HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wolf@cs.mcgill.ca (Paul MCNABOLA)
Subject: Re: Dog or Wolf? The wolves and dogs know.
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 04:03:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.233234.9458@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> jkraft@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (john kraft) writes:
>Someone told me that wolf-hybrids have a tuft of fur on their
>tail about three inches from the base.  Mine has one and it is very 
>noticeable.  This person referred to it as a scent mark although
>there is certainly no scent gland on a wolf's tail.  The hairs
>tend to stick out and it is about an inch in length and a 
>quarter inch wide.  
>
>I suppose that if it is there then it is a sign of being a wolf.
>If it is not, I do not know it this disqualifies it.
>
>I think the best way to tell if your puppy is a wolf is to
>see if he destroys everything dear to your heart and then smiles
>at you.  Just kidding..
>
>Peace Out - John
>
From _The Wolf_ by L. David Mech
Another special group of hairs in the wolf surrounds an area known as 
the tail (precaudal) gland.  These hairs are especially stiff and are
usually tipped with black, even in all-white animals.  The tail gland itself 
is located on the top side of the tail, about three inches from its base.  
It occurs in most members of the dog family but is absent in the domestic
dog...The function of this gland is still unknown...made up of modified
sebaceous glands..."

Mech, L. David (1970 r 1988) The Wolf, University of Minnesota Press, p.18

----------
Paul McNabola         wolf@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca

"Always available, never free" ---Buck Godot
From: jegm@cody.esd.sgi.com (Jim Morris)
Newsgroups: alt.wolves
Subject: Re: Dog or Wolf? The wolves and dogs know.
Date: 13 Jan 1993 02:14:30 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jegm@esd.sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: cody.esd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan9.233234.9458@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>, jkraft@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (john kraft) writes:
|> Someone told me that wolf-hybrids have a tuft of fur on their
|> tail about three inches from the base.  Mine has one and it is very 

My siberian husky also has something like that as well as my WH!

|> I think the best way to tell if your puppy is a wolf is to
|> see if he destroys everything dear to your heart and then smiles
|> at you.  Just kidding..

Actually I think this is the closest thing yet to positive ID :-)

-- 
Jim Morris, Email: jegm@esd.sgi.com  Voice: (415) 390-5136
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta)
Subject: Re: Booklist + What is Anarchy (long)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:26:35 GMT


	A good book that I have just read is Albert Jay Nock's "Our Enemy, the
State."  Albert Jay Nock was what H.L. Mencken would called a "Tory Anarchist." 
He wrote this book in the 1930's.  Albert Jay Nock believed in government, not the
state.  Essential functions of a healthy society, like a court system, police,
fire departments, etc. need to be provided but Nock argues that this kind of
government should not come from the State.  He spends much time building up on 
Beard's thesis that many of the Founding Father's had strong interests in creating
the Federal Government that could grant them priviliges.  He spends much time in 
his book talking about the State in America.  It is a good read and may be
appealing to anarchists as of all stripes as he exposes many of the special
interests who helped to create and expand out government.


						Daniel LaGattuta 
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: aankrom@nyx.cs.du.edu (Anthony Ankrom)
Subject: Re: the irrelevance of nitration to revolution
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 04:34:02 GMT


 I thought pyrotechnics was anything that went pop, fizzle, burned,
exploded, got very hot, etc.
 I appologize for grouping anarchists with terrorists, inviting a false
syllogism. But some terrorists are anarchists and vice versa, but not all.
I was actually quoting something that I had read, but I forget what...

St. Anthony

--
          / N \   O                   Mi vsi smo krizhani,
         |   \ |  || Ph               chlani izbrani
         |   | |_O-C-C-OH             mesarskega ceha...
BZ        \ / /      Ph                            aankrom@nyx.cs.du.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: the irrelevance of nitration to revolution
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<1993Jan6.151606.17877@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<C0LwK7.8Ew@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:39:33 GMT

In article <C0LwK7.8Ew@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
   The point of anarchism is doing away with power relationships like those
   between bosses and workers, priests and worshippers, governments and
   subjects, husbands and wives, adults and children.  

Sounds cool, but how the Hell are you going to do that?  There have
been bosses as long as their have been "organizations" that need
organizing.  There have been parents as long as there have been
mammals.

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
From: tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 13:22:19 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
> for their own personal gain. That is not Anarchy. At best
> it would evolve into a Feudal-Monarchy at worst Totalitarian
> Dictatorship. 

Given the Somailia situation, Totalitarian dictatorship may not be worst.
I'm sure most of them will salivate over the idea of a dictatorship right 
now.  Pavlovian - "Soldiers with guns = food".
I think even worse would be the situation before the marines arrived, if 
they had not arrived.  Maybe that's what will happen when the marines 
leave.  Anarchy, with a lower case a, at it's worst.

--                    
INTERNET:  tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!tumidity
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
From: seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (SETH)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Date: 4 Jan 93 14:11:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Organization: Duke University Medical Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <J.TURNER.93Jan3164251@lynx.coe.northeastern.edu>, j.turner@lynx.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes...

>>Anarchy means no one is forcing people to behave a certain way.

>>Somalia isn't anarchy.  It's chaos and distopia.

>    I didn't realize the Somalis were "forced" to do anything.
>They could choose to join one gang or another or be prey to ALL
>of them.  I'm sorry, you were talking about omni-benevolent,
>lobotomized comic book anarchy after all.  My mistake.

    	    	    	    	    	--Jeff Turner

Not quite sure what you mean "omni-benevoloent...".  There was an intelligent
discussion of what anarchy is/should be, but if you must stick to insults 
perhaps we can drop this thread.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Principles, anarchist and otherwise
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:10:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.223109.17417@hellgate.utah.edu>, galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:

>The "Anarchist principal" is not "each person acting as they see fit."
>The "Anarchist principal" is each person doing anything other than setting
>up a government.  Once they set up a government, it is no longer Anarchy.
>How do the Somali warlords differ from governments?  

As far as I can tell, there is a "governmental principle" to the effect that
"protection" (interpret this word however you like) demands "tribute".  This is
the principle euphemized in every social contract theory.  Of course, social
contract theorists distinguish between "good governments", which consist of the
strong protecting the weak (from some third category?) and "bad governments",
the strong victimizing the weak.  My worldview (admittedly the "dark" side of
it) is represented by the famous illustration of the fish-shaped school of
little fishes poised to eat the big fish.  The other side of my worldview is
represented by the school of fishes where one of them is swimming in a
different direction.  Too bad you can't have it both ways.

>If there were no warlords, just a bunch of people independently controlling
>others with the use of guns, then it could still be Anarchy.

It would be decentralization (of protection rackets in this case).  Anarchy is
a step beyond decentralization, say, everyone fending for themselves.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Lee                                          w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu

That inexhaustible good nature, which is itself the most precious gift
of Heaven, spreading itself like oil over the troubled sea of thought,
and keeping the mind smooth and equable in the roughest weather.
                                -- Irving
From: matta@lclark.edu (Matt Alexander)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:31:02 GMT
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <1993Jan6.151924.90906@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
>>
>> Somalia's problem is not that there is no government.  The problem
>> has been several governments fighting each other, with civillians
>> caught in the crossfire.  If Somalia is an anarchy, why are there
>> so many "warlords" controlling different parts of the country?
>
>        Because they saw an oppourtunity to become warlords and
>did so. You seem to think that anarchy is only anarchy when the
>actions of each individual remain inside a set of defined "rules".
>ie. if everyone just went about their buisiness and tried to
>co-exist with each other without resorting to threats and coertion,
>that is anarchy. If someone recruits their own private army and
>aquires "power" by using that army, that isn't anarchy.
>
>        I'm sorry Greg, but the second case is also anarchy. However
>much you and I might wish for a system of peaceful co-existance,
>where each individual has *complete* freedom of choice in running
>their life, there are those who choose to ensure their own survival by
>controlling and dominating other people around them. I, and I suspect
>you as well, find this sort of survival "morally repulsive", but
>that doesn't mean it's not anarchy.

   Actually, I think that Greg has a point. Pure anarchy means no government.
If the warlords use military force and power to control and enforce their
respective authorities, are they not in fact feudal states?
   On the other hand, even without organized clan governments, there would
most likely still be violence and starvation. Anarchy in and of itself does
not automatically create peace and happiness.
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:12:37 GMT
	<1993Jan4.203613.18402@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<1993Jan6.151924.90906@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
	<6JAN199313495004@mivax.mc.duke.edu> <DRW.93Jan11233323@euclid.mit.edu>
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: drw@euclid.mit.edu's message of 12 Jan 93 04:33:23 GMT


>In article <DRW.93Jan11233323@euclid.mit.edu> drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:



 #  In article <6JAN199313495004@mivax.mc.duke.edu> seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Yourself) writes:
 #     But I still think somalia isn't anarchy.
 #     The competing warlords are trying to BECOME the GOVERNMENT.
 #
 #     If it acts like a government and smells like a governement and looks like
 #     a government...

>   As far as I can tell from the news reports, the present "factions" and
>   "warlords" aren't even trying to act like governments -- they are the
>   bosses of loose coalitions of armed gangs, and maintain the gangs'
>   support only by providing them with the opportunity to loot.

They are acting in thier own self interest period. How organized they
are or how much control they are able to exert is irrelevant. 
However you slice it is Oligarchy. The rule of the many by the few.

>   (The difference between a government and an armed gang is that the
>   government's army follows orders, and will die to support the
>   authority of the government, while an armed gang fights only for the
>   personal benefit of the individual soldiers.  That's why armies
>   usually win against gangs.  Probably, that's why governments conquor
>   anarchies.)

 This not a defintion of goverment. A goverment's function is to
 settle disputes and by definition has THE right to use force.
 In Somalia the Warlaods are always win any dispute since they
 have more power to coercise. They are the de-facto goverment and
 it's form is Oligarchy.

 As for Armies of goverments winning out over Anarchist Armies: 
 I guess you are not a student of the Russian Revolution and have never 
 heard of Mackhno and his exploits.
 
 Without the cooperation of the Anarchist-Communist the Bolsheviks would
 have been crushed. 

 -sjm

--
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:36:13 MST
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <J.TURNER.93Jan3164251@lynx.coe.northeastern.edu> j.turner@lynx.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
>In article <29DEC199209093797@mivax.mc.duke.edu> seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes:
>>Anarchy means no one is forcing people to behave a certain way.
>
>>Somalia isn't anarchy.  It's chaos and distopia.
>
>    I didn't realize the Somalis were "forced" to do anything.
>They could choose to join one gang or another or be prey to ALL
>of them.  I'm sorry, you were talking about omni-benevolent,
>lobotomized comic book anarchy after all.  My mistake.

Somalia's problem is not that there is no government.  The problem
has been several governments fighting each other, with civillians
caught in the crossfire.  If Somalia is an anarchy, why are there
so many "warlords" controlling different parts of the country?
----
Join the Greg Alt boycott! Put /galt/h :j in your killfile today!
----
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
From: tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 10:55:47 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>  However the anarchy with the little a is `a' temporary condition
>  and evolves inot one form of Oligarchy or another. Which I
>  believe is inferior to Anarchy with a big `A', which has not
>  yet been demonstrated at all in the course of human interactions
>  thus far. I do believe it could exist and would work if given
>  a chance.

I wish I could agree, I just haven't seen any way to get there from here.

--                    
INTERNET:  tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!tumidity
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
From: seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Yourself)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:49:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Organization: Duke University Medical Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan6.151924.90906@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes...
>galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
>> j.turner@lynx.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
>>>seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes:
>>>>Anarchy means no one is forcing people to behave a certain way.

>>>>Somalia isn't anarchy.  It's chaos and distopia.

>>>    I didn't realize the Somalis were "forced" to do anything.
>>>They could choose to join one gang or another or be prey to ALL
>>>of them.  I'm sorry, you were talking about omni-benevolent,
>>>lobotomized comic book anarchy after all.  My mistake.

>> Somalia's problem is not that there is no government.  The problem
>> has been several governments fighting each other, with civillians
>> caught in the crossfire.  If Somalia is an anarchy, why are there
>> so many "warlords" controlling different parts of the country?

>        Because they saw an oppourtunity to become warlords and
>did so. You seem to think that anarchy is only anarchy when the
>actions of each individual remain inside a set of defined "rules".
>ie. if everyone just went about their buisiness and tried to
>co-exist with each other without resorting to threats and coertion,
>that is anarchy. If someone recruits their own private army and
>aquires "power" by using that army, that isn't anarchy.

>        I'm sorry Greg, but the second case is also anarchy. However
>much you and I might wish for a system of peaceful co-existance,
>where each individual has *complete* freedom of choice in running
>their life, there are those who choose to ensure their own survival by
>controlling and dominating other people around them. I, and I suspect
>you as well, find this sort of survival "morally repulsive", but
>that doesn't mean it's not anarchy.

You are correct in a sense that anarchy can be "a bad thing" in some
cases.  Anarchy is not inherently good or evil in and of itself.

Most anarchists strive for the more utopian anarchy where responsible
people think for themselves and own up to the consequences of any
action they take.  I get peeved because the media/general public
use the word "anarchy" as if anarchy were inherently "bad".
Most people think of anarchy only as some awful, chaotic, and violent
state of affairs.  This simply isn't true.

I must admit that the opposite (anarchy must be great) also isn't
necessarily true.

But I still think somalia isn't anarchy.
The competing warlords are trying to BECOME the GOVERNMENT.

If it acts like a government and smells like a governement and looks like
a government...

I suppose a more accurate definition of anarchy could be
"a state of affairs where there is no government nor anything
that attempts to function like one." [my opinion]
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:48:45 GMT
	<1992Dec14.225323.28356@vela.acs.oakland.edu>
	<1hofpnINN1gf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
	<29DEC199209093797@mivax.mc.duke.edu>
	<J.TURNER.93Jan3164251@lynx.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<1993Jan4.203613.18402@hellgate.utah.edu>
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu's message of 5 Jan 93 03:36:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.203613.18402@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:

   In article <J.TURNER.93Jan3164251@lynx.coe.northeastern.edu> j.turner@lynx.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
   >In article <29DEC199209093797@mivax.mc.duke.edu> seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes:
   >>Anarchy means no one is forcing people to behave a certain way.
   >
   >>Somalia isn't anarchy.  It's chaos and distopia.
   >
   >    I didn't realize the Somalis were "forced" to do anything.
   >They could choose to join one gang or another or be prey to ALL
   >of them.  I'm sorry, you were talking about omni-benevolent,
   >lobotomized comic book anarchy after all.  My mistake.

#   Somalia's problem is not that there is no government.  The problem
#   has been several governments fighting each other, with civillians
#   caught in the crossfire.  If Somalia is an anarchy, why are there
#   so many "warlords" controlling different parts of the country?
 
If the "warlords" allowed the people of Somalia to freely join
whatever clan they wished and upon joining they were given
minimal property rights and the basic human rights that follow,
and if they warlords only endevoured to use their might
to extract justice form non-clan memebers who injured the
memebers of their clan, that would be Anarchy.

Instead they deny everyone property rights and use their might
for their own personal gain. That is not Anarchy. At best
it would evolve into a Feudal-Monarchy at worst Totalitarian
Dictatorship. 


-sjm


--
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:39:30 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: tumidity@netlink.cts.com's message of 6 Jan 93 21:22:19 GMT

In article <w85ywB4w165w@netlink.cts.com> tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry) writes:


   merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
   > for their own personal gain. That is not Anarchy. At best
   > it would evolve into a Feudal-Monarchy at worst Totalitarian
   > Dictatorship. 

#   Given the Somailia situation, Totalitarian dictatorship may not be worst.
#   I'm sure most of them will salivate over the idea of a dictatorship right 
#   now.  Pavlovian - "Soldiers with guns = food".
#   I think even worse would be the situation before the marines arrived, if 
#   they had not arrived.xD  Maybe that's what will happen when the marines 
#   leave.  Anarchy, with a lower case a, at it's worst.

 I make offer no personal judgement as to as to whether or not
 US military presence is good or bad. The truth is it is both,
 more good than bad? I honestly cannot say. 

 However the anarchy with the little a is `a' temporary condition
 and evolves inot one form of Oligarchy or another. Which I
 believe is inferior to Anarchy with a big `A', which has not
 yet been demonstrated at all in the course of human interactions
 thus far. I do believe it could exist and would work if given
 a chance.



-sjm

--
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy