HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tonyp@sco.COM (Antony Pelton, ( Dude-is Maxi-mus) )
Subject: Re: Gun control in California
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:15:56 GMT


	All the pencil-neck CRAP really doesn't matter,
the bottom line is that Americans will own a gun if they want one and
there will always be one for Americans to own ....

Tony

PS. Sorry for the lack of imaginative solutions ....


In article <71387@apple.Apple.COM> vossron@Apple.COM (Ronald N. Voss) writes:
>mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) writes:
>
>>What bothers me the most about gun control advocates is their lack of
>>political courage.
>
>It seems to me that those who are crusading for controls are very
>couragess, if they are "a minority in this country, and considering
>the NRA's tremendous political clout.
>
>>The constitution says that we have the right to
>>bear arms.
>
>Here we go again with the constitutional debate, with the NRA
>wrapping itself in the flag.  Constitutional scholars themselves
>can't agree on the meaning of the amendment.
>
>>It does not say we have the right to ask permission (i.e.
>>get a permit) to bear arms. It says that gun ownership is a right.
>>The gun control advocates obviously believe this is not so. If
>>they truly feel this way, then it is time for them to attempt to
>>repeal the second amendment to the constitution. Why don't they do
>>this? Because they know that the majority of Americans do not
>>feel the same way they do.
>
>This is silly.  It's much easier to pass laws than to amend the
>constitution.  If a law passes, it's because a majority in the voting
>body favors its passage.
>
>>They are a minority in this country and
>>so must be sneaky about pushing their political agenda. Their
>>argument couldn't stand up to real scrutiny and they know it.
>
>So why doesn't the NRA stoop to the same sneakiness to prevent the
>majority of said voting bodies from passing gun control laws?  Just
>what is this sneakiness?  Lobbying?  Gathering signatures?  Proposing
>laws in legislatures?  Why do legislators pass such laws if they
>know that a mojority of their constituents are against them?  Have
>they been brainwashed by control proponents?  Why is the NRA 
>ineffective in preventing such travesties?  Why doesn't it work
>for the NRA to point out the flaws in such proposals and that the
>majority of people are against them?  
>
>Either the legislators believe that a majority of constituents are
>in favor of such proposals, or the legislators themselves believe
>in the proposals.  The only reasonable way to interpret the passage
>of a gun control law is that a majority *somewhere* is in favor of it.
>
> 
>-- 
>Ron Voss          Apple Computer         I speak only for myself.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hardware Technician    Santa Cruz Operation Inc.    

Disclaimer,Disclaimer,Disclaimer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: philg@bozo.uucp (Phil Geller)
Newsgroups: ca.environment,alt.save.the.earth
Subject: Recycled Paper Purchasing Meeting in Palo Alto
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:23:44 GMT
Followup-To: ca.environment
Distribution: ba
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies

RECYCLED PAPER PURCHASING

A Joint Meeting of the Business Environmental Network and 
the Recycled Paper Coalition

Monday, September 21, 8:30 - 10:30 am

Hosted by Syntex Corporation

The Recycled Paper Coalition's goal is to encourage companies
to increase the purchase of paper supplies made from post-consumer
waste.  Join us and learn how local companies like BankAmerica
and PG&E are keeping more waste out of the landfill through their
purchasing efforts, while lowering the costs of recyled paper.

Speakers include Pete Milhouse, Directory of Corporate Environmental 
Initiatives at PG&E, and Candace Skarlatos, VP of Environmental Policies
and Programs for Bank of America.

Location: Syntex Corporation
	  3401 Hillview Ave, Palo Alto
Cost:	  Open to the public
For meeting information:  415 494-9301

Directions:
	From I-280:  Take Page Mill Road East to Foothill Expwy.
		     Turn right on Foothill and go to Hillview.
		     Turn right on Hillview and left into the 
		     Syntex parking lot.
	From 101:    Take Oregon Expressway exit.  Oregon Expwy
		     turns into Page Mill Road after El Camino.
		     Turn left on Foothill Expwy and go to Hillview.
		     Turn right on Hillview and left into the 
		     Syntex parking lot.
-- 
Phil Geller				Email: philg@net.com
Network Equipment Technologies 		Phone: (415) 780-4363
800 Saginaw Drive 			Fax:   (415) 780-5001
Redwood City, CA 94063 
Newsgroups: ca.environment
From: vandal@leland.Stanford.EDU (Levan Frederick Hiemke)
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 00:46:56 GMT

In article <2401@unet.UUCP> philg@bozo.uucp (Phil Geller) writes:
>There was a column by George Will in the September 4, 1992 San Francisco
>Chronicle slamming Albert Gore's book "Earth in the Balance".  That
>was no surprise, but in the article he mentions a Gallup Poll on 
>global warming...
>
>"Gore knows, or should know before pontificating, that a recent Gallup
>Poll of scientists concerned with global climate research shows that
>53 percent do not believe warming has occurred and another 30 percent
>are uncertain."
>
>Does anyone know the details of this poll?  Is there more to it than
>George is Willing to admit?  
>

I don't know how much bearing this poll has on climate change policy.  The
source of the greatest fear lies in the potential for future warming and
the climate change that may (or may not) occur as a result.  My understanding
is that there is pretty much a consensus among "scientists" on the fact that 
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased over the past 
several decades.  Most alsoagree that the greenhouse effect is indeed real 
and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  

The scientific debates seem to be over whether the increase in greenhouse 
gases will beoffset by cooling effects (not terribly likely, but possible) 
and what the extent and impact of global warming would be (a wide range of 
opinions here).  

Like much scientific data in a political context, this poll has limited 
relevance to the global warming policy debate.


-Van Hiemke
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: ca.environment
Subject: Re: Cobb Mt. to be LOGGED! (Nature Conservancy)
Date: 15 Sep 1992 06:10:12 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<1992Sep10.190313.20880@cco.caltech.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: tylerh@cco.caltech.edu's message of 10 Sep 92 19:03:13 GMT
Originator: jym@remarque.berkeley.edu

>> the most recent addition to their board of directors is
>> the president of Maxxam.
> I am not sure what the relevance of this point is.

=o= The Nature Conservancy is the second-largest environmental
organization in the world.  They hold a lot of land, which they
are nominally dedicated to preserving.  But from what I
understand, they do things with that land:  sometimes they trade
it for other land, sometimes they entrust it to the government.

=o= Presumably such maneuvers are worthwhile, but that depends
entirely on the motives and integrity of the board of directors.
Given the way Maxxam has behaved, I have grave doubts about the
integrity of that board.

=o= Somebody on the net wrote to them with concerns about this.
The Nature Conservancy's response did not address the concerns
at all; rather it went on about how much *money* this guy had
given them.

> I not saying you should trust/love "big business", but if all
> you ever do is call them names and sue them,  it becomes hard
> to build a lasting peace.

=o= This isn't about generalized name-calling of "big business."
This is about one very specific president of one very specific
company whose very recent track record on the environment is,
to be blunt, absolutely horrifying.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: ca.environment
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:18:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.004656.16894@leland.Stanford.EDU> vandal@leland.Stanford.EDU (Levan Frederick Hiemke) writes:
>In article <2401@unet.UUCP> philg@bozo.uucp (Phil Geller) writes:
>>There was a column by George Will in the September 4, 1992 San Francisco
>>Chronicle slamming Albert Gore's book "Earth in the Balance".  That
>>was no surprise, but in the article he mentions a Gallup Poll on 
>>global warming...

>>"Gore knows, or should know before pontificating, that a recent Gallup
>>Poll of scientists concerned with global climate research shows that
>>53 percent do not believe warming has occurred and another 30 percent
>>are uncertain."

>>Does anyone know the details of this poll?  Is there more to it than
>>George is Willing to admit?  

>I don't know how much bearing this poll has on climate change policy.  The
>source of the greatest fear lies in the potential for future warming and
>the climate change that may (or may not) occur as a result.  My understanding
>is that there is pretty much a consensus among "scientists" on the fact that 
>atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased over the past 
>several decades.  Most alsoagree that the greenhouse effect is indeed real 
>and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  

I suppose so, but if one agrees with each of those statements and still doesn't
think that GW is a problem (as is the case with me for example) then why should
the government start rebuilding civilization on the basis of such unfounded fears?
I have said for a long time that the political activists pushing the GW doomsday
scenario were not of the opinion that the scientific evidence matters, but few
say it as clearly and openly as you.

>The scientific debates seem to be over whether the increase in greenhouse 
>gases will beoffset by cooling effects (not terribly likely, but possible) 
>and what the extent and impact of global warming would be (a wide range of 
>opinions here).  

>Like much scientific data in a political context, this poll has limited 
>relevance to the global warming policy debate.

So what you are saying is that whether GW is really a problem or not has
no bearing on what the policy regarding it ought to be?  Do you really
hate industrial civilization that much?

--Brian
From: rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com (Randy Sopicki)
Newsgroups: ca.environment
Subject: test
Date: 5 Sep 92 17:46:26 GMT
Organization: ProLine [pro-amber] -- Spring Valley, Ca

endaround
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Newsgroups: ca.environment
Subject: Re: "Ecofascists" In Action
Keywords: EF!, chain saws, safety precautions
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:12:34 GMT
Organization: Memes-R-Us
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.

brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

>>Hm.  There was an article in the EF! Journal about a year ago, the author
>>of which I have forgotten, in which the author and cohorts went to *two*
>>major chainsaw manucaturers and asked about safety precautions on their 
>>products.  The chain saw people flat out stated that the chains & guards
>>were designed in such a way that if the chain were to break, there is no
>>way it would kill the person using it, or one standing nearby for that
>>matter.  They did also state, however, that the chain saw would be ruined
>>and would need to be replaced.

>So why is it that EF! thinks that spiking is supposed to be an effective
>tactic in scaring loggers out of forests?  Or are their warnings to timber
>companies just an expression of concern over the wellbeing of the chain saws?

Exactly, dear boy. They wish to make it NOT cost-effective to harvest
timber.

That's all they are doing, is trying to stop habitats from being harvested.

-- richard


-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: ca.environment
Subject: Re: Cobb Mt. to be LOGGED! (Nature Conservancy)
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:46:51 GMT
        <1992Sep4.084214.1@vax.sonoma.edu>
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: prusso@vax.sonoma.edu's message of 4 Sep 92 16:42:14 GMT

> I am also interested in any advice concerning the possiblities
> of getting the Nature Conservancy to consider purchasing Cobb
> Mountain to preserve [its] beauty and resources now and
> forever.

=x= Sounds like a worthy project, and one that will test the
sincerity of the Nature Conservancy.

=x= You see, the most recent addition to their board of
directors is the president of Maxxam.
    <_Jym_>
Xref: sparky ca.environment:869 sci.environment:11093 talk.environment:3573
From: philg@bozo.uucp (Phil Geller)
Newsgroups: ca.environment,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Gallup Poll on Global Warming
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:47:30 GMT
Followup-To: ca.environment
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies

There was a column by George Will in the September 4, 1992 San Francisco
Chronicle slamming Albert Gore's book "Earth in the Balance".  That
was no surprise, but in the article he mentions a Gallup Poll on 
global warming...

"Gore knows, or should know before pontificating, that a recent Gallup
Poll of scientists concerned with global climate research shows that
53 percent do not believe warming has occurred and another 30 percent
are uncertain."

Does anyone know the details of this poll?  Is there more to it than
George is Willing to admit?  

-- 
Phil Geller				Email: philg@net.com
Network Equipment Technologies 		Phone: (415) 780-4363
800 Saginaw Drive 			Fax:   (415) 780-5001
Redwood City, CA 94063 
From: Larry.Fletcher@f129.n102.z1.fidonet.org (Larry Fletcher)
Sender: NewsMeisterII@mcws.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: ca.environment
Subject: Re: Cobb Mr. to be LOGGED!
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1992 07:30:03 -0800

 * Originally By: Andy Alm
 * Originally To: All
 * Originally Re: Re: Cobb Mr. to be LOGGED!
 * Original Area: Ecology Network
 * Forwarded by : Blue Wave v2.10


This message has been passed to several EcoNet subscribers, notably
the Mendocino Environmental Center <bball@igc.apc.org> and the
Northcoast Environmental Center (me).  We've all been thick in the
THP scene for years.  If the THP has just been filed, you have a few
days to comment (maybe) to the interagency review team led by CDF.
It sounds like you will want to make sure that issues of cumulative
effects of past, present and foreseeable future logging operations 
are adequately addressed, specifically effects on wildlife habitat
and water quality.  (Is this area listsed as a 'conservation area'
by the county because it's in a sensitive watershed?  If so, you
may be able to force the use of the least impacting logging methods,
and at a minimum eliminate any winter operations.)

A good booklet on reviewing and commenting on THPs is available from
the MEC (707-468-1660) or EPIC (707-923-2931), written by Chuck
Powell, who writes a LOT of great THP comments.

Unfortunately, until the laws and logging rules are made tougher,
there are  few serious opportunities for public involvement short of
going to court to challenge CDF for inadequate THP review--and only
then if you can prove it and affort the enormous court costs.  But
hang in there.  We certainly lose a few battles along the way, but
the tide is moving against those who see the forest only as a commodity
to be exploited.

Best,

        Andy

 
 * Origin: ONE WORLD Los Angeles 310/372-0987 HS (1:102/129.0)
From: tylerh@cco.caltech.edu (Tyler R. Holcomb)
Subject: Re: Cobb Mt. to be LOGGED! (Nature Conservancy)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:03:13 GMT



In ca.environment you write:

>> I am also interested in any advice concerning the possiblities
>> of getting the Nature Conservancy to consider purchasing Cobb
>> Mountain to preserve [its] beauty and resources now and
>> forever.

>=x= Sounds like a worthy project, and one that will test the
>sincerity of the The Nature Conservancy (TNC).

I disagree. 

 TNC's major thrust is preservation of habitat
for threatened species.  If you carefully read their propagande,
you can see tat they are regularly refusing *donations* of
land that do no fit their criteria.  Natural beauty is
NOT a goal TNC works towards.  Notice, one of the achievements
they crow loudest about is their computerized data base
of specie distribution that allows  them to analyze
(1) species in greatest danger of vanishing and (2)
parcels of land that pack the greatest biodiveristy.

To whit, one of their largest purchase of late was the
enormous "gray's ranch" in New Mexico.  A beautiful
stretch of God's earth; I personally prefer it over the
Sierras.  However, it turned out that the current species
diversity there is not particularly outstanding
(although there is talk of trying to return to a native
grassland, complete with buffalo), and there has been a fair bit of internal
dissension over what many see as a TNC blunder.

By all means, make your pitch to TNC. But doing it from
a species diversity/habitat preservation standpoint,
not a natural beauty standpoint.

>=x= You see, the most recent addition to their board of
>directors is the president of Maxxam.

As an organization that continually bills itself as a coalition
builder, that tries to save the environment from consensu
rather than a confrontation approach, I am not sure what the
relevance of this point is.  I not saying you should trust/love
"big business", but if all you ever do is call them names and
sue them,  it becomes hard to build a lasting peace.  
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Holcomb   *   "Remember, one treats others with courtesy and repsect *
tylerh@juliet   *   not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but     *
  caltech.edu   *   because you are."  - paraphrased from Garth Henrichs   *
From: winner@Apple.COM (Stephanie Winner)
Newsgroups: ca.environment
Subject: Re: Diapers and Baby's
Keywords: the BOTTOM line
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:47:54 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Sep2.075148.9613@resonex.com> frankm@resonex.com (Frank Muennemann) writes:
>In article <37536@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> tcritchl@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Tod Critchlow) writes:
>>                      ... we are trying to make
>>the diaper decision...
>>	From the things I have read
>>it seems like there really isn't any consensus.
>>Although most of the information that is pro-disposable 
>>comes from the diaper companies...
>
>There IS a consensus: Paper diapers ARE a major component of
>landfill bulk.  If you kid has gastrointestinal infections,
>the microbes wind up being stored in/near the landfill.

While I agree that cloth diapers are more environmentally
correct, I have yet to hear of a study which was able to
verify that diseases are spread by human feces in landfills.
It seems to be a common belief, but whenever they dig some
diapers out of a landfill and test them, they don't find any
living bacteria, etc.

Stephanie Winner
winner@apple.com
Newsgroups: ca.environment,sci.engr.mech,rec.autos.tech
From: Chris Laning <claning@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: ca.environment
Date: 07 Sep 92 15:06 PDT
Subject: Re: Diapers and Baby's
Nf-ID: #R:sdcc12.ucsd.edu:37536:cdp:1332900104:000:1922
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!claning    Sep  7 15:06:00 1992



Dear Tod,

A recent issue of _Consumer Reports_ had a sidebar on disposables vs.
cloth diapers. Their conclusion - - and I've always found their science
to be reliable and their advice sensible - - is that, in areas where the
major immediate environmental problem is diminishing landfill space,
cloth diapers are better. In areas where water supply is more of a problem
(i.e. much of California) disposables probably have less total environ-
mental impact.

This assumes, however, that you are only considering total environmental
impact and energy use and don't include other factors. Such as: are the
disposables going to be disposed of properly, i.e. be rinsed in a toilet
so any fecal matter that could transmit disease doesn't wind up in the 
landfill? Does the mere thought of using a plastic product, which will
be around for thousands of years, for such a temporary need make you
uncomfortable? (This is the deciding factor for me.) Is your particular
child's skin sensitive to any of the substances in the disposable diaper,
or for that matter, to the detergent you use to wash cloth diapers? (This
you can only find out by experiment.) Can you rig cloth diapers so that
leakage is minimal, or when a few leaks occur and stain clothing, can you
cope with that without minding too much? (Incidentally, many of the moms
I know find that, in practice, milk stains on their own clothing are more
of a problem because they occur in such an obvious location. And they can
ruin a favorite dress in a hurry. At the food co-op where I work, we had
a nursing mom who happened to be the dairy dept. manager at the time, and
she found she had to be careful about saying the word "milk" as it some-
times triggered her own milk to let down!)

Hope this helps. Read the _Consumer Reports_ article. I'd be interested to
hear others' responses to this. We get this question a lot at the
food co-op.

(Ms) Chris Laning (claning)

Newsgroups: ca.environment
From: winner@Apple.COM (Stephanie Winner)
Newsgroups: ca.environment
Subject: Re: Diapers and Baby's
Keywords: the BOTTOM line
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:10:41 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <37536@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> tcritchl@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Tod Critchlow) writes:
>Hello out there.
>I apologize if this has come up before, but
>I am having a baby, or rather my wife is, at
>the end of this month and we are trying to make
>the diaper decision.  

If you will be using daycare, most likely the decision will
be effectively made by you daycare provider.

Assuming that cloth diapers are more environmentally sound...
If you are lucky enough to find daycare that uses cloth diapers
you will save some money.  With one kid the cost is about the
same for cloth or disp. when using a service.  With two or more
kids, the cost drops a lot.  However, if you use diaper wraps
for the cloth diapers there is an initial investment.

You will have to change the cloth diapers more often, but
some people believe that kids in cloth are potty trained earlier.
I use disposibles for the first couple of months since my kids
seem to pee (and eat) very often at that age.  I still use
disposibles at night on my 6mo old, when she is dry through the
night I will change to cloth.  We also use disposibles on 
occasion when we are away from home.

Some kids get rashes in cloth, others in disposibles, so
that may also end up driving your decision.  BTW, congratulations!

Stephanie Winner
winner@apple.com