HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.activism,sci.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism.d,talk.environment
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Rio and streetkids
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:12:55 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <13Q-T4=@engin.umich.edu> blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark ) writes:
>In article <1992Jul16.202241.6746@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul1.014415.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:

>>>	Do you have proof the it was at the behest of the environmentalists,
>>>cos we *know* how much they hate people...right?!?

>>I never said it was at the behest of the environmentalist.  Please
>>don't put words in my mouth.  It's a very immature debating topic.

>>What I do contend is that eny environmentalist with two brain cells to
>>rub together knew this would happen and that their precious Rio
>>conference was important enough that they did not care.

>Hmm... so it's an immature debating tactic to put words in your mouth, but
>it's acceptable for you to put thoughts in their heads?

In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, "There you go again."

Do you understand the concept of a straw man?  If so, stop playing
immature games.  If not, hit the books.

>Automobile companies know that some people die every year in their cars.
>Yet they continue to make cars.  Does that mean that their profits are
>important enough that they don't care?

Nope.  The benefits are important enough that none of us care.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: mark@cambridge.apple.com (Mark Preece)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Third Parties
Date: 17 Jul 92 20:39:23 GMT
Organization: Apple ATG

A journalist friend of mine is looking for information on 
people trying to form national third parties (that is, efforts
organized not simply around electing a particular candidate
in a particular election, but around creating a viable 
national political party.) If you have any information 
(especially name & address of a contact person), please 
let me know. 

Many thanks. (I'll post her article when it's done.)

Mark Preece
mark@cambridge.apple.com
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13472 alt.individualism:4579 sci.econ:6535 talk.politics.misc:35897
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Tax credits & subsidies (was Re: Libertarian history)
Date: 25 Jul 92 01:08:20 GMT
Reply-To: /dev/null
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link

In article <92201.165243HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>,
   <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>I made no assumption that B's rate would be increased. Your error
>is in failing to comprehend what you read. I wrote that B's rate
>would increase *relative to A's*. The word "relative" is crucial,
>and your obstinacy in failing to recognize it, and hence to misstate
>materially what my argument was, amounts to dishonest argument.

  Your obstinacy in clinging to an already thoroughly refuted idea
-- namely the idea that "relative" rates have any significance
whatsoever -- is far more dishonest than anything I might have
written.  If that was the entire content of your thesis, I would have
simply ignored it as net.noise   As it was, you were saying a great
deal more and making several strong claims which deserved refutation.
Based on the email I've seen, it would appear that my response was
convincing to a lot of people.

  That it is not convincing to you is immaterial to me.
--
  Robert Bickford        /-------------------------------------\
  rab@well.sf.ca.us      | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                         \-------------------------------------/
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13201 talk.politics.misc:34868
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: AF/ATS: The history of the Red Army Fraction (RAF)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 20 Jul 92 23:45:36 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: canabilism: it isn't just for breakfast anymore!

In article <NEERI.92Jul20233025@iis.ethz.ch>, neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
> In article <1992Jul20.161609.26645@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul20.024354.2700@uvm.edu> aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum) writes:
...
>>>     In August, the George Jackson Commando of the RAF/AD
>>>attacked the Rhein-Mein Air Base due to its role as "a centre for
>>>war against the Third World." In order to gain access to the
>>>airbase, the RAF executed an American G.I. and used his I.D. card
>>>to get them in.
>>
>>In particular, mind explaining why this killing was anything but a
>>cold blooded murder?
> 
> It's probably quite simple to explain using the RAF mindset: The soldier had
> the possibility to join the revolution (which is slightly complicated by the
> fact that the RAF has never explained what they were fighting *for*). By
> refusing that chance, he committed a crime for which he was "executed".
> 
>>If the RAF is justified in killing its enemies
>>then why shouldn't the Germans and the US kill RAF members on sight
>>instead of trying to arrest them?
> 
> Because the RAF shouldn't get to set the standards. Are you suggesting that the
> police should have killed and eaten Jeffrey Dahmer ?

	Mmmmm. *BURP*.  Pass me a leg, will you?  Where the heck did that BBQ
sauce go?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13730 talk.politics.misc:36577 soc.culture.latin-america:2774
From: vhspet01@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Peter van Heusden)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: HISTORY LESSON: Chomsky on Cuba
Date: 30 Jul 92 10:11:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: uctvax.1992Jul30.081153.202154
Organization: University of Cape Town

article <1992Jul28.193602.4123@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> In article <1992Jul28.155656.28226@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>>|>  Phill, could you tell us how/why do you know what the expectations
>>|>or
>>|>  aspirations of the Cuban people are?
>>They have not risen up in the way the US would like for the past 25 odd years.
> 
> Why was this argument not used against sanctions against South Africa?
> --
Because the SA people clearly rose up! They were crushed, that is true, but
is there any Cuban analogy to Soweto 76? The action of 85,86? Sharpeville in
1961? The Cuban people may resent their leaders, but it doesn't show nearly as
much as in South Africa.

Peter

*******************************************************************************
Peter van Heusden              "She was screaming as she fell
UCTVAX, Cape Town                But I never heard her hit"
vhspet01@uctvax.uct.ac.za                                  Violent Femmes
*******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13336 soc.motss:32293 talk.politics.misc:35548 alt.individualism:4478
From: bill@falcon.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:46:02 GMT
Reply-To: bill@platypus.uofs.edu
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: University of Scranton, Scranton, PA

In article <1992Jul21.194625.18019@tss.com>, burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
|> 
|> I don't want to go back to living in a society where people can be denied
|> a life.
|> 

He was not being denied a life.  He was being denied a life in that town.

I personally find it hard to believe that anyone would "choose" to live in
a place that was likely to be openly hostile to them.

I also believe that the right of association works both ways.  No one should
be able to tell me who I CAN associate with and no one should be able to tell
me I MUST associate with anyone.

bill

-- 

     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Masturbation to Ayn Rand
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:52:30
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: monnier@csa1.lbl.gov's message of 26 Jul 92 00:24:28 GMT

> Sometimes I feel that alt.activism should be renamed
> alt.support.libertarians.guilt . . .

=o= Now you've done it.  There's going to be an avalanche of
messages telling you the differences between libertarianism
and Randroidism.  Hey folks, can you take it to talk.politics.
theory or somesuch?

=o= Perhaps there should be a {L|l}ibertarian newsgroup (aside
from alt.politics.marrou, that is).  I'd support anything that
would help cut down on the incessant unending non-activist
discussions being posted to this newsgroup.
    <_Jym_>
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13705 soc.motss:33036 talk.politics.misc:36535 alt.individualism:4727
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:05:40 GMT

In article <l7asqbINNh8g@spim.mips.com>, mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
} |> : And, why should they have to? Why should I be required to sell my goods,
} |> : which I own until you pay me for them, to you if I do not wish to do so?
} |> : There are others that will sell to you, if I do not - maybe I do not like
} 
} Because as a business person you have protection and support from the community.
} Your police/fire protection, the roads, parking, etc are all paid for by
} the community, including blacks.  If you want to spend their taxes, they have
} a right to expect you to deal with them.

But the rest of the commumity also gets those same services which are also paid
for by that same business person.  So, neither owes the other anything.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.activism.d
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Tuesday, 28 Jul 1992 23:38:05 MST
From: <AZNOS@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: CHILD SHOT
Distribution: world


qqui t
qquit

QQUIT
....
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13362 soc.motss:32331 talk.politics.misc:35609 alt.individualism:4496
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
From: dsims@thor.ece.uc.edu (David Sims)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:53:06 GMT
Organization: University of Cincinnati

An irrelevant human named dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) wrote:
>In article <archer.127@utkux1.utk.edu> archer@utkux1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>
>>So, you anti-liberty types don't believe that individual people are capable 
>>of acting in an enlightened manner, and must be forced to do so by a benign 
>>statist government.
>
>Actually, what I seem to notice is that almost every libertarian I know
>is a white heterosexual middle-to-upper class male.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
C'mon!  Let's be a little more specific.  It's white heterosexual
middle-to-upper class males WITH USENET ACCESS. :=)
-- 
David Sims                      Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
dsims@thor.ece.uc.edu           University of Cincinnati
(513) 556-2499                  Cincinnati OH  45221-0030
                                USA
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13487 alt.conspiracy:9389 alt.conspiracy.jfk:2672
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Saturday, 25 Jul 1992 03:11:51 CDT
From: <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: How easy was the rifle shot?
 <14pnh4INNnlj@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>

add to this:

1) Benavide's WC testimony to the effect that LHO was famous with his marine
   buddies for getting maggies drawers (missing the target completely) most
   of the time.  He was considered a joke on the rifle range.  Benavides was
   also the marine who implied that rather than have to go through a lot of
   aggravation, LHO was given that "marksman" rating (one point of above
   failing) and didn't really earn it.  Take note that these guys were
   assigned radar operator MOS's and didn't really feel they needed to be
   crack shots.

2) Robert, LHO's brother, in his book states that LHO was always a lousy shot
   when they went hunting together.  these hunting excursions occured both
   before and after LHO came back from the USSR.  He speculated that
   the only way LHO could have been able to come close to making those
   shots was for him to have done a lot of practicing.  He was disappointed
   when the WC didn't look hard enough into whether LHO had
   practiced on a range or elsewhere.  One should remember at this point,
   how rusty and unused the FBI reported the rifle's condition to be in
   when they inspected it in their labs.  It gave every appearance of
   having been abandoned in that damp garage for an extended length of time.

3) In published documents and in Koppel's special on the KGB/Oswald files,
   both KGB and acquaintances of LHO reported that he was such a bad shot
   when he joined hunting club outings that they, unknown to him, doubled
   his shots, so they could all have a turn and get home at a reasonable
   time.  That is, they shot at the same rabbit from behind him to insure
   the kill.


Many in this newsgroup have stated that the distance and logistical factors
of the 6th floor window to Elm st. wasn't a hard shot to make.  I can also
see the argument made for the uselessness of supposing that the shots need
some gauge of easiness or the ability of the shooter.  This would imply that
LHO could have pointed the rifle in the right direction, closed his eyes,
and fired away, resting the death of a President on dumbluck like some
movie/comedy.  It is possible but would you want to base your understanding
of the case on such a highly improbable event.
No.  It is germaine to the case that LHO was a lousy shot.  It is also
germaine that the WC went through hoops to avoid this conclusion and
tried to present us with an LHO who was some kind of crack shot.
And no matter how easy you want to make the shot, you have to deal with
the fact that LHO probably couldn't hit the side of a barn.
ALAN ROGERS
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:32:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.134630.14314@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> bobh@troy.UUCP () writes:
>>--  Dr. Michael P. Deignan (deg.pend.)      /   "Its okay dear,
>
>Ok, all flames aside, what *does* it mean? 

Well, about the only thing I can think of on the serious side is
that somebody may have defended their dissertation and has submitted
the document to the graduate school, yet hasn't actually received
the diploma in the ceremony yet.  

Drew 
--
drew betz : wj8k : dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   
"Our campaign is the opposite of 'competence.'"
- Clinton aide Eli Segal, quoted in the 7/22/92 _Wall Street Journal_ 
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.activism.progressive
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: 'terrorists' vs. 'freedom-fighters'
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:02:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.150625.25828@uvm.edu> aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum) writes:

>Hmm...the FMLN guerrillas were strict adherents to international modes of 
>conduct;

Um, during the 1989 offensive (which ended a year of FMLN killing of
civilians including a Jesuit priest) the FMLN forced civilians to stand
in front of them holding white flage while the FMLN troops used them as
shields to fire behind. One couple was forced to walk back and forth in
front of a picture window during a fire fight to discourage Salvadoran
troops from returning fire.

Are you actually saying that this activity adheres to international
rules of warfare? Do you actually believe that?

  Allen

PS. Harel will tell you that the people are behind the FMLN. The above 
    incidents show that the people are actually IN FRONT of the FMLN.

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------270 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.activism:13245 misc.headlines:4946 alt.politics.elections:8802 talk.politics.misc:35145
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Universal Wages   was Libertarian history
Summary: The wage goes with the performance, not the job
Date: 26 Jul 92 21:12:36 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Jul24.165130.29374@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>In article <1992Jul15.215112.12549@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul10.195513.15397@leland.Stanford.EDU> dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:


>>I have argued that a freemarket type principle might define what
>>a wage is for a particular amount of work; but that that amount
>>of work should be paid the same worldwide. Isn't that the 
>>"free" market way?

>Well, it could be.  You see, the amount that someone is willing to pay
>for a certain amount of work depends on how wealthy they are, and
>how desperate they are to hire a particular person, which depends
>on the amount of local competition for that laborer.

>So, the free market determines that wages will never be exactly the
>same anywhere for the same amount of work, unless there is uniform
>wealth and capital distribution worldwide.  As it currently stands,
>there are some nations which are capital-rich, and some which are
>capital-poor.  Wages are high in the former, and low in the latter.

It should very definitely not be the case even then.  A job description
does not determine the pay; how well the worker does the job should be
a major factor.  Even in assembly line work, there was a difference in
quality.  But this type of work is, and should be, vanishing.  When I
take my car to be worked on, I do not care how long the mechanic takes,
but on how the job is done.  And I should pay accordingly.  If a master
mechanic finds the problem in 10 seconds, and a clunker takes an hour,
I should not pay the clunker 360 times as much for labor.  It is not 
even clear if he should be paid as much as the master.  And if the 
clunker does not find out what the problem is, it is he who should pay
for keeping my car unusable.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:24:32 GMT

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
: |> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: |> : 
: |> : And, why should they have to? Why should I be required to sell my goods,
: |> : which I own until you pay me for them, to you if I do not wish to do so?
: |> : There are others that will sell to you, if I do not - maybe I do not like
: 
: Because as a business person you have protection and support from the community.
: Your police/fire protection, the roads, parking, etc are all paid for by
: the community, including blacks.  If you want to spend their taxes, they have
: a right to expect you to deal with them.

Ah. But, you are talking about present society - not a libertarian society.
Also, there are people who feel that the government should not be involved
in such things as fire-protection, parking etc - but should be run by private
businesses. Many also feel that the police are doing, and are expected to do,
far more than they should - their function should be protecting life and
property and nothing more.

I do not want to spend their taxes. I also do not mind everyone having their
fair share of the services these taxes pay for. However, these taxes do not
pay part of my costs of running a business. More than likely, I would be
paying far more in taxes than the services I am getting for those payments.

: |> But all too recent history proves that it's not true. The reality of the
: |> South in the 1950s is that there often was no one else that would sell to
: |> Blacks.  
: |> 
: |> : "white monkeys" in my store. Now, if no one will sell to you, then you
: |> : have a reason for complaint.
: |> : 
: |> But under libertarianism, there would be no one to complain to, and no 
: |> mechanism for complaining.  And that's exactly why libertarianism, while 
: |> wonderful in theory, would in reality be a nightmare for minorities.  

Not without laws that require such discrimination.  In the south, there were
many businesses that would have ignored the "Jim Crow" laws, if they had been
allowed to by the law and the racists. It was because of the local governments
that they were not able to do so.

In a libertarian society, a store owner would be protected so that he could
sell to whomever he pleased. Racists and hate-mongers would not be able to
shut him down or burn him out with impunity.

Bill

Xref: sparky alt.activism:13807 talk.politics.misc:36805 alt.individualism:4799
From: rravelo@asturias.acs.uci.edu (Ray Ravelo)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: HISTORY LESSON: Chomsky on Cuba
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:01:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

In article <15571@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez007856@hamlet.ucdavis.edu writes:
>In article <BrwssK.1IC@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) 
>writes:

>As as inescrupulous capitalist who is seeing the competition devour the 
>tourist dollars in Cuba, or make inroads into smaller markets you could also 
>wait until friendly forces to your own government take control of the Cuban 
>government and establish trading policies that favor your own markets which 
>are 90 miles away.  These political interests will eventually bump out all 
>remaining investments and, with your large petty bourgeois exile community, 
>the smaller markets will end up favoring U.S. capital and force all others to 
>concede your monopoly over the Cuban economy.  If others want to risk their 
>capital in hotel investments in Cuba, they may do so at their own risk. So, if 
>you pardon the lack of morals (which was present ab initio in your own 
>posting), the option of driving the Castro government to its knees, and later 
>winning it all for yourself is much better than investing in a politically 
>unstable ex-soviet colony.

 I'm not sure that scenario will hold much water. I think and or hope
 the we Cubans learned our lesson(s) from both, pre-Castro's governments
 and from Castro's. We should never again allow any monopoly to take over
 our economy, even if it's just 90 miles away.
--
Ray I. Ravelo                 "We're your opposition, Mr. Castro, we 10 million
Office of Academic Computing.  Cubans who look around us in terror"
UC, Irvine.                    from the open letter to Castro by M.E. Cruz-Varela
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism