HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.society.revolution
Subject: Re: Revolution
From: hippee@oread.cc.ukans.edu
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:30:45 CST
 <1992Dec10.125133.1@oread.cc.ukans.edu> <1992Dec11.160556.2287@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Serces

In article <1992Dec11.160556.2287@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
> 
> how about killing everyone with an email acct--after all, all of these
> high-tech communications systems are just tools of the rich, right?

I don't see where either of us are paying for this tools of the rich in
any meaningful way.  Consider, if this were "merely" a tool for the rich
why on earth would the rich allow many of the news groups that spawn up as 
it is obviously the case that the "rich" do not approve?
> 
> or maybe we should kill everyone from kansas?

Maybe that is the right answer.  Maybe it's not.  Whatever is the answer, it's
not by making blind calls to some vague ideology that merely serves to keep
the rich in power.  Justice has had a much longer and broader meaning than 
just the protection of property which has been created through social 
production and gives benefit to individuals.

 or perhpas you should free
> your mind from the literalist communist concepts you bind it with, and
> realize that the only real revolution possible is personal and internal.

That's a fine ideal but the ideology of internal and personal is bourgeois
in and of itself.  Internal and personal means nothing without it being
grounded in the here and now, in something real.

> when you say "kill everyone with a gucci bag" it just shows how caught
> up you are in the same crap you claim to despise. keep talking like this,
> youll make a handy villain to justify suppression of civil liberties.
> 
We have them now?  If nothing I'm saying means anything more, I still have
the right to say it.  It's free speech and it's the only tool which the
bourgeois cannot refuse to those who would remove its existence.

> rob
> 
Later
Hippee@oread.cc.ukans.edu
 
Newsgroups: alt.society.revolution
From: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard)
Subject: Re: Revolution
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 20:51:33 GMT

In article <102082@netnews.upenn.edu> ingraham@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (James Ingraham) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.230943.23135@leland.Stanford.EDU> miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard) writes:
>>One percent of the families in the U.S.A. own more wealth than the bottom
>>90 percent combined.
>>The 90 percent create the wealth of the U.S.A.  The one percent own the 
>>means of producing the wealth (along with, most of the wealth which is
>>produced).  The 90 percent are the wage-slaves.  Some of them own 
>>Gucci bags.  Some are going to the University of Pennsylvania.  Some
>>are picking up trash for the City of New Orleans.
>>A real social revolution would change these social relationships.  The
>>people who produce the wealth would also control its distribution and
>>determine its content.
>>
>>-- 
>>Don't just complain; organize! e-mail miballar@leland.stanford.edu
>>Ph: (415) 863-9627. Time is money; steal some today.
>
>Better check your figures, buddy.  I REALLY think you're wrong.  Maybe the top
>1% has more than the bottom 50%, but NINETY percent?  I don't think so.  And 
>also, I think you're missing a VERY major point; who owns the roads?  And the
>public utilities?  And the military?  NOT Bill Gates or Ross Perot.  People
>do.  If you really think there's a lot of wealth re-distribution that needs
>to be done, why not offer some alternatives.  There are some really nifty
>economic theories out there.  Give us some ideas here.  One thing is certain;
>most of the ways that economists have to re-distribute wealth do not require
>revolution.
>
>-James
>University of Pennsylvania
>ingraham@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
>
>And yes, some of us do go to the University of Pennsylvania.  Of course, the
>other 75% of this university are receiving financial aid averaging $14,000
>a year.
>

Nice to hear that some of the deserving students at U of P are getting
financial aid.  After all, they will soon be producing the wealth I spoke
of above and they should get some pittance back.
My figures for the above information come from the Federal Reserve's
triennial Survey of Consumer Finances.  Substantial parts of this Survey
were quoted in the April 21, 1992 issue of the New York Times--page one.
"By 1989, the top 1percent (834,000 households with about $5.7 trillion
of net worth) was worth more than the bottom 90 percent of Americans
(84 million households, with about $4.8 trillion in net worth)."
NYT, 4/21/92, p.1 , national edition
These figures, of course, do not include expenditures or estimates of the
exchange value of the military, rroads or other papieces of U.S. infrastructure

Mike B.
 
-- 
Don't just co863-WOBSmplain; orgPhone (415)aniz
Join the Wobblies.


Newsgroups: alt.society.revolution
From: montas@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Hubert J Montas)
Subject: Re: Revolution
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:47:17 GMT

In article <101788@netnews.upenn.edu> ingraham@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (James Ingraham) writes:
>
>The reason there are no revolutions is that the system sells the revolution
>to the mainstream, where it is bought.  But don't take my word for it.  Read
>Marcuse.
>
        Couldn't resist, this is so true! I had to re-post it! 

          The system sells the revolution to the mainstream.

        How many new products are advertised as revolutionary? One-dimensional
man is a GREAT book!

     Hubert.
From: Nate.H%bbs@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Nate H)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 05:59:37 PST
Organization: Quake Public Access, San Fernando Valley, CA (818)362-6092
Subject: helmit?
Distribution: world
Reply-To: Nate.H%bbs@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Nate H)
X-Posting-Software: UniBoard 1.10a S/N 210921

>:People are being told by the government that they have to wear a
helmet
>:when they ride, despite the fact that there is no way their
helmetless
>:state could cause physical harm to another person.  In that case,
there's
>:no reason for the government to get involved and it IS acting in an
>:oppressive way...
>
>I believe the rationale in the helmet laws is that other people
>may end up paying the increased medical costs because of injuries
>resulting from an accident without a helmet.
 
Actually if you look it up and study a bit, none of this is what's
wrong here.
 
If you look, the State owns your car/bike. That's why you get a "pink
slip" allowing you to USE IT.
 
Thus if you don't have insurance, guess who it comes back to, the
State!
 
What bothers me and always has is why I don't have "pink slips" on
everything I own?
 
It's because we "signed up" with our cars. A stupid idea I think.
 
When you buy a new car, you CAN ask for the real ownership papers, then
it's yours.
 
Can you beleive all this?
 
Look it all up, ask questions and don't quit till you get some REAL
answers!
 
Anyone done any simular research, please post here...
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: jas@miro.com (Jim Shankland)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Keywords: Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, etc.
Reply-To: jas@miro.com (Jim Shankland)
Organization: Miro Systems, Inc.
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:13:18 GMT

In article <lihr6aINNce5@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>The ladder example is always a good one.  I hear complaints that ladder
>companies have to label the ladder saying that you should not use the
>top rung.  Why the hell is the rung there if it should be obvious that
>it is not safe to use it?

That's an easy one.  If they removed the top rung, the current second
rung would become the top rung, and therefore be unsafe; so they'd
have to remove it, which would make the current third rung the top
one, hence unsafe ....  It's easy to see that all rungs would have
to be removed, leaving only two long, wooden poles.  Which might or might
not be safe, depending on what they're used for.

jas
From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 15 Dec 92 08:55:22 GMT
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <1992Dec13.223335.23667@starbase.trincoll.edu>, nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:

> What bothers me about dangerous activities is that I wind up paying
> some of the costs.  These costs stem from higher insurance rates as
> well as higher taxes because of negligency lawsuits.

A good response is to _refuse_ to pay.  If it's insurance, get a
policy that's more selective.  If it's taxes, secede from their
jurisdiction.

> (I do now of course to keep the FDA and others in groceries, but I'm
> willing to pay those costs because I hope they protect me and mine.)

Fine.  But the issue is not whether you're willing pay and be bound by
their rules, but whether you're willing to force someone else to pay
and be bound by their rules.

> The unhelmeted motorcyclist thus runs a better chance of dying or
> being maimed for life _and_ I wind up paying because he or his
> estate will sue my company.

What kind of company are you with, that's so vulnerable to such suits?
How does this justify substituting your judgement by force for that of
another?

 |  Voting in government elections, or petitioning government, or willfully  |
 |  accepting government ``benefits'' when it's feasibly avoidable (thereby  |
 |  generating demand for taxation), accelerate the supplanting of personal  |
 |  choice by collective dictate,  making these most serious crimes against  |
 |  humanity.  ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar  |

-- 
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 11 Dec 1992 19:32:26 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com
Keywords: Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, etc.

PANDAMAN) writes:
|> Robert Dinse) writes...
|> 
|>                 [some stuff deleted]
|> 
|> >     Society SHOULD be responsible for protecting YOU from ME and ME from
|> >YOU, society should not be responsible for protecting me from myself.  If we
|> >decide, as a society, that the costs of bad choices are not worth bearing,
|> >then perhaps we should just refuse to bear those costs.  I'm sorry, you
|> >scattered your brains all over the pavement as a result of decisions you made,
|> >that's too bad, if you die you die.
|> 
|> And this is precisely why we find ourselves with these silly laws. Our 
|> society will never allow individuals to bear the consequences of their 
|> individual choices.
|> 
As long as the two of you keep communicating at esoteric levels of black
and white, you will have a good time but accomplish little.  The real
question is what data a vendor is required to provide to allow you to 
make good/bad decisions.

If I make a cereal and put enought arsenic in it that one bowl kills you,
should society be responsible to set rules that make me mark the box
poison?  Did you make a stupid decision to eat the cereal even though its
contents were kept secret from you?  What if it takes one bowl a day for
30 straight days? How about one bowl a day for 5 years?

The ladder example is always a good one.  I hear complaints that ladder
companies have to label the ladder saying that you should not use the
top rung.  Why the hell is the rung there if it should be obvious that
it is not safe to use it?  Not everyone is a rocket scientist.  Not
is as smart as you are.  You probably still make a few stupid moves 
(I know I do).  But should ladder manufacturers be able to make a 5
foot ladder look like a 6 foot ladder by adding an unsafe rung?
Especially a rung that looks like all the safe ones?

It all breaks down to how you define bad choices.  It is society,
laws, and courts that end up having to call the close ones.  As long
as you two keep discussing the obvious ones, you've missed the
entire point of having a society.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.


Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.privacy,talk.politic.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: dawson@willard.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles,talk.polit
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Keywords: Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, etc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:47:01 EST
Organization: Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

> In <1992Dec10.023007.16159@eskimo.com> nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) write
> 
> 
> |     We fought a war of independence with the british.  Many died so that we
> |could have our freedom.  Now, we're willing to give up that freedom so we, a
> |a society, don't have to bear the costs associated with someone who is injur
> |as the result of making an unwise choice.  We'd rather give up our right to
> |make the choice then live with the possibility we might make a bad one and
> |incure some costs as a result.
> 
> I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said, "Those who desire to give up
> freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve
> either."
> 
> (Quote from memory, not verbatim)

What, if anything, does this have to do with bicycling?

Also, you might have your news sysadmin rmgroup the rec.bicycling newsgroup.
That rmgroup was issued some while back, and ncratl apparently missed it.

> -- 
> Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itse
> a government.
> It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
> Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com


-- 
dawson@willard.UUCP (Willard Dawson)
gatech!vdbsan!willard!dawson
emory!uumind!willard!dawson
Willard's House BBS, Atlanta, GA -- +1 (404) 664 8814
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.abortion
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [talk.politics.drugs] Re: question regarding job application
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 02:15:03 GMT

A repost from talk.politics.drugs:

From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: question regarding job application
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:56:56 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Dec14.201820.1414@sarah.albany.edu> km9985@sarah.albany.edu (MADIGAN KEVIN M) writes:
>This has me steamed! Is this constitutional? If I write them and tell them
>how I feel about this, do I end up on some "subversives" list?
	Don't be afraid of ending up on a subversives list. Be proud. I don't 
	feel you can claim to be a good american without being considered
	a subversive by the national-security state.  Remember, they are
	out to take away what our forefathers fought and died to give us.
	We have a responsibility as americans to defend our constitution
	from all threats, even the domestic threats.  I hope I am on every 
	subversive list those flag-wrapped pseudo-americans keep.  The 
	national-security state is not a legitimate democratic government no 
	matter what you may have been told.  No keeper of secret lists of 
	"subversives" can claim to be a defender of the constitution. 
	No government that believes in lists of people who hold 
	"subversive ideas" can claim to be a democracy.  Thomas Jefferson 
	would never have countenanced it. Why should we?


>What is the deal with this? It seems rather intrusive. The loyalty oath bit
>seems rather unamaerican.
	Ironic isn't.  I like to think of it as the Tao of americanism.
	The act of requiring a loyalty pledge is itself disloyal to the
	philosophy of the constitution.


						smg
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.activism,soc.rights.human
Subject: Re: U.S. government kidnapping people
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:34:53 GMT
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) says:

>A repost from alt.security,sci.crypt,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc:
>
>From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
>Subject: Re: PGP as a World Standard
>Date: 18 Dec 1992 20:36:23 GMT
>Organization: U. C. Berkeley
>Message-ID: <1gtco7INN8a0@agate.berkeley.edu>
>
>In article <BzGy1v.16p@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>>Does it matter?  Remember this is the good ol' U.S. of A. (*ahort*),
>>where the Supreme Court has said that it's ok for law enforcement
>>officials to kidnap foreign nationals abroad and bring them to
>>trial in the U.S. for violations of U.S. law.
>
>Just an update for those who haven't heard: the foreign national who
>was kidnapped has been freed and returned to Mexico.  The case against
>him was tossed out for lack of evidence: the US gov't had nothing to
>back up their accusations that the doctor who was kidnapped had anything
>to do with the torture and killing of the American DEA agent, so the
>judge threw them out of court.  It appears that the lower-level judges
>are still somewhat honest even if the Supreme Court has been taken over
>by "anything the executive branch does is fine" ideologues.
>
>Then the prosecutors tried to get the poor guy held on the grounds that
>he was an illegal immigrant!  (He was KIDNAPPED to bring him into the
>US and he's being charged with being an illegal immigrant).
>
>He's back in Mexico and here's the latest: now the US gov't has officially
>asked the Mexicans to prosecute him!
>
>
>
If I were Mexico, I would be screaming my head off demanding that the people
who kidnapped this man be extradited to Mexico for trial....

>--
>Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.talk.politics,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles,talk.politics.misc
From: susskind@west.darkside.com (Mark Susskind)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: {Social / Individual Responsibility
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:04:50 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

If you think a particular law is frivolous, then you have to campaign to 
have the law repealed.  The people have elected legislators who believed 
that they would be promoting general welfare by enacting those helmet 
laws.  If the voters object to the passage of those laws, then they must 
vote for legislators who object to them too.  Legislators should be
accountable to the feelings and opinions of the majority of hisher
constituents, or else heshe shouldn't be holding that office.

Mr. MRS
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6916 alt.activism:19593 alt.individualism:6094 talk.politics.misc:64322
From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Summary: Keep your society; we'll stick with our own!
Keywords: Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, etc.
Date: 15 Dec 92 08:42:22 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

In article <lihr6aINNce5@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

> The real
> question is what data a vendor is required to provide to allow you to 
> make good/bad decisions.

Different people have different answers to this question.  What's
wrong with a diversity of consumer groups and individual consumers
stating their differing requirements, with different manufacturers
responding to the various requirements?  Why insist on a "one size
fits all" requirement imposed by government?

> It all breaks down to how you define bad choices.  It is society,
> laws, and courts that end up having to call the close ones.  As long
> as you two keep discussing the obvious ones, you've missed the
> entire point of having a society.

If "the entire point of having a society" is to constrain diversity
and impose uniformity, then you can keep your society.  Some of us
will stick with our own society, separate from yours.

-- 
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6913 alt.activism:19589 alt.individualism:6092 rec.bicycles:23751 talk.politics.misc:64302
From: steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,rec.bicycles,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 15 Dec 1992 01:44:29 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
Keywords: Helmet Laws, Drug Laws, etc.

  I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said that about freedom and security.

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: cyc9840@age2.age.uiuc.edu (Young-Chang Chang)
Subject: Racism, bias by U.S. Police
Organization: Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Illinois
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:53:21 GMT
Keywords: racism, bias

Racism and bias by U.S. white police man and women are not a brand new 
problem. They are pretending to stand between the white and the others.
However, they are always committing racism in almost all cases. Their racism 
are very cunning. We know one thing. Every regulation or law emphasizes 
prohibition of racism, etc. This fact actually implies that there are lots 
of racism and bias in U.S. 
Police is an official organization. The white police men and women are 
cunningly doing racism to non-white person in any cases. Externally apparent 
racism can be punished. ( of course, if court is not biased with white jury)
Internally apparent racism has never been punished. They are doing racism 
under the funny dignity using the name of police. Who can struggle the 
cunning dignity off the white police?  Their racism always won !!!
I am collecting all cases to make a book like " Overcoming racism, 
friends ". You might have an experience already , or know the case.
Please send your story, or post your story !!!!

<Heaven bless the colored people !!!>  
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.activism,soc.rights.human