HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hunter@quake.sylmar.ca.us (James Collins)
Subject: Re: This organ donating thread
Organization: Quake Public Access, Sylmar CA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:33:13 GMT

pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:

> >>This organ donating thread reminds me a lot of some of the Larry Niven 
> >>N-Space universe books.  Especially  The Long Arm of Gil <something, I 
> >>don't remember the last part>.  Basically the universe is set up such 
> >>that pretty sophisticated organ transplants are possible.  With this 
> >>possibility, the public votes up new laws every year, with the penalty 
> >>being the loss of your organs.  I believe in one of Nivens short stories, 
> >>it has an ending where a drunk driver gets chopped up for the organ 
> >>banks...  Well, I suppose you really have to read them to understand..
> >>
> [snip]
> 
> >Gil Hamilton.  Yeah, I have read these stories, and I liked them...they
> >were quite well-written and effective.  However, they are also fiction.
> >
> They are SPECULATIVE fiction:  "what if" stories, intended to give you food 
> for thought.

Um, yes.  To those of you who thought that I was treating the N-Space 
books as "real", I didn't mean to give that impression. (At least, that's 
the impression *I* get from the last 2 replies on this).  What I mean't 
was that the parallels between the N-Space books and organ 
transplantation (with or without your permission) is pretty interesting.  
I believe that Niven even wrote a little end-note in the Long Arm of Gil 
Hamilton about what he thought might happen with the organ 
transplantation in the future.  Now, i'm not saying this is "real", I'm 
saying that it is interesting reading, and pretty fascinating that 
someone thought of this, and the dangers of this, really before the first 
transplant...


---------------------------------------------------------------------
James Collins                        | Tips to live by from Rodney King
hunter@quake.sylmar.ca.us            | and Reginald Denny...
james.collins%bbs@quake.sylmar.ca.us | STAY... IN... THE... CAR...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:19:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan05.190704.8699@microsoft.com> leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker) writes:
>>In article <scottj-291292090620@iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu>,
>>scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) wrote:
>>
>>I have heard/read any number of Libertarian lectures on helmet laws, and
>>absolutely none on clothing laws.  I call that a contradiction.
>
>I wouldn't call it a contradiction so much as a choice of tackling the
>easier problem first.  While I and other Libertarians are definitely
>opposed to clothing laws, that's not an area which we are overly
>concerned about or confident that we can make a meaningful difference.
>There are lots of obscure parts of the platform that we don't talk
>about much (like selling body parts or legalizing duels) not because

Oh, I dunno.  I have a few problems with repealing all age-based laws.  Yes, 
age is an arbitraty measure of maturity, but we haven't got a better one.  
If I were a party member, and I am not, I would propose changing that 
particular plant to read:


While age is an abitrary measure of majority, it is currently the only one 
available that is in any way practical to apply.  We propose to impose no 
legislation based on age that does not have demonstrable over-riding 
hazards for public safty or the safety of the minor in question minors.  
Further, we propose to review all standing laws based on age, repealing all 
those that do not have demonstable over-riding hazards to public safety or 
the safety of the minor in question.  In addition, we support efforts to 
discover a reliable gague to fairly determine the majority of individuals.

Nor am I completely comfortable with permitting organ sales.  It's a small 
step from "I need capital to start a new business, and I'm not using this 
kidney that much anyway" to "Sorry about your bankruptcy, sir.  I'm afraid 
we're gonna have to confiscate all of your assets.  Including that spare 
kidney you're toting around."

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: jws@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger)
Subject: Re: FREEDOM, SOCIAL RESPO
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:10:09 GMT
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL

 The scenario of unchecked concentration of wealth does not appear to be
true, historically. It is observable that money and power attract their
like; what is not true is that it can continue indefinitely.

 Once the concentration exceeds the ability of the accumulator to retain it,
for whatever reason, the process ceases or reverses. The limit and behavior
at the limit depend on the means of retention. A soft or permeable container
will leak more as it is filled; a rigid container may burst violently when
the pressure differential becomes too great to sustain.

-- 
##########################################################################
#Irresponsible rantings of the author alone. Any resemblance to persons  #
#living or dead then yer bummin. May cause drowsiness. Alcohol may inten-#
#sify this effect. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Billy!#
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 8 Jan 1993 20:13:46 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <2783@grivel.une.edu.au>, drobinso@mendel.une.edu.au (D.Robinson) writes:

> Giving up your freedom of choice for something that really benefits society
> is one thing.  Giving it up because of other peoples' stupidity and dogmatism 
> is another.

Here in Massachusetts, state Rep. Barbara Gray has, for the umpteenth time,
filed a mandatory seat-belt bill.  This bill was passed around three years
ago, and then decisively rescinded in a petition-driven initiative election.
Ms. Gray is a well-known local statist who has a thing for filing similar
bills, such as her annual bill forcing all state restaurants to offer 
margarine on their menus as an alternative to butter.

Reaction to this announcement has been about what you might expect ("What
does it take to make this dit get the message?")

But a dissenting letter to the editor appeared in a local paper last night.  
Paraphrased from memory, it went: "It appears the anti-seat-belt people are 
at it again.  How can they claim that no one gets hurt except the motorist?  
Ten years ago, my sibling was killed in an auto accident because he wasn't 
wearing his seat belt.  It still hurts me, his mother, his friends, and his 
co-workers.  Isn't that enough hurting other people for these folks?"

Too many people still believe it's the state's responsibility to force
them to have the brains they weren't born with, and they don't really care
if, in doing so, responsible people's rights are abridged.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.discrimination,soc.culture.mexican,soc.culture.latin-america
From: pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: This organ donating thread
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:49:05 GMT

In article <1i72i8INN6fn@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>Xref: utkux1.utk.edu alt.society.civil-liberty:6007 talk.politics.guns:30789
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!cs.utk.edu!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!bu008
>>This organ donating thread reminds me a lot of some of the Larry Niven 
>>N-Space universe books.  Especially  The Long Arm of Gil <something, I 
>>don't remember the last part>.  Basically the universe is set up such 
>>that pretty sophisticated organ transplants are possible.  With this 
>>possibility, the public votes up new laws every year, with the penalty 
>>being the loss of your organs.  I believe in one of Nivens short stories, 
>>it has an ending where a drunk driver gets chopped up for the organ 
>>banks...  Well, I suppose you really have to read them to understand..
>>
[snip]

>Gil Hamilton.  Yeah, I have read these stories, and I liked them...they
>were quite well-written and effective.  However, they are also fiction.
>
They are SPECULATIVE fiction:  "what if" stories, intended to give you food 
for thought.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7318 alt.activism:20187 alt.individualism:6185 talk.politics.misc:66659
From: drobinso@mendel.une.edu.au (D.Robinson)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 8 Jan 93 06:01:23 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: University of New England, Armidale, Australia

In article <casseres-040193094041@missmolly.apple.com> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
>Yes, there's a difference of intent between helmet laws and clothing laws. 
>But it's irrelevant to my argument, which is that both are irrational
>restrictions of individual liberty.

Another poster wrote in the same vein:
>There are more.  I am not flaming anyone who believes in the right to choose.
>I just want to point out that we cannot treat some of our choices as only
>affecting ourselves, and that this reason cannot be used as a strong arguement
>for that right.
>This same argument could be used to prohibit allowing overweight people to 
>eat desserts.  It could even be used to prohibit crossing a street without
>a police escort.

Or better still, how about the cost to society of smoking?
Once upon a time, not all that long ago, the tax on cigarettes in countries
like Britain and Australia covered the health costs of treating smoking
related diseases.  Now, apparently, it doesn't come anywhere near ....
probably because expensive heart surgery is becoming more commonplace.
Even the cost of leg amputatations because of smoking have probably risen
by more than inflation.  Not to mention the cost of expesive drugs to treat
childhood asthma, two thirds of which seem to be caused by smoking.
How many of you want to deny people to freedom of choice to smoke in the
privacy of their own home if they wish?  Even so, I would certainly like them 
to pay for the additional health costs which must be massive compared with
the original theme of compulsory bicycle helmets

Besides, was compulsory bicycle helmets seems to reduce cycling far more 
than accidents.  For example, numbers of female secondary school students 
cycling to school in Sydeny have fallen by 76% since helmets were made 
compulsory.  Indeed deaths and serious injuries to adult cyclists in NSW 
have just about remained static following the madatory helmet legislation, 
at a time when numbers of cyclists have been reduced, as have deaths and 
serious injuries to all other categories of road users, no doubt because of 
reduced driving in times of recession.  Injuries to cyclist might have been 
expected to fall as well if helmets had not been made complulsory.

Given that recent research has shown the health benefits of cycling far 
outweigh the risks, how on earth can you say that taxpayers' money will be
saved?  It would not seem even to be a remote possibility.  At best
the idea is misguided, if not downright stupid.

Giving up your freedom of choice for something that really benefits society
is one thing.  Giving it up because of other peoples' stupidity and dogmatism 
is another.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 4 Jan 1993 18:24:57 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1hu5h0INNk8h@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:

> >Read Larry Niven.  He illustrates this slippery slope marvelously.  I
> >especially recommend "The Jigsaw Man", a brief short story of his.
> >
> I've read the Jigsaw Man.  Scary.  But again, you are comparing apples
> and oranges.  Larry Niven was describing a society where people were 
> deliberately killed in order to obtain their organs...through the
> means of prescribing the death penalty even for minor offenses.  Niven is
> a good writer, and the story was effective, but I've always felt that
> the premise was very far-fetched.
> 
> It is also fiction.  We are talking about real life.

And some of us want to ensure that it STAYS fiction.

"Some people learn from the mistakes of others.  Some learn only from
 their own mistakes.  And some never learn."  --Gardner Hendrie
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...

Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7258 talk.abortion:54180
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Oath/Affirmation of Office of the U.S. House of Representatives
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:43:04 GMT


In article <C0Eus5.70I@cs.uiuc.edu>, 
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) said:

> [The Oath given by Speaker of the House Tom Foley] went something
> like: "I do solemnly swear [...] So help me God."
>
> The Constitution says this about the represenative's affirmation:
> 3. [ * * * ] shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this
> constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a
> qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
>
> So were did Foley get on the religious stuff? What would happen if a
> Quaker or agnotistic represenative-elect refused to take Foley's oath?
>
> It seems to me the Foley Oath violates the very Constitution it
> claims to binding representatives to.

Legally, it would be a violation, _if_ it was mandatory; that is, if a
rep-elect objected to its wording and was told "Tough noogies, pal --
take the oath the way I've worded it or you don't get seated in the
House."  But in reality, what probably happened was that all of the
rep-elects were briefed in advance about the ceremony and none of them
objected to the wording, either because they didn't really care or
because they didn't want to raise a stink (where "stink" == "the
appearance of blatantly anti-American leanings that a Bush-like
opponent could use to clean your clock in the next election").

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:34:58 GMT

In article <1hu66eINNkkl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>>	Quite.  In fact, why should your live body have rights over your
>>organs?  There are quite a few people on dialysis, and you most likely
>>have two functions kidneys.  You really only need one, you know...  How
>>about that bone marrow you'll regenerate, but the leukemia patient needs?
>>Never mind all that plasma and those platelets you can simply make more
>>of, but which others may desperately need.  Understand? 
>>
>I dunno.  Do you understand the difference between a live human being and
>a dead one?

When the choice is one of state vs individual control, there is no 
difference.  There are legal mechanisms in place for the "dead one" to make 
choices before death, and for his heirs to make them after his death.  There 
is no need for the state to supercede this.

>>
> Where does it
>>stop, or will it ever stop?  Frankly, I *like* having my organs and
>>bodily fluids right where they belong, and I'm just vindictive enough to
>>think *not* donating to somebody in need may be filed under "civic
>>improvement" rather than "selfish action." 
>>
>No, your first description was correct:  It is vindictive.  It is *not* a
>"civic improvement".

Your organs, your opinions.  Frankly, I think this country would be a lot 
better off if Sarah Brady died.

>>
> Would you give Idi Amin a
>>new liver if you were dying? 
>>
>Yes.

Your liver, your choice.  MY liver, my choice.  NOT the state's live, NOT 
the state's choice.

>>
> As for my dead body being a person, do you
>>agree that a coroner or mortician should be allowed to remove any
>>precious metals from the slab of meat on the table?  A few gold fillings,
>>perhaps some silver dentures, and another kid gets through college
>>instead of a life spent in the graveyard digging.  Ludicrous enough
>>for you?  Then tell me why it is against the law?  Obviously, somebody
>>thought it worth passing a law against, so maybe there is a reason?
>>
>The things you mention all have intrinsic value, and you are also referring
>to items taken for the personal benefit of the taker.  This is not the
>case with organ donation.  Furthermore (takes a deep breath):  "You can
>still say no!"

You should not have to say "no."  The state should have to ask you, and you 
should then reply "yes."

>And you have that:  If you make the absolutely minimal effort to say "no",
>that wish will be respected.

The absolute mimimum effort should be silence.  The STATE should make the 
absolute minimum effort to procure consent before death, or after in the 
case of heirs.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jgoodric@dante.nmsu.edu (GOODRICH)
Subject: Re: Guess this  item is "dead"
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:38:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.021827.20332@nmsu.edu> dleland@dante.nmsu.edu (LELAND) writes:
>Well not necessarily. I hope that debate over the shlorgs that creep in the dark will
>continue on into the next new year. Perhaps we could come up with a pointless topic
>to discuss that would keep things going till others joint in. What do you say?
>
>
>
>Queen of Swords
>dleland@nmsu.edu
>
>
Yeah, it appeares that only folks fromm NMSU are interested in this 
forum, which is interesting in and of itself (NMSU being the closest
thing to Tattoine on Earth).  I personally am interested in what 
various game systems the big N has appeared in.  I know it's in CoC, 
was once in AD&D (Deities and Demigods First and Valuable Edition for
the long-gone First Edition of Ad&D), and I just wonder if any other
systems had the Evil taste to mention it.
	For example, WarHammer is said to have very interesting Lovecraft-
style horror possible, but this is seldom actualized.
	I once played a Necromancer who studied the _NECRONOMICON_ while
I was playing Runequest.  Since it has been borrowed freely in other 
stories by various and sundry authors (including Michael Crichton, author
of _Andromeda Strain_ and _Jurrasic Park_)  I would be willing to bet that 
any game could theoretically use the _NECRONOMICON_ or something very much
like it, and get away with it.  (Totally Stupid Rules recently put out a 
_Draconomicon_, and if that isn't a title rip-off, I don't know what is.)
	The Unspeakab;le folks at _The Unspeakable Oath_ have mentioned
that Interface Magazine is publishing conversion rules from and to CoC, 
and Cyberpunk.  Could you imagine having the Big N on your hard drive?
You's have to put an Elder Sign on your smegging drive head!
>

	The Laughing Priest!  {Jgoodric@nmsu.edu}

Player: "I read the last Page of _Revelations of Glaaki_
	  so I know how it ends."
Keeper: "Put a big "Y" at the top of your character sheet."



Newsgroups: alt.necromicon
From: jgoodric@dante.nmsu.edu (GOODRICH)
Subject: Re: Necromicon
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:43:21 GMT

In article <seah.726471754@sfu.ca> seah@fraser.sfu.ca (Simon Seah) writes:
>Okay.  I've seen this mentioned in CoC.  But...
>
>WHAT THE HELL IS THE NECROMONICON?
>
>Is it a complete work of fiction by LoveCraft, or is it adapted from
>something?  And what are these other texts :  De Vermiis Mysteriis,
>Al Azif, and others?
>
>Morbidly curious,
>Simon
>
	What rock have you been living under?  Shheesh!

	The Laughing Priest!  {Jgoodric@nmsu.edu}

Player: "I read the last Page of _Revelations of Glaaki_
	  so I know how it ends."
Keeper: "Put a big "Y" at the top of your character sheet."



Newsgroups: alt.necromicon
From: dleland@dante.nmsu.edu (LELAND)
Subject: Warhammer/Space Marines Lovecraft stuff
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:40:37 GMT

For some reason it never occured to me, but there is a lot about the
Warhammer mythos with its Chaos demons, gods of plague and lords of chance,
that reminds me of the Cthulhu mythos. The whole way that the Horus herasy
occured through the whisperings of the chaos gods, and how the demons work
through the eye of Terror is very Lovecraftian. The Orks are the most likable
and interesting orks in any mythos I've ever seen; going on their great Waaa
Ork not to conquer or take slaves, but simply to go out and kill many things and 
win glory for their ork cheiftains. Hilarious!

The fall of the evil primarchs, like Magnus the Red and his evil Space Marines,
are very much like the stories of Numenor in Tolkien, and some of Lovecraft's
writings. The symbols of the chaos gods are much like the paintings of 
HR Geiger. How might the really big boys like Azathoth, Cthulhu, and of
course the mightiest of all, MUKOR, who RULES ALL GALAXIES, be incorporated
into Warhammer's mythos?

Queen of Swords

Darrell Leland
dleland@nmsu.edu

MUKOR RULES ALL GALAXIES! WORSHIP MUKOR OR DIE!
From: mikecap@wpi.WPI.EDU (Michael Vince Caprio Jr)
Newsgroups: alt.necromicon
Subject: Re: Where to use the Necronomicon
Date: 11 Jan 1993 05:08:56 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

In article <1993Jan8.102319.2854@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu> bonapart@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu writes:

>Hi, all.
>
>BTW: anyone else see 'Evil Dead 2'?  It borrowed some by lovecraft,
>and included in it a 'Necronomicon' which didn't really have much
>to do with lovecraft, but had a lot to do with the dead.  Pretty fun
>to watch, I thought.
>
>-john
>bonapart@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
>

Saw it.  Loved it.  Two thumbs up!

Mike C. (Zen)
-- 
Unlike subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist on
a single exclusive truth. If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate 
reality then we're permitted only one construction of things - that which
corresponds to the "objective" world - and all other constructions are unreal.
Newsgroups: alt.necromicon
From: ah488@yfn.ysu.edu (Mark Panitz)
Subject: Guess this  item is "dead"
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:32:48 GMT


Gues this item really is DEAD!
for sure.
-- 
 you may also send me email to my 'main' account as  
 markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com   
as all mail send to me here (as ah488) is automaticaly foward to this
address (markp@pro-palmtree.socal.com) thanks
Newsgroups: alt.necromicon
From: seah@fraser.sfu.ca (Simon Seah)
Subject: Necromicon
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:42:34 GMT

Okay.  I've seen this mentioned in CoC.  But...

WHAT THE HELL IS THE NECROMONICON?

Is it a complete work of fiction by LoveCraft, or is it adapted from
something?  And what are these other texts :  De Vermiis Mysteriis,
Al Azif, and others?

Morbidly curious,
Simon