HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: millerm@CS.ColoState.EDU (mark miller)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Moving discussion to a different newsgroup
Date: 15 Dec 92 02:32:15 GMT
Followup-To: millerm@cs.colostate.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:

>Excellent idea to create alt.politics.reform (or maybe alt.politics.usa.reform ?)
>I'm not so sure that it should exclude alt.politics.usa.uwsa, though.

It does not need to be created.  It already exists.  type "g
alt.politics.reform" to get to it.  What I've seen in there have been
various services for communicating to government through Internet.
For example, I think that's how I found out about a couple mail
services to mail to the candidates (during the campaigns), and/or get
position papers and speeches on various subjects.

By the way, do you know what has happened with that idea of somehow
getting the Internet hooked up to the government, so there can at
least be an indirect link between the Internet community and
President-to-be Clinton?

I had this idea a couple months ago when I saw the
communicate-to-campaign ideas.  Someone else, maybe it was you, was
asking about it in alt.politics.perot.  What's become of the idea?

There has been talk on the news recently about Clinton openning up his
administration to the people by widely publicizing a mailing address
and an 800 number.  Has any of this come about yet?

I heard about the idea of creating a UWSA newsgroup a while back.  How
far has that progressed?  I assume there needs to be a vote?  I've
heard that creating a newsgroup is very easy (maybe this is wrong).
I've heard all you need to do is post to the newsgroup name you want
to give the group, and put a message in there.  The scope of the group
may be determined by the scope of the message you post.  You
essentially create a group by posting to it, like you would to an
existing group.  I think this would work in the alt... hierarchy if
this the right method to use.

>-- 
>Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu       |  United We Stand. 
>Rice University                    |  Whether or not you accept it, you are 
>Dept of Elec & Comp Engr           |  responsible for the actions and 
>XUV Holographic Microscope Project |  inactions of your government. 

|Mark Miller, computer science   |"Like a government, the operating system   |
|major at C.S.U.                 |performs no useful function by itself."    |
|millerm@cs.colostate.edu        |   --- Operating System Concepts           |
|mmiller@nyx.cs.du.edu           |"Let me ask you something.  Is the         |
|   /                            |government worth preserving when it lies   |
| \/ --- The Mark                |to the people?" --- "JFK"                  |
|        "FATHER!...FATHER!...THE SLEEPER HAS AWAKENED!" --- "Dune"          |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.config
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Subject: Re: Moving discussion to a different newsgroup
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:43:55 GMT

In article <Dec13.205058.33528@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, millerm@CS.ColoState.EDU (mark miller) writes:
|> I can see that at least at my end this newsgroup is going to die out.
|> I have not seen any new discussion in about a week.  I just wanted to
|> suggest before the group dies that the discussion of the topics we've
|> been talking about go to their respective groups, whatever they may
|> be, but it should probably go particularly to alt.politics.reform,
|> since that's a lot of what members of UWSA and others in this group
|> have been talking about anyway.
|> 

Excellent idea to create alt.politics.reform (or maybe alt.politics.usa.reform ?)
I'm not so sure that it should exclude alt.politics.usa.uwsa, though.

-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu       |  United We Stand. 
Rice University                    |  Whether or not you accept it, you are 
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr           |  responsible for the actions and 
XUV Holographic Microscope Project |  inactions of your government. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
From: millerm@CS.ColoState.EDU (mark miller)
Subject: Moving discussion to a different newsgroup
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:50:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

I can see that at least at my end this newsgroup is going to die out.
I have not seen any new discussion in about a week.  I just wanted to
suggest before the group dies that the discussion of the topics we've
been talking about go to their respective groups, whatever they may
be, but it should probably go particularly to alt.politics.reform,
since that's a lot of what members of UWSA and others in this group
have been talking about anyway.

|Mark Miller, computer science   |"Like a government, the operating system   |
|major at C.S.U.                 |performs no useful function by itself."    |
|millerm@cs.colostate.edu        |   --- Operating System Concepts           |
|mmiller@nyx.cs.du.edu           |"Let me ask you something.  Is the         |
|   /                            |government worth preserving when it lies   |
| \/ --- The Mark                |to the people?" --- "JFK"                  |
|        "FATHER!...FATHER!...THE SLEEPER HAS AWAKENED!" --- "Dune"          |

Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,cmh.opinion,alt.politics.elections,alt.president.clinton
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: voting for the enemy.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:41:02 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

Hey, Dr. Norm, when it comes to smear politics, how about the 1990 tax bill?
Not a smear you say?

Clinton's Boy Wonder, George Stephnaopoulos consistantly attacked Bush for
signing the 1990 Tax Bill.  As a top Gephart aide in 1990, he helped broker
the budget agreement that hiked taxes, the same bill he attacks Bush for
signing.

I'm not saying that's dirty politics, it's just the Clinton team way of doing
things.  They are getting straddle sore from saying everything to everybody,
and to me that's just plain dirty politics - playing both sides of the fence
without regard to the truth.  Another example, GS used his saluatorian address
at Columbia to denounce nuclear war and praising the European peace
protesters trying to block the Pershing 2.  Later, he worked with Zbigniew
Brzezinski to deploy the same Pershing.  The Clinton folks have no qualms
about playing fast and loose with the truth, or what they believe.  We
heard over and over about the "Worst economy since the depression" when it
wasn't.  We hear a great code of ethics for appointees, and half his 
appointees fail the test.  

As I said, this isn't really "dirty politics", just a total lack of ethics -
I'll do anything to get elected mentality.
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc
From: TREHARAJ@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Leave our sheep alone
Originator: usenet@rs6000.bham.ac.uk
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:43:22 GMT
Organization: The University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

Thorsten in Edinburgh writes:

>Sometimes I wonder why this completely ludicrious idea (Thatcher
>and others) "leaving everything to the market is always good" has so
>many followers although it is quite obvious bullshit. If there is a
>big flood coming do you also say "Sorry, we have to drown because we
>can't build dikes. We have to leave this to nature", or what???
>--

  I didn't say leave everything to the market did I? I said
if there is one thing that can be left to the market it is
food prices. As for your dike references, they are as daft as my original
sheep comment. If we protected farmers from the flood of bullshit coming
from the politicians, fewer would be bankrupt. The small farmer should
be able to sell locally and have a free hand to do so. Restricting him
with quotas will not do this. One farmer started selling eggs from his
farm and because he was restricted in how many of his own eggs he
was allowed to sell, he had to buy from surrounding farmers and sell
their's too, do you think this is sensible? At one point a farmer I knew
had a guarenteed market for his potatoes, ie the Government, he could
then buy potatoes as animal feed and receive financial help to do so!

  In the other part of your article you expressed concern about the
demise of rural culture, the people have left the land now. If you
want to keep people in the countryside help them to afford houses and
find them work. The countryside is filling with commuters and
I do not see this process stopping.

  I come from the Yorkshire Dales, most of the veg. etc we buy
comes from local farms directly or at their market stalls. The cost
of eggs, potatoes etc. is a fraction of that in supermarkets. If this
sort of shopping was encouraged don't you think it would help the
farmers? Living in Birmingham now I notice their are some pretty big
farm shops in the surrounding areas. 20% of the cost of a potato in the
shop is actually due to its production, the rest is post harvest waste
and other things such as transport, packing and admin. The old ways
you talk about require more than the artificial support of farms to
maintain them, they cannot exist on their own, they are a part of the
whole of society. We need food, the farmers grow it, its up to us to
make sure we get it as cheaply as possible.

ANDY



Xref: sparky alt.politics.europe.misc:228 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10105
From: kurtovic@gold.cchem.berkeley.edu (Zoran Kurtovic)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: A modest proposal
Date: 18 Dec 1992 02:24:22 GMT
Organization: Dept of Chemistry, University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: gold.cchem.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec17.162005.18635@husc3.harvard.edu> stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic) writes:
>In article <borbor-161292121627@129.194.82.105> borbor@divsun.unige.ch (Boris Borcic) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.160658.18532@husc3.harvard.edu>,
>>stojanov@husc10.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic) wrote:
>>> 
>>> In article <borbor-141292165503@129.194.82.105> borbor@divsun.unige.ch 
>>> (Boris Borcic) writes:
>>> 
>>> So, how does this detail change the essence that 
>>> 95-99% of Serbs do not want to live in new states?  This 
>>> was shown on referendum.  In both ex-Croatia and ex-Bosna
>>> Serbs voted that in the case of collapse of the Yugoslavia
>>> they are not going to join new states. Should all those Serbs
>>> be removed?  
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Milan N. Stojanovic
>>
>>Well, tell us more about these referenda. I admit that my knowledge
>>of them is relatively vague, but are you telling us that 95 to 99%
>>of all Serbs (according to the traditional definition) *freely* decided
>>the present scenario in the case the states of Croatia and Bosna 
>>would form ?
>
>They have freely decided to stay in Serbian state.  




Dear Milan,

Is this a freudian slip, or are you saying that Yugoslavia was a
Serbian state?

As far as I know, Yugoslavia was not a Serbian state, but rather
a state for all southern slavs.  So what Serbian state did they
freely decide to stay in?  Surely, they were never in the Republic
of Serbia.

I wonder if there are many people who thought of Yugoslavia as
a Serbian state, I mean in particular that it belonged to them
more than to the rest of the southern slavs.  This is what I
always heard as an arguement from Croats with extreme views,
before the war, that Croatia could not remain in Yugoslavia
since it was a Serbian state.  I thought at the time that they
were victims of propaganda, and that there was such a thing as
a Yugoslavia.  Was I wrong?




>    [REST OF ARTICLE DELETED]


Regards,

Zoran


Xref: sparky alt.politics.europe.misc:208 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10063
From: jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Croatian dreams
Date: 15 Dec 1992 15:35:47 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: zoo-gw.cs.yale.edu

In article <1gj4n0INN8ll@PASCAL.MATH.YALE.EDU> wickerhauser-victor@math.yale.edu (Victor Wickerhauser) writes:
>
>Look at how easily Slovenia stopped the Yugo Army after
>the Slovenes demonstrated the few antitank weapons they had managed to
>buy.  Serbia stopped attacking Croatia -- including Zagreb -- when the
>Croats had stolen or bought enough weapons to mount a successful
>defense. Your sense of denial is showing.
>

Well, you make a good argument that there was no Serbian hegemony in
ex-Yugoslavia, especially since the federal army has always been the
allegedly most extreme example of Serbian domination.   Although you
are correct in saying that the federal army was less potent because it
was itself multi-ethnic even at high levels, the main reason that they
withdrew from Slovenia was because Slovene secessation was not itself
problematic in terms of borders or ethnic makeup.  The only serious
impediment was finances, and these could be worked out a posteriori
when it came to that or the use of force as the only two options.  On
the other hand, secession by Croatia and B-H presented serious 
differences about borders, minority rights, citizenship, property rights,
in addition to those involving finance.  At least some of these should
have been negotiated to agreement before secession if war was to be
avoided.  Alas, none of the parties was willing to compromise on these
minimally necessary conditions for a peaceful dissolution of former
Yugoslavia.  For those living inside the contested areas, this stubborness
had, of course, life and death consequences for innocent people on all
sides.

-Nick
 




Xref: sparky alt.politics.europe.misc:232 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10115
From: stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: A modest proposal
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:20:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Dec17.162005.18635
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <borbor-161292121627@129.194.82.105> borbor@divsun.unige.ch (Boris Borcic) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.160658.18532@husc3.harvard.edu>,
>stojanov@husc10.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <borbor-141292165503@129.194.82.105> borbor@divsun.unige.ch 
>> (Boris Borcic) writes:
>> 
>> So, how does this detail change the essence that 
>> 95-99% of Serbs do not want to live in new states?  This 
>> was shown on referendum.  In both ex-Croatia and ex-Bosna
>> Serbs voted that in the case of collapse of the Yugoslavia
>> they are not going to join new states. Should all those Serbs
>> be removed?  
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Milan N. Stojanovic
>
>Well, tell us more about these referenda. I admit that my knowledge
>of them is relatively vague, but are you telling us that 95 to 99%
>of all Serbs (according to the traditional definition) *freely* decided
>the present scenario in the case the states of Croatia and Bosna 
>would form ?

They have freely decided to stay in Serbian state.  
Counter question is whether Muslims and Croats "freely" decided
the present scenario in the case the Serbs decided not to go 
with them?  Would they have voted anyway for independence?

>
>Your construal of Serbs (traditional definition) that do not cling
>to your policy as a detail reminds me of Jean-Marie Le Pen. 

What is my construal of such Serbs?  Could you quote my words?

Could you also tell me whether Tudjman or Izetbegovic really gave 
a ..., whether their people would live better after "independence?"
Do they live better?  What is interesting, Serbs in Croatia claim, that
had Tudjman apologised in Jasenovac and called them to build the
common state on the basis of citizenship, not nationality, they
would have happily accepted.  But he could not have won the 
elections that way.  You should try to accept the complexity of
the Serbian society in Bosnia and Croatia and try to understand
that Miloshevich had little to do with that.  Trying to convince one-
self that everything was Miloshevich propaganda will not gave
any useful results.  


>Regards,
>
>Boris Borcic


Regards,
Xref: sparky alt.politics.europe.misc:205 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10060
From: jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Croatian dreams
Date: 15 Dec 1992 12:04:50 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: zoo-gw.cs.yale.edu

In article <1992Dec15.024847.27169@eng.umd.edu> josip@eng.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric) writes:
>In article <1gj32lINNdol@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU> jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec14.220952.22280@eng.umd.edu> josip@eng.umd.edu (Josip Loncaric) writes:
>>>
>>>Zagreb WAS negotiating with Belgrade during this period, at length.  
>>
>>
>>You call secession without agreements about borders, minority rights, 
>>financial obligations, etc. _negotiating_?  Complex negotiations such as
>>the dissolution of a state are rarely going to be quick, especially when
>>all of the parties are stubborn and unwilling to compromise.  The old
>>saying that "haste makes waste" was never more true than in the breakup
>>of ex-Yugoslavia.
>>
>>-Nick
>
>How quickly you forget!  Only about a year ago, an agreement of this
>type had been reached under auspices of the European Community.  This
>agreement was signed by all of the republics of the former Yugoslavia
>EXCEPT Serbia.  The moral is that it takes two to negotiate.  Croatia,
>Slovenia and others have been negotiating with Serbia for years.  But,
>they could negotiate until hell freezes over and not make any progress
>as long as Mr. Milosevic was determined to stonewall every initiative
>that was proposed.  Secession came only after all other avenues were
>exhausted...
>

First, you say that secession is _negotiation_; now, you say that a proposal
to which one of the major parties involved in negotiations does not subscribe
constitutes an _agreement_!  All avenues were not exhausted as long as
negotiations were taking place, which they were before the secessions.
Serbia had been negotiating with Slovenia and Croatia for years, as you say,
but none of the parties were willing to compromise enough for an agreement
to have been found. 

Slovenia's secession was not problematic on its own.  This is why the federal
army backed off so easily.  Slovene secession did not attempt to take huge
numbers of non-Slovenes out of ex-Yugoslavia against their will.  However,
Croatia wanted secession under the same terms as Slovenia even though the
ethnic picture was radically different.  Thus, Croatia's demands for no
change in borders held up Slovenia's secession for a long time because of
the precedent it would set for Croatia.  This is why the international
organizations were advising against Croatian secession until borders, 
finances, and minority rights issues were settled.  B-H secession was
similarly disuaded.  Only when Germany issued an ultimatum to the EC was
this sound policy abandoned by the EC; only then did most of the world
unenthusiastically follow the EC shift in policy.

When federal troops were attacked for attempting to hold the country
together, the wars started, not before. 

-Nick
  



 

Xref: sparky alt.politics.europe.misc:211 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10068
From: TREHARAJ@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Leave our sheep alone
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:33:23 GMT
Organization: The University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

Thorsten from Edinburgh writes:

>
>Certainly farmers in Europe couldn't compete with american farmers
>already because smaller farms can't produce so effectively. Leaving
>the price of food to the market could destroy some very old social
>structures and in the long run it may render Europe unable to feed
>itself. Moreover the price of food should be subsidised because it is
>a completely essential good and society should enforce sufficient and
>environmentally friendly production of healthy food.
>
The use of subsidies has nothing to do with the rise in popularity
of environmentally friendly produce. It has even less to do with
preserving old social structures. The rural England we see in
James Herriot repeats doesn't exist anymore. We have mechanised
and nothing will bring it back again. The politicians who decide
the policies for subsidising agriculture couldn't give a toss
about the small farmer, where did this idea come from?
 Until recently we have been encouraging farmers to increase
productivity at the expense of wildlife and the appearance of
the countryside. Hedges have been removed at an horrendous rate.
 Why on Earth do you believe our small farms are competing with
their American counterparts? Many sell locally and I believe this
is why they will survive, if left alone by the whims of politicians.

Andy
Xref: sparky alt.politics.europe.misc:238 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10125
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: A modest proposal
From: stojanov@husc11.harvard.edu (Milan Stojanovic)
Date: 18 Dec 92 08:34:21 EST
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1grcomINNq2u@agate.berkeley.edu> kurtovic@gold.cchem.berkeley.edu (Zoran Kurtovic) writes:
>>
>>They have freely decided to stay in Serbian state.  
>
>
>
>
>Dear Milan,
>
>Is this a freudian slip, or are you saying that Yugoslavia was a
>Serbian state?
>

You are right. They have decided to stay in Yugoslavia.
From the initial nations of Yugoslavia only Serbs are left, 
thus this slip.

>As far as I know, Yugoslavia was not a Serbian state, but rather
>a state for all southern slavs.  So what Serbian state did they
>freely decide to stay in?  Surely, they were never in the Republic
>of Serbia.
>

Bosnia was equally Serbian as Muslim or Croat state.

>

>
>
>
>>    [REST OF ARTICLE DELETED>
>
>Regards,
>
>Zoran

Regards,

Milan


Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Subject: Re: Serbian garbage
Organization: Enea Data AB
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 08:29:26 GMT

Daniel Chukurov 21324 (ddc@nyquist.bellcore.com) writes:
>	Erland, do you do drugs on weekends? You definitely sound like a
>	troubled person, first BOMB ATHENS in previous article and now
>	this.
>...
>p.s. I now, I also call for bombing of Germany, but there is a good
>     explanation for it. If I get aroud to it I will post it.

My suggestion of bombing Athens was a reductio in absurdo of a
ridiculous of a stupid Greek argument.

There is no good explanation for bombing Germany. Or Belgrade.




-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
Xref: sparky alt.politics.europe.misc:234 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10117
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 17 Dec 1992 18:22:49 CST
From: <U52148@uicvm.uic.edu> (Chicago Cro)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc,soc.culture.yugoslavia
Subject: Re: Croatian dreams
 <1992Dec15.182440.18541@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Dec17.023258.9646@eng.umd.edu>
 <1gqe24INNo65@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU>

In article <1gqe24INNo65@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU>, jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu
(Nick Jovanovic) says:
>
>In article <1992Dec17.023258.9646@eng.umd.edu> josip@eng.umd.edu (Josip
>Loncaric) writes:
>>
>>Military Borderland was a defense line established within Croatia in
>>the 16th and 17th century.  It was a borderland of Croatia, not Serbia.
>
>The Military Frontier was a part of the Habsburg empire, not Croatia.
>The emperor in Vienna deeded abandoned lands in Krajina to Serbs in return
>for their defense of the Austrian empire against incursions made by
>Ottoman Turks.  For instance, Nikola Tesla's documents show him to have
>been a subject of the Austro-Hungarian empire from the border country of
>Lika.  These documents say nothing about Croatia.
>
>-Nick

Odd. Nikola Tesla said his home was Croatia, so I think his word is as
good as any document because Nikola stated that HE was from Cro and not
Austria-Hungary.
About Austria-Hungary, they were the rulers of all of Cro(incl BiH) so
documents from that era will say Austria-Hungary and not Croatia. But now
It will be said that Nikola Tesla was from Cro, because Austria-Hungary
is no more, Yugo is no more, now there is Croatia.

-Cro

Xref: sparky alt.politics.europe.misc:200 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10045