HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roger@CRUX.PRINCETON.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: Robert Conquest's _The Great Terror_
Date: 28 Jan 93 03:18:46 GMT
Reply-To: "talk.politics.soviet via ListServ" <TPS-L@INDYCMS.BITNET>

In article <1993Jan27.150439.19865@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu
 (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>In article <JMC.93Jan26205910@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
>jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

>JMC:
>>2. I'm a bit puzzled about _The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_.  I
>>thought the afore-mentioned Tsar recognized it as a forgery.  Parts
>>of it were cribbed from a novel.

>The source was not a novel, but an anti-Napoleonic political tract from
>the 1860s.  Although the forgery was prepetrated by the agents of the
>_okhranka_, the Tzar recognized the document as genuine.  This may have
>had something to do with his "conscientious" objection to civil rights
>for the Jews, or his oft-expressed detestation of "foreign Yids", or his
>belief that "nine-tenths of the revolutionaries are Yids", or the covert
>instigation and overt toleration of anti-Jewish pogroms, explained by
>him as "justifiable punishment", by the Imperial Department of Police.

Sorry, Mikhail, but part of the Protocols _were_ based on a novel
called _Paris-Sedan_.  See _Warrant for Genocide_ by Cohn.

Roger
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.soviet
From: alexeev@math.utah.edu (Valery A. Alexeev)
Subject: Re: The Grand Duchy of Transdniestria?
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Utah
	<1993Jan25.224832.12817@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>
	<1k21f4INN4qb@morrow.stanford.edu>
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:28:22

Regarding Re: The Grand Duchy of Transdniestria?;
> andrei@hanauma.stanford.edu (Andrei Popovici) adds:
> NNTP-Posting-Host: hanauma.stanford.edu

> (michael kagalenko) writes:
>>(Tapani Hietaniemi) writes:
>>>
>>>Reading the Radio Free Europe reports is interesting indeed!
>>>The detail below got my attention this time:
>>>
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> LEBED URGES TERRITORIAL CHANGES IN MOLDOVA. Lt.-Gen.  Aleksandr
>>>> Lebed, commander of Russia's 14th Army in Moldova, warned in
>>>> Pravda of 20 January that hostilities may resume "at any moment"
>>>  ^^^^^^
>>???? I believe said newspaper was closed by Eltsin's decree together 
>>with prohibition of communist party. Am I wrong ?

> They are probably referring to the local Pravda.  Same people, same
> names...

> Andrei

Oh, stop it, people ! Everyone knows that "Pravda" is happily being
published, with the same stuff, and with the same "ordena Lenina i
Welikoj Oktqbrxskoj Rewol@cii" on the first page. If it ever was
closed then only for a week or so. Democracy it is called.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
From: VIZNYUK@MPS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (SERGEI VIZNYUK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Private letter from Latvia
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:42:00 GMT
Reply-To: "talk.politics.soviet via ListServ" <TPS-L@indycms.bitnet>

This is forwarded from INFO-RUSS:

> From: POLIKARPOV@MPGHDB.DESY.DE
>
> Below the letter I received from my friend - russian resident of Latvia.
> He is ethnic russian (not a jew) so he means situation of  russian
> minority.
> You can answer him to POLIKARPOV@mpghdb.desy.de
> (Now he is doing PostDoc in Germany)
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
> I am just coming from Latvia, situation in which is very similar to those in
 th
> e 30th in Germany. Can you help me and my frends with some information about
>  possiblities of emigration from this "nice" country? I wold be thankful to
 you
>  for any relevant information.                        With regards, Igor
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: Robert Conquest's _The Great Terror_F
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:59:36 GMT
Reply-To: "talk.politics.soviet via ListServ" <TPS-L@INDYCMS.BITNET>

In article <vzhivov.728115222@cunews>, vzhivov@alfred.carleton.ca (Vladimir
 Zhivov) writes:
>
>This thread has degenerated into verbal diarrhea - can we talk about
>something else; for instance, the shifting of Russian foreign policy
>more and more in support of Serbia.

SG      Have Marxist mass murderers, anywhere, been publically punished? I have
no knowledge of such events. I think they should be tried for mass murder. Of
course, Marxism remains influential among intellectuals and so they probably
won't be punished. Eg, E. Germany's Hoenecker was a Marxist dictator and yet we
are supposed to care that he is dying of cancer. He was part of the largest
mass murders in history. In justice, he should die. Perhaps, if mass murderers
are killed in sufficient numbers, mass murder will be less likely to occur. At
least, the failure to kill mass murderers will encourage more mass murder.
        Also, those who intellectually and politically protect mass murderers
must be publically damned and denied any respect.
________________________________________________________________________________
        "In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
From: pv02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PETER VOROBIEFF)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Gagging at the mess of mudlu genitals...
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:42:30 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

My killfile works again. No more mudlu followups from me!


-- 
---
Thus spake Kalmoth the Dreaded, Bane of the Forests of Gnoy.
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Bazooka for sale!
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:35:43 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee

In article <1k55gfINNq2@zikzak.apana.org.au> speednut@zikzak.apana.org.au (Mark Jose) writes:
>>As for your Hitler comment, that's nonsensical at best.  Are you saying 
that>>the Jews were better off for having died in misery WITHOUT much of a 
fight?>>I think logic and history would indicate that FEWER of them would 
have died>>had they been able to put up a fight to enable more of the rest 
to survive.>
>Don't be silly. Read what I said! Putting faith in your government will no
>more cause your demise than not doing so by arming yo
>that even if the Jews were fully armed, they would still not have been
>able to withstand the German assault.

How do you know that?

>
>Whether your "logic and history" can prove they may have survived is very
>dubious. Unless well trained I can't see how they could possibly fight off
>battle hardened soldiers and tanks. 

I submit to you the Viet Cong Guerillas and the Mujadeen Guerillas as 
counterexamples..  Both booted massive mechanized, trained, disciplied 
armies from their homelands.

They relied chiefly on homemade explosives and light rifles.

>>All those Iraqis SURRENDERED in large part.  If we'd been like the nazis,
>>they wouldn't have gone home again the way they did.
>
>And what of the 200,000 that died? Did they not believe that there
>government would support them? Did they not put their trust in their
>weapons to stop them being killed? Yes. What good did it do them when
>the "invading power" has better weaponry. I am sure if the US had
>wanted to eradicate the Iraqis, they could have done so whether the
>Iraqis had guns or not. See my point?

I see your point, but it is invalid.  See the above counter example.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:31:45 GMT

In article <9301240005.45@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.040118.10573@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>You seem to be the only person here who doesn't seem to think that there
>should be a quick check system in gun stores to eliminate criminals at
>the point of sale.

Kelly is confused.  I said that there doesn't seem to be any crime
control benefit to such a system.  It may, or may not, have other
benefits.  Some people are even known to support measures that have no
tangible benefits.

In fact, I have pushed for instant checks.

>With your strong ideals, why do you continue to live in a state that only
>gives CCW "to the very rich and well connected"?

Perhaps because I don't cut off my nose to spite my face.

-andy
--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: jbs@ranger.rti.org
Subject: Re: Text: New Brady Bill
Organization: Joe's Bar and Grill
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 15:01:39 GMT

In article <1k3fffINN6j7@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it seems to impose the law only
>on federally licensed dealers, distributors, manufacturors....
>in other words, it doesn't seem to apply to "casual," private transfers
>of firearms.
>Is this so?

This is so.  But look for state laws to take up that slack as soon as this
highly effective, world-saving piece of legislation is passed.  See
California's example of how well it will work.

  -joe
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:25:49 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <1jfaluINNt7b@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <9301171814.46@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>> You're right.  Aside from a quick go/nogo records check there probably
>> isn't any more that can be done.
>
>So do it, get rid of all the other bogus record-keeping, and that's it.
>And, for the "majority of the population," look at all the tax money 
>you've just saved not paying police chiefs to make useless rulings, not
>to mention reducing the four-month backlog at the Massachusetts State 
>Bureau of Laminating Small Official Objects.

It appears that the only way is to purge the legislature of all the
anti-gun votes.  This will take time.

I've rarely seen this state do anything that the people want.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:41:54 GMT

Jerry Hollombe writes:

[tons of stuff deleted]

>Of course safeties should be used when available.  I don't hesitate to
>point that out when I teach a course.  But to teach reliance on a

Hi Jerry.  I've been amused by the replies I've gotten to this thread.
They all seem to say the following:

     1. John you're wrong.  (Or in Andy's case, Van Etten you're
        wrong.) :-)

     2. Here's what I think.  (At which point the person spews forth a
        set of rules isomorphic to the ones which I've already stated
        that I agree with.)

     3. Oh, by the way, I think people should use safeties, too.

It strikes me that the only differences are that I think people should
be taught about safeties in a basic firearms safety course and use
them, and that the NRA is wrong to say (as paraphrased from C.D.
Tavares) "don't bother learning about them."  The rest of you seem to
be saying that you think people should know about safeties and use
them, and that the NRA is [somehow] right to not teach anything about
them.  Odd logic from where I sit.

Ad nauseum, I've never said rely on a safety.  Just use it if it's
there.  (It seems critical reading comprehension is down, based on the
number of folks that have tried to tell everyone that such is my
opinion.)  I've also never said that a gun with a safety on it is
somehow magically safe in some absolute sense.  We all know they can
fail.

Oh yes -- it does my heart good to know that you also cover safeties
when teaching a novice about guns, all joking aside.  Good work.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Guns and  Boston Crack Dealers (Was: Dressed for Rape)
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:57:35 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <1993Jan20.035101.10217@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <9301170234.48@rmkhome.UUCP> rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan11.233019.11807@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>In article <9301021305.12@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>>>   I believe there is some benefit in determining if a person is
>>>>>   psychologically able to take on the responsibility of owning
>>>>>   a handgun.
>>>
>>>What is that benefit?  I've cited evidence showing that there is no
>>>such benefit, so if Kelly wants to argue that there is, he gets to
>>>demonstrate it.
>>>
>>>Surely he's not going to make an "I'd feel better" argument.  My
>>>neighbors think that there's some benefit in going to their church.
>>>That doesn't translate into an obligation for me.
>>
>>You're right.  Five psychologists wouldn't be able to agree on a gun
>>buyers fitness.
>
>We're still waiting for the justification of Kelly's proposed restrictions.
>My neighbors are honest enough to admit that they want to save my soul....
>
>>I would just hope, If Massachusetts revamped it's gun laws tomorrow to
>>allow easy purchase by all citizens of some legal age, that they would
>>put provisions in the law to prevent various people from being sued if
>>the purchaser decided to do something anti-social.
>
>Huh?  Why would anyone be sued, other than the criminal?
>
>I am touched by Kelly's "I just want to protect people from being
>sued" feelings.  I'm waiting to see how that translates into "so,
>we'll jail them if they try to get a gun".

As I have recently said, I believe that the best possible thing to do
in Massachusetts is to have a go/nogo quick check system that would
eliminate the bias of elected officials.

However, if you break into my house in Mass, in the middle of the night,
and I kneecap you, the precedent has already been set for you to successfully
sue me for $100000.

A quick check system would probably also make the gun store owners liable
for civil suits.

If someone breaks into your house, blow them away.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: TIME is on the ropes, asks for forgive
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 03:59:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.181144.22328@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> gress@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (GRESS  JOSEPH JOHN  ) writes:

}  I don't know if this is still the case, but about 10 or 15 years ago there 
}was a connection between Outdoor Life and CBS TV.  We ended our subscription
}to Outdoor Life right when we found out and told them why.  They never wrote
}to deny a connection or claim that it was not an anti-gun connection, so
}I assume that they were not uncomfortable with us drawing that conclusion.

Interesting.  The local CBS station (KCBS -- the flagship, no less) has
seemed relatively reasonable about guns of late.  A few weeks ago, when
someone blew away a carjacker who attacked them, CBS simply reported the
facts, including that no charges were filed against the driver, in a
manner I judged to be neutral at worst.

The Fox affiliate, on the other hand, referred to the dead carjacker as
the "victim" (I nearly puked).  NBC didn't report the incident at all
(probably couldn't figure a way to make anti-gun hay out of it).

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                "If you can't stand solitude,
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483  perhaps others find you boring
Santa Monica, CA  90405                        as well."  -- Mark Twain
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Virginia's proposed gun-a-month law
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:56:47 GMT

In article <1946@tnc.UUCP>
m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:

>And now we have more ammo for the gun banners.

       I don't expect it will be any worse than any other shooting.
Anybody know what kind of rifle was used?

>Some nut started shooting people on the GW Parkway outside the CIA HQ
>on Monday, the day before the NRA bus trip to Richmond.

      What bus trip is this?

>Two dead, three injured, no perp.  I could understand if the person
>was shooting at the CIA, but why at motorists just passing by?  Police
>seem to think it was some sort of vendetta (see previous sentence).
>
>I hate conspiracy theories, but this is just a bit too pat to be
>coincidence.  We'll see how the bus trip goes, especially now that
>this story is front page large type in the Post.

       One way or another this reeks to high heaven.  Every witness
involved has remarked on the coolness and casualness of the shooter.
Add to that he's virtually disappeared.  Last I heard nobody had
even a scent of the guy.  I suppose the CIA is fairly good at
getting people mad at them.  What bothers me is that this guy sounds
like he either was experiance and competent at what he was doing,
or a complete and total psychopath.  And psychopaths historically
aren't any good at disappearing afterward.  (If it even occurs to
them.)
       I suppose we'll have to wait and see.  I heard a Senator
was there when it happened.  (The story actually had his name, but
I forget it.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (Mail to VEAL@utkmv1 will bounce)
University of Tennessee, Knoxville - Division of Constinuing Education
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite government program."
From: mic@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Marc Clarke)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 00:35:10 GMT
Subject: Re: Usefulness of weapons (was Re: Galen Disarms)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Ft. Collins, CO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

In talk.politics.guns, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

> I find it ironic that in Somalia US armed forces are removing guns
> from the population so as to promote stability, safety, and order,
> while in the US gun advocates are using the same line to justify
> owning whatever weapons they wish.
> 
> Ray Fischer   

Please note that the US government played no small role in the
originaly distribution of some of those arms to the Somalis, as part
of the US's containment policy directed toward the USSR.  Many, myself
included, would say that the US has had a direct role in causing the
anarchy running rampent in Somalia.
From: bd474@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill McDonald)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: "The coming shootout over guns"
Date: 21 Jan 1993 16:13:32 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bd474@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bill McDonald)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) says:

>First the author of the article says:
>
>>meant is that the American public had lost its last illusions about 
>>violence:  that it was essentially a problem of the inner city and the drug 
>>trade, and that the police could protect us from it.
>
>But then he concludes:
>	
>>.  A majority of 
>>Americans say they favor gun control, but that sentiment hasn't translated 
>>into political clout.  As the crisis worsens, however, watch for a mass 
>>movement to ban guns.
>
>One could equally, and perhaps more validly, arrive at the conclusion that, if the American public no longer feels that the police can protect it, that it will have to protect itself.
>
That's certainly been true in my case.  6 months ago I didn't have any
form of lethal force in my home.  The horror of South LA, coupled with
the courts' insistence that the police are not obligated to protect me
and my family, led me to conclude that I'd better make plans to take
care of myself.

I am now a staunch defender of my right to defend myself.  I don't want
to be that poor truck driver that got yanked out of his truck and beaten
to a pulp.

I am a lawful, tax-paying, ordinary middle class citizen of average
intelligence and I daily grow more alarmed at the rate our societal
fabric is unraveling.  I have no control whatsoever over the *BIG*
picture, but at least now I have a measure of personal control over what
happens on the micro scene...

McD
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Basis of Federal Gun Control [was Re: Text: New Brady Bill}
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:23:31 GMT

In article <1k4nhfINN96v@tamsun.tamu.edu> hmueller@orca.tamu.edu (Hal Mueller) writes:
>I was just musing over the question of what gives the FEDERAL government
>the right to regulate gun purchases.

The basis of much of it is the gov'ts power to raise taxes, e.g., the
National Firearms Act; that's why all the BATF is an agency of the
/Treasury/ Department.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
From: bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Clinton import ban
Date: 26 Jan 1993 11:49:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


I DID call BATF public affairs promptly at 0900 Monday, 1/5. I
talked to Tom Hill (with whom I've spoken many times), and he
called the State Department and called me back; there is no 
evidence that there is any gun ban in affect, though the dealer
who passed the word to me (a dealer who sells many SKS rifles)
claimed he heard it from an importer he identified as "VAL." O
I have never heard of them, but that's not surprising; I'm not 
a dealer.
Tom said he'd call me if anything new came up on the subject of
imports. That's the best I have as of Tues morning (1/26).
-- 
bb063@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu  Chris Crobaugh - (216) 327-6655 (V)
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin
From: miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Text: New Brady Bill
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:43:41 GMT
Organization: University of Kentucky, USA. -5 GMT


I stand corrected.
It does indeed allow the transfer if no word is heard from the chief.
Unlike the Form 4 situation which requires a signiture.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns