HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: t89par@tdb.uu.se (Par Svensson)
Newsgroups: alt.gothic
Subject: Re: Re - Question The Mission
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:12:32 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Scientific Computing, Uppsala Univ.

Merciful Fate is a Danish (!) black metal band. Their singer,
King Diamond, of whom you might have heard, sings in a very
annoying, very high-pitched voice, and the music is ordinary
mediocre hard-rock. At least this goes for their older albums.
KD has been on a solo career for a while, and has now reformed
his old band. I doubt the music to be especially good...but
listen to it and judge yourself.

/Par


[...I don't need no make-up, I've got real scars...]
From: ccsw@bristol.ac.uk (EthaStorm)
Newsgroups: alt.gothic
Subject: Re: question-The Mission
Date: 30 Sep 92 07:38:54 GMT
Organization: University of Bristol, England

In article <MILT.92Sep29120449@bambi.esd.sgi.com> milt@sgi.com (Milt Tinkoff) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.083243.28758@bristol.ac.uk>, ccsw@bristol.ac.uk (EthaStorm) writes:
>
>Steff>   In order of appearance
>
>    1> The First Chapter
>    2> God's Own Medicine
>    3> Children
>    4> Carved in Sand
>    5> Grains of Sand
>    6> Masque
>
>I've had the first three for a long time.  I really like 1 and 2, but I
>find 3 just okay.  Would I like any of their recent stuff?
>
>-milt

Hiho Milt,

  Album 4 "Carved in Sand" is an excellent rock progression for The Mish. Album
5 "Grains" is just really for completists. It's a set of tracks that got 
recorded for "Carved in Sand" but the boys didn't think they were "quite right"
for the album. So, they realised it just 'cos they had the material. It's not
brilliant, but pleasing none the same.

As for "Masque", finances have prevented me from buying this album, so I can't
comment, but the singles sounded alright!

Steff  *8)
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7901 alt.politics.elections:15362 uiuc.civil-liberty:57 alt.sex:32101 rec.arts.fine:699
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.sex,rec.arts.fine
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:45:45 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Oct6.211740.30378@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>[Michael Lax has posted the Republican Platform to
>alt.politics.elections. Here are the excerpts related to pornography,
>arts funding, and censorship. - Carl]
>
>"We must recognize that the time has come for a national crusade
>against pornography.

Will it be as bloody as the crusades against the Saracens?

>Some would have us believe that obscenity and
>pornography have no social impact.  But if hard- core pornography does
>not cheapen the human spirit, then neither does Shakespeare elevate
>it.

Huh?  Is this a hugh non-sequitur?

>We call on federal agencies to halt the sale, under government
>auspices, of pornographic materials.

And this is from the party that wants to reduce the size of
government and get the government out of the business
of "social engineering".  Sheesh!

>We endorse Republican
>legislation, the Pornography Victims Compensation Act, allowing the
>victims of pornography to seek damages from those who make or sell it,
>especially since the Commission on Pornography, in 1986, found a
>direct link between pornography and violent crimes committed against
>women and children.

This "link" issue has been re-hashed in the professional
literature, the popular media, and even in Usenet.  The
links are tenuous, at best.

[...] We also believe that the various State
>legislatures should create a civil cause of action against makers and
>distributors of pornography when their material incites a violent
>crime.

What about violence inspired by people who claim to
represent the will of God?  Can Bible publishers be
sued for this?  

[...]  Government has a responsibility, as well, to ensure that
>it promote the common moral values that bind us together as a Nation.
>We therefore condemn the use of public funds to subsidize obscenity
>and blasphemy masquerading as art.  The fine arts, including those
>with public support, can certainly enrich our society.  However, no
>artist has an inherent right to claim taxpayer support for his or her
>private vision of art if that vision mocks the moral and spiritual
>basis on which our society is founded."

Unfortunately, the people who are appointed to enforce
"common moral values" tend to have a very limited view
of what these values are.

>
>- Carl
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Thanks for posting this bit of drivel.  The Republican platform
is more dangerous to life and liberty than the most
horrific snuff film.
-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: twap8@isuvax.iastate.edu (Mike McNarney)
Subject: Censorship at Iowa State
Reply-To: twap8@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 06:21:26 GMT

An update on the evolving 'door policy' controversy...
We are now allowed to have our RA write our name, major, and hometown
in blue or black ink on a university-supplied 3x5 white index card.
Apparently, enforcement of violations has been left up to RA (Resident
Assistants)s and to Hall Directors. Many on my floor have made their 
own corrections to the cards (changed majors, nicknames, etc) with
no reprisal.

Late flash: Blue ink has been outlawed. Black ink only now.

---
-Mike McNarney
Iowa State University
twap8@isuvax.bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: terry@col.hp.com (Terry Thero)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:16:31 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division


 [ Hi Carl -
  Here is a copy of the 'Michael Lax' piece  of the posted  Republican
  Platform to 'alt.politics.elections'. I have substituted 'pornographic'
  with 'government' {which I think is VERY appropriate}, at all locations
  in the piece, ergo, it reads like this:
 ]

"We must recognize that the time has come for a national crusade
against government.  Some would have us believe that obscenity and
government have no social impact.  But if hard- core government does
not cheapen the human spirit, then neither does Shakespeare elevate
it.  We call on federal agencies to halt the sale, under government
auspices, of government materials.  We endorse Republican legislation,
the government Victims Compensation Act, allowing the victims of
government to seek damages from those who make or sell it, especially
since the Commission on government, in 1986, found a direct link between
government and violent crimes committed against women and children. [...] 

We also believe that the various State
legislatures should create a civil cause of action against makers and
distributors of government when their material incites a violent
crime. [...]  

Government has a responsibility, as well, to ensure that
it promote the common moral values that bind us together as a Nation.
[ horseshit! the government is about as moral as Linda Lovelace was ]
We therefore condemn the use of public funds to subsidize obscenity
and blasphemy masquerading as art.  The fine arts, including those
with public support, can certainly enrich our society.  However, no
artist has an inherent right to claim taxpayer support for his or her
private vision of art if that vision mocks the moral and spiritual
basis on which our society is founded."

Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.feminism
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: [alt.feminism] MacKinnon Legislation Based on Urban Legends?
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Summary: hallmarks of an urban legend
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:39:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.010429.17294@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> [A repost - Carl]
> 
> Newsgroups: alt.feminism
> From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
> Subject: MacKinnon Legislation Based on Urban Legends?
> Message-ID: <1992Oct4.185730.5527@netcom.com>
> Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:57:30 GMT
> 
> The following posts were on "alt.folklore.urban". What they claim is that
> an alleged film of a supposed rape, allegedly being offered in commerical
> release, is "a centerpiece" of MacKinnon's legal assault against the
> First Amendment. The longtime folklore-watchers immediately recognized
> this claim as a variant of the ever-recurring "snuff film" legend,
> frequently asserted but never proven.  Can anyone confirm whether or
> not the supposed travesty of the "rape film" is indeed one of the
> "evils" from which MacKinnon and her pals are promising deliverance?
> ("Just hand over all your rights under the First Amendment, and we'll
> see to it that nobody can EVER make a commerical film of a woman being
> raped!")
>                            - - - - - - - - -
> 
> 
> 
> Article 51234 of alt.folklore.urban:
> Xref: netcom.com alt.sex.movies:3952 alt.folklore.urban:51234
> Path: netcom.com!csus.edu!wupost!udel!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc8.harvard.edu!silvers3
> Newsgroups: alt.sex.movies,alt.folklore.urban
> Subject: Re: Rape movie? (was: "Gang Bang" series)
> Message-ID: <1992Oct2.154747.16028@husc3.harvard.edu>
> From: silvers3@husc8.harvard.edu (Jolyon Silversmith)
> Date: 2 Oct 92 15:47:46 EDT
> References: <1992Sep29.225813.4692@athena.mit.edu> <1992Sep30.181741.9305@athena.mit.edu> <1992Oct1.154356.7172@news.columbia.edu>
> Organization: Harvard University Science Center
> Nntp-Posting-Host: husc8.harvard.edu
> Lines: 24
> 
> >> I heard of a story recently
> >>of a woman in New Hampshire who was raped and a video made of it.  She found
> >>the video in the amateur adult section of the video rental store and rents it 
> >>out each week so no one else can see it and get off on her pain.  
> >>

I haven't been on the urban legends newsgroup for a long time, but
this story has the hallmarks of an urban legend.  The most important
point of the story is it's unbelievability.  Notice what it says -
she rents it every week to keep other people from seeing it.  Does
this make sense to anyone.  What would this accomplish other than
making it one of the top renting films?  If this were true, she'd
rent it and burn it and then demand that the owner sue her for
damages.

This, more than all the safeguards in the amateur porn industry
makes this sound like an urban legend.


marc colten



Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [misc.legal] Re: Freedom of Speech = Not Responsible?
Followup-To: alt.censorship,misc.legal
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:22:01 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech = Not Responsible?
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:03:41 GMT

sampson@cod.nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson) writes:

>     In a recent article, the Los Angeles Times reported on yet another
>"rappers made me do it" case.  

>My
>understanding of freedom of speech is that the government cannot prohibit
>anybody (well, almost anybody) from saying anything (well, almost any-
>thing), but that, in general, when a person says something he has to take
>responsibility for having said it.

There have been a couple of suits brought against "Soldier of Fortune"
magazine, by people injured by hired gunmen who advertised their services
in the magazine.  SOF lost at the Circuit level, but (I have this on hearsay
only) won at the SC.  The Circuit court agreed that responsibility meant 
paying the damages it held to have been foreseeable and caused by the
magazine's decision to run the ads.  The contrary view was that a court
ordering damages for an advertisement is effectivevly curtailing protected
speech.  Apparently, the SC agreed. (I can get the cite, if anyone needs it).
-- 
Stevens R. Miller, J.D.		Electronic Frontier Foundation Member 932
				Republican National Committee Member 90050367
				Amateur Radio Station WA4LDA
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: SUPPRESSION of UFO Reports
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:08:48 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

          
          
                           UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan

               I watched all of Dr. Carl Sagan's updated "Cosmos" 
          programs on PBS during summer 1991.  In one of them, he STILL 
          maintains that there is no physical evidence for UFO 
          Spacecraft, "just stories". 
    
               I should think that by now he would have heard about the 
          Roswell Incident in which UFO WRECKAGE and ALIEN BODIES were 
          found on a ranch (in New Mexico, I think), gathered up by the 
          U.S. military, and hidden away in an Air Force hanger 
          somewhere.  The wreckage included materials NOT KNOWN on 
          Earth, and some of it even had ALIEN SYMBOLS written on it.  
          All of this was witnessed by many People, both civilian and 
          military.  A couple of years ago, the TV program "Unsolved 
          Mysteries" showed an excellent segment about the incident. 
    
               The Roswell Incident illustrates a serious problem here.  
          Whenever there IS physical evidence of a UFO Spacecraft, the 
          military always confiscates it, using "national security" as 
          an excuse, and then ACTS LIKE THE MAFIA toward the finders 
          and other witnesses by THREATENING them if they don't keep 
          silent!  (They did it to the rancher in the Roswell 
          Incident.) 
    
               I wonder if Carl Sagan has been pressured by the 
          government into continuing to make negative public statements 
          about UFO's.  It's too bad that so many people accept his 
          pronouncements without question.  He may very well be another 
          case of THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND. 
       
               This is supposed to be a FREE country.  FREEDOM OF 
          SPEECH is guaranteed by the highest law of the land.  The 
          government (and its military) is supposed to be of, by, and 
          for The People, NOT the other way around.  People need to 
          know THE TRUTH about EVERYTHING in order to intelligently 
          participate in the democratic process.  It is an ORGANIZED 
          CRIME for the government to withhold or suppress information 
          and physical evidence of UFO's from us. 
    

               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC

                                                            
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7695 misc.legal:17782 alt.politics.correct:5523 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2901
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Date: 28 Sep 1992 11:12:17 -0500
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <1992Sep27.230624.905@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>I hope everyone (Ed Nilges excluded) forgives me for not knowing how
>to spell a name that I heard at a talk, for not finding any libraries
>books with "repressive tolerance" in their titles, for marking my best
>guess of the spelling with a question mark, for posting the correct
>name within hours (after receiving help from the net), and for not
>telling Ed Nilges, "fuck you" for calling me lazy and silly looking.

I'm sorry Carl but Ed is right.  You are lazy and it made you look
silly and I just can't take anything you say seriously anymore :-)

I would encourage you to put all your spelling mistakes near the
beginning of your post.  This way Ed will go into a diatribe about
your spelling and people will hit 'n' before wasting their time
reading his posts.



-- 
-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Censorship at Iowa State
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Keywords: long......
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 13:02:28 GMT

greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:

[...]
>the University of Arizona (a private school).
[...]

I think U of Arizona is a state school. Tuition last year was $1528,
pretty inexpensive and to the dollar exactly the same as Arizona State
University. [Source: U.S. News' college guide]

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Mike Royko: Schwarzenegger and Family Values
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 13:33:49 EDT

In article <1992Oct5.190319.22799@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>>Dig.  Ice T's work (as well as his public statements) supports killing
>>>cops.  Arnold's work does not.  There are two different messages here.
>>>This is a very difficult distinction, I know.  But strive if you can
>>>to grasp it.
>>
>>Please support this claim by providing in-context quotes where Ice-T
>>supports killing cops.
>>
>>I have heard Ice-T speak on this issue on a number of occassions.  I have
>>heard him say that we need to get rid of (note--that doesn't mean kill)
>>the bad cops.  I have heard him say that he believes that many youths
>>have been so victimized by cops that they have developed a mentality
>>such as that portrayed by his song.  I have heard him explicitly say
>>that his *portrayal* of a character in the song has been misinterpreted
>>for his own feelings.
>>
>>I have yet to hear him say that he supports doing what is portrayed
>>in his song.
>
>See his remarks recorded on video tape at the outbreak of the L.A. Riots.  
>They were widely distributed about a month ago.  He does not use the words
>"it's time to kill cops," but he comes quite close to that.  

I did not see whatever video tape you are refering to, nor do I think that
it is likely that I will (or that I could find it very easily even if I
really wanted to).

If you want myself (or others) to be convinced, you'll have to provide
a better quote than "He does not use the words 'it's time to kill cops,'
but he comes quite close to that."

This could mean anything.  Most people are very good at heraing what they
*want* to hear (or what they *expect* to hear).  We have no way of
distinguishing what he actually said from how *you* interpreted it, when
you only gives us *your* interpretation.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
From: Tom.Cavender@f2020.n112.z1.fidonet.org (Tom Cavender)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: [alt.feminism] pornograph
Date: 02 Oct 92  18:31:00 EST

-> I don't know if everyone knows about this bill or not, but on June
-> 25th the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approved by 7-6 a bill that
-> would permit suits for economic damages against the producers,
-> distributers, and exhibitors of obscene material if a plaintiff can
-> show that the sexually explicit material was "a substantial cause" of
-> a sexual offense.
-> (Will we next see an analogous bill permitting Reagan or Hinkley to
-> sue Scorcese for the creation of Taxi Driver?) Or perhaps an analogous bill permitting families of survivors of the Manson murders to sue the Beatles.  This is truly a monstrous piece of legislation that removes the responsibility for the commission of a crime from the criminal to some third party that probably never knew either victim or perpetrator.

-> Anyway, I just thought I'd post the closing paragraph from the Ad Hoc
-> Committee of Feminists for Free Expression (which includes Nora
-> Ephron, Judy Blume, Adrienne Rich, Betty Friedan, Anne Bernays and
-> 180 other active feminists):
->
-> "Women do not require 'protection' from explicitly sexual materials.
-> It is no goal of feminism to restrict individiual choices or to stamp
-> out sexual imagery.  Though some women and men may have this on their
-> platform, they represent only themselves.  Women are as varied as any
-> citizens of a democracy; there is no agreement or feminist code as to
-> what images are distasteful or even sexist.  It is the right and
-> responsibility of each woman to read, view, or produce the sexual
-> material she chooses without the intervention of the state 'for her
-> own good.'  We believe genuine feminism encourages individuals to
-> makes these choices for themselves.  This is the great benefit of
-> being feminists in a free society."
->
-> I think it is a rather nice statement. Me too.

-> Just for the record, the yea votes were Charles Grassley (Iowa),
-> Strom Thurmond (South Carolina), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Alan Simpson
-> (Wyoming), Hank Brown (Colorado), Howell Heflin (Alabama), and Dennis
-> DeConcini (AZ). Arlen Specter conspiciously left the room at vote
-> time.  (Woah -- flashbacks to the Anita Hill thing or what?) Here's to the six who voted against.  And, here's to hoping they, and the bill's principal sponsor, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), lose the next time they stand for election.

Pax,

<<<Tom Cavender>>>

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
From: Scott.Maxwell@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Scott Maxwell)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: banned newsgroup at u of o
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:36:16 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Oct1.193318.3721@nntp.uoregon.edu> () writes:
>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica has been banned from University of Oregon. 
>Isn't this
>censorship?

That depends on their reason for doing it. If their real, actual, genuine
reason is that the newsgroup takes up too much disk storage or some other
resource (and this may be the case, for all I know), then it isn't
censorship. 

If their real, actual, genuine reason is that they disapprove of the
content, then it is censorship. 

If their real, actual, genuine reason is some mixture of the above, then
it's censorship. 

Their *stated* reasons do not bear on the question. 

--
Scott Maxwell (maxwell@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu or Scott.Maxwell@bbs.oit.unc.edu)

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: ATTACKING THE MESSENGER
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:15:02 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire



                            ATTACKING THE MESSENGER

               It has been my experience for a long time that most 
          people are TOO IMMATURE to handle the Truth about ANY-thing.  
          They prefer OFFICIAL LIES and HALF TRUTHS, in place of the 
          unofficial Truth; it makes them feel more "secure", like a 
          child's blanket.

               Whenever they are confronted with information and 
          supporting evidence that contradicts their established belief 
          system, they FREAK OUT and even ATTACK or try to SILENCE The 
          Messenger.  They did it to Jesus Christ, Galileo, and many 
          other great People.

               "The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME!"

               They should INSTEAD read FOR THEMSELVES the Messenger's 
          cited SOURCES.


               In spite of the APPEARANCE (ILLUSION) of advancement and 
          sophistication, modern society is STILL IN THE DARK AGES!


                                            Robert E. McElwaine
                                            B.S., Physics and Astronomy
                                            UW-EC
Newsgroups: alt.censorship