waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In <C5sqyA.F7v@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:  |Probably not.  But then, I don't pack heavy weaponry with intent to use it.  Please cite your evidence that he was intending to use it.  |You don't really think he should have been allowed to keep that stuff do  |you?  Why not?  |If so, tell me where you live so I can be sure to steer well clear.  Check the sig.  |The public also has rights, and they should be placed above those of the |individual.  Society does not have rights only individuals have rights.  |Go ahead, call me a commie,  OK, your a commie.  |but you'd be singing a different |tune if I exercised my right to rape your daughter.  You think you have a right to rape anyone? No wonder you don't care about the rightws of others.  |He broke the law,  Please indicate which law you feel Koresh broke, and when was he convicted of said crime.  |he was a threat to society,  So you feel that owning guns makes him a threat to society. When are y ou going to start going after knives and baseball bats as well. Or do you feel that someone who spouts unpopular ideas is by definition a threat to society.  |they did there job - simple.  It is simple if you think that there job is to assualt civilians.  |>	Support your First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth |>Amendment rights, lest they be taken away from you just as the FBI did |>to the Davidians. Think about it.  |I'll support them all (except no. 2)  In other words you don't support any of them.
In article <1993Apr26.142158.11620@ousrvr.oulu.fi> ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi (Kari Tikkanen) writes: >In Math exam I have burden of proof when it says: >  "Prove that no elements in set A=( n divided by 30 leaves 5 as a remainder, >   n prime, n integer) does exist." > >Well, Mathematics is formal science.  Real world may be different thing. >But if entertainment (company) sell computer programs saying they are virus  >safe. Doesn`t they have burden of proof that viruses don`t exist in their  >floppies ?  I don't think so.  The assumption is there.  If it turns out that their software has a virus, then it is up to you to prove that fact to a court to get any damages.  You are theoretically suppossed to  be able to get damages for that, but you have to give some evidence that the virus came from that software.  But since the computer company is the defendent, they are uninvolved until proven guilty.  >----------------------- ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi ------------------- >  Kari Tikkanen      !   .  . -#- !      b        !   begin   >  SF-90550 OULU      !         !  !  I = / f(x)dx !     s:=s+Eq(i); >  FINLAND            ! .  .  Vega !      a        !   end >-------------------------------------------------------------------- Please, not Pascal!  NOOOOO!! ;)
In article <79615@cup.portal.com> Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes: > > >"To all whom it may concern - > [constitution sacrificed to the bandwidth gods]  im glad i finally have heard exactly what the OTO is all about.  i finally know that i can stop looking, content i the knowlege that im not interested. it's tough enough listening to all the religions who refer to themselves as "the One Truth".  How can i possibly accept it from a magical order?  "We have all the Answers and will give them to those who join us (and pay dues)?" Scary.  Besides, answers are easy.  Questions!  now that's another story...  rintaw
In article <1qknu0INNbhv@shelley.u.washington.edu>, > Christian:  washed in the blood of the lamb. > Mithraist:  washed in the blood of the bull. >  > If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion, > do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been > reserved.  Please choose another animal, preferably one not > on the Endangered Species List.    This will be a hard task, because most cultures used most animals for blood sacrifices. It has to be something related to our current post-modernism state. Hmm, what about used computers?  Cheers, Kent
In <sandvik-170493170457@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com writes:  > In article <1qevbh$h7v@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis > Kriz) wrote: > > I'm going to try to do something here, that perhaps many would > > not have thought even possible.  I want to begin the process of > > initiating a literary critical study of the pornography posted on > > alt.sex.stories, to identify the major themes and motifs present > > in the stories posted there -- opening up then the possibility of > > an objective moral evaluation of the material present there.   >  > Dennis, I'm astounded. I didn't know you were interested to even > study such filth as alt.sex.stories provide... >  > Cheers, > Kent > --- > sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.  "Finally, brethern, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things."  Phil. 4:8.
In article <1993Apr21.182030.888@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: >Actually, both are positive arguments.  ("Positive" may not be the best >description here due to possible misunderstanding, but it's the term you >used.)  Positive arguments/assertions can be both affirmative (i.e. God  >exists) and negative (i.e. God does not exist).  Both carry an equal  >burden of proof because they are both asserting that a certain idea >is true.  The default condition, in the absence of a preponderance of >evidence either way, is that the proposition or assertion is undecidable. >And the person who takes the undecidable position and says that he/she >simply disbelieves that the proposition is true, is the only one who >holds no burden of proof.  This is why the so-called "weak atheist" >position is virtually unassailable -- not because it stands on a firm >foundation of logical argument, but because it's proponents simply >disbelieve in the existence of God(s) and therefore they hold no burden >of proof.  When you don't assert anything, you don't have to prove >anything.  That's where weak atheism draws its strength.  But its >strength is also its Achilles' heel.  Without assertions/axioms, one >has no foundation upon which to build.  As a philosophy, it's virtually >worthless.  IMO, of course.  	So, if I were to assert that there are no thousand year old  invisible pink unicorns* residing in my walls, I need to support this with  evidence? I think the _lack_ of evidence shall suffice.   	* Who happen to like listening to satanic messages found in playing  Beethoven's 45th symphony backwards. ---          "FBI officials said cult leader David Koresh may have           forced followers to remain as flames closed in. Koresh's           armed guard may have injected as many as 24 children with           poison to quiet them."          -                  "And God saw everything he had made, and, behold, in was very           good."
In article <1993Apr26.150845.28537@advtech.uswest.com> > = steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes: >> = eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes: >>> = Steve Novak writes:  >>>Because, of course, that possibility existed.  Meaning any student who >>>really gave a shit could have a moment of silence on his/her own, which >>>makes more sense than forcing those who DON'T want to participate to >>>have to take part.  What other reason is there for an organized "moment >>>of silence"?  >>A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone* >>participates.  Otherwise it's not silent, now is it?  >The whole point is, maybe everyone _doesn't want_ to participate.  And maybe they do.  But without somebody to set the time that doesn't do them any good.  >[...]  Humph.  Deleted there was my list of non-religious reasons one might want a moment of silence for a dead classmate.  Maybe everyone doesn't want to be silent for teachers to give their pompous non-religious speeches in assembly.  I know I didn't.  So?  >>Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it is >>utterly idiotic.  >Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it that is >supported by taxpayer money is the only way to keep christianity from >becoming the official U.S. religion.  Please provide documentation that opposing only things that are actively religious (e.g. actual prayer, "Amen" after a moment of silence, mandatory classes in religion) and not things that have possible but uncertain religious implications (e.g. moments of silence, having the Bible on the shelves during reading period) is not a way to prevent a state religion.
In article <ss.113@apmaths.uwo.ca>, ss@apmaths.uwo.ca (SULTAN SIAL) says: > >In article <93111.195217A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes: > >[stuff about Mithras deleted] > >>Oh, His B-day was 25 Dec. Ahem. > >I thought that Saturnalia was celebrated by the Romans at that time.  Was >Mithras connected with this? >  Rome was under attack by barbarians, they sent for advice to some Oracle, and she said Worship Cybele and you'll be saved. They did, they were.  Cybele was the quintessential wiccan goddess, there was Her and her son & lover, Attis. Yucky idea if you ask me. OK the book says she was Phrygian, from the neolithic matriarchal society Catal Huyuk (Turkey). Worshipped 1st as Black Stone (that Kaaba in Mecca ring a bell maybe????) Carried to Rome in 205BC to save them from Hannibal.  It gets more interesting. Romans called her Great Mother (Magna Mater), could be the reason why so many of those Mary statues in Europe are black, prob. IS connected to that Ka'aba they've got in Mecca, 3rd cent. AD She was supreme Goddess in Lyons, France . . . Attis was castrated and formed into a pine tree . . . she should be worshiped on 25 Mar . . . in Rome it was an ecstatic cult, her priests wore drag, worked themselves up in dance and castrated themselves in order to initiate to her, lived their lives as women. They wore make up and jewelry and the whole bit.  Wow.  Only other such primitive transsexualism I know of goes on in India (where else?) where they do that castration thing under some meditation maybe, I forget by now...there's a book on that.)  Of course, that excepts that weird Russian / Romanian 18th cent. Xian cult that did all kinds of self-castration too, I forget their name.
In article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes: > > >     With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider >the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought >the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier, >would amuse you all... > > >     The following passages are exact quotes from "The Southern  >Baptist Convention and Freemasonry" by James L. Holly, M.D., President >of Mission and Ministry To Men, Inc., 550 N 10th St., Beaumont, TX  >77706.  >  >     The inside cover of the book states: "Mission & Ministry to Men,  >Inc. hereby grants permission for the reproduction of part or all of  >this booklet with two provisions: one, the material is not changed and >two, the source is identified." I have followed these provisions.  >   >     "Freemasonry is one of the allies of the Devil" Page iv.  >  >     "The issue here is not moderate or conservative, the issue is God >and the Devil" Page vi."  >  >     "It is worthwhile to remember that the formulators of public  >school education in America were Freemasons" Page 29.  >  >     "Jesus Christ never commanded toleration as a motive for His  >disciples, and toleration is the antithesis of the Christian message." >Page 30.  >  >     "The central dynamic of the Freemason drive for world unity  >through fraternity, liberty and equality is toleration. This is seen  >in the writings of the 'great' writers of Freemasonry". Page 31.  >  >     "He [Jesus Christ] established the most sectarian of all possible  >faiths." Page 37.  >  >     "For narrowness and sectarianism, there is no equal to the Lord  >Jesus Christ". Page 40.  >  >     "What seems so right in the interest of toleration and its  >cousins-liberty, equality and fraternity-is actually one of the  >subtlest lies of the 'father of lies.'" Page 40.  >  >     "The Southern Baptist Convention has many churches which were  >founded in the Lodge and which have corner stones dedicated by the  >Lodge. Each of these churches should hold public ceremonies of  >repentance and of praying the blood and the Name of the Lord Jesus  >Christ over the church and renouncing the oaths taken at the  >dedication of the church and/or building." Page 53-54.   >  > >     I hope you all had a good laugh! I know *I* did! <g>, > > Tony     I appreciate the narrow-mindedness of the view expressed in the text you quoted.  I also appreciate your being amused by such determined ignorance.  Without taking anything away from your mirth, I want to say that these views sadden me. I can only hope that that sort of narrow-mindedness will die with the generations that have promoted it.  Teach  your children well.  <wet blanket mode off>  Pax.  John >  >
I'm having trouble receiving News at the moment due to an overloaded News server. I think that I can post out reasonably quickly, though.  I'm in a couple of threads at the moment which may be pending replies. If anyone wants a reply from me over something I've posted then I suggest sending an e-mail copy of the point to me so that I can reply by News.  This is one way to shut me up!!  Cheers,  David.  --- On religion:
> = eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes: >> = Steve Novak writes:  >>Because, of course, that possibility existed.  Meaning any student who >>really gave a shit could have a moment of silence on his/her own, which >>makes more sense than forcing those who DON'T want to participate to >>have to take part.  What other reason is there for an organized "moment >>of silence"?  >A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone* >participates.  Otherwise it's not silent, now is it?  The whole point is, maybe everyone _doesn't want_ to participate.  [...] >Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it is >utterly idiotic.  Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it that is supported by taxpayer money is the only way to keep christianity from becoming the official U.S. religion.  Not noticing that danger is utterly idiotic.
In article <sandvik-170493104641@sandvik-kent.apple.com>  sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: >My online Bible is on a CD, but I don't own a CD-ROM system for the >time being, so I can't search for the famous cite where Jesus explicitly >states that he didn't want to break existing (Jewish) laws. In other >words technically speaking Christians should use Saturday and not Sunday >as their holy day, if they want to conform to the teachings of Jesus.  Who said Christians want to conform to the teachings of Jesus?
930420  Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. The word of Sin is Restriction.   Kent (sandvik@newton.apple.com) writes:  Sorry, the San Jose based Rosicrucian order is called A.M.O.R.C,  I don't remember for the time being what the A.M. stand for but O.R.C is Ordo Rosae Crucis, in other words latin for Order of the Rose Cross.    Response:  Yes, very true.  The entire title is 'The Ancient and Mystical Order  Rosae Crucis'.  They are located at 1342 Naglee Avenue, San Jose, California, 95191-0001, USA.  They are considered different and largely unrelated by a number of sources.  I've seen documentation which links them through the figure of H. Spencer Lewis.  Lewis was apparently involved with Reuss, who was the O.H.O. of Ordo Templi Orientis for many years.  Apparently it is also true that Lewis had a charter to form an O.T.O. body and then created A.M.O.R.C. (as a subsidiary?  an interesting question).   Kent:  Otherwise their headquarters in San Jose has a pretty decent metaphysical bookstore, if any of you are interested in such books. And my son loves to run around in their Egyptian museum.   Response:  Indeed, and diagonally across the street is another metaphysical book store called 'Ram Metaphysical', wherein I've purchased some wonderful works by Crowley and others.  Ram Metaphysical Books, 1749 Park Ave., San Jose, CA.  (408) 294-2651.   Invoke me under my stars.  Love is the law, love under will.  I am I!
In article <C5yMIr.FnE@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes: >You said everyone in the world.  That means *everyone* in the world, including >children that are not old enough to speak, let alone tell lies.  If Jesus >says "everyone", you cannot support that by referring to a group of people >somewhat smaller than "everyone".  That's right.  Everyone.  Even infants who cannot speak as yet.  Even a little child will rebelliously stick his finger in a light socket. Even a little child will not want his diaper changed.  Even a little child will fight nap-time.  So far as Jesus saying "everyone":        A certain ruler asked Jesus, "Good teacher, what must I do to     inherit eternal life?"      "Why do you call me good?"  Jesus answered.  "No one is good--     except God alone."  Ken, the book of Romans states that we are born sinners.  We do not grow into being a sinner.  We sin because we are sinners.  The common mistake, even in Christian circles, is to think the reverse true.    So for as surely as you grew to look like you parents, you not only inherited their appearance, but also their sin nature. It goes with being human.
In article <1993Apr23.210109.21120@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote: > > Hmm, it seems that this is the core of Christianity then, you  > > have to feel guilty . . .  >  > I think I see where you are coming from Kent.  Jesus doesn't view > guilt like our modern venacular colors it.    >  > "Feelings" have nothing to do with guilt.  Feelings arise from the state of  > being guilty.  Feeling and guilt are mutally exclusive.  Feelings are a  > reaction from guilt.  Jesus is talking about the guilt state, not the  > reaction.   Let me give you an example: >  > Have you ever made a mistake?  Have you ever lied to someone?  Even a > little white lie?   Have you ever claimed to know something that you really  > didn't know?  Have you ever hated someone?  Have you ever been selfish? > Are you guilty of any one of these?   The answer is of course, YES.  You > are guilty.  Period.  That is it what Jesus is getting at.  No big surprise.   > Feelings do not even enter the picture.   Consider Jesus's use of the word > "guilt" as how a court uses it.  I've done all those things, and I've regretted it, and I learned  a lesson or two. So far an aspirin, a good talk with your wife, or a one week vacation has cured me -- no need for group therapy or strange religions!  Cheers, Kent
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: ... >Anyway, I don't have anything against AMORC, I just wanted to point >out that secret organizations are lead by human beings, and we all >know what that means.  I had an ehum, interesting experience with the Rosicrucians, or at least Rosicrucians of some sort last Sunday. They had advertised that they were holding a lecture titled The Graal of the King -- the room of the heart (which rhymes in Swedish). Out of curiosity, I went to the lecture.  There were four people there apart from the two Rosicrucians, one woman and two men apart from me. The Rosicrucians were male, both of them. First one of them told us about the Rosicrucians and Lectorium Rosicrucianum, which was founded in Harlem, NL in 1925. He read straight from a piece of paper, which I at that point was because he lacked experience in talking in front of people, but the other guy read, too, and he was used to holding speeches, I could tell. The first guy also said that the R:s are a mystical Christian order, and that they base their teachings on the teachings of the Kathars (English?) from the thirteenth century.  The other guy took over, reading from his piece of paper in a fairy-tale teller's voice. What he said sounded like a load of crap to me. Of course that might be because I am unenlightened or something. What made me a bit suspicious, was the way they first said that we all contained something divine, and could find our way back to divinity, then that we couldn't become divine as the persons we are currently, but if we worked really hard we would reach eternal bliss. Maybe I've read too much RAW, but it sounded very much like the things he talks about in the chapter _How to robotize people and brainwash your friends_ in _Prometheus rising_.   It was very interesting to watch the two Rosicrucians. The one holding the actual lecture, obviously was top dog, and the other one seemed to be a true believer. I got the impression that the top dog had more distance to the faith than the true believer, that he used it to gain power and admiration. He spoke like a fairy-tale teller, whenever he remembered. ;)  The information brochure is at home. Should you want their address, please e-mail me. --Ceci
Is it not the case that, in the eyes of the law, when someone is aware of something and has the capability of taking action and does not, that individual may be held responsible for that action?  Example: the driver of a getaway car may be held as an accomplice to murder. 	 The "I didn't know" defense spawned the "ignorance of the law is no excuse"  When an individual is held as a material witness to a crime, is there a criminal charge against the individual?  If not, on what grounds is the person imprisoned?
God CAN be seen:         "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."         (Ex. 33:23)         "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his         friend." (Ex. 33:11)         "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."         (Gen. 32:30) God CANNOT be seen:         "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)         "And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man         see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)         "Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)
In <30185@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:  >In article <markp.735230393@elvis.wri.com>, markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:  >>Omigod, it's an operationalist! Sorry, Jim, but the idea that a theory >>explaining a myriad of distinctly different observations is merely a >>"model" is more than sensible people can accept -- your phobia about >>objective reality notwithstanding.  >First of all, I have no phobia of objective reality.  I'm simply >saying that the scientific model of the atom is probably not  >what is really out there.  I'm not saying that there's no object >that sources these properties we measure from atomic theory.  You hadn't made that clear; I'm glad to have it clarified! So you're a (physical) objectivist, after all, right?  >Take light as another example.  There are two theories: particle and >wave.  Each one fails to predict the behavior of light as some point. >So which is it: particle or wave?  You tell me.  You're the sensible >one.  Wavicle! Next question? ;-) -- Mark Pundurs
The observation that the Tree of Life would rotate clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern probably doesn't give enough consideration to the feebleness of the Coriolis force compared to, say, the phototropism of vegetation.  A much more likely explanation is the classic one: that the clockwise swastika is the Sun-wheel, because the sun progresses across the sky that way.  (Although that's not the historical way it happened; clocks were first made as little imitation images of the sun moving thru the heavens.  So it's more valid to talk of the clock going sunwise, but do the engineers listen to me?  Of course not.)  Anyway, there is still much uncertainty about whether the anti-swastika goes counter-sunwise because that represents Evil, or because it is the Sun's twin-opposite, the Moonwheel.  The use of anti-Sun to represent Evil may be because humans are so strongly visually-oriented, but I'm not going to try to settle THAT one just now. -- Diccon Frankborn (dickeney@access.digex.com)