HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown on Animal Rights
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 00:01:46 GMT

Here are some more choice quotes from Mohandras Gandhi, for
those who might be interested.  I'm no Gandhi scholar, so
please direct any queries to maybe Russell Lawrence 
or possibly Siva Prasad.
     
     
       The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can
     be judged the way its animals are treated.
       Vivisection is the blackest of all the black crimes
     that man is at present committing against God and His
     fair creation.  It ill becomes us to invoke in our
     daily prayers the blessings of God, the Compassionate,
     if we in turn will not practise elementary compassion
     towards out fellow creatures.
        (from THE MORAL BASIS OF VEGETARIANISM)
     
     
       I do not regard flesh-food as necessary for us at any
     stage and under any clime in which it is possible for
     human Beings ordinarily to live.  I hold flesh-food to
     be unsuited to our species.  We err in copying the
     lower animal world -- if we are superior to it.
         (from MATATMA GANDHI, HIS MISSION & MESSAGE)
     
     
       I want to realize botherhood or identity not merely
     with all beings called human, but I want to realize
     identity with all life, even with such things as crawl
     upon the earth.
        (from WORDS OF GANDHI)
     
     
     ..the basis of my vegetarianism is not physical, but
     moral.  If anybody said that I should die if I did not
     take beef-tea or mutton, even under medical advice, I
     would prefer death.  That is the basis of my
     vegetarianism.  I would love to think that all of us
     who called ourselves vegetarians should have that
     basis.  There were thousands of meat-eaters who did not
     stay meat-eaters.  There must be a definite reason for
     our making that change in our lives, for our adopting
     habits and customs different from society, even though
     sometimes that change may offend those nearest and
     dearest to us.  Not for the world should you sacrifice
     a moral principle.  Therefore the only basis for having
     a vegetarian society and proclaiming a vegetarian
     priniciple is, and must be, a moral one.
       (address to London Vegetarin Society, 20 November
         1931)
     
     
       I hold today the same opinion as I held then.  To my
     mind the life of a lamb is no less precious than that
     of a human being.  I should be unwilling to take the
     life of a lamb for the sake of the human body.  I hold
     that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled
     it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man.
        (from AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY, THE STORY OF MY EXPERIMENTS)

Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: eric@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (Eric Scott Kuhnen)
Subject: Re: FAX PROTEST CALIFORNIA EXECUTION
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:19:30 GMT

newsdesk@igc.org (News Desk) writes:
>     BACKGROUND:  Harris has an IQ of 83.  He was severely beaten as a 
>child by two abusive, alcoholic parents.  Leading medical experts have 
>testified that he has Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.  He was a low birth weight 
>baby with learning disorder.  As an adolescent he was incarcerated for 
>four years, during which time he was diagnosed as schizophrenic, and 
>tried to kill himself numerous times.  At the age of 22 he killed a man 
>in a drunken fight.  Three years later, on release from prison, he 
>killed two others and was sentenced to death in 1979.  Legal appeals 
>have kept him alive since.

The man deserves to be freed from his tortured body.  Certainly society 
deserves to be free from it.

"Q"
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My opinions are based upon Reason and Logic, and are therefore not connected
in any way to my employer.
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Socialism Security Rides Again
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:33:04 GMT

mikeq@saab.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:
>In article <rdippold.702582849@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>If you are an acoholic or a drug
>>addict, Social Security classifies you as "disabled" and will support
>>your drug habit to the tune of $625 dollars a month.

> Chicken feed. Compared to what the payout to S&L crooks is costing you.

Hey, I don't like either of them.  The S&L scandal has been well
publicized, this hasn't.  Add up enough of these little boondoggles
over enough people and you get billions of dollars, almost some real money.


>>On the other hand, good news on the War on Rights.  The supreme court
>>threw out the case against the farmer who was entrapped by the
>>government into a child pornography rap.
> 
> And guess who voted to uphold the case. Yup, ol' Long Dong Thomas

I thought the whole thing here was pretty ridiculous... they solicited
him for two and a half years!  And they created a crime.  It'll be
interesting to see what this does to other sting type operations.
-- 
What will a nice girl do?  She won't give an inch, but she won't say no.
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Keywords: Use Intelligence
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:42:17 GMT

storti@cdc835.cdc.polimi.it () writes:

> I am really amazed that you americans still think that KKK ideas are
> "opinions" Don't you think that applying first amendment to people
> that, by definition, do not apply it, is somewhat ridiculous.
[...]

So you mean that people like you who don't respect the rights of other
to speak and who advocate violence have no right to speak?

> Be serious!! Nazis, and any fascism must be stopped, with violence
> if necessary and even when these organizations are supprtd with
> government's money.

(Didn't Mussolini's neofascist daughter just get elected to
Parliament?)

In any case, let's try to fight fascism without violence, if we can.
According to recent posts, historically, fighting facism with violence
is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7520 alt.censorship:3232 alt.conspiracy:6246 talk.politics.misc:17741
From: pfaust@b-cpu.UUCP (Pete Faust)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.censorship,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Subject: HOLOCAUST MYTHS
Date: 10 Apr 92 01:22:31 GMT
Organization: Banished CPU, +1(503) 232-6566


     Someone posted that the fake Holocaust
pictures (mentioned in the $50,000.00 offer) are fake.
Fake fakes.  In addition to being a lie, was this intended as
more Jewish humor?  It is not humorous to Germans.  There is
no end to their deception.  Were the fakes indeed fakes,
there would have been an immediate mass media, kill it in the
bud, Picture Show, exposing the fraud.  This could have been
a victory for the Holocausters on the side of truth...but NO
revealing Picture Show, just lies, and more lies, added to
lies.  Now some despicable name calling and we'll have a par
course.
 
Pete Faust
Institute for Relearning

-.-
Banished CPU supports FREEDOM OF SPEECH.  Currently no fees.
CALL:  +1(503) 232-6566 (8N1, v.32/42/bis) or +1(503) 232-5783 (8N1)
UUCP:  Path (..twiki!b-cpu) "ELIMINATED" BY ZIONIST THOUGHT POLICE!!!
Users of Banished CPU are solely responsible for their actions.
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: young@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176))
Subject: Re: RESOURCE: Vegetarianism,Animal Rights,Ecology,World Hunger,Rainforests
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 15:47:55 GMT

>> "I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will
>> come when men will look upon the murder of animals as they now look
>> upon the murder of men." -- Leonardo Da Vinci
>
>Yeah, but he did have his moments of lucid thought as well.... :)
>
>> "To be a vegetarian is to disagree -- to disagree with the course of
>> things today. Nuclear power, starvation, cruelty -- we must make a
>> statement against these thigns. Vegetarianism is my statement. And I
>> think it is a strong one." -- Isaac Bashevis Singer
>
>My statement is bulgogi.
>
>> "Good Eating -- The Vegetarian Alternative"
>
>My alternative is prime rib.
>
>> * Animal Rights ("How many animals are killed each year to provide
>> meat for our dinner table?" ; "What are slaughterhouses like? How do
>
>Not enough! :)
>
>> prior to being killed in the slaughterhouse? How is livestock
>> raised?" ; "Where do veal calves come from?"
>
>Hint:  a bull and a heiffer....
>
>> * Ecology etc ("In what respects is meat eating unecological?" ; "Why
>> are environmentalists boycotting fast food hamburger chains?")
>
>Too much time on their hands.

	For those who are convinced that I am selective in criticizing only
	vegetarian extremism, let me point out that the above exchange is
	a perfect example of a post from an omnivore which should be summarily
	relegated to the same trash heap.

-Rich (young@serum.kodak.com)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are MY opinions, don't blame them on my employer.

Don't get angry, get accurate information.
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas (was Socialism Security Rides
Date: 16 Apr 1992 20:51:40 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <11368@borg.cs.unc.edu>, bell@tigger.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes:
|> 
|> The sad thing is that from what I have heard about that particular case,
|> all nine of the members of the court made the wrong decision.
|> 
|> 7 of them decided in favor of the plaintiff,  that the eighth amendment
|> was somehow relevant in this case.  It really wasn't.  The government did
|> not initiate the beatings.  It was the action of an individual empowered
|> by the government,  but unless one could show that the government either
|> condoned or even encouraged the beatings,  why should this matter?  If
|> I shoot someone while working as a toll collector,  the state shouldn't
|> be liable,  I should.  In the same vein,  in this case the beaters should
|> be the ones liable for damages,  since they were acting outside the
|> parameters of their job description.
|> 
|> Thomas and Scalia chose the right side but for the wrong reason,  from what
|> I've heard on NPR and other reports.  The gist of their view,  I'm given
|> to understand,  is that the beatings were not severe enough to be cruel
|> and unusual punishment.  Hmm...

I don't believe that's right. If you are going to get your news/opinions from NPR,
be warned that the truth is never presented to you unfiltered anywhere. The
filter that they use on NPR is a liberal one (and I suspect that the filter
used in say, Pat Robertson's channel is a religious one).

I read the excerpts from the dissent the day after the decision was handed
down. It seemed to me that Thomas was making the point that the Cruel and
Unusual Punishment clause in the 8th Amendment was not intended to regulate
the behavior of Jail Wardens and the like; and that the history of the 8th
Amendment shows that it was established to make sure that outrageous sentences
are not handed out for minor crimes. It also seemed to me that the opinion
should have been one that DID find a right (of the prisoner) to sue, but not
under the 8th Amendment; and that Thomas & Scalia, in not finding so, took a
very narrow view of their duties (or maybe, I am taking a much broader view
of what their duties are).

|> 
|> Does anyone have any further (and I hope contradictory,  since these guys
|> are going to be making important decisions for a long time to come)
|> information about this case and the opinions?
|> 
|>    -Andrew Bell
|> bell@cs.unc.edu

Contradictory enough?

-srinivas
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7566 sci.psychology:2363 alt.recovery:1866
From: jwest@BBN.COM
Newsgroups: alt.activism,sci.psychology,alt.recovery
Subject: Reevaluation Counseling?
Date: 11 Apr 92 18:03:57 GMT
Reply-To: jwest@BBN.COM ()
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com


I'd like to learn more about Reevaluation Counseling (RC). Several of
my friends are involved in it.  RC is also known as "Co-counseling"
because people take turns counseling each other.  I'm told that RC's
basic premise is that one can "reevaluate" past (bad, painful,
tramatic) experiences and gain power over them by understanding them
in new ways.  Much of this understanding seems rooted in marxist
ideology.  For example, the roots of pain are seen to be "oppression,"
such as sexism, homophobia, and racism or oppression of the "owning
class" over the "working class."

My friends had never studied marxism, and so this theory and jargon
were new to them.  Do the leaders of RC not acknowledge their debt to
marxism, or do they truly believe that RC invented these concepts?  Or
does RC have a unique theory?

Is RC a political, social, educational, or theraputic organization?
What is its structure?  What are its goals?  What is its theory and
history?  Can anyone give me some references?





<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<>>

        ________
	\  OO  /		Jayne K. West
	 \ ++ /			jwest@bbn.com
          \  /
	   \/

         
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7281 talk.politics.animals:4858
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown on Animal Rights
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:05:18 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Apr6.144738.4832@ac.dal.ca>, robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
> The lion moratorium has had disasterous effects.  It was initially somewhat 
> useful, but now as I understand it the lions have exceeded the carrying 
> capacity of their range and are in the process of redefining certain key 
> concepts, like food.  They're starting to think of those pale, bipeds as 
> walking meals....generally not a good trend.
 
I live in California and was unaware of any problems re. mountain lions. Can 
you elaborate? Any specifics would be helpful. 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Re: Governor Lam Offers Brave New World Rationalization For Euthanasia
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 06:37:39 GMT

For further information see:

Author:        King, Dennis.
Title:         Lyndon LaRouche and the new American fascism / Dennis King. 1st
                 ed. New York : Doubleday, 1989.
Description:   xv, 415 p., [8] p. of plates : ill. ; 25 cm.

Notes:         Includes index.
               Bibliography: p. [379]-397.

Subjects:      LaRouche, Lyndon H. -- Political and social views.
               Politicians -- United States -- Biography.
               Fascism -- United States.
               United States -- Politics and government -- 1981-
From: cedman@714-725-3177.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 12 Apr 92 03:21:55 GMT
Distribution: usa

Robb Shecter writes
> Carl Edman writes:
> >Susan Garvin writes
> >> 
> >> The counter-protesters also have a right to free speech. 
> >> If, by exercising their right, they drown out the speech
> >> of the Klan, so be it. 
> >
> >Would you support the same in the opposite direction i.e. Klansmen  
> >showing up at all NAACP meetings and shouting so loudly that the  
> >meetings could not any longer be held ? Or would you support the use
> >of the police to prevent this ? I'm certain that there 
> >is a law which an ambitious DA can use to do that.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand the point..."NAACP meetings"? 
> KKK members coming onto private property to disrupt a
> private meeting? (Which is not the Cincinnati case.  Or
> are you talking about racist people trying to disrupt
> organized civil rights speeches, acts of civil
> disobedience, etc, which has happened, lawfully? 

I don't think my question was hard to understand. All I wanted to know  
if Ms. Garvin would have taken the same position w.r.t to a KKK  
disruption of a NAACP rally (in a public place if you so wish). Let us  
say a rally for which the KKK printed a flier which contained phrases  
like:

"Obviously, everyone going has a different idea about how to express  
anti-negroe convictions."

or 

"ACT ON YOUR CONVICTIONS."

or

"We hope to mass enough people to drown out any speeches, and defeat  
any recruiting efforts the NAACP will make."

Or for that matter: What would you think about such a pamphlet by the  
KKK ? Would you consider it legal ?

If you say yes, you may be wrong but at least you are no bigot. If you  
say no, as I suspect you will I would consider you less than a person  
of integrity.

	Carl Edman
From: AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Larry Agran IS *NOT* being denied "free speech"
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:35:33 GMT

6@anomaly.sbs.com>
Organization: The Ohio State University
Cc:
Bcc:

In article <1992Apr13.150812.4038@fylz.wa.com> you write:
>In article <1992Apr12.210003.21826@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Micha
el P. Deignan) writes:
>
>>USENET is hardly "uncensored". You don't see many people posting globs
>>of informational messages from the Buchanan or Bush campaigns.
>
>That's because people for Buchanan don't know how to write and Bush's
>record as "the education president" shows that he doesn't want his
>supporters to learn to read.
>

You know, usually something is considered funny if it has an element of truth 
to it.  In your case, your level of humor is easily surpassed by your level of
ignorance.

>>If you depend solely on TV, radio, or mainstream newspapers, then that
>>is *your* ignorance. You think that the state now has some responsibility
>>to force people to be aware of every candidate's platform. What next?
>
>How about a requirement that the mass media that makes money off of
>"my" airwaves (radio and TV stations) be required to make a certain
>amount of time available each day for each candidate to present his
>case.

I'm sorry, Der Fuerher doesn't just "require" things in this country.  We have
a democracy to uphold.



>--
>Phil Hughes - FYL - 8315 Lk City Wy NE - Suite 207 - Seattle, WA 98115
>Phone: 206-526-2919 x74      Fax: 526-0803
>E-mail: fyl@cpac.washington.edu or fyl@fylz.wa.com


Ryan C. Scharfy
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas (was Socialism Security Rides Again)
Date: 15 Apr 92 07:31:37 GMT
 <1992Apr12.223835.10614@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
 <kuhklcINNbn2@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> <rdippold.703147320@cancun> 
 <1992Apr13.163332.17306@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
 <rdippold.703198330@cancun> <1992Ap>  <rdippold.70329
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <rdippold.703289237@cancun>
rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

> I'm talking about the farging cases that were being discussed at the
> time, where people railed against Thomas for voting against the farmer
> caught in the sting operation, and claimed that in the prisoner
> beating case he voted all by himself (even against Scalia) in the
> wrong way.  It was bad enough how he actually voted, but people on the
> net had to make it even worse.  Is your attention span always so short?

In that case, perhaps you should start directing your replies to those
who claim that Thomas "voted against the farmer caught in the sting
operation", or those who claim that the number of Justices who join in
a Thomas opinion is somehow relevant to the quality of his opinion.  I
have done neither.  In your hunt for anti-Thomas propagandists, you
have tried to make one of me, who's mortal sin was "It was an 8-1
split."  Go figure.
From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Date: 12 Apr 92 08:12:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr12.081221.891
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


After reading much nonsense about the presumed "right" of people
to shout down the KKK, I've realized I have a rather radical view
of the question. Maybe I'm just suffering from an overdose of
alt.conspiracy :) but this is what I think.

Conventional politics today has become increasingly the province
of theatrical stage-managers. |This has been noted ad nauseum
in the presidential debates, where the goal is clearly not to
achieve insight into important isues, but to present SPECTACLE.
The presidential debates are being positioned as the hibrow
edition od American Gladiators or the WWF. The Imperial Romans
would be proud to know that their way of life did not die with
the fall of the Empire.

I submit that this "stop the Klan" action is precisely the same
style of politics. It is not about truth but about staged
spectacle. The Klan, the "progressives" and the police will
all show up with their scripts. They will engage in the unspoken
conspiracy to act out their assigned roles in this little
drama and provide appropriate sound bites for the media.

Once you realize this, it becomes obvious why it is both 
necessary and "appropriate" (from the point of view of the
real unacknowledged goals of the event) to shout the Klan
down. If an atmosphere of dialogue were permitted, if people
were actually able to LISTEN and UNDERSTAND the point of view
of somebody very opposed to their own, somebody might accidently
remember that they were human beings. One or more people
might actually "break profile" and do something out of character.
They might stop reading their scripts and begin to treat the 
stage as though it were the real world. The action might proceed
in directions beyond the control of the stage managers. 

I was watching the last time the Klan was on Geraldo, when
a gery haired old Klanswoman said she was with the Klan
because both her daughters were out smoking crack and she was
left raising all the grandkids. I stopped to wonder how many
other grandmother swere in a similar situation, and wished this
lady could only realize how many of her sisters-in-pain were black.
Roy Innis, not one to read from anybody's script but his own,
made one of the few sensible comments of the show when he 
responded to her saying "then you should join us". We need 
more speaking of this kind of truth and less staged spectacle.

I came to a lot of this realization through being cast as an
extra in the multi-year "anti-war" extravaganza of the sixties,
as well as having the occasional small "speaking part". But, you
see, I'm not really as smart as I'm trying to sound. 

I thought it was real.

-Steve
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.censorship,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc