HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steve@presoft.com (Steve Kohlenberger)
Newsgroups: ca.test
Subject: On a clear day..you can test forever
Keywords: movie 24hours sight time infinity
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 03:24:06 PDT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Presoft Architects (Novell Developer)

In a net - Done


   Steve Kohlenberger, PreSoft Architects  Internet: steve@presoft.com
   Novell Professional Developer                        (714) 538-6002
   Specialists in NLM and Disk/Tape Driver development for NetWare 3.X
Newsgroups: ca.test
From: michelow@sdd.hp.com (Laura Michelow)
Subject: test
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1992 18:07:21 GMT

   this is a test
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 15 Apr 1992 00:14:07 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <2c2.02pIcbx=00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
> I think a big reason that the death penalty is not a deterrent is because
> it doesn't exist.  How long has it been since the last execution in this
> state?  What criminal in their right mind (or any other mind) would bother
> to fear something THAT DOESN'T EXIST?

I think you are assuming that most people think like you.  If there is
a reasonable chance that you will be executed if you kill somebody,
then you would not do it for fear of that.  Neither would I.  But
neither would I (nor you, probably) kill somebody even if I knew I
would get away with it.  Killers don't think like you or I.  Why do
you think they would fear death?  How about Ramon Salcido?  How can
you say anything at all about how he would think, based on your
thought processes?  A man like that is not human.  (But that still
doesn't mean we can kill him.)

>} Life in solitary confinement ...
> And then you've got nothing more than a totally wasted life.  Not to
> mention the expense, time, and trouble to the state to keep the criminal
> there for the rest of his life.

It doesn't matter if it's a wasted life.  A killer deserves to have
his life wasted.  If it's too expensive, make him work and pay for his
keep.  Remember, one thing you are paying for is the chance to reverse
the sentence if it turns out he's innocent.  That is worth paying a
lot for.

>} Revenge ...
> I think it's a fine thing, when combined properly with the deterrent
> effect that would exist should the death penalty exist, and when combined
> with the attitude that punishment goes a small way towards putting a small
> amount of fairness into the world.

Is "an eye for an eye" fair?  I don't feel that it is.  If you kill a
killer, that makes you a killer also.  I don't want a government that
I participate in and pay taxes to making me a party in killing
somebody, no matter how much they "deserved it", or how many other
people don't mind being killers.

I don't feel revenge is morally right.  If somebody killed a person I
felt strongly about, and I had the chance to shoot him at that point,
I would probably do it out of anger, even though it wouldn't bring
back the victim.  It would be understandable to do this, and I
wouldn't suggest punishing somebody who does, but that doesn't make it
"the right thing".  I'm not saying it's not okay to act out of anger,
but the justice system doesn't work that way.  It works deliberately
and impartially, and anger, either collective or individual, should
not be a factor.

As Bernie Shaw asked Dukakis 4 years ago, what if somebody raped and
killed my wife?  Would I support the death penalty?  No -- I would
shoot him myself if I could, but I wouldn't try and use the state as
an instrument of my own anger.

	Wayne
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Voucher Initiative
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:56:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: goofy.23269
Distribution: ca
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <10325@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> From section (b):
> 
>     (1) No school which discriminates on the basis of race, ethnicity,
>     color, or national origin may redeem scholarships.
> 
>     (2) To the extent permitted by this Constitution and the
>     Constitution of the United States, the State shall prevent from
>     redeeming scholarships any school which advocates unlawful
>     behavior; teaches hatred of any person or group on the basis
>     of race, ethnicity, color, national origin, religion, or
>     gender; or deliberately provides false or misleading information
>     respecting the school.
> 
> Clear enough?

Quite clear.  Not a word to prevent a school from using tax dollars for
indoctrination in a particular religion, eh?

--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:42:52 GMT

In article <2f3902iUcbw.00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:

>For one thing, I believe that a quick death entails a lot less suffering
>than spending the rest of your life in prison with no hope of getting out.
>So I reject that part of your question.

You need to read more about how people die when the "popular" methods of
execution are used.  A recommended book _Operation Medicide_ by Jack
Kevorkian discusses this.

Do you realize that the reason the electric chair kills is because it 
literally cooks the heart?


This does not sound like any small amount of suffering...



FWA
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Is coercion bad? (Was Re: Sexual Orientation Discrimination...)
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 01:41:18 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ca

In article <4wLkiB2w164w@batpad.lgb.CA.US> mike@batpad.lgb.CA.US (Mike Batchelor) writes:
    >>I. Do. Not. Favor. Initiation. Of. Coercion. Period.
    >>
    >>Get it?
    >>
    >I don't think that you get it. Have you ever called the
    >police department? Have you ever called emergency medical
    >services? Have you ever used a public road?
    >
    >Why do you use things you don't approve of?
    >
    >>I do not repeat not, and never have, called for initiation of
    >>coercion to do any such thing such as supporting a police
    >>agency of any type.
    >>
    >Never called 911, have you?
    >
    >>Please, argue with what I say, not your unknowing knee-jerk
    >>assumptions.
    >>
    >Same to you.

Sigh. O.K., words of less than one syllable for Mikey ...

1. Public roads. I can't avoid them. Indeed, if I tried to build a private
   road I would be placed in jail.

2. What does emergency medical services (EMS) have to do with coercion?
   I have insurance, it PAYS for such things. In Illinois, I live in a
   volunteer fire district.

3. What does 911 have to do with things? Like, as in, get it, read slow,
   HAS A AN ARMED ROBBER EVER CALLED 911 TO ASSIST IN INITIATION OF
   COERCION? Duh, ....

4. If in a free society, you wish to not buy police or fire services,
   then that is your right.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: why bother? (MANY GOOD REASONS! - THATS WHY!!!)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 08:50:27 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ca

In article <s80n8INNn2p@agate.berkeley.edu> faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
    >In article <!xtj-lg.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >>The "range" of "personal" interactions (the weird, the
    >>unusual, the unbelievable) between human beings far
    >>transcends the range of business transactions, indeed,
    >>business transactions are but a small subset of the total
    >>human interactions possible.
    >>
    >Right! Therefore, it is nonsense to say, "if you're going to
    >regulate business, why not regulate everything". Business is
    >a very small and specialized subset of the things people do,
    >and thus you can't apply the same arguments against
    >regulation to it that you would against regulating one's
    >personal life.
    >
    >Or were you trying to make a different point?

Eh? So then, since sex, or rather the act of sex per Kinsey, takes a very
very small amount of time in a persons life, then of course, you have
no objection to say, the State of Georgia regulating this act (as in their
anti-sodomy laws).

Right?

But no, you misunderstood the point. Business, after sleeping, is probably
the largest thing people do (in terms of time). This counts employment,
shopping, buying anything (gasoline) and so on.

The point was that the typical transactions in business are very normal and
non-threating or dangerous. Indeed, shopkeepers will sell to just about
any legitimate customers (that's why there had to be formal segregation
laws in the South -- custom and peer pressure wasn't enough).

Hardly worth regulating.

Yet, while the State may regulate the trivial sale of a newspaper from
a vending machine or the sale of an ice cream cone froma  hand truck, it does
NOTHING with respect to say, making a baby (except for age of consent laws).

And the making of a baby can have a huge effect on society, far beyond that
of a purchase of an ice cream cone.


So clearly, it is not the magnitude, importance, or time of the act that
is being regulated.

It is more the nature of what the coercive forces (those guys over there in
the black hats) can get away with.


If you let the State get away with "regulating" an otherwise-mutual-consent
by-adults-act in one area, then you haven't a legitimate leg to stand on
when it does it in another area.

Whether it is gun control, pro-life, or AB101-or-George-anti-sodomy-laws,
doesn't matter -- the BIG issue is that you are acquiescing in letting the
State poke its nose where it does not belong.




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

The continuing discussion in alt.ketchup is really disgusting. All proper
right thinking volitional entities *know* ketchup is always served cold.
Exceptions for battlefield dining could be made if you must ...

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California : -(
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:08:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: fido.jlnpsgs
Distribution: ca
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <57518@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes:
>> Allow me to add another argument against the death penalty.  It is inherently
>> racist.
>> 
>> Allow me to explain.  Reports show that a black man who kills a white man
>> is 220 times more likely to get the death penalty than a white man who kills
>> a black man.  Juries are more likely to find a black man guilty of murder
>> and are also more likely to give the death penalty.
>
>Danger, Will Robinson!  Bogus use of statistics detected!
>
>You have to take into account all factors before you can claim that
>racism is involved.  For example, I would bet that you would also
>find that poor people are more likely get the death penalty for
>killing rich people than the other way around.  Since Blacks
>tend to be poorer than Whites, this will account for some of
>the disparity in death penalty rates.  Before you can show
>racism, you've got to take this out.


Fine.... You point out that there are more inequalities than just
plain racism.


Face it, the point still holds.  The american judicial system is 
biased towards heterosexual white males.  If you are a heterosexual
white male who is wealthy, better yet.   Given that our judicial
system is biased, how can you rationalize putting people to death
for a crime.

If the system is crooked, you need to watch how permanent its decisions
are.


>To show racism, you'll have to compare similar crimes.  You can't
>just compare at the level of race of criminal/victim.


I can give you many example of this racism/bias in the courts.  It is
easy.  Statistics aside, however, the point is still valid.  If you admit
that the american judicial system is biased towards a certain group of
people, that implies that it is also biased against a different group 
of people.  Because of this assumption, you know that people are not being
fairly tried.  And, following the logic of this statement, how can you impose
the "ultimate" punishment on someone who was tried in a system which is 
inherently biased?




FWA
From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.general
Subject: Re: Bay Area Ross Perot Mailing List
Date: 16 Apr 92 02:33:55 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA

In article <sil40INNsp@agate.berkeley.edu> faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
>I've created a Bay Area mailing list for the discussion of H. Ross
>Perot's candidacy for President, distribution of news reports, and
>(hopefully) announcements of local events.  It will also be a
>redistribution point for Ben McCall's mailing list.  If you want to
>get on it, send mail to:
>
   I don't suppose you've created a counter-group...which seeks to
   prevent H.R. from becoming president?

   The:

     impeach-perot-before-he's-elected@sanity.com

   group would seem to be appropriate....

   And of course in the spirit of fair campaigning, how about the


   Jerry-Brown@outer-space.com

   group.

   >:-)   >:-)    >:-)

   Of course I hope you aren't really using the net to support a
   particular political candidate...that would be more egregious
   than using it for commercial porpoises.  
Xref: sparky ca.politics:3546 ba.general:1756
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ba.general
Subject: Re: Bay Area Ross Perot Mailing List
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:01:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.skiv0INN6qr
Distribution: ca
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu

In article <181094@pyramid.pyramid.com> lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
>   Of course I hope you aren't really using the net to support a
>   particular political candidate...that would be more egregious
>   than using it for commercial porpoises.  

I disagree completely.  While Ross Perot isn't my ideal candidate, I
see nothing either in "the rules" or anywhere else that prevents Wayne or
anyone else from setting up a private mailing list to discuss or promote
Perot's candidacy.

I would be much more concerned about any government effort to stamp out
such discussions: to do so would be an abuse of power.

I also see nothing in the traditions of Usenet to prevent Wayne or anyone
else to post messages promoting Ross Perot to ca.politics (but not to
ca.general; ongoing political discussions in general groups are frowned
apon).

Yes, there are usage guidelines for various portions of various nets.
If read literally, almost all of Usenet violates such rules already,
and NSF in particular is in the process of changing the written rules
to correspond more with existing practice.  To single out political
speech, while tolerating all the other crap, would be a gross violation
of the tradition of free speech on the net.  It would also look mighty
hypocritical if the person ordering the enforcing happened to be a Bush
appointee. :-)

Notice I'm saying "tradition" rather than "rights".  That's because
what "rights" people have on the networks is an open question; given
this, we might as well stick with what's been done.




--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:46:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.sn6e4INNglj
Distribution: ca
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <abrK02ZFcfRI00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
> Societies have been claiming that right since people first formed them.
> I don't see how your challenge can hold water.

People have been committing murder since the dawn of history.  Nations
have been going to war with each other since the spear was invented.
People have been dying of epidemics since they first started living
together.  Are we going to give up on fixing these problems too?

> ... What, are you somehow saying that you think that the
> death penalty actually ENCOURAGES murder?  I'd really like to hear an
> explanation of this "feedback cycle".  Far from being unstable, the
> death penalty goes towards restoring stability.  When a murder initiates
> his killing, he displaces the balance.  When the state executes him, the
> balance and equilibrium are restored.  We're now back in a stable situation,
> until the next murderer upsets it.

I have explained why I think executions encourage murder.  They
diminish people's respect for the sanctity of life, any life.  People
see criminals being killed by the state, and the message this sends is
that it is alright to get revenge on somebody who has wronged you.
The idea that "only the state has this power" doesn't mean anything to
the gang member who is pissed and feels that since the state can kill,
he can go out and shoot the family of the guy who killed his buddy.

You are the one who hasn't explained the mechanism of "balance".  The
way you talk about it, it sounds like some sort of abstract and
mystical force.  What I want to know is how executions will reduce
crime -- in my view, that is the only potential argument in favor of
the death penalty.  Maintaining some sort of cosmic balance doesn't
cut it.

	Wayne
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California : -(
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:04:29 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Apr16.210125.12216@odin.corp.sgi.com> zursch@sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
>In article <jjbpb94@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>>Allow me to add another argument against the death penalty.  It is inherently
>>racist.
>>Allow me to explain.  Reports show that a black man who kills a white man
>>is 220 times more likely to get the death penalty than a white man who kills
>>a black man.  Juries are more likely to find a black man guilty of murder
>>and are also more likely to give the death penalty.
>
>That doesn't mean that the penalty is inherently racist, it means that 
>the system we now have administering it is racist. I agree that it is 
>racist, but there are ways around this as well. In any event, that 
>doesn't seem to be the case with this particular criminal. 


Well, let's look a little more closely at this...


Fact 1:  A majority of the people on death row are african americans
Fact 2:  The only time you hear about these appeals going on and on and
on is when it is a white man.


Racism is in play here.


The problem is with a punishment as final as the death penalty, racism
in the system becomes racism in the punishment.




>>With all the injustices that are obvious in the american judicial system,
>>adding the possibility of executing someone who was potentially unfairly
>>tried is unacceptable.
>
>I also believe that a condemned person should have a trial that is as close
>to immaculate as possible. I'm in no hurry to execute people, Jeff, but 
>dammit, I have no patience and damn little mercy for people like RAH. 


However, if we just put RAH in jail, and left him there forever, he would
be as gone as if we execute him.  The only difference is that he gets
lots of publicity this way (like Richard Ramirez) while if he were left
in jail forever, he would disappear.


The death penalty serves on purpose.  Revenge.  If a citizen exacted
revenge on a murderer, it would be wrong.  Why is it not wrong for the
government to exact this revenge?



I would like someone to explain one thing.  Why is the death penalty
superior to life imprisonment?




FWA
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:53:50 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: ca
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:

}In article <f55i02amccy.00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
}> I don't believe in the vacuous maxim "human life is precious".  I think
}> you have to look at the context of a particular life before you can
}> decide whether it is "precious" or not.

}Since when are you the arbiter of whether a life is precious or not?
}What right do you have to make that decision?

Did I say I was the arbiter?  Do you know what the clauses "I don't believe"
and "I think" mean? It's my opinion, and I am as entitled to hold it and 
express it as you are to do the same with your opinions.

}You are right, I am unable to grasp the simple concept.  Why do we
}have to "maintain the balance" of killing one person in revenge for
}another murder?  Who is requiring this balance to be maintained?  It
}just sounds like an abstract and vacuous justification for the
}institutionalization of a destructive emotion, that of revenge.

I don't believe that revenge is destructive.  I think it serves a lot
of constructive purposes to those who matter, the relatives of the
innocent victims.  A balance is not "required", but in my opinion, it
is preferable.

--James Preston
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Charles Turing's Untimely Death
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:23:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: fido.jgdnpnc
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <2yF6iB3w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:

>Don't waste your time. The same gay 'leaders' are programming
>their robots to tell everyone that AIDS is mainly a straight
>disease nowdays...... 
>
>They just forget to mention WHERE it is prevalent with straights.


CDC reports out last friday show that the number 6 killer of adolescents
is AIDS.  Current "most popular" high risk group?  Female teenagers.





FWA