HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:20:18 GMT

In article <BxtFLA.6oD@cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>Nor do we [the ACLU] take political sides; we
>are neither liberal nor conservative, Republican nor Democratic. 

This claim seems to be contradicted by the statements that follow it.

>The mission of the ACLU is to assure that the Bill of Rights--Amendments
>to the Constitution that guard against unwarranted government control--
>are preserved for each new generation.

>What rights are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?
>First Amendment rights:  These include freedom of speech, association
>   and assembly, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, including
>   the strict separation between church and state.
>Equal protection of the law:  The right to equal treatment regardless of
>   race, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, age,
>   physical handicap, or other such classification.  These rights apply
>   to the voting booth, the classroom, the workplace and the courts.
>Due process of laws:  The right to be treated fairly when facing criminal
>   charges or other serious accusations that can result in such penalties
>   as loss of employment, exclusion from school, denial of housing, or
>   cut-off of benefits.

This is only a small fraction of the Bill of Rights (The First Amendment
and parts of the Fifth and Sixth.)

>The right to privacy:  The right to a guaranteed zone of personal privacy
>   and autonomy which cannot be penetrated by the government or by other
>   institutions, like employers, with a substantial influence over an	
>   individual's rights.

Technically, this right, however important, is not mentioned in the Bill
of Rights at all. It _might_ be infered from the Ninth Amendment, however,
this is not the ACLU's position. Nor does the Bill of Rights protect
citizens against "...other institutions, like employers...": It's protections
are directed solely against the government.

The ACLU claims to be non-political and defend the Bill of Rights. However,
it makes, at the same time, extremely political judgements about which
parts of the Bill of Rights "count", and which rights _should_ be
protected (even if the Bill of Rights doesn't mention them.) This seems
to make the claim of political neutrality a lie.

>     1981: Creationism in Arkansas
>       In Arkansas, 56 years after Scopes, the ACLU
>       challenged a statute that called for the teaching
>       of the biblical story of creation as a ``scientific
>       alternative'' to the theory of evolution.

This seems to demonstrate a comittment to the "establishment" clause
of the First Amendment at the expense of the "free exercise" clause
of that same Amendment.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6698 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1191 talk.politics.theory:5109
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: So what's a religion ?
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:42:10 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <1992Nov23.182409.24510@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:

>Lets move to the abstract, and ask just what it is about any given
>group of people and their behaviour that could possibly qualify them
>as a religion, at least in the context of the US Constitution.

>Clearly, a group claiming to be a religion that also demanded to be
>able to slaughter a dozen blonde virgins each solstice would not find
>the courts particularly disposed to their beliefs, Constitution or or
>otherwise. However, the court could not legally claim to be
>discriminating against particular religious practices, and is much
>more likely to claim instead that this particular group is *not* a
>religion in any accepted sense.

I think the usual view is that in general the "free exercise" clause
doesn't override laws that are of general applicability and serve
substantial state interests having nothing to do with religion.  So if
Thuggee made a comeback I don't think the courts would have any qualms
about observing parenthetically as they sentenced the devotees of Kali
to long prison terms for murder that it was a genuine religion with a
long history.

It's true that "reasonable accomodations" can be required, like not
enforcing truancy laws against Jewish children who don't show up for
school on Yom Kippur, and the issue whether something is really a
religion that reasonable accomodations have to be made for does come
up from time to time, as when a group of prisoners claims that some
religious group they belong to requires them to do something that's
generally forbidden by prison rules.
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:14:58 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Nov19.214624.15573@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.070028.27622@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
...
>>However, the "scientific" view is _also_ a religion: It is based on
>>unproven (and unproveable) articles of faith. That the universe
>>and everything in it obeys physical laws; that these laws are
>>logical and understandable; that these laws are the same everywhere
>>in the universe; etc... While I accept and believe in these principles
>>(which the Church used to refer to as the "cult of science"), I 
>>also don't put them ahead of other people's faith. 

>The scientific view claims that, as far as we can tell, the universe tends
>to behave in such and such a fashion, which can be expressed in the 
>following manner... It's merely observation, not faith.

But why do you trust in observation? Why do you think your observations are
trustworthy? Indeed, what makes you think that there _is_ an observable
universe, that there are beings other than you who observe it, and that the
universe continues to exist when you are _not_ observing it?  How do you
know that the world as you experience it is not a dream, an extended
hallucination, or some kind of mental slide-show that has no enduring
reality behind it? How can you prove that the universe continues to exist
when you close your eyes?

The standards of proof are not themselves amenable to proof--they have to
be assumed. Thus, trust in empirical methods is just as much a "faith" as
is trust in divine revelation. 

>Evolution merely states that based on the evidence we've found and current
>behavoir, this is the best explanantion of how man and other flora and fauna
>reached their present form. 

Indeed, the doctrine of evolution "states" this. But by what standard is it
"best"? 

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:57:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.003125.5150@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>>Indeed, the doctrine of evolution "states" this. But by what standard is it
>>"best"? 

>I, personally, find that is explains the available data fairly well and is
>more believable than other theories. Many people agree with me.
 
However, this personal judgement is advocated and taught by government
agents. The whole point of the First Amendment's religious protections
is to keep what "many people agree..." from being imposed on religious
minorities who disagree.

>...As long as they aren't dependent on
>religious faith, feel free to teach them in the public schools.

The negative applys as well as the positive: A teaching which denys
a particular religion is as great a violation of the First Amendment
as a teaching which espouses a religious view.

>One thing to keep in mind: Students spend less than 40 hours a week in
>school. Parents and other groups therefore have the other 128+ hours a
>week to counter-indoctrinate their kids. 

Actually, 72 other hours a week _awake_. I suspect far less than 40
hours a week is spent in the company of one's parents. In any case,
the goal of the First Amendment is to keep the government out of 
religious matters completely, not to reduce government control to
the same level as parents have.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6588 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1089 talk.politics.drugs:7485
From: doucette@hannah.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
Subject: Re: hmm....
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:40:40 GMT
Reply-To: doucette@hannah.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


So what will be the World-shattering change?  Actually, I've thought the most
possible outcome will be a climax of *many* changes within one generation.  I
do not believe that the pace of change can be maintained for more than one
or two generations.  After that, patterns are placed in the social psyche which
will set the agenda for many more generations, possibly a millenium.  Change
will continue, technology will advance, but not at the pace we are currently
experiencing.

I think at some point in the near future we will reach a breakdown of the 
ecological infrastructure.  Even though people are dying from famine, plague,
and war, there are more people born into this world than die.  It is going to
be a global slap in the face when the global population decreases in a year.
What could cause it?  Who knows?  In fact, there are plenty of reasons, poor
weather in the Wheat Belt, or one good volcano.  Krakatoa exploded in 1880 or so
and caused snow in the summer for the norther hemisphere.  Imagine how many 
people would die if there was no harvest for a year?

We are keeping over 5 billion people alive on a very delicate balance, the more
people born, the finer the balance and the less it takes to become unstable.
If it becomes unstable, the scale of the tragedy will be unequaled in the 
history of mankind.  What will be the cause, the straw that breaks
the camel's back.  Who can predict, but we continue to put more and more straw
on its back.
--
Welcome to post-modern Western Materialism 101.  Choose between the following:
		Wedding		Child		House	
		Automobile	Computer	Motorcycle
********	LIMIT:	 One choice per year, maximum.		********
--------	--------	--------	--------	-------
Dave Doucette			Digital Equipment Corporation	Westford, MA
Common Sense Rules!		Doucette@hannah.enet.dec.com	(508)-635-8513
From: jmward@redcloud (Joel M. Ward)
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
Subject: hmm....
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:09:33 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
NNTP-Posting-Host: redcloud.uccs.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]


	It would depend on your view of "where things were going" and what
the Major Change would be....

	Besides, i think in any given part of history, there would be a 
tendency to think that "this is the most turbulent part of history ever!"
Now that you're here, you don't even think about all the problems that were
related to getting there.  Think about how stable society is now (assuming
that you consider that way it is now stable).  It was also quite stable in
The Roman Empire.  Then Rome fell.  Think about how *those* people felt??
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures,sci.energy
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: The Big Change
Keywords: big change society future energy
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 13:37:11 GMT

In article <1ejlt9INN66i@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> dwhall@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Dean W Hall) writes:
>  The biggest of possibly many changes will be the discovery of a clean, 
>renewable (or nearly limitless) energy source.  This may be fusion or it may
>not be.  But something is out there, and it MUST be found.

You must have some interesting evidence of this to be so certain that such
an energy source exists.  Please do share this revelation with us.

I should also add that even if something like cold fusion did work out,
the fact that the fuel is cheap doesn't mean that the energy source itself
is cheap.  Remember, capital costs are just as real as fuel costs.  Look at
fission power.  The fuel costs are very low.  The economic question is not
whether the fuel is cheap, but whether the entire system is cheap.

>  When it is found, and the engineers figure out what to do with it, the order
>of the world will change.  Economically-challenged nation-states will emerge
>and things might start being truly equal.  

Nonsense.  Energy is just a resource like all others.  It isn't even a
particularly rare or expensive resource.  Easily accessible vast sources
of copper, wood, and iron ore would do at least as much good.  Ultimately,
the most precious resource is human labor and intelligence and that can create
tremendous wealth even in a desert (such as Hong Kong for example).
The availability of cheap energy is not a limiting factor for any economy I
am aware of.

>I say this because of the fact that
>a nation's success is directly proportional to it's useful energy production.

It has also been proportional to it's paper clip production, but I don't
conclude from that that we would all be rich if we suddenly found a
100 year's supply of paper chips under our beds.

>Once energy can be attained for all, hunger ends, and equality begins.

Nonsense!  You can't eat energy.  You can't count on energy to protect your
individual rights from tyrants.  You are engaging in some pretty mushy-headed
thinking on this issue.

>  The current world powers might be very afraid of this.  

Afraid of what?  If anything, the developed world has much more to gain 
by the invention of some cheap new energy source.  Naked savages have
little to gain or lose by such an invention.  

>It will take quite
>a while for societies to accept this change, there might even be revolt!

By whom?  Against whom?  On what basis?

>  This is just a thought.

But not much of one.

--Brian
From: fly@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul D. Fly)
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
Subject: Re: The Big Change
Keywords: big change society future energy
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:09:11 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1ejlt9INN66i@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> dwhall@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Dean W Hall) writes:
>  The biggest of possibly many changes will be the discovery of a clean, 
>renewable (or nearly limitless) energy source.  This may be fusion or it may
>not be.  But something is out there, and it MUST be found.

I'm unconvinced that this is the biggest possible change.  I feel like we
are wearing blinders, surely there could be more paradigm shattering
changes than that!  Not to say this would not be a major and significant
change, but I like to feel that a more profound change can come from Inside
people, rather than from another new Tool.  Make sense?  Excuse my
somewhat... mystical (?) attitude, but imagine the effect of a widespread
change in the Way We Think and therefore the Way We Act.

But to continue the "easy-energy" thread:

>  When it is found, and the engineers figure out what to do with it, the order
>of the world will change.  Economically-challenged nation-states will emerge
>and things might start being truly equal.  I say this because of the fact that
>a nation's success is directly proportional to it's useful energy production.
>Once energy can be attained for all, hunger ends, and equality begins.

Somehow I doubt equality in energy availablity will result in equality of
nations and people.  "A nation's success is directly proportional to it's
useful energy production"?  First off, how do you define "successful"?
What makes a successful nation?  Second, perhaps we are mixing up cause and
effect here.  I think its more reasonable to say "by today's standards a
nation's success is *measured* by it's useful energy production."  

As far as whether or not fusion could be the Clean-Limitless Energy Source
many hope it is (I was one), I don't think it is.  While fusion creates
huge amounts of energy without toxic byproducts (in theory), it does create
waste in the form of heat.  The incredible amount of heat required to get
fusion to work *has* to be radiated off somehow.  I get the feeling that if
we replaced our current energy needs with fusion reactors we'd burn up in
the process, given enough time...  Nonetheless, I'm keeping a hopeful eye
on it.  I read that a reactor in Switzerland (I think) maintained a level
of energy production that would be "economically useful" for a few minutes
recently.  Perhaps it isn't too far off.

But if I had to guess which direction the most powerful change will come
from, I'd suggest the combination of genetic engineering and a more
extensive and useful understanding of the brain/mind.  But beyond that, I
make no predictions, and even that prediction is made with a huge
disclaimer stating "Guess!  Guess!  Guesss!"

yes?  no?

Paul

-- 
Paul Fly                      | "Thinking is more interesting than knowing,
fly@acsu.buffalo.edu          |  but less interesting than looking."
v092pxca@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu |    --Goethe
From: dwhall@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Dean W Hall)
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
Subject: The Big Change
Date: 20 Nov 1992 15:38:49 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Summary: Here it is: THE BIG CHANGE!!
Keywords: big change society future energy

  The biggest of possibly many changes will be the discovery of a clean, 
renewable (or nearly limitless) energy source.  This may be fusion or it may
not be.  But something is out there, and it MUST be found.
  When it is found, and the engineers figure out what to do with it, the order
of the world will change.  Economically-challenged nation-states will emerge
and things might start being truly equal.  I say this because of the fact that
a nation's success is directly proportional to it's useful energy production.
Once energy can be attained for all, hunger ends, and equality begins.
  The current world powers might be very afraid of this.  It will take quite
a while for societies to accept this change, there might even be revolt!
  This is just a thought.
-Dean Hall
Internet:  dwhall@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.necromicon
From: rgv9488@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: NECRONOMICON : - Help: a FAQ from an interested party.
Reply-To: rgv9488@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:04:51 GMT

THERE IS A NECRONOMICON!!!!! I HAVE SEEN IT!!!! PRAISE ENLIL!!! IT IS REAL!!

                             >>>Aanteroch, High priest of Shub-Niggurath
____________________________________________________________________________
|                    May you awaken in the halls of R'lyeh!                |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: alt.necromicon
From: dleland@dante.nmsu.edu (LELAND)
Subject: Followers of Mukor
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:03:53 GMT

I have been following this discussion with interest so far. We here have, however,
chosen to follow the power of another mighty one other than the squiggly one under
the sea. And that is MUKOR!

Yes Mukor, who first revealed his word to us in the game Blasteroids (although
it must be understood that this is but a REPRESENTATION of Mukor, meant to be
understood by Atari programmers). Mukor who is green. Mukor who is evil. Mukor
who RULES ALL GALAXIES. Since then he has been praised in song and verse by many
here. We have converted little children to Mukor's word and are actively working
towards the glorious day when the iron pseudopod of Mukor will come down and 
destroy humanity.

Remember! Mukor rules all galaxies! Worship Mukor!

ZOLAR, prophet of Mukor
dleland@nmsu.edu
From: mcdonghj@unix2.tcd.ie (Nascent Virion.....)
Newsgroups: alt.necromicon
Subject: Thanks...
Date: 18 Nov 92 11:39:24 GMT
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin

This is a post from the questioning one who was
asking about necronomicon.
I'd just like to thank everyone for their input
which was stimulating :-)
eg
	There is no necronomicon.
	Party pooper.
	THere is ... I've seen it.
I think I should never have asked. I mean why have a news group about 
something that really exists?? 
Oh well..
That's enough flaming for today.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-John Mc Donagh.                   ~~                         {Nascent Virion}
mcdonghj@unix2.tcd.ie              ~~         "I dress my tears in costumes.."
				   ~~
"Ungracious freeloaders leave their dead on a doorstep
 Flowers of doom all bloom in prosperity.. "		  -Rozz Williams
Newsgroups: alt.necromicon
Subject: Please help me.
From: garcia@husc8.harvard.edu (Javier Garcia-Torres)
Date: 22 Nov 92 03:09:04 EST
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

	When I first encountered this newsgroup, the (alleged) creator of
the newsgroup said that it was not necessary to make a poll to create an
alt.* newsgroup, but simply to type in a certain command.  I'm really
interested in starting a newsgroup called alt.time.travel, so if the
creator of alt.necromicon would please e-mail how to do this, I would
appreciate it immensely.  Also, anyone who has an opinion about my
proposed time-travel newsgroup can e-mail it to:

	garcia@husc.harvard.edu
From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Newsgroups: alt.necromicon
Subject: Re: Please help me.
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:09:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Javier Garcia-Torres (garcia@husc8.harvard.edu) wrote:
.......
: alt.* newsgroup, but simply to type in a certain command.  I'm really
: interested in starting a newsgroup called alt.time.travel, so if the
: creator of alt.necromicon would please e-mail how to do this, I would
: appreciate it immensely.  Also, anyone who has an opinion about my
: proposed time-travel newsgroup can e-mail it to:
: 
: 	garcia@husc.harvard.edu

Javier, I mailed you a long article on how to create a new newsgroup
in February, 1993. You should've gotten it by now/then. It also
covered the results of the 1998 time travel experiments.

However, a quick perusal of "The Net" in 2003 reveals 32,813 different
newsgroups, with no less than 23 of them devoted to time travel. You
are a frequent poster in alt.what-year-is-this? and rec.travel.time.

Alt.necromicon still exists in 2003 and is still confusing readers.


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | PGP Public Key: by arrangement.
Newsgroups: alt.necromicon