HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: HOLOCAUST MYTHS
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 14:49:20 GMT

In article <XL4BJB1w164w@b-cpu.UUCP>, pfaust@b-cpu.UUCP (Pete Faust) writes:
>      Well, Zionist pressure is again stirring to deny
> Banished CPU access.  With the Usenet exception, the Mass
> Media is nearly 100% under Zionist control, so why allow the
> exception?  Certain truths must not be sent 'round the world,
> don't you all know that?  Revisionists would NEVER admit the
> hopelessness and inevitable collapse of their position by
> silencing their opposition.
>      As the Zionists suggest when they present to the
> American public their nation-wide, nation-destroying Mass
> Media programs; when offended, simply change channels or turn
> off.  Should this not be the Usenet modus operandi?

  Is english your native language?  I have been trying to determine exactly what
it is you are saying here.

  You accuse all those offended by your garbage Zionists (not that suprising)
  You start with some sarcasm (at least I assume so) And then you say
"Revisionists . . ."
  Okay, lets examine this sentance: "Revisionsists" means you, we all know that.
The "opposition" is nearly everybody else (we all know that too).  So you are
saying that you will never admit you are wrong to everyone else.  Well we knew
that, but the sentance is strangely worded.
 
>      Side remark:  Holocausters continue quoting from books
> and other material, full of lies and misleading, deceiving
> material.  A mass media debate or, better still, a series of
> mass media debates by the most knowledgeable, on both sides,
> would expose their lies and deception.  This obviously is why
> there is no debate, at any cost.

  Quoting from books is wrong?  You mean that making stuff up is more accurate
than locating scholarly research?  Get a life!

                                   -Kurt
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7688 alt.censorship:3302 alt.conspiracy:6330 talk.politics.misc:18168
From: wix@west.darkside.com (Doktor Avalanche)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.censorship,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HOLOCAUST MYTHS
Date: 14 Apr 92 09:15:22 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

> 
> It's probably because if people found out who he really was he'd
> suffer no end of mail and phone harassment, letters to his boss, etc.
> He might be using anonymity to spread his slime and protect himself
> from terrorism.
> -- 
> Your most useful program will be continually improved until it is useless.

 
Precisely.
 
You know, IMHO I wouldn't dare post my real name up on the net. 
 
Oh sure, it just might be cowardice, but what remains is how easy
it is to gather personal information on someone just on their
name alone.
 
Of course, you've got your site name tagged along to your message
as well. Anyone could easily find out what state/county/city you
live in based on soley on that information.
 
Then, it's just a matter of going down to the courthouse or the
library in your neighborhood to get access to those public domain
records that tell a lot more than you're probably willing to
believe.
 
Take it one step further, you could get an investigator to look
in on your life and find out about your habits...
 
At any rate, I digress. Seeing how we're in the InfoAge, and given
that it's relatively easy to get information on anyone, I have
to ask this one question: is it really wise to post your REAL
name on the net? I've come to the tenative conclusion that it's
not (unless, of course, you're one of those people who think 
privacy is an option).
 
Doktor Avalanche
- and that's all you're getting out of me.
 
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.censorship,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
From: pciszek@isis.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Celebrating National Meatout Day
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 92 14:15:22 GMT

ac@apmaths.uwo.ca (alka chandna) writes:

>I'm amused at your use of the phrase "self important"; after all, you 
>would sanction the killing of other *sentient* beings for the mere taste 
>of their flesh ... in my estimation that would constitue "self important 

Whoa.. hold the phone... you mean somebody has discovered another SENTIENT
species?  Why hassent SETI been told?  And what standards of sentience are
you using?  (I have always been fond of H. Beam Piper's "uses tools and
builds a fire" criterion.)

--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | What's another word for "thesaurus"?
From: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: The Fourth Force -- initial CIA "expansion" via 40s Pentagon War Plans
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:09:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: talon.1992Apr9.180901.28654
Reply-To: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu
Organization: Oregon State University - Univ. Computing Services

Michael Edelman writes
>In article <1992Apr9.154811.1899@odin.corp.sgi.com>
>dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe) writes:
>      [...}
>>
>>            the following appeared in the 12/75 issue of "Gallery:"
>>
>In other words, this work is so well researched, so scholarly, and so
>above critcism that no ordinary journal could publish it; only a glossy
>mastrubation manual had the necessary wherewithall.

Please! They're called "one-handed magazines," not masturbation manuals!

I'm looking forward to the "Boobs and Buns" special issue on investment tax  
credits. 

--
Don McGregor             | California danger signs: you own more pairs of 
mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu| shorts than you do long pants.
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Info: Info on the FED - Rockefeller
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:56:48 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker):
>In a post on this thread Chip Salzenberg responds to Don Allen's
>response to Chip Berlet...

I wondered why a two-line post would have Don Allen calling me by my
first name.

>I've heard of lettiing the Chips fall where they may, but
>this is just riduculous.

Apparently, Don has two Chips on his shoulder.  Er, back.

>Or is this just a case of Chips passing in the night?

Chip ahoy!
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
      "Informix 4GL is not a 4G, and it's barely an L."  -- John Tombs
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7786 alt.drugs:7767 alt.conspiracy:6406 misc.headlines:3455 alt.alien.visitors:2520
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas (was Socialism Security Rides Again)
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:38:35 GMT
 <1992Apr9.141507.1@hamp.hampshire.edu>  
 <1992Apr10.214615.21832@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Apr10.214615.21832@midway.uchicago.edu>
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

> Thomas did not uphold "beatings of prisoners in jail."  The vote was
> a decision that it was not a Constitutional violation by the government
> when its employees engage in unreasonable beatings -- the prisoner, I
> believe still has a cause of action against the guards who beat him,
> just not a Constitutional one.  Not optimal, to be sure, but hardly
> in support of beating prisoners.  Read the opinions rather than the
> propaganda regarding the opinions.  (I don't believe seven others
> voted with Thomas either -- I thought he was on a losing 7-2 side.)

It was an 8-1 split, with Thomas in lone dissent.  

What Thomas fails to understand is that the 8th amendment is supposed
to provide real protection against cruel and unusual punishment.  It
was not intended as a mere academic requirement on sentencing.  The 8th
(as extended by the 14th) is the only protection we have against cruel
state practices, and Thomas would dispense with it.  He may not think
he's for "beatings of prisoners in jail", but his decision would allow
just that.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu (Don McGregor)
Subject: Re: Ralph McGehee on Grenada
Reply-To: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu
Organization: Oregon State University - Univ. Computing Services
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:52:15 GMT

David Condon writes
>Thanks to John DiNardo for providing me with this tape of a brief
>excerpt of a press conference by former CIA agent Ralph McGehee,

The only problem is that McGehee is factually incorrect on a number of  
issues.

>The armada that was 
>going off to the Middle East because of the bombing of the Marines 
>in Lebanon took a short stop at Grenada

The Marine grouphad already set sail by the time the bombing occured.  They  
were the regularly scheduled relief force for Beruit.

>Finally, when 
>the media was allowed on the island, they rushed to the warehouse 
>to see these Communist weapons, and they noted that there were 
>only some Communist weapons, only half full, and many of them were 
>American weapons.

The weapons were almost entirely originated from the soviet bloc.  AK-47's,  
Soviet heavy MG's, etc.

>Later we came to find out that Cuba 
>had about fifty airport workers on the island, one or two military 
>advisors, but that was after all the information had had its 
>effect. 

The actual numbers were about 650 Cuban army reservists there to work on the  
airport, and a dozen or two military advisors.  It took several days to  
round them all up and get the last snipers flushed out.

--
Don McGregor             | California danger signs: you own more pairs of 
mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu| shorts than you do long pants.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.motss,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties,soc.culture.african.american,alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:33:22 GMT

kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) writes:

[...]
>There is one condition.
>1. They should not be allowed to wear hoods.  The hoods conceal their
>   identities which ahould be known if they plan to rally.
[...]

Here is some information about anonymous speech. Bans on anonymous are
often used by the authorities to chill speech. For example, during the
first part of the Vietnam war, this university allowed flyers to be
distributed on campus, but "1) Individuals or groups responsible for
distribution of printed materials must be identified."

From the ACLU Handbook on _The Right to Protest_ (1991):

----------start-------- 

[q:] Does a leaflet have to identify the person or group responsible
for its message?

[a:] Not usually. The Supreme Court has held that the distribution of
anonymous political leaflets is a constitutionally protected activity
because "{a}nonymously pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books
have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted
groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able
to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not
at all."{21} However, a few lower courts have upheld restrictions on
anonymous leaflets that are part of an election campaign in order to
prevent "dirty tricks."{22}

[References]

21. _Tally v. California_, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960); see also _Wilson v.
Stocker_, 819 F2d 943 (10th Cir. 1987)

22. _Morefield v. Moore, 540 S.W. 2d 873 (Ky. 1976); but see _People
v. White, 116 Ill. 2d 171, 506 N.E.2d 1284 (1987)

---------end------

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes)
Subject: Re: A Collection of Amazing Facts!
Organization: FYL, Seattle, WA
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 17:07:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.220716.23689@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>gunter@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) writes:


>>/* Written  8:18 am  Apr  3, 1992 by tgray in cdp:population */
>>/* ---------- "Short Population Facts" ---------- */
>>[from Co-op America Quarterly, Spring, 1992]

>>MEAT FACTS

>>Number of human beings who could be fed by the grain and soybeans
>>eaten by U.S. livestock:  1,300,000,000

>This is a pile of unadulterated crap.  We have tried to send food to
>countries with starving people before.  The food invariably ends up
>rotting on a dock because the leaders of those countries don't care.
>If they did the people wouldn't be starving in the first place.

Why are people starving in the United States?  Guess it must be
because "the leaders of" the USA don't care.

>>Number of pure vegetarians who can be fed by the grain needed to
>>feed 1 meat-eating person:  20

>Never mind that the veget-aryans would be an unhealthy lot, since you
>cannot easily obtain all the necessary vitamins through veggies alone.

I guess you better get out and tell the millions of vegetarians that
they are not healthy.  You will find that that more and more athletes
are becoming vegetarian.

If you have a serious interest in the subject of healthy eating
(instead of a reactionary predjudice against any change) I highly
recomment a magazine published by Physicians Committee for Responsible
Medicine. It is not a "preach vegetarian" publication but, rather, a
magazine that offers research articles, a question and answer column,
book reviews and healthy recipes.  Subscriptions are $14.95 from:
      Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
      P.O. Box 6322
      Washington, DC 20015
      202-686-2210
Yes, they take VISA and MC.

>>Pesticide residues in U.S. diet supplied by meat:  35%
>
>More emotional pandering.  Are you maybe implying that meat consumption
>would be okay, if the pesticides are eliminated?  Of course not.  It's
>just more of your misguided vendetta against people.

Nope.  Wrong again.  Meat is unhealthy for other reasons -- fat and
cholesterol being the obvious ones, as well as antibiotic residues --
but pesticides are an important consideration.  That is why many food
co-ops offer "organic meats" for those who feel they need meat.


-- 
Phil Hughes - FYL - 8315 Lk City Wy NE - Suite 207 - Seattle, WA 98115 
Phone: 206-526-2919 x74      Fax: 526-0803
E-mail: fyl@cpac.washington.edu or fyl@fylz.wa.com
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: spinoza@next03wor.wam.umd.edu (Prince Lev of the Domovoi)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 04:20:28 GMT

In article <dragon.702962857@camelot> dragon@camelot.bradley.edu (Matthew  
Korth) writes:
> In <1992Apr9.231614.17905@ucunix.san.uc.edu> schectr@ucunix.san.uc.edu  
(ROBB SCHECTER) writes:
> >**                    THE  KKK  ARE  COMING  TO CINCINNATI                  
**
> >**   - On University of Cinncinati campus, we have started organizing a     
**
> >**         counter-demonstration.  The general idea is for it to be         
**
> >**         confrontational but not violent.                                 
**
> OK... whatever suits you.  It could very easily turn violent, though.
> 
> >**   - We hope to mass enough people to drown out any speeches, and  
def-   **
> >**         eat any recruiting efforts the Klan will make.                   
**
> Sorry, you lose me here.  I may, and in fact *do*, disagree with what
> the KKK has to say.  However, they have a right to say it.  The First
> Amendment applies to them, too.
> --
Ok, so the First Amendment could be stretched to cover filth such as the  
KKK. This does not mean however, that one must remain polite and quiet  
whilst the aforementioned scum are attempting to spread their  
fascism/racism to the greater Cincy area. POinting out to folks that the  
KKK is scum in no way interferes with their right to pursue their  
activities and engage in free speech......................
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: BROWN on ANIMAL RIGHTS
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:51:00 GMT

>/* ---------- "Jerry Brown on Animal Rights" ---------- */ 

>Jerry Brown on Animal Rights 

>Many species of animals around the world are becoming extinct 
>because of human greed and indifference. Presently, in the 
>United States abusive and cruel treatment of animals is out of 
>control. Millions of animals raised for food are confined in 
>small crates for their entire Lives; millions are used in 
>scientific experiments which could be replaced by other methods. 

Re-read this slop and maybe you will see just what is going on in
his first paragraph.  First, the emotional grabber "...animals...
are becoming extinct..."  OH DEAR!  That's terrible!  Yet look
what immediately follows.  He is suddenly talking about abuses
and cruelty in the US, including animals raised for food and
"scientific experiments".  You see, he needed that grabber
because the rest is dubious, at best.

First abusive and cruel treatment IS under control.  Puppy mills are
being busted, stricter rules for research facilities, etc. all make 
for more control over abuses.

Second, these "crate contained" animals generally lead a healthier and
less danger-filled life than their "wild" counterparts (who wants to
chew on rancid, sickly flesh?).

Third, "...millions are used in scientific experiments which could
be replaced by other methods."  this quote is a product of ignorance
or an OUTRIGHT LIE.  Less than 400,000 animals are used each year
in research labs and the vast majority of these are RATS.  There are
some substitutes available for some testing and those are in use
already.  But most research cannot be duplicated without a fully
functional living model, hence animals are necessary to improve human
healthcare.  Anyone telling you different is either ignorant or a LIAR.

>We have the power to change our attitudes and actions towards 
>animals. I have always believed that people who care about 
>animals also care deeply about other people. 

This statement appears to come from someone who has not had much face to
fact contact with "Animal Rights" folks.  There are some of the most 
dangerously aggressive, maladjusted, social misfits that ever promoted
their ANTI-HUMAN agendas.

ANIMAL RIGHTS  <>  ANIMAL WELFARE
ANIMAL RESEARCH SAVES LIVES!!

Kevin Brawley
Organization: Central Michigan University
Date: Tuesday, 14 Apr 1992 10:56:46 EDT
From: <3ZVAYC3@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Dumb question

                                                          Brent Morgan
                                                          16299
QUESTION: WHO SAID "IF YOU WOULD KNOW HOW A MAN TREATS HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN
          SEE HOW HE TREATS HIS BOOKS"?

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.motss,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties,soc.culture.african.american,alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:38:03 GMT


[Previously posted in alt.censorship and alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk - Carl]

Subject: Re: Speech restrictions on CMU computer bboards
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1992 17:40:32 GMT

So what's wrong with suppressing offensive speech? Here is John Stuart
Mill's answer. 

[From _On Liberty_, 1859. This excerpt is quoted on page 121 of
_Freedom, Technology, and the First Amendment_ by Johnathan W. Emord.]

======================== start ==================================
[I]f any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught
we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own
infalliabilty ....
[T]hough the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly
does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing
opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only
by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth
has any chance of being supplied ....
[E]ven if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth;
unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly
contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the
manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension [of] or feeling [for]
its rational grounds.
===========================end==========================

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.motss,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties,soc.culture.african.american,alt.censorship
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: ANALYSIS: Libyan Sanctions Have Little Support
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:10:15 GMT

mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu (Don McGregor) writes:

>N.Y. Transfer writes
>>On April 2, the Libyan masses took to the streets in angry
>>response to the U.S.-led sanctions against their country voted on
>>March 31 by the United Nations Security Council.
>>
>A "spontaneous" demonstration in a totalitarian police state.  Uh-huh. 

Why sure, just like those "spontaneous" attacks on the embassies in
Libya, where the fire department showed up before the mob.


>BTW, now that the World Court has ruled that Libya must turn over the  
>suspects I hope that all progressives will unite behind the cause and demand  
>that Libya yield the ruling.     

It's obviously being used and manipulated by the capitalist
imperialist running pig-dogs of the US.  Remember how the UN changed
from the Great Voice of Wisdom and Reason to mere lackeys during
Desert Shield and Desert Storm...
-- 
Money talks...but all mine keeps saying is "goodbye"
From: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: NEWS:Apr 10 Rally Against Libya Sanctions
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:33:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: talon.1992Apr16.233350.1450
Reply-To: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu
Organization: Oregon State University - Univ. Computing Services

N.Y. Transfer writes
>Civil rights lawyer William Kunstler said Washington's demand that
>Libya hand over two of its citizens for trial here violates
>international law, including the Montreal Sabotage Convention. 

The World Court doesn't seem to think so.

--
Don McGregor             | "And TQM requires highly-paid, slick-talking
mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu| quality consultants with fancy letterhead  
                         | and reports."    --The Usenet Oracle
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: AGRAN on ANIMAL RIGHTS
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:52:55 GMT

Mr. Agran appears to be pandering for votes.  I'll bet he
eats cheeseburgers by the bag full.

Kevin Brawley
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d