HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: kill files and pointy heads (was Re: PORTLAND: American Front...)
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 19:51:30 EST

In article <1992Dec27.234117.4806@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>
>>I've many times told people both how to use kill files, general, and how
>>to kill b-cpu posts, in particular.  Can you please explain what's
>>wrong with this?
>
>Nothing wrong with the former, but I _do_ think there's something wrong
>with the latter, unless an individual has specifically asked you for this
>information.
>
>
>>Please explain how teaching someone how to kill b-cpu posts is censorship.
>
>Because you are targeting, in an organized fashion, one particular party in
>pursuit of your own special agenda ... and this can be used as justification
>for others to do the same for _their_ reasons, in the future.

Justification??  What nonsense are you talking about.  If I post

--If you don't want to read the junk coming from b-cpu, you can just add
--
--  /b-cpu/h :j
--
--to your kill file to kill all articles in which "b-cpu" appears in the
--header.

then who is being hurt?

I'm spreading some basic information, that I expect to be of interest to
a number of people.

Nobody is *forced* to add the line to their kill file, and nobody is prevented
from posting their material.

If you tell people to put /greeny/h :j into their kill file, that's fine too.
Those who don't want to read my posts, won't have to bother junking them
manually.


>Believe me, enough people have been disgusted by B-CPU to _want_ to learn how
>to use killfiles, as repugnant as the concept is to many. It seems to me that
>y'all don't know how to wait and let the consensus _form_, you have to try to
>_force_ a consensus ... and that hurts everyone in the long run.

Sorry.  There's no question in my mind that, when b-cpu was last flooding
alt.censorship [where I happened to find them] with its posts, there *was*
a consensus, and many people were interested in this information.

But regardless, the fact that there was a consensus has nothing to do with
it.  Since we are talking about an *individual* choice that each *individual*
makes for himself, it doesn't matter one iota what the hell anybody else
thinks.

The fact that I kill all b-cpu posts does not affect *anybody* else in any
manner such that they should have say as to whether or not I may do so.



>>Your statements just don't make any sense.
>
>Wait a few years. Maybe you'll see my point.

I don't think so, unless you mean the one on your head... :)


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [soc.culture.indian]  DEADLINE TO STOP OBSCENE POSTINGS!
Followup-To: alt.censorship,soc.culture.indian
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:21:01 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

From: dpereira@umiami.ir.miami.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject:  DEADLINE TO STOP OBSCENE POSTINGS!
Date: 3 Jan 93 13:58:44 EST

				MEMO
				----


TO:	Deepak Bose, Deb Chatterjee, Mustafa Ibrahim, anonymous obscene posters,
	others who post *really* obscene and offensive material

FROM:	D. Pereira and others,
	Indignant and frustrated readers

REF:	DEADLINE TO STOP POSTING OFFENSIVE OR RACIST MATERIAL ON 
	SOC.CULTURE.INDIAN


After Tuesday, January 5, 1992 at midnight, if I see *any* postings or replies
to postings that are offensive, racist or intolerable to me, I will forward 
copies to your respective system administrators, who will then decide what 
action, if any, to take against you.  In effect, it will be your sys ads who 
will then determine if the material is unsuitable for public medium, not me.
He/she may then decide whether you should be denied write access to USENET or
be further penalized. (Some of the postings seen recently may even be used as
evidence for civil/criminal litigation.)

If any other sci readers out there decide to support this action, then please
express your opinion.  A suggestion: extract this memo and post it again under
your own name.  Do please take the effort to type the SUBJECT heading over,
rather then doing a REPLY.  This way you will convey to the offenders that you
feel as strongly about this.

A final note to the persons mentioned above - please take this very seriously.
It is NOT a joke.

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.privacy
From: davew@willow03.cray.com (Dave Wagner)
Subject: Re: Censors--must be the new year
Originator: davew@willow03
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 30 Dec 92 11:09:20 CST


[longwinded proposal that somehow Clinton is responsible for some anal-retentive
 type sending email to some sysadmin]

Boy, it must be nice to live in such a black-and-white world where everything
is instantly clear to be morally wrong or right.  Sigh.
-- 
Dave Wagner                               "Tongue-tied and twisted,
davew@cray.com , uunet!cray!davew          just an earth-bound misfit, I"
(612) 683-5393                                  -- Pink Floyd
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.privacy
From: davew@willow03.cray.com (Dave Wagner)
Subject: Re: Censorship == Politically Correct (was Re: Censors--must be the new year)
Originator: davew@willow03
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 30 Dec 92 14:54:07 CST


> 
> >	Anytime you organize a group of people to 'boycott', 'isolate', or
> >'ostracize' someone, you are practicing 'censorship'.  As the group
> >practicing the censorship becomes larger, the punishments can become
> >more severe -- until, if the group is large enough, it becomes 'the will
> >of the people' (law).  
> 
> Um... no.  An organized boycott by individuals is a legitimate persuasion 
> technique.  "We will not associate with you so long as you "X".  For we do 
> not wish to associate with people who "X"."  Only the govnernment can censor.
> 
I agree.  Furthermore, I am constantly befuddled by people saying that 
a company is wrong in not carrying certain newsgroups and that this is
censorship and they shouldn't be allowed to do that.  It isn't.  It's a
company making a policy, just like most (computer) companies probably get
a couple subscriptions to various publications, but not Playboy.  I'd also
stretch this to include universities - they have a limited amount of resources
and it is up to the people charged with allocating them as to how they are
used.  Students may boycott or picket or whatever (peacefully) to get their
point across and if there is enough outcry, then the policy will change on
it's own.  It still is not in anyway government-type censorship.
-- 
Dave Wagner                               "Tongue-tied and twisted,
davew@cray.com , uunet!cray!davew          just an earth-bound misfit, I"
(612) 683-5393                                  -- Pink Floyd
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:9772 talk.politics.misc:65914 alt.privacy:2796 alt.sex:40677
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.privacy,alt.sex
Subject: Re: To boycott is not to censor
Date: 31 Dec 1992 22:58:40 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1992Dec31.201703.1848@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>is not to censor.  To censor is to use force or threat of force to
>either prevent a person from speaking or to prevent a potential
>audience member from hearing that person speak.<*>  
---
	So when a network censor refuses to show something that is too
explicit, he is threatening force?  When the government takes away the
liquor license of an establishment that shows erotic dancing, that is
use of force?  Your definition is faulty.  No use of force is required
for censorship.


>I've seen the statement "Only governments can censor" bandied about in
>these threads; I think that's generally but not absolutely true.
---
	Huh?  I would have to disagree.  If I refuse to print something in
my newspaper or magazine -- that is censorship.  The government doesn't
do alot of censorship in our society (its unconstitutional) -- most
censorship is done by private organizations where it is legal and it
requires no force or threat there-of.

-wat-

p.s. -- I change the newsgroup line back, since we don't get alt.politics.misc.
--
1935 will go down in history.  For the first time, a civilized nation has
full gun registration.  Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient,
and the world will follow our lead into the future.
                         --Adolf Hitler
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Censorship History 
From: hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Phil Anderson)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 08:07:30 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Lethargy Inc.


In article <1992Dec22.055408.15883@lunatix.uucp> chelf@lunatix.uucp writes:

  > Can anyone answer a question for me?  What is the history of censorship?  

Prepare yourself for a visit to a library. A long visit. Very long.

Seriously, any decent library will have quite a bit of material on the 
topic - check the subject index. It's not something that can be 
covered in anything short of multiple volumes.

 ----------------------------------------------
 Phil Anderson  ***  hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz
 ----------------------------------------------
       "No-one is equal to anyone else!"
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:9736 alt.privacy:2748 alt.sex:40178
From: bell-peter@yale.edu (Peter Bell)
Newsgroups: alt.tasteless.jokes,alt.censorship,alt.privacy,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Black Jokes
Date: 23 Dec 92 17:18:03 GMT
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

In article <1992Dec23.160409.21827@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>	Sigh.  Who can say how many idiots there are who think themselves
>	the Defenders Of The Net?
>

<net police behavior from apparent newbie  bls deleted>
>>bls
>
>
>	In other words, yet another asshole giving out addresses and such.
>

unfortunately, there are two of you doing it... why are so few people who
read this group able to use their bloody editors???!!!!  The first time the 
info went up , I thought it was a *poor idea* to have posted it.  You ap-
parently agree, but then go on to repost the info.....
Peter
bell@minerva.cis.yale.edu
Newsgroups: alt.tasteless.jokes,alt.censorship,alt.privacy,alt.sex
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Black Jokes
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:04:09 GMT


	Sigh.  Who can say how many idiots there are who think themselves
	the Defenders Of The Net?


	(Please read)

In article <BzpooL.L0t@news.iastate.edu> tndf6@isuvax.iastate.edu writes:
>IMPORTANT NOTE FOLLOWS THIS REPEAT .....
>
>In article <1h4loiINNp7@fnnews.fnal.gov>, behnke@FNALF.FNAL.GOV writes:
>>In article <1992Dec21.035554.27461@lunatix.uucp>, kwill@lunatix.uucp (Kelvin Williams) writes:
>>
>>>Well let me tell you all something..  I am a black person, and I do not find 
>>>that funny in any kind of way.  In fact I find it kind of STUPID for ANY 
>>>person to say that.
>>
>>CUT SOME SLACK, YOU WORTHLESS PIECE OF PUSS OOZING, VERMIN ATTRACTING, LOWER
>>THAN POND SCUM, SORRY ASSED REASON FOR A HUMAN.  I'M BLONDE AND I DON'T THROW
>>A HISSY WHEN I READ ALL OF THE BLONDE JOKES ON THIS CHANNEL.  IN FACT, I RATHER
>>ENJOY THEM.  GIVES ME YET MORE REASONS TO OUT-PERFORM THE REST OF MY LAZY
>>*AFRO-TURF* TOPPED CO-WORKERS, WHO WOULD RATHER PICK THIER TEETH WITH A PIECE
>>OF COTTON STALK RATHER THAN HONESTLY WORK FOR THEIR PAY.
>>
>>
>>
>>-- GRAVITY DOESN'T WORK !!!!!
>>
>>-- THE EARTH SUCKS !!!
>>
>
>My being a former U.S. government employee I strongly suggest that all persons
>who are even vagely upset by this write directly to :
>
>Mike Behnke
>Senior Technician
>
>or (even worse for him if you enclose the text of this)
>
>Inspector General
>
>FERMI Nat'l Accel Lab
>P.O.Box 500-369
>Batavia, Il 60510
>
>Or you can call directly and ask for either at :
>(708) 840-2700
>
>Fax either at:
>(708) 840-8200
>
>Thanks for the info in you previous posts Mike.  Hope you're not or don't
>expect to be a supervisor of any minorities.
>
>Mike, BTW it was all a joke, RIIIIIIIGHT !?!?!?!?!
>
>bls


	In other words, yet another asshole giving out addresses and such.

	Must be the Xmas season.


-- 
	"If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"
			Equality is a delusion.
	     Rule 1:  "Don't have more children than you can feed."
	  	  Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey)
Subject: Re: Banning the Beatles?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 05:45:22 GMT

You know, I've heard this song a few times, and I thought the lyrics were a
little, uh, 'strong'.  Made me think, and made me a little uncomfortable.
Why on earth would this be seen as a bad thing?

>Well you know that I'm a wicked guy
>and I was born with a jealous mind
>And I can't spend my whole life
>trying just to make you toe the line

I never listened close enough to actually hear all the words, and I never
heard this bit.  It pretty clearly identifies the speaker as a true asshole.
So, I guess those that object to it think broaching the subject at all should
not be tolerated.

Hmm.. Maybe we can end racial discrimination by not mentioning it anymore,
eh?  We shouldn't report rapes or murders anymore as well, I suppose?

Bah!

   Thanks awfully,
             Patrick

Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: To boycott is not to censor
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:59:21 GMT


In article <C062CM.7FF@ais.org>, 
draper@ais.org (Patrick Draper) said:

> If we consider a definition of open mindedness as receiving ideas
> without moral judgement, or a belief that all viewpoints are valid,
> doesn't that sort of imply that the person who boycotts is closed
> minded?
>
> I think that a boycott is terribly negative and perhaps
> contradictory coming from a truly open minded person. Battle ideas
> with ideas, not deafness. The offensive one shouts loud? Then shout
> louder than them!

Hmmm... if I understand the philosophy you're espousing then I think
you meant to say "Then shout _better_ than them!" (1/2 a smiley :-)

In any event, the problem is that people live in a world of limited
resources.  Life's just too short -- you _can't_ read everything
everybody says about everything.  Hell, you can't even read everything
everybody says about the limited set of topics that you happen to find
particularly interesting.  (Not unless you have _very_ narrow and/or
specialized fields of interest, anyway.)  It would take forever.  So
we have to utilize some algorithms for cutting down on the input that
we have to process, and one of the standard "tricks" is to consider
the source.

To arbitrarily reject, ignore or killfile everything that a person
says simply because you disagree with or personally don't like that
perosn _is_ pretty bogus... an example of the closed-minded deafness
that you spoke of.  But, in my opinion, it's a perfectly rational and
defensible "overload-avoidance mechanism" to ignore/boycott a person
who has shown a _consistent_ track record of issuing statements that
can be described as some combination of:

 o  generally pure noise;

 o  internally incoherent or illogical;

 o  internally coherent and logical, but based on incoherent or
    illogical premises;

 o  riddled with plain factual errors; or

 o  initially interesting but now totally repetitive.

(There are probably a lot of other categories that could be added to
this list; these are just the ones that spring quickly to mind.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: To boycott is not to censor
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 17:32:29 GMT

orc@vpnet.chi.il.us (david parsons) writes:

>In article <1993Jan2.224336.24949@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro) writes:
>|What?  Let him print what ever he wants in *his* newspaper or magazine?
>|Hey, if only _you_  have a newspaper or magazine, you have denied access.
>|Sounds a lot like "let them eat cake!" to me.  Indeed, I guess everybody
>|has a magazine or newspaper at his disposal.

>   There's really never been any precedent for forcing the media to
>print things it doesn't want to.  There's a moderately famous quote
>about that; something along the lines of "freedom of the press is
>for those who own one."

You don't need to own one.  You can get anything you want printed up
for 8 cents a page at Kinko's.  Less, if you want to do it in volume.
Just as Guttenburg made everyone a reader, Xerox made everyone an
author.

What?  You say you have the right to print whatever you want for FREE?
Goodness, not even the editor of the New York Times has that right!
If the NYT has to pay for ink, paper, and labor, why shouldn't anyone
else who wants to print something?


Paul Ciszek                      When we are planning for posterity, we
                                 ought to remember that virtue is not
pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu            hereditary.     --Thomas Paine
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:9738 alt.privacy:2750 alt.sex:40185
From: zitsky+@CS.CMU.EDU (Mark Ryan Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.tasteless.jokes,alt.censorship,alt.privacy,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Black Jokes
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:13:54 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University

|> unfortunately, there are two of you doing it... why are so few people who
|> read this group able to use their bloody editors???!!!!  The first time the 
|> info went up , I thought it was a *poor idea* to have posted it.  You ap-
|> parently agree, but then go on to repost the info.....
|> Peter
|> bell@minerva.cis.yale.edu
|> 
|> 

I agree!  Since when did it become illegal to voice an opinion which is unpopular.  I consider myself very "open minded" and probably am PC+ correct, but I can see no point in harrassing someone who posted this kind of drivel.  If you want to send letters to the original poster, fine, but it's out of line to harrass him for something he said.  Perhaps next time you say something I don't like or find offensive, or think SOMEONE else will find offensive, I should try to get you fired????

--Mark
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt)
Subject: Re: To boycott is not to censor
Date: 1 Jan 93 01:57:01 MST
Followup-To: alt.censorship,alt.politics.misc
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <C062CM.7FF@ais.org> draper@ais.org (Patrick Draper) writes:
>If we consider a definition of open mindedness as receiving ideas without
>moral judgement, or a belief that all viewpoints are valid, doesn't that
>sort of imply that the person who boycotts is closed minded?

Gee, call me close-minded, but I've seen what Nazis have to say, and I
would rather not waste my time skipping over flame wars that go like this:

"The holocaust never happened" "yes it did" "no it didn't" "yes it did"...

>I think that a boycott is terribly negative and perhaps contradictory coming
>from a truly open minded person. Battle ideas with ideas, not deafness. The
>offensive one shouts loud? Then shout louder than them!

Yeah, that's how to deal with it.  Soc.motss is for homosexuals and bisexuals
to talk with each other socially, so let's fill it up with flame wars that
go like this:

"Faggots will burn in hell" "go away you Nazi" "The anus is an OUTPUT device"
"go away you Nazi" "Homos should be shot" "go away you Nazi"...

>One of the reasons that the usenet is so great is it's lack of censorship,
>as evidenced by our flame fests: a celebration of shouting louder than
>anyone else.

I'm subscribed to over 20 newsgroups.  Without killfiles, I would spend my
whole life reading news.  If the thread isn't interesting, I quickly 
hit the K key.
----
Join the Greg Alt boycott! Put /galt/h :j in your killfile today!
----
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: PORTLAND: American Front (Hate group) transcript 
From: hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Phil Anderson)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 05:10:58 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Lethargy Inc.


In article <1992Dec27.234117.4806@oracle.us.oracle.com> 
rchilder@us.oracle.com writes:

 >Believe me, enough people have been disgusted by B-CPU to _want_ to learn how
 >to use killfiles, as repugnant as the concept is to many. It seems to me that

There are people who find killfiles repugnant? How odd. Why do they 
think so?

 ----------------------------------------------
 Phil Anderson  ***  hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz
 ----------------------------------------------
       "No-one is equal to anyone else!"
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: PORTLAND: American Front (Hate group) transcript 
From: hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Phil Anderson)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 23:06:39 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Lethargy Inc.


In article <40RiwB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> bigbro@netlink.cts.com writes:

  > I beleive that kill files are somewhat of an annoying idea.  It seems to 
  > me that it goes along with "Well if I don't hear it, it doesn't exist"  
  > there are of course reasons where its use is completly justified, it just 
  > seems sometimes people use them for the same reason the fundies who are 
  > on the school board at my school have for banning various medias, that I 
  > should not be subjagated to what others think. Of course if someone is 

There's one vital difference - killfiles are a matter of _me_ 
controlling what _I_ read, not me controlling someone else's reading 
or someone else controlling my reading or anyone controlling what 
anyone may write in the first place.

Does anyone who dislikes kill files get upset at the net being divided 
into newsgroups? The same principle is involved - enabling people to 
filter out what they don't want to read. I don't think it's reasonable 
to say there's any censorship involved here; the right to speak does 
not impose an obligation to listen on anyone.

There are many threads of discussion I'm not interested in, and many 
posters who I can dismiss as uninteresting (to me) with a high degree 
of confidence. Killfiles would simplify and speed up my newsreading 
quite noticeably if they were available on my system.

Phil

 ----------------------------------------------
 Phil Anderson  ***  hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz
 ----------------------------------------------
       "No-one is equal to anyone else!"
Newsgroups: alt.censorship