HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:58:31 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug27.192857.24878@oracle.us.oracle.com>, rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #You don't have to do business with "homophobes."  Therefore, it's
# #not a problem.  Stay away from us, we'll stay away from you.
# 
# Clayton, that's not a solution. You have to anticipate the times when
# both parties are going to be proximate ... like, when living on the
# same planet or coexistent in the same spacetime, y'know ?
# 
# -- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411

Why do you assume an unwillingness to coexist?  I've worked with
homosexuals before, and it didn't prevent me from doing my job,
or them doing their job.  But every individual should have some
choice in deciding where the boundary is that defines "private."



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:29:07 GMT

In article <p9b54j0@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>A.  Send in a small number of cops with their guns pulled.  Every cop goes
>off on their own and searches.  When you find the person, react to the
>situation by pulling your gun.  Do whatever comes naturally with a gun
>out (which, anyone who uses guns will tell you is "kill").
>
>B.  Send in a larger number of cops with bullet proof vests.  Send cops
>off in pairs to search for the person with clubs drawn.  When you see the
>person, call in back up and corner and then subdue the person.

Option C:

Prepare nets at all the possible exits, operated by police in bullet
proof vests and guarded by other police with tasers and shotguns in
case the situation gets out of hand. Then slowly pump tear gas into the
house.

-- 
My opinions are my own.
A right delayed is a right denied.
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:07:17 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <9vhn=dh.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Come come, Michael. She was SMALLER than the cop. And while she may have been
>armed, she was armed with an inferior weapon. You know, the copy should
>have just "disarmed" her. Why, it's so easy, next time we'll send Jeff!


I will ask you again... What would they have done with this woman in
England where they do not carry guns?  They would have disarmed her.

I cannot figure out why you are so set on having the cops kill someone
when she could have been subdued?  Do we train cops to kill rather than
subdue?  If so, this needs to change. 


FWA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: rpwhite@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (rpwhite)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:04:03 GMT
Reply-To: rpwhite@cs.nps.navy.mil (rpwhite)
Organization: Monterey Bay Yacht Club, Monterey CA

In article <64780@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
>... the cop had used excessive force in the past ..

>No sir, the article I saw in the Chronicle said that the oficer
>(his name was Chew, so that makes him an Asian-American officer
>defending an Asian-American family against a Caucasian goofball)
>had been shot 3 times by a mugger the year before.

No sir, the article I read said (and I quote):
"   The Oakland police officer who shot Ms. Denovo, Craig Chew, was
investigated for using excessive force and making improper arrests while
he was on the Berkeley Police Department, said Berkeley police
commission investigator Robert Bailey.

    The commission upheld three of four allegations - two for making
improper arrests and one for using excessive force, Bailey said."
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:08:40 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <11843@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Only the "faggot" part matters to me.  And as long as you insist
>on offending me and others like me with your parades, I will
>insist on my right to not be around you.

Don't go to the parades and you will not be offended.

First definitions (since I am making them up):

Active discrimination:  I do not like group X.  Therefore, I am going to
try and keep group X out of my country clubs, schools, neighborhoods, etc.

Passive discrimination:  I do not like group X.  Therefore, I will not go
to places where they are.


I have no problem with passive discrimination.  You do not have to come
to San Francisco.  You do not have to come to gay pride parades.  You do
not have to watch gay pride parade coverage on TV.  Then, we are out of
your life forever.

I have a problem with active discrimination.  You should not try and keep
gays out of your neighborhoods, schools, and organizations.


Can you see the difference between these two types of discrimination?
Can you understand why one bothers me while the other does not?


FWA
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4907 ca.politics:7266
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:09:21 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <xzhnmzg.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <p94l0k8@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>    >>Nice, easy, archair statement. Made by somebody who has never
>    >>ever seen a violent ward in an insane asylum.
>    >>
>    >Easy for you to say... My lover works at SF general in
>    >psychiatric emergency (where they get their fair share of
>    >psychotic people). They have yet to have to kill someone to
>    >subdue them.
>
>Where they have nice big people AND a context where the people there are
>clearly ill and can be expected to have violent outbursts. I think if
>the cop involved was aware that a woman with a machete was possibly going
>to attack him and he was in a nice bright hospital ward and he knew
>help was literally right behind him, well, maybe that woman would be alive
>today.

Blair is 6' 130 lbs... Clearly not a large person.  The security people at
SFGH are useless, or next to it...  However, they are aware that they are
dealing with dangerous people and are ready to deal with it.  The cops
evacuated the house, so they clearly knew they were dealing with a dangerous
person.  What is there excuse for being unprepared?


>My three summers spent working in a mental hospital were as a big strong
>person to grab and subdue violent people. I think small people were the
>worst -- very hard to grab, very agile and so on.

However, in emergency settings, the nurses tackle the people.  The security
people ar ebad news, and tend to hurt the patients.


>    >This argument is frustrating to me, because people seem
>    >perfectly willing to defend the use of deadly force by the
>    >police. Tell me, what would the police have done in England,
>    >where the cops do not use guns? They would have subdued the
>    >woman.
>    >
>    >As long as people keep defending the use of deadly force by
>    >the police, the longer they will keep using it.
>
>The cops in England are turning more to the use of guns. Of course,
>if we had the far more homogenous and supportive (of the police)
>population that England does, we might be different too.

If the cops did not kill so many people where it was unnecessary, they
might have more support.



Here is my challenge.  Given the facts of the situation (ie, they knew
this woman was dangerous, since they had evacuated the house.  They knew
she was there so they could have had their weapons out.  They should be
trained to handle dangerous people without killing them, at least they
should be...)  what excuse did they have for killing this woman?

The problem is, cops in this country have decided that the way to go
about law enforcement is by shooting people.  And because people like you
are willing to say "they had no choice" they can continue killing people...


FWA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Distribution: ba
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:58:01 GMT

In article <athos-280892114815@athos.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
>Pat Buch. bothers me TOO.  I can't stand him.  But I also can't stand Jerry
>Brown.  All parties have their weird things and people.  You don't just
>hide them.  The networks really played up Pat B.  That's all they talked
>about.  It was a crock.  He was one speech representing one faction of the
>party.  He is not mainstream.  But the networks would have you believe he
>was.

I don't think that it is fair to compare Pat Buchanan with Jerry Brown.
Jerry Brown didn't get a prime-time speech at the Democratic convention.
If the Republicans want to write of Pat B. as just a member of their
lunatic fringe, then he has no business getting the kind of time that
he got at the RNC.  The fact is that the George Bush is pandering to
people like Buchanan and his supporters to win this election.  That
makes them much more than the Republicans lunatic fringe.

Guido
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:13:49 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <395@vega.iii.com> rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins) writes:

>>Regardless of the material, it is a dangerous weapon.
>>
>So is a piece of wood, if used in a dangerous way, take a toothpick for example,
>you might not be able to hit someone with it, but if you stick it in their eye,
>or shove it in their ear.... but that is not its intended use is it?
>

Despite your nonsense answer, I have a lot information which show how easy
it is to kill with one of these clubs if they are not used properly.  The
same cannot be said of a toothpick.


FWA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Ask not what your country can do for you ...
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 17:20:20 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba

Sorry this took so long, but it took me forever to find the right
archive I had this kept in.

Context: I have stated that John F. Kennedy was a prototype of the
American fascist -- in this case, a loutish, insensitive, rich boy
(with lousy morals and a dick that ran his brain) with nepotistic
tendencies of a Mid-East dictator and a fuck-'em power style (the
US Steel price raise).

He is rather famous for the Subject Line phrase.

Here is the better version I mentioned.

  "It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to
  realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the
  existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is
  conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole...that
  above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more
  than the freedom of spirit and will of an individual...

  "This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to
  the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for
  every truly human culture."
                                   --  Adolf Hitler, October 7, 1933



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:44:12 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <11843@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>And as long as you insist on offending me and others like me with your
>parades, I will insist on my right to not be around you.

Offense certainly is in the eye of the beholder. One man's pride is another
man's eyesore.

But, then again, someone who thinks men should dress like men, and women
like women, is not going to have a very tolerant view of gay pride parades.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4860 alt.activism:15629 ca.politics:7193 talk.politics.misc:42653
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:33:36 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:

>In article <64717@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:

>>A 19 year old nutcase was shot after she attacked a cop with a machete
>>after breaking into the Chancellor's home in Berkeley. She had left a note

>Considering that the Chancellor and his family had already been
>evacuated, I don't see why the cops had to kill her. She didn't even
>have a gun.  They should have just shot her in the kneecaps or used
>mace. I bet the cops in England could have handled it without
>killing Rosebud.
>
>I heard the cop who killed her has used excessive force in the past.

When I heard this, I had to wonder if it was a setup, some poor, confused
young child wound up and pointed straight into a setup situation, created
precisely to escalate the war on the Left, which has its HQ in Berkeley,
California, in the minds of many. Her death was perhaps necessary in order
to keep her from babbling the exact details of how she ended up there.

No doubt, by the same skilled hands that bombed the Redwood Summer people,
maybe even paid by taxpayers.

Call me paranoid if you want, I'm sick and tired of being manipulated. And
though everyone will protest that this is impossible ... I think a more
accurate word might be, "unthinkable". Or "unpalatable" ...

Start thinking about it. This is the level the government operates on, if
the articles in the Examiner/Chronicle on the Inslaw case are any guide.
( Reference : _This World_ insert, _Outlaws At Justice_, SF Examiner /
Chronicle, June 14 1992, starting on page 7. )

-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4935 ca.politics:7304 talk.politics.misc:43070
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:15:20 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <jyc.715034056@Leland>, jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
# #A 19 year old nutcase was shot after she attacked a cop with a machete
# #after breaking into the Chancellor's home in Berkeley. She had left a note
# #saying that "they're probably going to shoot me, tell my friends goodbye,
# #this is to defend People's Park against the University".
# 
# #Now her friends are raising hell in people's Park, upholding this
# #kook as a martyr. She had a record of arrests, and had plans to steal
# #an MX warheard and blow up Washington or something like that. What do
# #all you activist have to say about this character?  I thought this
# #sort of madness went out with the 60's. 
# 
#    A well-known Usenet far-out rightwinger has been posting articles
# suggesting that the actions of one mentally disturbed person who had
# hung out around radical political groups somehow is evidence that
# progressive leftist politics is an illegitimate and destructive activity.      
# 
#    What do the rest of you conservatives say about this logical lunacy?
# I thought that this sort of generic character-assissination went out
# with the 50's.

I'm not a conservative, but I guess I'm a "right-winger."  I think
that such people are held in high regard, and that liberals on
USENET continue to defend her indefensible actions, tells me a
lot about how committed to "peace" liberals really are: not at all.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Ask not what your country can do for you ...
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 16:46:08 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba

In article <2396@unet.UUCP> steven@hwlab1.net.com (Steve Nelson) writes:
    >In article <-wln+#a.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >>Sorry this took so long, but it took me forever to find the
    >>right archive I had this kept in.
    >>
    >>Context: I have stated that John F. Kennedy was a prototype
    >>of the American fascist
    >>
    >>He is rather famous for the Subject Line phrase.
    >>
    >>
    >If John F. Kennedy was a prototype of the American facist,
    >what was Ronald ("Bedtime for Bonzo") Wilson Reagan? I'm just
    >trying to get a perspective on the school of thought from
    >which the above statement comes. All things are relative.
    >Once a standard has been established from which comparisons
    >can be made, statements can then be put into proper
    >perspective and discussed accordingly.

First, I use a different definition of fascism -- a political and social
system where the APPEARANCE of respect and support for private property
(which includes life, liberty as well as tangible property) exists but
in reality is subverted.

In short, a dressed (as opposed to "naked") dictatorship.

In Kennedy's case, he would decide what he wanted, no steel price rise
for example, and would then use the threat of naked coercion to get what
he wanted.

I don't know what Ronald Reagan is or was.

I can say that in this century, the Os?,hNLY honest president we
had was Jimmy Carter -- and in terms of leadership, he was a total
fuck up. I think ANY truly honest man would be an ineffectual president.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4977 alt.activism:15810 ca.politics:7348 talk.politics.misc:43217
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:38:08 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., San Jose, CA

In article <1992Sep1.182202.5966@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> curtis@berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>In article <yvjndkn.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
>>
>>	I have no doubt that you would have shot that woman without
>>hesitation, exactly as Chew did.  I also have no doubt that a more rational,
>>less violent solution may have resulted in the woman receiving therapy
>>instead of a funeral.
>
>Christ, this thread.  Such a lot of babbling I've never seen.  Look:
>
>1) There _are_ situations in which you're being attacked with a machete
>   and have no option but to shoot.
>
>2) There _are_ situations in which you're being attacked with a machete
>   and can disarm the attacker without risking your own life.
>
>3) We have _no way of knowing_ which sort of situation it was.  The
>   only people who know are the police, and they say it's the former;
>   but they'd say that anyway.
>
>So clamp it, folks.  You don't know what you're talking about,
>and you probably never will.  If you have to cling to your half-
>baked opinions, keep your mouths shut and leave your foolishness
>a matter of ambiguity.
>
>And take it out of talk.bizarre.
>
>End of flame.
>
>c

I agree totally with this poster and will add one thought upon
which I refuse to participate in this discussion further.
None of you know what you would do if you were attacked with
by a person weilding any sort of a large blade. None of you
know ... implied by reading your posted reactions to the
event....what you would do if you were forced to beg for your
life at the end of a blade or broken bottle.  Until that event
happens...and I pray it never will...you can only theorize
what you would do. That policeman did what he felt he had to
to save his life. This is not a situation wherein one deserves
congratulations while the other receives condemnation. This is
a situation that simply was...and demanded an immediate
response.....a situation that IMHO is another indictment upon
our current societal structure with no winners...only losers. 
 Len

DISCLAIMER: My opinions...not my employer's.

--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:39:32 GMT

In article <64717@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
:A 19 year old nutcase was shot after she attacked a cop with a machete
:after breaking into the Chancellor's home in Berkeley. She had left a note
:saying that "they're probably going to shoot me, tell my friends goodbye,
:this is to defend People's Park against the University".

:Related - other activists are calling for everyone to burn down LA
:again if the attackers of Reginald Denny are convicted, calling Denny's
:blood the justified reaction to oppression.

:Anybody out there agree with these nutcases?

	Related question: how many out there relish the antics of such
characters as "proof" that anyone not to the right of David Duke is a
menace to civilization?

/Loren
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 29 Aug 92 18:24:32 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <n0dntvq.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>A firearm is NOT a warning device, it is NOT a noisemaker, it is NOT for
>brandishment. In general, do not draw your firearm unless you are going to
>use it to STOP someobody.

The officer had the time to pump three bullets into this woman... Three
bullets into her knees would certainly have stopped her from coming
towards him.


FWA
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre