HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: CUBA: Congress Lobby Day Apr 7
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 12:21:41 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism

As quoted from <1296500165@igc.org> by Frank Scofi <fscofi@igc.org>:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "END THE BLOCKADE - LET CUBA LIVE"

No need.  There IS no blockade and there hasn't been one since the Cuban       
Missile Crisis.  Of course if there IS one, it shouldn't be to hard to post
the NAMES of the ships participating, should it...? :)


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7349 talk.politics.misc:17293 talk.politics.mideast:10400
From: rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: More answers on Holocaust (George Martin)
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:44:48 GMT
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr7.171102.284@mala.bc.ca> princecr@mala.bc.ca writes:
>In article <JIME.92Apr2154901@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu>, jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
>> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com writes:
>>>In article <RaFLiB1w164w@b-cpu.UUCP> gmartin@b-cpu.UUCP (George Martin, another Shitbrain) writes:
>>>>Banished CPU supports FREEDOM OF SPEECH.  Currently no fees.
>>>>CALL:  +1(503) 232-6566 (8N1, v.32/42/bis) or +1(503) 232-5783 (8N1)
>>>>UUCP:  Path (..twiki!b-cpu) "ELIMINATED" BY ZIONIST THOUGHT POLICE!!!
>>>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>Users of Banished CPU are solely responsible for their actions.
>>>
>>>I must demand that you neo-Nazi anti-Semites remove this blatant
>>>anti-Semitic trailer from your postings.
>
>	remeber, they have a totally free right to express their opinions.
>We can't hold their lack of education and blindness against them, we can only
>encourage them to get a life.

Sure. On the other hand, we can yell at them all we like, and demand
whatever we want so long as we don't try to back it up with force.
Freedom of expression works both ways.

I'll note as well that the *legal* right to freedom of expression is
only applicable to the government trying to interfere. Private indi-
viduals or organizations can do whatever they please and not run into
First Amendment trouble, although I'd run into trouble with my conscience
for doing it.

I see no reason at all, though, why if they can yell such garbage, we 
can't yell back.

	-Nora
-- 
Oseh shalom b'imromav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu v'al kol yisrael.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7599 alt.activism.d:1602 soc.culture.jewish:7876 soc.rights.human:1372 alt.discrimination:1484 alt.society.civil-liberties:482
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Summary: Free speech means allowing those you hate to speak
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:22:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.44974
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Apr12.010806.8159@amhux2.amherst.edu> twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <dragon.702962857@camelot> dragon@camelot.bradley.edu (Matthew Korth) writes:
>>In <1992Apr9.231614.17905@ucunix.san.uc.edu> schectr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (ROBB SCHECTER) writes:
>>>**   - We hope to mass enough people to drown out any speeches, and def-   **
>>>**         eat any recruiting efforts the Klan will make.                  **

>>Sorry, you lose me here.  I may, and in fact *do*, disagree with what
>>the KKK has to say.  However, they have a right to say it.  The First
>>Amendment applies to them, too.

>And to me and six hundred other people, if we wish to express our
>views at the very same time in the very same place.  The First
>Amendment prohibits governmental suppression of speech.

This same attitude would allow those who oppose a radio or TV program
to introduce noise to make in unreceivable.  The right of free speech
requires that those who oppose the speech not interfere with it being
given, or heard by those who wish to hear it.  The right to say what
others wish to hear is no right at all.

Matthew Korth is absolutely right here.  If you do not allow the KKK 
to speak without interference, why should anyone else respect YOUR 
right to speak to those who wish to hear you?
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Subject: Larry Agran IS being denied "free speech"
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 06:37:49 GMT


Well, I just read one too many ignorant posts implying that
Larry Agran isn't being denied free speech because the media, party
officials, etc. have the right to ignore him as they see fit.
This line of reasoning is total nonsense. The first amendment is 
not some abstract "rule" that was enacted for the amusement of lawyers.
The First Amendment is a PRINCIPLE which exists for a reason. That
reason is because the founders of this Nation envisioned a democratic
republic, in which policy would be made on the basis of free discussion
among informed citizens. Anything which disrupts that process is a 
violation of First Amendment rights IN FACT regardless of how it might
be adjudicated in "law". If the law says that the people who control
the major forums have a right to pick and choose who they allow in
those forums then "the law is an ass". Larry Agran has important ideas
to contribute to our national dialogue, notwithstanding that as a 
conservative I think most of them are probably wrong :) But that
is for the PEOPLE to decide. Not MacNeil and Leherer, Not the New
Hampshire Democratic party, and not Ron Brown. I'm a LaRouche
supporter, and our guy has gotten even worse treatment than Agran.
This crap has got to stop, before our so-called "democracy" becomes
the laughing stock of the planet, if it isn't already.

Just my $0.02,
Steve
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7657 alt.activism.d:1621 alt.individualism:2430
From: dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.activism.d,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot on some issues
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:10:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.45176
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu once wrote: 
>
>	A while back someone asked about H. Ross Perot and his views,
> I've finally seen my first article longer than 5 lines on him and
> here it is.

How about the April 9th Wall Street Journal? First column, first page,
and 2.5 more columns of text inside. It is a pretty good article...
tells a whole lot more than the one posted from the Post.

Larry
--
Larry Weeks        | "Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth.
dev@ecn.purdue.edu |  Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty."
-------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"The truly ignorant in our society are those people who would throw
 away the parts of the Constitution they find inconvenient." 
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7747 alt.society.civil-liberty:3480
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:44:56 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

In article <storti.703260565@cdc835> storti@cdc835.cdc.polimi.it writes:
>Be serious!! Nazis, and any fascism must be stopped, with violence if
>necessary and even when these organizations are supprtd with
>government's money.  (by the way, do you americans know that CIA and
>your government financed illegal fascist movements throughout Europe
>during the last 40 years).  Think about that !! and then try to be more
>lucid when considering KKK and your gov.
>
>G.Storti Gajani (milano, italy)

Your little aside there is rather ironic.

If the CIA and US government did do this, could it be because they
had decided that any communism must be stopped, even if it meant
compromising their principles?

Now you want them to compromise principle again because fascism must
be stopped?

Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Subject: Re: Larry Agran IS *NOT* being denied "free speech"
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 06:22:23 GMT


In a post here Michael Deignan gives reasons why he thinks it
is OK for the owners of the media to deny Agran et. al. access.
As I have mentioned in other locations, the basis of a democratic
republic is political policy discussion by an informed citizenry.
For a small number of people to have the power to decide how
informed large numbers of people will be and what they will be 
informed about disrupts the integrity of that process. In a post
on the original thread of this discussion, I characterized this
situation as treason, and I see no reason to modify that view.

-Steve
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: emamid@athena.ecs.csus.edu (David Emami)
Subject: Re: Larry Agran IS being denied "free speech"
Organization: California State University, Sacramento
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 11:32:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.073411.29451@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
>
>In response to my post suggesting that denying Larry Agran access
>to well publicized forums IS a denial in fact of his right to free
>speech Michael Demigan (sp?) misses the point rather deftly by noting:
>
>"just because yoiu have the right to free speech doesn't mean anybody
>has to listen to you".
>

Mr. Demigan is absolutely correct. Your arguments miss the fact that this
applies to the news media as well as to anyone else.

>But suppose I WANT to listen to Larry Agran, or Gene McCarthy, or
>Frank Zappa, or Lyndon LaRouche.  As it happens, I'm fortunate 

Well, go listen to them. We're not stopping you!

>enough to have access to usenet, the last uncensored mass medium.
>But suppose I depended solely on TV as so many people do? Where 
>is my right to listen? 
>
>-Steve


Gag! More of the typical left-wing inability to tell the difference between
"preventing" and "not assisting." The news media have no more obligation to
talk about Mr. Agran than anybody else does. Mr. Agran's right to speak does
NOT mean that ANYONE is obligated to help him get is message out; your right
to listen to him does not obligate anyone to help you hear him. Your (and Mr.
Agran's) right to freedom of speech means exactly that: you have the freedom
to say anything you want. It does not mean that you may compell someone to
be your soapbox.
From: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: AGRAN Exclusion -- BROWN Hypocrisy
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:59:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: talon.1992Apr6.185959.21440
Reply-To: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu
Organization: Oregon State University - Univ. Computing Services

Harel Barzilai writes
>       A member of the media finally pinned down Jerry Brown on Larry
>Agran's exclusion from the political process.  You know what Brown said?
>       "Why doesn't he get a group of people and have an event?"

He's got a point.  Why doesn't Major Candidate Larry Agran get a rally with  
5-10K people?  Betcha the TV cameras would show up.

Of course, Agran can't get 5-10K people.  Which is why he's ignored.

Any bets on whether Agran will break 1,000 votes in the upcoming primary?   
Beat Lyndon LaRouche? Fuliani?  Bill the Cat?

--
Don McGregor             | "I like maxims that don't encourage behavior
mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu|  modification"   --Calvin
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.censorship,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: HOLOCAUST MYTHS
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:27:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr17.094920@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> In article <XL4BJB1w164w@b-cpu.UUCP>, pfaust@b-cpu.UUCP (Pete Faust) writes:
> >      Well, Zionist pressure is again stirring to deny
> > Banished CPU access.  With the Usenet exception, the Mass
> > Media is nearly 100% under Zionist control, so why allow the
> > exception?  Certain truths must not be sent 'round the world,
> > don't you all know that?  Revisionists would NEVER admit the
> > hopelessness and inevitable collapse of their position by
> > silencing their opposition.
> >      As the Zionists suggest when they present to the
> > American public their nation-wide, nation-destroying Mass
> > Media programs; when offended, simply change channels or turn
> > off.  Should this not be the Usenet modus operandi?
> 
>   Is english your native language?  I have been trying to determine exactly
what
> it is you are saying here.
> 
>   You accuse all those offended by your garbage Zionists (not that suprising)
>   You start with some sarcasm (at least I assume so) And then you say
> "Revisionists . . ."
>   Okay, lets examine this sentance: "Revisionsists" means you, we all know
that.
> The "opposition" is nearly everybody else (we all know that too).  So you are
> saying that you will never admit you are wrong to everyone else.  Well we
knew
> that, but the sentance is strangely worded.

  Sorry, I recieved a crash warning while responding and had to cut myself
short.  As to the next paragraph:

  Run on sentence.  I gather your are suggesting we ignore you?  Why, so some
neophyte who doesn't realize we are ignoring you feels that nobody is capable of
disproving your "facts" (aka garbage)?  Why don't you sell your TV if it is just
under "Zionist" control.  Considering the Usenet is alot easier to control than
the "media" (wich involves hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions),
why would a group, effectivly worth billions, have trouble getting one
connection cut?

  Just out of curiosity, have you mentioned the Templars yet? :-)

                                            -Kurt
From: cedman@714-725-3177.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 11 Apr 92 16:16:44 GMT
Distribution: usa

Susan Garvin writes
> The Klan, like everyone else, has a right to free speech. 
> They do not have a right to be heard.  
> 
> The counter-protesters also have a right to free speech. 
> If, by exercising their right, they drown out the speech
> of the Klan, so be it. 

Would you support the same in the opposite direction i.e. Klansmen  
showing up at all NAACP meetings and shouting so loudly that the  
meetings could not any longer be held ? Or would you support the use of  
the police to prevent this ? I'm certain that there is a law which an  
ambitious DA can use to do that.

	Carl Edman
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7383 alt.individualism:2328 talk.politics.misc:17367
From: bill@falcon.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Socialism Security Rides Again
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:22:42 GMT
Reply-To: bill@platypus.uofs.edu
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: University of Scranton, Scranton, PA

In article <rdippold.702582849@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
|> 
|> And a (black) gardener who was carrying $9000 to buy trees, and who
|> was squealed on by an airline clerk (they get a "reward" for doing
|> this) because he bought the ticket with cash and she saw more in his
|> wallet, is suing the government.  As usually, they closed in on him
|> and confisticated his money.  This time the victim isn't rolling over
|> and playing dead.
|> 

This story appeared on 60 Minutes this past Sunday.

He has 2 chances of getting his money back from the DEA.

SLIM and NONE.

It was bad enough when the IRS was the only one who (by their own claim)
were above the law.  Now we also have the DEA who can do anything they
want legal or not as long as they claim "it was part of the War on Drugs."

George Orwell was an optimist.

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties,alt.censorship
From: dege@cs.umn.edu (Dege Jeffrey Charles)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:47:15 GMT

In <1992Apr14.142055.23623@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> jgoldber@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Joel Goldberg) writes:

>In article <1992Apr14.020819.16701@cs.umn.edu> dege@cs.umn.edu (Dege Jeffrey Charles) writes:
>>
>>    Did the Nazis have the right to speak?  Yes.  And anyone concerned with
>>freedom should support them in that right.
>> 
>>    On the other hand, the Nazis in their early days did many things that
>>should not be protected, to include physical attacks on communists and jews.
>>Racially motivated crimes should be prosecuted to the extent of the law.
>>Speech, however, is not a crime.

>   [Not to pick on the present poster in particular, many people have
>    expressed similar ideas]

>I'd like to know something. When a member of the S.A. (brownshirts)
>is standing in front of your shop, holding a placard carrying the
>inscription "Don't buy from Jewish shops," and the general populace,
>for whatever reason, chooses to obey the sign, what should the Jewish
>shopowner do? The S.A. member is doing nothing but exercising free
>speech.
 
    Look up the legal definition of assault.  Threatening violence is
a crime.  Verbal harrasment is a crime.  If the S.A. was holding those
signs on a public sidewalk and simply tried to CONVINCE people not to
shop in the store, they would be exercising free speech.  If they tried
in any way to restrict people from shopping in the store, by violence,
threats of violence, physically blocking access, harrassing folks who
entered or exited the store, or even by visibly recording the names of
those who entered the store, they would be guilty of criminal acts.  And
for these they should be prosecuted.
 
=============================================
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: jerry brown ruining something?
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:53:42 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <1992Apr11.075623.20374@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
>
>In an article dated
>Wed Apr  8 14:23:22 1992
>
>dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
>says (among other things):
>
>Labor intensize means lots of jobs are created.  They aren't the highest
>paying, but they aren't necessarily low paying/low skilled jobs.
>Capital intensive (the opposite of labor intensive) means that you
>invest lots of money to make machines, not jobs.
><end of quote>
>
>And I say he's wrong. Labor intensive means that you get more people
>working without equipment to do what could have been done by fewer people
>with proper equipment. Common sense shows that there are only two ways 
>to allocate the cost of such inefficiency. 
>Either raise the cost of the product to support the extra workers at a
>decent wage, or lower the wage to maintain the product at a decent price.
>If you are in any kind of competive setting, it will have to come out as
>the latter, in order for the product to sell. The statement that in
>capital intensive investment you invest money to "make machines, not jobs"
>is pretty silly, even for usenet. What it means, to take a concrete
>example, is that you create jobs manufacturing and operating earth
>moving equipment in preference to jobs swinging a pick or pushing a 
>shovel. Of course, maybe someone wants to argue that the typical 
>unemployed worker is not competent to handle a job requiring more
>sophisticated (i.e. capital intensive) equipment. I don't recommend
>doing it to their face, though.
>
>Just my $0.02,
>Steve

There are of course, various levels of labor or capital intensive jobs.
Supporting labor intensive employment does not mean to the exclusion of
all machines, it means finding a balance, which will always be a
subjective judgement.  I will now come out and admit that I fully support
the use of earth-moving equipment and believe that workers are capable of
doing so :).

The important point here is your discussion of where the possible lowering
of efficiency is paid for.  When considering the costs of automation, the
cost of unemployed workers must be factored in.  The savings that come
from automation of production may well end up supporting those who lose
jobs because of it.  Not all workers, especially those who are nearer to
retirment, can be retrained for other careers.  I am not against all forms 
of automation.  Indeed, many remove the need of people to do dangerous or 
tedious work.  

The use of the phrase "making machines, not jobs" may be simplistic, but
in these days, when different  sectors are compared by how many
jobs are created per dollar invested, capital intensive sectors offer a
"low yield" from this type of analysis, because they pay for more
automation than employment.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7344 talk.politics.misc:17257 talk.politics.mideast:10387
From: princecr@mala.bc.ca
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: More answers on Holocaust (George Martin)
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:11:02 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <JIME.92Apr2154901@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu>, jime@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com writes:
>>In article <RaFLiB1w164w@b-cpu.UUCP> gmartin@b-cpu.UUCP (George Martin, another Shitbrain) writes:
>>>Banished CPU supports FREEDOM OF SPEECH.  Currently no fees.
>>>CALL:  +1(503) 232-6566 (8N1, v.32/42/bis) or +1(503) 232-5783 (8N1)
>>>UUCP:  Path (..twiki!b-cpu) "ELIMINATED" BY ZIONIST THOUGHT POLICE!!!
>>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Users of Banished CPU are solely responsible for their actions.
>>
>>I must demand that you neo-Nazi anti-Semites remove this blatant
>>anti-Semitic trailer from your postings.

	remeber, they have a totally free right to express their opinions.
We can't hold their lack of education and blindness against them, we can only
encourage them to get a life.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7299 talk.politics.misc:17079
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: RESOURCE: Vegetarianism,Animal Rights,Ecology,World Hunger,Rainforests
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:48:02 GMT

henk@frcs.Alt.ZA (Henk Coetzee) writes:
>Who are these newsgroups intended for then? Is the idea of a group like
>alt.activism to limit discussion on issues to a closed circle of activists

Yes, but they didn't have the power to enforce that.  Hence
misc.activism.progressive, where they can preach to the already converted.
-- 
Ada is the COBOL of the 80s
Newsgroups: alt.activism