HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcb@foucault.postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:48:05 GMT
Organization: Postmodern Consulting, San Francisco, California USA

[Followups to alt.censorship, please.    --MCB]

In the referenced article, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
> [...]
> Secondly, if our country was so all-fired ready to suppress political
> stances "far removed from our government", why, at a time when America
> was arresting thousands of communists in the 20s, that members of the
> Canadian Communist Federation were not only tolerated, but were getting
> elected as federal and provincial members of parliament?  That even fringe
> communist groups such as the Marxist-Leninists have been tolerated all
> along?  Even during the McCarthy trials in the US?  That the CCF, now known
> as the NDP (New Democratic Party), forms the government in several
> provinces, including Ontario, and has a good chance at forming the next
> federal government?

Huh? "Canadian Communist Federation"?  The CCF that was the predecessor
of the NDP was the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, which was a
*moderate* left-wing party with its basic support among farmers.  (My
great-uncle, Joseph A. Cherniak, was one of the founders, at least in
Manitoba.)  The NDP, which succeeded it in the early 1960's (1961
sticks in my mind) was an attempt to ally this rural social-democratic
base with a more urban labour-oriented party, somewhat in the mold of
the British Labour Party (of the time).  Neither the CCF nor the NDP
even remotely resembles a communist party.

I agree that Canada has been much more tolerant of political
diversity, at least on the left, than the U.S., and there may have
been communists elected to Parliament or provincial legislatures, but
I would not cite CCFers or NDPers as examples of this.

--
Michael C. Berch  
mcb@postmodern.com
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 2 Sep 92 03:20:50 GMT
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Aug30.090054.15897@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>Actually, I think it's silly to argue that speech, ideas and expressions
>never harm anybody.  They do.  Constantly.

Good so far.

>It's just that allowing the blockage of speech seems to be more harmful.
>Any blockage.  Because history has proven that no authority has the
>skill to do it "properly."   (Which is not to say that we know what
>properly is -- rather that we can spot, in hindsight, what it isn't.)

Depends on your criteria for "properly".  And your definition of
"authority".  If the government (being the "authority") had the
ability to unilaterally decide what should be suppressed, I'd agree.
But that isn't the case here.

>And then I see people quoting studies that say "Well, we showed some violent
>porn to some men and they tended afterwards to have a slightly
>more tolerant attitude towards violence against women" and they conclude
>"ban porn."  But these same people would never ban Marx.   Yet for them, a
>slight change in attitudes is enough to ban something, and a billion people
>with ruined or shortened lives is not enough.

>Of course, my attitude is ban neither, but the point is that their whole
>argument is specious and inconsistent.

I think there's a difference between Marx's "speech", and that of
a Keegstra.  That is, Marx's speech was directed against a form
of government.  Which seems to be an essential part of the balance
between the inherent power of the state (they have the big artillery)
and that of the populace.  At least the overthrow of a government
*usually* requires explicit or implicit agreement of a sizeable
portion of the populace.  In contrast, the intent of "a" Keegstra (probably
better example is the KKK itself) is to incite individual acts of
violence against other ordinary citizenry, who have no such protection.
And the much-touted "Free Market of Ideas", while it works well in principle,
or with large numbers of people, tends to be virtually ineffective with
groups like the KKK.  Who've probably killed several hundred people in the
100+ years it's been in existance.

Marx is "political" speech.  The KKK isn't - just plain incitement.

Thus I don't believe that there's an inconsistency.
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer)
Subject: Re: Hasan Mutlu
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Detroit, MI
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 06:33:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.135155.9043@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
"In article <1992Aug28.104950.12560@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
">Well, we don't consider it "fraud" as he does have an active account
">with our site and is probably marking them "anadolu.michigan.com" as
">he wants replies (via e-mail) sent to that address. The replies that
">he has been getting are inappropriate, however. 
"
"But In article <1992Aug27.034946.23143@tygra.Michigan.COM>,
"root@tygra.Michigan.COM (Charlie Root) writes:
">When his feed gets reactivated, I will inform him that we will not tolerate
">so much crossposting like he has done before. I have been informed that 
">he has posted to groups like news.admin and alt.politics.clinton, which are
">in my opinion, inappropriate places to discuss the Armenian-Turkish 
">debate. 
"
"Well, John, here's the acid test. Just last night, in a few hours' period,
"all these messages appeared thru anadolu.smoke-and-mirrors.com. Will you
"tolerate this kind of posting when anadolu.michigan.com comes up again?
"
"Answer:		Yes: ____		No: ____
"
I will be discussing with Mr. Mutlu and his system admin which are and
which are not appropriate groups and appropriate postings (NOT appropriate
means slander/libel/illegal).
 
Now, I have no control over his postings which do not come through our
systems. At this time NONE OF THESE come through our system - its 
impossible. 
 
However, conditions will be set down as to what will have to be stopped
if he is to continue to be allow to use an address in our domain park
(MICHIGAN.COM) and if he is to be allowed to pass articles through our
system when we again allow dialins. 
 
Basically these conditions are: 1> Post only to appropriate newsgroups, and
2> Don't commit slander/libel/illegal acts. 
 
I cannot do anything about his postings through other sites, but I can 
and will
insist that any posts through our systems and/or using an address in our
domain park follow net etiquette. 
 
John Palmer
POSTMASTER
Michigan.COM.
From: tar@math.ksu.edu (Tim Ramsey)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Hasan B Mutlu
Date: 2 Sep 1992 04:51:25 -0500
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: hilbert.math.ksu.edu

jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:

>I seem to recall someone else in the past who was accused of cancelling
>others postings (although it was not done intentionally, but due to 
>local postings getting out on the net...). 

>Lets see if you are all so quick to condemn ses@cmns-moon.think.com as you
>were to condemn this other fellow. Then we'll see if double standards
>exist....

Hmm.  According to my notes (I keep lots of old mail, you see), this
"someone else" (JP, for those who don't know who JP is referring to)
once threatened to cancel any articles posted to alt.tv.tiny-toon that
he didn't think belonged there.  Several people objected to this, so JP
posted a note saying he wasn't serious about doing this.  Right after
that a batch of a.t.tt postings were cancelled by JP.  I posted a note
to news.admin with the cancel messages.  JP first denied doing it, then
said the cancels weren't meant to escape his site, then denied doing
it.  Then he claimed that he didn't have anything to do with any of the
above, that it was done by a disgruntled former CAT-TALK subscriber who
forged it all in JP's name.  <confused look>

Then there's the comp.newprod approval forgery, the virtual lawyers JP
threatens to sic on everyone who posts anything he doesn't like, etc.,
etc.

IMO, people are quicker to condemn JP because he's overdrawn on his
benefit-of-the-doubt account.

Notice that I am not condoning anyone cancelling another's article without
the author's permission.
-- 
    Tim Ramsey, 913.532.6750
    Department of Mathematics
    Kansas State University
Xref: sparky news.admin:7381 misc.legal.computing:2054
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:54:48 GMT

In <1992Sep1.204216.13133@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

>In article <1992Aug29.051700.11603@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>> 
>> >Argument by assertion -- meaningless.  Perhaps you would be so kind
>> >as to tell me what part of the legal definition of a contract is
>> >missing?
>> 
>> 1. Definition of the parties to the contract

>The posters and the owners of the computers which are connected to 
>the net..

Define "connected to the net".  Do it in a way that, to be "connected to
the net", you have to contract with someone who would be presumed to
have agreed to the "contract".

Is CompuServe connected to the net?  (You can post through a mail-to-news
gateway; I would think so.)  Did CompuServe agree to this contract?

I still side with the "command" model rather than the "implied contract"
model of USENet.  There is, however, no legal precedent for USENet, so this
discussion will remain open until jj or someone else sues "the net" or some
site for improper propogation or use of news.
--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; if you want to be sure I see a post, mail it.
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:45:33 GMT
Organization: gte

In article <1992Aug29.060506.12868@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
> 
> >From my point of view, there is a meeting of the minds as soon as a
> >poster posts. 
> 
> The mere fact that there is disagreement proves there is no "meeting
> of the minds". 
> 
> End of story.
> 
Then please explain how a person could ever sue for breech of contract?

"Your honor, 
> The mere fact that there is disagreement proves there is no "meeting
> of the minds".
so there was no legal contract." 


How far do you think that would get?


-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Cancel program (was Re: Hasan B Mutlu)
Date: 29 Aug 92 22:12:48 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <SES.92Aug28233608@cmns-moon.think.com>, ses@cmns-moon.think.com (Simon Edward Spero) writes:
> I just sat down and wrote a little perl script that scans through a list
> of newsgroups for postings by C'thulhu^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Mutlu which have been
> crossposted to more than 4 groups, and contructs cancel messages to remove
> them.  Although I have tested it by printing the cancel messages to the screen,
> I have not run this script with a bullet in the chamber, and I don't intend
> to do so.

I'd suggest that the *LAST* thing we need is to give people an example of
someone's postings being deleted because someone else didn't like them.
We had a recent firestorm over Beals writing such a cancel program, and
the circumstances haven't changed.

In many ways, Mutlu is easier to deal with than cascaders (the target of the
earlier firestorm) - there is only one of him. He fits quite comfortably in
a kill file.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Xref: sparky news.admin:7264 misc.legal.computing:2018
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:37:14 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL


Another condition for a legally-enforceable contract is that there be
a meeting of minds as to the terms. This debate shows that there is
no such understanding.

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 16:00:31 GMT

clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

[...]
>The KKK is another example.  Allowing their freedom of speech, no
>matter what they say hasn't resulted in opposing speech causing it
>to die out, no, they just keep coasting along, ebbing and flowing,
>and killing people along the way.  The illegality of the actions
>certainly doesn't stop them does it?

I don't think anything can stop hate or hate groups.

>  A reasonable anti-hate law
>would have a better chance at keeping their numbers smaller.
[...]

I concede that additional punishments against KKK might discourage the
group. Speech punishments, however, aren't the only possible such
punishments. Punishing the KKK just for breathing would be even more
effective. My point is that justness of a punishment can not be
evaluated just by considering it effectiveness.  justness.

A danger of government speech restrictions is that the government will
abuse its authority. (I am especially leery of giving the U.S.
government this power.) Another danger that people stop deciding what
is good and bad (true and false) for themselves and begin instead to
depend on a government-defined orthodoxy. (Listening to the the
Canadian Broadcast Company, I was very disturbed that they needed to
keep reminding people that just because this Revisionist's conviction
was over turned, that doesn't mean his writings were true.)
Government-defined orthodoxies are brittle and give little immunity to
creative, new mutations of hate.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: naleks@harvard.edu (Norm Aleks)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: low-volume mail feed wanted--Boston
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:29:26 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin
Distribution: ne
Organization: Countway Library of Medicine, HMS

Hello, everyone.  I know this is *news*.admin, but I couldn't find an
analogous group for mail feeds.

I would like to set up my home computer (OS/2 2.0, using a 2400-bps modem)
for email access by UUCP.  To start with, at least, this would be extremely
low volume -- really more of a learning experience than a production
system.  Is there someone in or near Boston who can give me a UUCP account
for mail transfer?  Someday in the future I will probably want MX transfer
as well, so a machine on the Internet would be preferable.

Thanks for any help you can give me.

Norm Aleks                    naleks@harvard.edu
Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 02:57:06 GMT

# = me
> = jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)

#   I can tell my system here to ignore Distributions. Your articles don't
#   get propagated.

>I did not deny that you could.  Read my post again.

Ah, but the crux of one person's argument that "consideration" given from
the net to the poster was the distribution of the poster's articles "far and
wide". By limiting the distribution on my machine, I can effectively "breach"
that contract, as I would be over-riding the poster's predefined concept
(via a "Distribution" header line) as to what "far and wide" should consist
of.


#   Individuals configuring computer systems may or may not have the authority
#   to act as the computer-owner's agent in legal representation.

>Perhaps.  But that's not my argument.

But again, the crux of someone's previous argument was that by putting my
machine on the net, I have somehow bound this machine/my company to some
vague terms outlined singularly in the minds of each of the 10,000,000 users
on the Internet. 

Clearly, some people don't understand the concept of "agency".


#   "The net" is a non-entity.

>I hope you never refer to such a non-entity as the net in daily conversation
>except in hypotheticals.

I did not say that "the net" did not exist, I stated that it is not an 
entity.

[bandwidth spared]


>I don't know what you disagree with.

I disagree with individual's assertions that by placing a machine on
the net, I somehow agree to enter into a contract with each of the
10,000,000 users of the Internet.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:51:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.211232.4737@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>In order to circumvent these provisions, states have created
>"administrative courts" which you contractually agree to when
>you sign your driver's license. 

It's possible to avoid having a driver's license.

>Congress played the same game by creating "administrative 
>courts" for the IRS -- a system which you also contract 
>with by signing a W-4.

And how do you *not* accept these terms?
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Xref: sparky news.admin:7369 misc.legal.computing:2044
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj,  curmudgeon and clueless old white boy)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:25:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23600
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj,  curmudgeon and clueless old white boy)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <1992Sep1.010318.19818@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>>The mere fact that there is disagreement proves there is no "meeting
>>of the minds". 

>By the same "reasoning", **ALL** contracts are null and void, if either party
>challenges their validity.

Was there a meeting of the minds when the contract was established?

You seem determined to not accept the very basis of contract law,
as does Ford.
-- 
 Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   vs       *by USENET and like facilities granted.      Said permission is
 Clinton  --    *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 Just Say !NO!       *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
From: urlichs@smurf.sub.org (Matthias Urlichs)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: in.coming on a different partition?
Date: 26 Aug 1992 10:25:17 +0200
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1

In news.admin, article <1992Aug25.185735.18181@Warren.MENTORG.COM>,
  tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
> With INN, is there much benefit to splitting your system
> onto separate physical disks?
> 
Usually not much, unless you're out of space often. If your news system is
running, rnews will accept the articles and directly feed them to innd,
without touching in.coming at all.
in.coming is used only when innd is throttled or down, and to keep bad
articles if you enable this feature via the config file.
Of course, the converse side of this is that when you're out of space, rnews
needs room to keep the batches. However, you can do this with a different
partition on the same disk without much performance loss.
As of now, the INN rnews does not react favorably to being out of space
when storing a batch in in.coming.

There's benefit of having your UUCP spool on a different disk, of course.

-- 
Barth's Distinction:
        There are two types of people:  those who divide people into
        two types, and those who don't.
-- 
Matthias Urlichs  --  urlichs@smurf.sub.org -- urlichs@smurf.ira.uka.de   /(o\
Humboldtstrasse 7 -- 7500 Karlsruhe 1 -- Germany  --  +49-721-9612521     \o)/
Xref: sparky news.admin:7432 news.announce.newusers:129 news.software.readers:1748 news.software.b:2857 news.answers:2770
From: warren@itexjct.jct.ac.il (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Hasan B Mutlu
Organization: ITEX, Jerusalem, Israel
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:36:03 GMT

In <1992Sep1.192832.20878@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:

    B) Only if you can prove that Mutulu is indeed not a ficticuous character. 
    (He sure sounds like one)

If Mutlu did not exist, would anyone really want to invent him?
-- 
/|/-\/-\       The entire world		Jerusalem
 |__/__/_/     is a very bitter carrot.
 |warren@      But the principal
/ nysernet.org is hungry.
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Hasan B Mutlu
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:01:28 GMT

rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen) writes:
>The trouble with Mutlu is not his just his volume (that only determines
>the size of his "influence") it's that he has broken every single
>net.etiquette rule in existence. It doesn't help to put him in a kill
>file, many people are still clueless enough to follow up on his postings.

I understand this. If there is something someone could do in a good
way, by all means let it be known. 

Net.etiquette by itself is too subjective a criteria to determine 
validity of net.access. 


-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

    He who has self-conceit in his head - 
         Do not imagine that he will ever hear the truth.