HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: uad1123@dircon.co.uk (Graeme Lyall)
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:49:44 GMT

livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

>In article <1992Jul20.215744.19000@Princeton.EDU>, kjcarey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kevin J. Carey) writes:
>|> 
>|> Exactly the same argument applies to the humbug the week before over the
>|> Independent's exposure that Virginia Bottomley had been an unwed teen
>|> mother - just after she had been lecturing the people on the evils of
>|> teen motherhood.
>
>This makes no sense.   Quite often, experiencing something is 
>*exactly* what you need to be a credible advisor to someone else.
>
>Do you really mean that if I am caught shoplifting as a teenager,
>I can't tell people later in life that it's a bad idea?
>
>And if I do tell someone shoplifting is a bad idea, does that
>mean that it's open season on my private life?
>
>jon.

It is not a perfect world when the press spend a lot of energy 
exposing minor sex scandals and ignore far more important stories. 
However the bottom line is that we have to know what the politicians 
are getting up to.  Mellor used photographs of his happy little 
family as propaganda only 3 months ago in the general election; 
that stinks, and must be exposed.  A privacy law would cover 
up this story, and many more too;  it would be a bad law.


Graeme Lyall    uad1123@dircon.co.uk  graeme@minerva.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Welcome to Hell
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 22:25:23 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA

In article <1992Jul29.202810.2871@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> satan@hell.gov  (Satan) writes:

>Room 2: Maynard and Ralph Winston attempt to get you to join b-cpu, and
>explain that Hitler wasnt that bad a guy, after all. Once again, you are
>allowed to respond, but ralph will savage your arguments by pointing out
>how all the 'evidence' you use is just an elaborate forgery on the part
>of the zionist controlled media.

>Room 3: Ed Nigles and Ralph Winston argue with each other for eternity. NO
>audience participation is allowed.

You neglected to mention the moderator, Jack Schmidling, who will enforce
his personal rules of honesty and integrity during these tedious
discussions.

-- 
"November 3, 1943, Code Name: Erntefest, Harvest Festival. Seventeen
thousand Jews, rounded up after the final collapse of the Warsaw Ghetto,
were machine-gunned. The victims were lined up in front of open ditches
which they had dug for their own graves." [Maidanek KL. Sachar]
From: S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Labels & censorship
Date: 21 Jul 92 10:35:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: iraul1.14gp90INN3rp
Organization: Fachschaft Informatik, Uni Karlsruhe
NNTP-Posting-Host: irav1.ira.uka.de
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

Whether labeling/rating constitutes censorship, depends on how it is
applied, you may say. True. But, as practice shows, once a rating
system is established, it will *inevitably* be used to impose or justify
some means of censorship.

Just an example. In Germany, there is the FSK (Freiwillige
Selbstkontrolle), an agency established by the film industry (! this
is important) for the purpose of film rating. They label movies simply
by age, eg. '12' means 'intended for persons above age 12'.

Now, this isn't just a recommendation. The Youth Protection Law
specifies that films rated by 'n' may legally be shown only to persons
above age 'n'. Unrated films may usually not be shown to persons under
age 18. By this means the FSK, *not* being a governmental agency, is
in a position to state legally enforcable rules. (I am no law scholar,
but this sounds *very* questionnable to me.)

An 18-rating has, in the public opinion, implications similar to the
American 'X'-rating. Like in the US, the film industry tries very hard
to avoid 18-ratings. It is *very* common practice to cut 'offending'
sequences (from seconds to half-hours; the German version of 'Akira'
is an example for the latter) out just to get a 16-rating (or to get a
rating at all, as no rating means usually 'XXX'). The public usually
knows *nothing* about that. The definition of 'offending' usually is
simple: sex or violence. There was a time when politics as third
criterion was around (yes, *after* WWII). The first version of
'Casablanca' shown in German theaters even had all scenes with Nazis
cut out! This time seems to be over, but left remaining *much*
headache about current practice, too.

Labeling may be intended to give guidelines, to parents maybe, but can
and will be used to give censor-lines.

MfG,	Olaf

--
rm .sig*  # Virus protection
                                                            o
Olaf Titz            \   s_titz@iravcl.ira.uka.de \        _/\
Y A comp.sc.student   \  uknf@dkauni2.bitnet       \      _//|_.
Uni Karlsruhe, Germany \ +49-721-60439@voice        \    (_)`(_) 
The empires of the future are empires of the mind. - Churchill
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 09:35:40 -0400 
From: Jeff Gates <jg58+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Nea a need *2*
	<1992Jul27.210959.21025@bradley.bradley.edu>

David Vessell (dave@bradley.bradley.edu) writes re the NEA:

>No one underwrote Vincent Van Gogh, or Salvador Dali, or M. C. Escher.
>Some masters were working as employees of the state, but most weren't.
>The government need not subsidize art unless it plans on utilizing it.

Masters like de Vinci and Michaelangelo were heavily subsidized by the
state (the Church in this case).  That relationship produced much of the
Renaissance art we enjoy today. It also gives us important information
about the time. 

DV> When you have kids, pass on to them the ability to be
>creative.  I know I will.  But we don't need the government to do that.

It does it ALL the time (what's all this talk about family values?!!).
The government can encourage dialog or discourage it. Dialog is
important in a free society. This administration is going out of its way
to discourage it.

DV> Give [artists] funding from social agencies.  Social programs are beyond
>the scope of the NEA.

Based on your definition, perhaps. However, a broader view of art
practice includes interaction with society (not just commentary or the
1950s attitude of "art for art sake."). Social programs which link art,
the notion of creativity, and artists are not beyond the NEAs scope.

Your byline explains a lot about your world view. I believe the
government has the responsibility to educate its citizens to think and
question. 

Best, Jeff



From: Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Nea = education
Date: 20 Jul 92  23:31:00 EST

      Dear Mr. Dippold,

      The NEA does more than occasionally help create a decent piece of art.  It is so often used to work with our youth.  Involving children with art helps give them a feeling of self-worth.
      The avante garde funding is much more rare but is still essential to help others see in ways that they have not seen before.
      I am a photographer, I am very capable of writing but often feel that within my photographs there is something being communicated that can not be done with words (or any other manner).

      Your 68 to 70 cents is so well used, it should be an example to the rest of government.

                          Thank you for your time,

                           Mark Sablow, aka Professor Atget

    "OH MY GOD!"  There is a Liberal artist runnin' AMUCK!!!

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: anton@gagme.chi.il.us (Andrzej Borowiec)
Subject: Re: Nea a need *2*
Originator: anton@gagme
Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:02:47 GMT

This is nothing personal, but does anyone knows what "Philistine" mean?

Andrzej A. Borowiec
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Organization: sgi
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 23:36:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.055941.10005@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>
> Jon's just pissed off becasuse he knows the ecconomy is headed 
> for the soup and theres no way Major and co can escape the blame.

Poor Phill.   So clueless.   The reality is that I bought Sterling
futures after the election at around $1.75 and sold them a couple
of weeks ago at around $1.88.

Oh yes, and I'm going to declare it on my taxes.   I always do.

jon.
From: Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Nea... a need
Date: 24 Jul 92  16:46:00 EST

     Mr. Dippold,

     Government does need to participate in the arts.  To a small portion in regards of the amount of money, perhaps, but it does need to encourage freedom of expression.

     Also, what about the educational value?  The NEA does much to encourage our youth to be involved in the arts. The arts gives them a feeling of self-esteem, & goes far in teaching how to go about problem solving.

     Don't be fooled!  The fundamentalist right-wingers, also know the danger of free expression (to their my way or no way attitude).  They also realize that art is a key battleground. Just check your history, a German guy named Aldolf Hitler, who was a rejected art student, took control of Germany while it was going through economic hardships.   He took absolute control of art!  Destroyed that which he disliked & felt was threat to his way.  Used it greatly for propaganda.

     On the positive side is America.  During our depression we used artists to decorate our government buildings. Photographer to document the plights of the time (i.e.; Dorthea Lange, Walker Evens, Ben Shan, etc.).  It helped keep government informed of the problems in a way that words could not.

     So when I say the NEA must live so Americans can live!,
 I am not shoveling "theatrics" at you.
     Besides I'm a photographer, not theater!

     My grandfather left a Russia under tsarist control, he had to or be killed.  He came to country for these ideals, & I'll be damned if I will give them up.

     Sure, the NEA for now, but you is next?  Pat Robertson, & others like him would love to have you believe that it is no big deal.... but we should all know better.

                                Professor Atget

                       aka "The Honest Frenchman"

  "Hide the kids, Ralph, I think I just saw a Liberal!"

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
From: satan@hell.gov (Satan)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Welcome to Hell
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:28:10 GMT
Organization: Hell


Welcome to Hell, readers of alt.censorship. Since your main offense on
earth was spending too much time reading the .net, we have special 
punishments for you. In fact, we are so nice, we will give you a 
choice of three rooms.

Room 1: Ed Nigles explains to you how racism is a system, the first
amendment doesnt cover hate speech, and how using killfiles is a form
of censorship that makes you a hypocrite. You are allowed to respond in
this one, but of course, you will never convince ed that he is wrong,
even on the slightest point.

Room 2: Maynard and Ralph Winston attempt to get you to join b-cpu, and
explain that Hitler wasnt that bad a guy, after all. Once again, you are
allowed to respond, but ralph will savage your arguments by pointing out
how all the 'evidence' you use is just an elaborate forgery on the part
of the zionist controlled media.

Room 3: Ed Nigles and Ralph Winston argue with each other for eternity. NO
audience participation is allowed.

Enjoy your stay in hell....

-Satan
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6063 soc.culture.british:10431
From: jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:33:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul21.123302.98021
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes
> kjcarey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kevin J. Carey) writes:
> |> Exactly the same argument applies to the humbug the week before over the
> |> Independent's exposure that Virginia Bottomley had been an unwed teen
> |> mother - just after she had been lecturing the people on the evils of
> |> teen motherhood.
> 
> This makes no sense.   Quite often, experiencing something is 
> *exactly* what you need to be a credible advisor to someone else.
> 
> Do you really mean that if I am caught shoplifting as a teenager,
> I can't tell people later in life that it's a bad idea?

If you were a politician, and you included your experiences in your
advice, you'd even get brownie points.  But if you *didn't* reveal
them, *and* then took the moral high road on the issue, then in the
current political climate you're being bloody stupid.  Secrecy about
past mistakes I can live with.  Moral pronouncements I can
occasionally stomach.  But politicians who are sufficiently brain-dead
to combine the two and imagine they can get away with it deserve all
they get, IMHO. 

> And if I do tell someone shoplifting is a bad idea, does that
> mean that it's open season on my private life?

Wake up and smell the investigative journalists, Jon.

Jonathan H.
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6173 soc.culture.british:10549
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 23 Jul 92 09:37:28 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <nkjr8l8@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

=>|> Why is the fact that he has slept with some woman important?
=>
=>It's not, but since the next election may not be for nearly
=>another five years, the losers have to have something to
=>complain about.  If they can't beat the government on its
=>policies, they'll just have to attack it on its sex life.

Interesting to note that the Mellor-is-an-adulterous-hypocrite saga
is today giving way to news that (surprise!!) the Tories are about
to renege on their election promises with regard to public spending.

=>|> How does this threaten the freedom of the press?
=>
=>It probably doesn't, unless the sore losers can provoke the
=>press to behave so badly that the public turn against them.
=>Then they'll blame the Tories for giving them the excuse to
=>provoke the Press to the excesses that turned the public 
=>against it.

Maybe there will be restrictions on the press that will prevent the
Daily Express from printing the details of a small girl's health
problems after being given her name by Conservative Central Office? 
Naah.

-- 
-Jeremy Henderson        egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk   

(or am I?)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Organization: sgi
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 00:36:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.200203.20658@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>
> What I don't support is the idea that the Press should not be 
> allowed to report it. I suspect that given your libertarian 
> principles you possibly did not realise that this is what was 
> being suggested.

On the contrary, I'm sure that at any given moment in time, 
someone somewhere is suggesting this.

Now, are you going on record that this is a serious legislative
proposal?   Bill number?   White paper title?

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:33:18 -0400 
From: Jeff Gates <jg58+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Nea a need *2*
	<1992Jul27.125854.21993@hubcap.clemson.edu>

Mike Percy writes re the NEA:
"Especially considering that it's just a subsidy to people and activities
who's product is not fiscally appealing enough to fund itself, or that
some of the product can support themselves, so why do they need
subsidies?

Instead of thinking of art as "product" (and therefore trying and fit it
into a market system) lets think of the creation of art as "process"
where how the artist creates is as important (if not more so) as the
products he/she makes.

If art is to be considered important in this society, we should focus of
how one can pass on creativity to others. Artists are in a prime
position to do so. We do at least one thing where no one is telling us
what to do (the making of our art). That is a very empowering
experience. When we pass the ability to be creative on to children and
others who, for various reasons have been marginalized, we are working
to build self-esteem. (I don't think I need to diagram the ramifications
low self-esteem has in our culture.)

There are many artists who are working in this manner in the communities
they inhabit. As an art administration fellow at the NEA two years ago,
I wrote a report on interaction between artists-run organizations and
the communities they live in. The social programs that many of these
artists are developing are in many ways superior to other social
programs instituted by local, state and federal agencies. AND much of
this is being done with money from the NEA.

Best,
Jeff Gates
ArtFBI 



Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6220 soc.culture.british:10599
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:56:09 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <1992Jul23.120053.10810@tcom.stc.co.uk>, bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro) writes:
|> In article <nkjr8l8@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <2397@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> Who is Mellor?
|> >
|> >He's a person who naturally infuriates the supporters of the 
|> >party that lost the last election so badly.
|> 
|> Why "so badly". The figures show that it was the best election result for
|> the Labour Party since Thatcher won in 1979. Looks like an improvement to
|> me.

Why "so badly"?   "So badly" because they lost after trumpeting
the certainty of their win.

"So badly" because losing threw them into a debate about their
very future, whether they ought to merge with the centre-left
Party.

"So badly" because they even felt constrained to fire their
Leader and get a new one.

"So badly" because it's their fourth loss in a row.

"So badly" that they are now falling back on the old classic
defensive line of "Hey, we didn't really lose as badly as last
time".

jon.
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6383 soc.culture.british:10801
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:11:10 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)

>mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>
>>Well, think about the state of the UK economy. The slump is
>>worsening - there is no sign of the recovery that has been
>>supposed to be just around the corner ever since 1988 when the
>>then Chancellor described the start of the slump as a "blip"
>
>Bzzzzzt. Memory fault Matthew. Chancellor Lawson was referring to what
>"the teenage scribblers in the City" were writing about a potential
>inflationary boom. I can't remember which figures made them suspect that
>such a boom was beginning (money supply aggregates?) but Lawson passed
>them of as "a blip". The recession seems to be the downside of the
>inflationary boom that this blip somehow grew into.....

Where is the memory fault? In order to squash the "blip" in the
inflation rate, interest rates were raised and kept raised
while the blip obstinately refused to disappear. People and
businesses found that they couldn't keep up with their debts,
and the whole Thatcher boom collapsed. To make things worse,
Major as Chancellor locked Britain into the European Exchange
rate mechanism in the hope that this would enable interest
rates to be lowered to the European average, but since he
locked the pound in at an overvalued rate has been forced to
keep interest rates high to prevent it slipping below the
agreed floor.

My only fault was in describing the blip itself as the start of
the slump. The inflationary pressures which caused it were the
inevitable response to government foolishness in allowing house
prices to rise at an unsustainable rate based on excessive
borrowing. Thus the seeeds of the current slump were planted in
the early years of the Thatcher government.

Matthew Huntbach
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6061 soc.culture.british:10426
From: Christopher.Carne@brunel.ac.uk (Christopher J Carne)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 21 Jul 92 10:39:26 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, West London, UK

In article <1992Jul20.150659.7736@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>Funny isn't it? All those years of hearing from the Conservative party
>that familly values are the way to save the nation. Now one of their
>ministers has been caught with his trousers down the cry is `Invasion of
>Privacy'.
>
>If Mellors wife can't trust him how can we?
>
>If Mellor does not beleive in family values shurely there is no place
>for him in the cabinet of the self proclaimed party of family values.
>
>The issue here is not marital fidelity, it is hypocricy. We have an
>absolute right to know if a minister is a hypocrite.
>
>
>The establishment sees this differently,  Mellor who has spent his life
>trying to get publicity is now trying to limit the press to only certain
>kinds of publicity. In order to protect this mans feelings we must have
>a law to gag the press. Why should Mellors feelings be protected by
>legislation when he has demonstrated how little he regards the feelings
>of his wife?
>
>After the Maxwell scandal showed how the libel laws are used by crooks
>to prevent the truth being told about them we should be increasing press
>freedom, not reducing it to save the feelings of those who seek public
>support and take money from the public purse.
>
>
>Phill Hallam-Baker

I'd agree with most of this, although I suspect my pleasure in 
all this is the usual schadenfreude mixed with incredulity. I mean
what is it about being a Tory minister that makes a young actress
want to screw with a fat middle-aged man like Mellor.

Latest update: Kelvin Mckenzie (Editor of the Super Soaraway Sun)
has alleged that during the election he was approached by 'a senior
Tory' who wished him to run a story about Paddy Ashdowne and his
(five) affairs. Now our Kelvin has been a dear friend of the Tories
over many years, so presumably there some substance in the story.
What suprises me is the claim that this only happened once and that
the right-wing tabloids don't run Tory Central Office propoganda
as a matter of course. 

"One cannot hope to bribe or twist,
Thank God, the British journalist,
But seeing what the man will do,
Unbribed there's no occassion to"


Chris
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6328 soc.culture.british:10716
From: johnf@apollo.hp.com (John Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:39:57 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <24153@castle.ed.ac.uk> egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson) writes:
>No, it's not a special deal for politicians, it's a deal for everyone
>who pushes themselves under the public eye, a prime example being
>Pee-Wee Herman!
>
Shouldn't that be "who pulls themselves under the public eye" ?
-- 
John Francis                                johnf@apollo.hp.com
The world can be divided into two classes :-
 those who divide people into two classes, and those who don't.
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6062 soc.culture.british:10429