controlling; we believe that we are "loved", for example -- and
we create a perception that is based mostly on Boss Reality but
that is "filled in" a bit by belief (imagination) so that our control
seems a bit better than it might actually be.

But you can see that what is good about belief is what could
also make it a problem; belief makes stories fun because we
treat the imaginations as though they were "real" perceptions;
but what happens when we forget that they ARE NOT AND
NEVER WERE REAL PERCEPTIONS? I think we get what
we see -- people willing to die or kill to control for imagined
perceptions

I think it is interesting that when the "filling in" done by
belief gets to be a bigger part of perception than the part
constrained by Boss Reality, we call that "insanity". But when
the "filling in" is TOTAL -- so that there is no constaint of
Boss Reality -- just belief based on made up stories (the
Bible, the Koran, etc) we (some of us) call that "wisdom".
I suggest that we call it what it is -- "total insanity"

Happy New Year

Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:57:00 GMT
From:         Henry James Bicycles Inc <0005096370@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Misc. Macintosh

[From Hank Folson (930101)]

A recent post asked about strange characters in posts written on Macintoshes
The problem is the "Smart Quotes" option that MacWrite II and Word have as a
Preferences menu item. If Smart Quotes is enabled, the character that the
Internet picks up is not the ASCII ' or ", but something else, like a "U" or
"?". The MacWrite II manual (page 3-5) offers interesting solutions.


Mainstay Software is introducing a major upgrade to its "Visual Interactive
Programming", an automated code writing program. They claim that IBM PC
based C programs can be converted to run on the Mac using this program. I
intend to upgrade my copy of V.I.P., and will try it out when it is
available (First quarter of '93) and report to the Net.

Trivial hint for MacWrite II users: Try typing COMMAND-G and also COMMAND-;
when formatting your posts and adding hard carriage returns.

Happy New Year to All, Hank Folson
Henry James Bicycles, Inc. 704 Elvira Avenue, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
310-540-1552 (Day & Evening) MCI MAIL: 509-6370 Internet: 5096370@MCIMAIL.COM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 09:11:54 EST
From:         "CHARLES W. TUCKER" <N050024@UNIVSCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL

      *#*#*#*#*#*# CHUCK TUCKER  DECEMBER 24, 1992 #*#*#*#*#*#*

Dear CSGers,

I have continued to enjoy and learn from the posts on the Net and hope
that smoneday to get our of my armchair and do something that amy prove
to be useful to us all.

A question for the holiday: How does a person alter his/her theoretical
view of human behavior?  An answer to this may lead to some actions that
could change the theories of human behavior for self and others.

Have a great and nondisturbing Holiday,

Regards,
                       Chuck
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 10:53:52 EST
From:         "Bruce E. Nevin" <bnevin@CCB.BBN.COM>
Subject:      Re: Apologies

(Tom Bourbon (921228  15:50  CST) ) --

>my earlier flippant and hurtful post did more to damage the process I
>wanted to praise than I care to imagine.

Tom, I winced when I read the earlier post, and my heart goes out
to you now.  I remember with chagrin times I have made similar
gaffes.  Knowing I am too liable to screw up who hears what I try
now to avoid saying privately what I would not want heard
publicly.

And what this brought to mind (by way of going up a level, after
a fashion) was what gossip does for us--a recent topic.  What I
give up if I keep private and public communications (more)
consistent with each other is this: If I say to you privately
something that you know I would not say publicly, I thereby
affirm the intimacy of our relationship.  By entrusting you with
something that I would not want publicly attributed to me I offer
a token of my vulnerability.  By disclosing it you could disrupt
my public face.  (Can you tell I've been re-reading Goffman
lately?)  I expect you to reciprocate, or perhaps it is I who am
reciprocating an earlier offering of yours.  Of such
reciprocations are alliances made.

Despite the cost of giving up gossip, it does seem better to try
to make one's private face and public face more congruent to each
other, not by restricting private communications to a public
standard, but by seeking honorable and healing ways of being
forthright in the same ways in both spheres.  Needless to say,
that's a goal, not an achievement--I'm not adept at controlling
that perception!

Underlying this are ancient mammalian processes of communication.
Bateson proposes that play originates in acting as if fighting,
but not hurting.  There is no negation in pre-language
communication (or in imagination).  To communicate friendship,
one appears as though acting as an enemy but in the same moment
refrains from acting as an enemy.  Or one may become vulnerable
to the other (e.g. wolf rolling on back belly up) and experience
the other not attacking.  Just so then gossip.  Losing that
function of gossip is the cost of cleaving to a single standard.
But there are other ways of achieving reciprocal exchanges of
trust and vulnerability.

Thanks, Tom.

        Bruce
        bn@bbn.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:41:00 GMT
From:         Hortideas Publishing <0004972767@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject:      A normative CSG???

From Greg Williams (930101 - 2)

>Ed Ford (930101:1305)

>If PCT teaches
>anything, it is that the whole system should work as an intigrated
>entity such that it will ultimately achieve harmony within itself
>and, at the same time, satisfy all of its intended goals.

I think you left out a clause between "... it is that" and "the whole
system..." -- a clause to the effect that "if the system (organism) is to
satisfy such and such conditions." Otherwise you will be presuming that
whatever those conditions are, CSG sanctions them. But that is an ethical
point of view which I believe (that word, again!) is not supported by the
tenets of PCT. With the clause in, you would be saying that CSG teaches a way
(based on PCT tenets, of course) in which the conditions -- whatever they are
-- can be obtained, while remaining neutral (as natural science must) about
the desirability of those conditions. But maybe you DO think that CSG is or
should be (more ethics!) a PRESCRIPTIVE organization?

As ever,

Greg
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:52:49 -0600
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was cziko@UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU
From:         "Gary A. Cziko" <g-cziko@UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      BBS on Movement Control

[from Gary Cziko 921221.1950 GMT]

The December issue of _Brain and Behavioral Sciences_ just arrived with the
title "Controversies in Neuroscience I: Movement Control."  Articles by
Bizzi et al; Gandevia & Burke; McCrea; Robinso;, Alexander et al., Bloedel;
Fet; and Stein plus lots of peer commentary.

Can't find a single mention of PCT (or anything like it, except in the
Robinson article which is more interesting for other reasons--his claim
that neuroscientists are wasting their time looking at individual neurons)
and not a single reference to Powers.

Bill, I would be happy to send you my copy if I eventually get it back and
if you are willing to share your thoughts about it with us on CSGnet.--Gary


------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary A. Cziko                    Telephone: 217.333.8527
Educational Psychology           FAX: 217.244.7620
University of Illinois           E-mail: g-cziko@uiuc.edu
1310 S. Sixth Street             Radio: N9MJZ
210 Education Building
Champaign, Illinois 61820-6990
USA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: MAILER%"csg-l@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 1 Jan 1993 14:11:38 -0600
From:         Tom Bourbon <TBOURBON@BEACH.UTMB.EDU>
Subject:      Behaviorism in Amer. Psychologist

From: Tom Bourbon (930101   13:58)

Dennis Delprato -- since my previous post, I have looked through
the American Psychologist issue on Skinner several more times.  I
have a few questions about some things I see, and do not see.

Many of the authors, including Bryan Midgley and you, wrote about
the famous "three-term contingency" (discriminative stimulus,
response, reinforcement -- which it is said is not a S-R
formulation and does not imply cause in the traditional sense of
the word).  Why did no one mention the "fourth variable" Skinner
wrote about at the start of his career -- the one he said, back
then, was necessary if the third (reinforcement) was to work?  The
fourth variable of course was deprivation.  Skinner dropped all
references to deprivation in later writings, apparently in an
attempt to play up the idea that food reinforcement is
intrinsically "positive."  Bryan and you did an excellent job of
reviewing many of Skinner's other ideas.  I wonder what the two of
you think about the mysterious and long-out-of-favor fourth term.
  I am also curious about why no one cited or discussed the Ferster
& Skinner book, Schedules of Reinforcement, in which F & S laid out
in detail the lab routines for controlling behavior -- all the way
down to deciding on the response rate you want to see from an
animal then adjusting the level of deprivation until you see that
rate.  (There is one citation of Schedules of Reinforcement, in a
brief historical note at the end of the issue.)  That book seems to
have played a major role in establishing the laboratory practices
for generations of behaviorists -- and their procedures were
control procedures.  Is the book out of favor, or just overlooked?
   So this is 1993.  The view out my window looks pretty much the
way it did yesterday.  Wonder if anything else has changed?

Until later,

Tom Bourbon                             e-mail:
Magnetoencephalography Laboratory       TBOURBON@UTMBEACH.BITNET
Division of Neurosurgery, E-17          TBOURBON@BEACH.UTMB.EDU
University of Texas Medical Branch      PHONE  (409) 763-6325
Galveston, TX 77550                     FAX    (409) 762-9961 USA
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:19:34 PST
From:         Michael Vincenc <vincenc@UCS.USC.EDU>
Subject:      The "Conceal" List Header Option
Comments: To: lstsrv-l%uga@vm.usc.edu, lstown-l%indycms@vm.usc.edu

Recently, one of my list owners asked me about the function of the
Conceal list header option.  Now, I'm not talking about the Conceal
option that you can set for yourself by command; e.g., 'tell listserv
at uga set lstsrv-l conceal'.  I'm talking about an option that
actually appears in the list header:

*
*  Sample List Description
*
*  Review= Private       Subscription= BY_OWNER  Send= Private
*  Notify= no            Reply-to= List,Respect  Files= Yes
*  Validate= Store only  Mail-via= Dist2
*  Confidential= No      Conceal= No
*  Ack= Yes
*  X-TAGS=Yes
*  Notebook= Yes,A,monthly,private
*  Errors-To= Owners
*  Default-options= Repro
*  Daily-Threshold= 40
*
*  Owner= fluser@vm.usc.edu
*

I took the spirit of LISTFAQ MEMO to heart.  While LSTSRV-L and
LSTOWN-L both discuss the personal Conceal option, neither list
discusses the Conceal list header option.

What is the function, if any, of the Conceal list header option?

Thanks for your help!

!Mike
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: lstsrv-l%uga.BITNET@WUVMD.WUSTL.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"lstsrv-l@uga.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 09:08:00 CST
From:         "Jim Milles, SLU Law Library" <MILLESJG@SLUVCA.SLU.EDU>
Subject:      "From:" line on an edited list
Comments: To: lstsrv-l%uga.BITNET@WUVMD.WUSTL.EDU

I have recently changed my list, NETTRAIN, to a moderated format.
Now, all messages appear with my name and Internet ID in the "From:"
line.  I have seen other lists (e.g. ARACHNET), where the name
of the original sender appears in the From: line.  Other lists
(e.g., PMC-TALK) have the name of the list itself in the

Either of these formats would be fine with me, but I don't know
how to define NETTRAIN to do this.  Can anyone help?

Jim
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Milles (Listowner, NETTRAIN)         Phone: (314) 658-2759
Head of Computer Services                    Fax: (314) 658-3966
Saint Louis University Law Library
3700 Lindell Blvd.             Internet: millesjg@sluvca.slu.edu
St. Louis, MO  63108
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.lstsrv-l
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:33:02 +0100
From:         Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The "Conceal" List Header Option
Comments: To: LSTOWN-L@INDYCMS.BITNET
              22 Dec 1992 16:19:34 PST from "Forum on LISTSERV release 1.7"
              <LSTSRV-L@SEARN>

On Tue,  22 Dec 1992  16:19:34 PST Michael  Vincenc <vincenc@UCS.USC.EDU>
said:

>I took the spirit of LISTFAQ  MEMO to heart. While LSTSRV-L and LSTOWN-L
>both discuss  the personal  Conceal option,  neither list  discusses the
>Conceal list header option.

Well that's because  there is no such option :-)  I think "Confidential="
is what you were looking for.

  Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@UCCVMA.UCOP.EDU,@uccvma.ucop.edu:jsheng@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 11:43:42 EST
From:         "Joseph Y. Sheng (IMD-PB)" <jsheng@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
Subject:      hierarchical EDI transaction
Comments: To: EDI-L@uccvma.ucop.edu

   I am new to EDI.  Could someone explain to me what is "hierarchical EDI
   transaction" and how is it different from other EDI transactions?

   Thanks.

Joe Sheng
From: mdg@netcom.Netcom.COM (Mark Grand)
Subject: Re: 811 Service Invoice
Organization: Premenos
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:49:38 GMT

EDI/e, Premenos' EDI product is able to process phone company billing
files without any pre-processing.  It runs on HP9000 and RS/6000 and
the majority of our customers use it as a front end to other machines.
--
Mark Grand
Premenos Corporation                510-602-2000
1000 Burnett, Second Floor          mark@premenos.sf.ca.us
Concord, CA   94520
-- 
Mark Grand
Premenos Corporation                510-602-2000
1000 Burnett, Second Floor          mark@premenos.sf.ca.us
Concord, CA   94520
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 09:15:59 -0700
From:         Bill Laidley <WLAIDLEY@BCSC02.BITNET>
Subject:      Samuel Pepys & EDI transactions

It has been VERY quiet on this list, so I thought I'd make some noise (besides
it's also quiet at work for the moment - so I have time...).

My topic of choice will be hierarchical EDI transactions (an explanation of
the subject line - long ago Samuel Pepys re-designed the way the British Navy
was organized by implementing the hierarchical, line of reporting structure
which has become the model for armed forces world wide; eventually most
organizations used it for lack of a better model...).

Some background...

We (the organization I work for) are in the process of starting an EDI pilot
with our local telephone company. They will send us invoices for voice and
data lines/services. The current practice is for the telco to send us the
invoices on tape, in print image form (total size of the 2 files is over than
80,000,000 bytes...). Once we receive them they are processed by some custom
programs which attempt to extract as much information as possible and then
manually. The processing window is 4 working days before the invoice is passed
to Accounting to pay. Looks like a good opportunity for EDI, as receiving the
data in a more usable form would allow us to automate more of the processing,
as well as make it possible to more thoroughly edit the data for accuracy
(which I suspect is rather cursory today).

The difficulty...

There is a problem though - the 811 consolidated service invoice is SO big
that it exceeds the capacity of the EDI translator that we have installed (and
at least one other translator that I know of - both mainframe based). The
problem is not the volume of data, instead the problem is in the design of the
translators. Most EDI translators have the same basic design - they are table
based. In our case the limitation is the size of the tables used to define the
data segments and elements used in the transaction. (the limit on total
segments is 100, the limit on combined segments and elements is 400). The
transaction specification for the 811 that has been developed by Telecom
Canada has over 500 segments and elements. Oops.

So what is the problem, after all we could split the transaction up and have
it sent in two (or more) pieces. Well, the problem is in the nature of a
hierarchical EDI transaction - to reach the lowest level of detail (which is
what you need to validate your invoice) you must traverse the entire
hierarchy. So there isn't an obvious way (to me anyway) to split up the
transaction.

The request...

Is there anyone out there with some experience in dealing with hierarchical
EDI transactions? Any suggestions (other than new software...)?

A footnote...

The other area that keeps me busy is working with my clients. We're working on
the next transaction in the business flow, which will be the 857 shipment and
billing notice. Guess what - it's hierarchical too.

Regards, Bill Laidley
EDI Expert Team
BC Systems Corp. Vancouver (604) 660-9705
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
From: mdg@netcom.Netcom.COM (Mark Grand)
Subject: Re: Samuel Pepys & EDI transactions
Organization: Premenos
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:15:57 GMT

>>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 1992 09:15:59 -0700, Bill Laidley <WLAIDLEY@BCSC02.BITNET> said:

Bill> The difficulty...

Bill> There is a problem though - the 811 consolidated service invoice
Bill> is SO big that it exceeds the capacity of the EDI translator
Bill> that we have installed (and at least one other translator that I
Bill> know of - both mainframe based). The problem is not the volume
Bill> of data, instead the problem is in the design of the
Bill> translators. Most EDI translators have the same basic design -
Bill> they are table based. In our case the limitation is the size of
Bill> the tables used to define the data segments and elements used in
Bill> the transaction. (the limit on total segments is 100, the limit
Bill> on combined segments and elements is 400). The transaction
Bill> specification for the 811 that has been developed by Telecom
Bill> Canada has over 500 segments and elements. Oops.

Bill> So what is the problem, after all we could split the transaction
Bill> up and have it sent in two (or more) pieces. Well, the problem
Bill> is in the nature of a hierarchical EDI transaction - to reach
Bill> the lowest level of detail (which is what you need to validate
Bill> your invoice) you must traverse the entire hierarchy. So there
Bill> isn't an obvious way (to me anyway) to split up the transaction.

You asked for a solution to your problem other than new software.  I
am not aware of any such solution.  My employer, Premenos, sells a
product called EDI/e that is not table based and does not have any
limitations on the number of segments or elements in a transaction.
It is capable of front-ending for a mainframe, but does not run on
mainframes.  It runs on UNIX boxes.
--
Mark Grand
Premenos Corporation
1000 Burnett, Second Floor          mark@premenos.sf.ca.us
Concord, CA   94520
-- 
Mark Grand
Premenos Corporation
1000 Burnett, Second Floor          mark@premenos.sf.ca.us
Concord, CA   94520
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <@UCCVMA.UCOP.EDU,@uccvma.ucop.edu:wrie@seq1.loc.gov>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edi-l
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:06:35 -0500
From:         Wendy Hope Riedel <wrie@SEQ1.LOC.GOV>
Subject:      RE: 811 EDI transactions
Comments: To: EDI-L@uccvma.ucop.edu

>>Is there any survey/report/evaluation on EDI services or software support?
>>and, where could I get it.  Thanks in advance.  chyan

According to an article in a September issue of Federal Computer Week:

"The Logistics Management Institute has published a guide to electronic data
interchange (EDI) translation software that offers information on price,
hardware compatibility and availability on General Services Administration or
Defense Department schedules.

"The guide was developed as a reference for Defense agencies but is available
free to any government agency in search of EDI solutions ....

"'A Guide to EDI Translation Software' lists 110 commercially available EDI
translation products from 50 vendors. It identifies 48 key features of the
software packages, tells which of the features are offered by each vendor and
explains which features are needed for mainframes, minicomputers and
microcomputers.

"...Federal agencies can obtain a free copy by faxing a request to
(301) 320-5617. Others can buy the report for $20 by contacting the LMI
librarian, 6400 Goldsboro Road, Bethesda, MD 20817."

I don't have a copy of this yet -- I'm just catching up on back issues! -- but
it looks like it might be helpful.


***************************************************************************
* Wendy Riedel                          * Voice:    202-707-6089          *
* Senior Automation Planning Specialist *                                 *
* Automation Planning & Liaison Office  * Fax:      202-707-4445          *
* Library of Congress                   *                                 *
* Washington, DC 20540-4010             * INTERNET: wrie@seq1.loc.gov     *
***************************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU