HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu (Don McGregor)
Subject: Re: Ralph McGehee on Grenada
Reply-To: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu
Organization: Oregon State University - Univ. Computing Services
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 05:16:58 GMT

Brian writes
>
>>The weapons were almost entirely originated from the soviet bloc.    
>>AK-47's, Soviet heavy MG's, etc.
>
>	According to the US military and the White House.
>
Oh, don't be difficult.  This is the same tactic the holocaust revisionists  
attempt to pull: denial of the validity of sources on a massive scale,  
including many eye-witnesses.  It's not a very fruitful line of approach.   
If I demonstrated that the weapons were, beyond a doubt, of soviet/east bloc  
manufacture, the next step would be to charge they were planted from US  
stocks captured from a soviet proxy somewhere.  Any sufficiently large  
conspiracy is indistinguishable from fantasy.

>	I also find it interesting that you fail to mention that amongst the
>papers discovered by the US military was a document which was an agreement
>signed between the Grenadan government and the USSR that no weapon supplied
>by the USSR could be removed to a third party without permission of the  
USSR.
>Exactly the same agreement which the US forces all its clients to sign.
>
The end-user agreement.  However, if you accept the captured Grenadan  
documents as genuine (as you seem to do) you have to accept them _all_ as  
genuine, now don't you.  You don't get to pick and choose.  Captured  
political documents revealed that the Grenada government was full of  
half-baked Marxists who had designs on destabilizing some of the other small  
island governments in the region.

>>>Later we came to find out that Cuba 
>>>had about fifty airport workers on the island, one or two military 
>>>advisors, but that was after all the information had had its 
>>>effect. 
>
>>The actual numbers were about 650 Cubanarmy reservists there to workon the  
>>airport, and a dozen or two military advisors.  It took several days to  
>>round them all up and get the last snipers flushed out.
>
  [list deleted]

>	Of the 784 mentioned, only 25 could be said to have a specific
>military function (the advisors from MINFAR).
>
Most of the airport workers (650 or so) were also cuban army reservists.   
Are you going to argue that none of those fought the invasion?  I notice  
that you didn't quite say that in this post.

--
Don McGregor             | California danger signs: you own more pairs of 
mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu| shorts than you do long pants.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley)
Subject: Re: A Collection of Amazing Facts!
Organization: Liebe Company
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 22:07:16 GMT

gunter@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) writes:

>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
>Reply-To:     Tom Gray <tgray@IGC.ORG>
>Subject:      Short Population Facts

>/* Written  8:18 am  Apr  3, 1992 by tgray in cdp:population */
>/* ---------- "Short Population Facts" ---------- */
>[from Co-op America Quarterly, Spring, 1992]

>MEAT FACTS

>Number of human beings who could be fed by the grain and soybeans
>eaten by U.S. livestock:  1,300,000,000

This is a pile of unadulterated crap.  We have tried to send food to
countries with starving people before.  The food invariably ends up
rotting on a dock because the leaders of those countries don't care.
If they did the people wouldn't be starving in the first place.

>Number of pure vegetarians who can be fed by the grain needed to
>feed 1 meat-eating person:  20

Never mind that the veget-aryans would be an unhealthy lot, since you
cannot easily obtain all the necessary vitamins through veggies alone.

>Number of people who could be fed by the grain saved if Americans
>reduced their intake of meat by 10%:  60,000,000

Same crap as above.  Self-serving, unthinking, maladjusted twits like
yourself don't stop to think that THE STARVING PEOPLE AREN'T IN THIS
COUNTRY AND WE LOGISTICALLY CANNOT SAVE EVERYONE IN THE WORLD.  The
other country leaders wouldn't allow it anyway.

>Pesticide residues in U.S. diet supplied by meat:  35%

More emotional pandering.  Are you maybe implying that meat consumption
would be okay, if the pesticides are eliminated?  Of course not.  It's
just more of your misguided vendetta against people.

>Pesticide residues in U.S. diet supplied by dairy products:  23%

Again, are you implying that we could reduce pesticide residues and
then you would think dairy products were "peachy"?

>Pesticide residues in U.S. diet supplied by vegetables, fruits,
>and grains:  11%

So we get the meat/dairy levels down to 11% and then meat/dairy is okay?

>For every pound of steak the amount of carbon released into the
>environment has the same greenhouse warming effect as:  Driving
>25 miles in a typical American car

Lies.  The aforementioned statement assumes there is such a thing as a
greenhouse effect.  This has never been proven as there aren't even 
enough reliable records dating far enough back to draw ANY conclusion.

>Individual membership is open to all concerned people and is $20 per
>year.  Businesses and organizations are welcome to apply for
>membership ($60/year), pending screening for social responsibility
>criteria.

Anyone interested in helping your fellow man would be better off in 
sending your donations to organizations like:

Putting People First
iiFAR (Incurably Ill For Animal Research)
ANY hospital promoting bio-medical research

Kevin Brawley
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:1636 soc.culture.jewish:7966 soc.motss:20270 soc.rights.human:1420 alt.discrimination:1567 alt.society.civil-liberties:514 soc.culture.african.american:4576 alt.censorship:3301
From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.motss,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties,soc.culture.african.american,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Date: 14 Apr 92 11:41:40 GMT
Organization: NetNews Readers Anonymous

In article <1992Apr13.112540.3018@athena.mit.edu>
wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

->In article <1992Apr13.003127.12285@cs.ubc.ca>, 
->manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) said:

->> survivors).  As such, the issue here is to discredit that claimed
->> power.  By drowning them out, one is responding not to their
->> perverted ideas, but their attempt to present themselves as a
->> power elite.

->(1) You're mixing past and present.  There is not necessarily any
->real connection between the Klan's origins in the late 1860s-early
->1870s and its status today.

I realize that by saying "not necessarily any" you are hemming, but your
thrust is false as evidenced by the peaceful counterdemonstrations
frequently disrupted by the klan marchers themselves.
-- 
Sam Saal      homxb!saal OR saal@homxb.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.motss,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties,soc.culture.african.american,alt.censorship
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Organization: The World
	<1992Apr12.200532.23604@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<1992Apr16.165201.25983@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 23:00:37 GMT


Re: Counter-protest to a KKK rally.

Someone a few weeks back described a method (used elsewhere) where
everyone opposed show up to the rally and, in unison and with strong
but silent body language, turn their backs to the speakers and remain
there for the entire time.

Perhaps, to make sure there's no ambiguity, putting a piece of paper
on one's back with just the word "NO!" would ensure the point got
across (or T-shirts with that printed or whatever.)

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: env-link+@andrew.cmu.edu (Student Enviro-Link)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: AGRAN Exclusion -- BROWN Hypocrisy
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:24:52 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu

On 06-Apr-92 in AGRAN Exclusion -- BROWN Hy..
user Harel Barzilai@math.corn writes:
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Date: 05 Apr 92 22:49:35 EDT
>From: Agran for President <75300.3112@CompuServe.COM>
>To: <harelb@math.cornell.edu>
>Subject: Brown on Exclusion
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
>       A member of the media finally pinned down Jerry Brown on Larry
>Agran's exclusion from the political process.  You know what Brown said?
>       "Why doesn't he get a group of people and have an event?"
>       (THe Burlington Free Press, 3/30/92)
>       You can just bet that if Jerry Brown was being excluded, he wouldn't
>be hollering for "separate but equal" candidate forums.  He's the biggest
>hypocrite of any candidate in any party this year.
>       Steve

I am sorry, but this is a bunch of bullshit.  This guy Agran is too lazy
to get a campaign staff and hold fundraisers to get himself attention,
but yet he wants to be taken seriously.  Then, you attack Brown for not
inviting another opponent into the race.  As far as I'm concerned, if
the guy can't get his shit together, he shouldn't be president anyway.

<<<<I am only speaking for myself, not any group that I may seem to
represent>>>

Josh Knauer
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: ANALYSIS: Libyan Sanctions Have Little Support
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:04:06 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

In article <rdippold.703289415@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
> 
> >BTW, now that the World Court has ruled that Libya must turn over the  
> >suspects I hope that all progressives will unite behind the cause and demand  
> >that Libya yield the ruling.     
> 
> It's obviously being used and manipulated by the capitalist
> imperialist running pig-dogs of the US.  Remember how the UN changed
> from the Great Voice of Wisdom and Reason to mere lackeys during
> Desert Shield and Desert Storm...
>
It would seem appropriate that the "progressives" support this action
as it amounts to sanctions against an international terrorist which is
the action they would have supported in the gulf (whether it would have
worked then is not the issue here btw). A UN resolution supporting a
repeat of the US air raid like the last one would preumably not be
supported by these same progressives. Here here. Let's not get into
a situation where military powers are demonstrating their strength
by seeing how many civilians each can blow up.
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: A Collection of Amazing Facts!
Date: 11 Apr 92 23:01:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: cancun.rdippold.703033290
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

wlarkin@hounix.org (Ward Larkin) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.220716.23689@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>>gunter@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) writes:
>>
>>>Number of people who could be fed by the grain saved if Americans
>>>reduced their intake of meat by 10%:  60,000,000
>>
>>Same crap as above.  Self-serving, unthinking, maladjusted twits like
>>yourself don't stop to think that THE STARVING PEOPLE AREN'T IN THIS
>>COUNTRY AND WE LOGISTICALLY CANNOT SAVE EVERYONE IN THE WORLD.  The
>>other country leaders wouldn't allow it anyway.
>>
>Are you actually saying that there are no starving people in the
>United States of America?  Scientific American -- as apolitcal a
>magazine as I've ever read -- stated a couple of years ago that
>15% of the population in the USA is chronically malnourished.  
>I'm confident that things haven't improved since.

>Scientific American refused to use the term "Starving", and instead
>used the term Chronically Malnourished.

That's because they're not the same thing, unless you really want to
debase the meaning of startving.

However, we already have a grain surplus in the US.  Why doesn't that
get to them, and what makes you think think that if we suddenly
stopped feeding cows that we would continue to grow all the grain fed
to the cows?  And would the "advocates" for these people allow them to
eat substandard grain?


>Additionally, this article did a statistical regression analysis
>on the incidence of chronic malnourishment in the USA, and according
>to the numbers they used, then problem started in January of 1981,
>almost to the moment Ronald Reagan took office.

That's amazing, almost as if someone was.... playing with statistics!
You'd think that they'd be at least smart enough to make it appear as
if it started a bit after Reagan took office.  As it is, we apparently
have proof positive that Carter caused it all, eh?
-- 
Lawrence Radiation Laboratory keeps all its data in an old gray trunk.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: young@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176))
Subject: Re: A Collection of Amazing Facts!
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:22:27 GMT

fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes) writes:

[...]

>Why are people starving in the United States?  Guess it must be
>because "the leaders of" the USA don't care.

	Actually, this is fairly close to the truth.  The U.S. overproduces
	food in huge quantities, in spite of a substantial meat industry, so
	the starvation (really more like malnutrition) of which you speak
	can't be due to insufficient food production.  Rather, it is due
	to inability on the part of those affected to BUY it.  When was the
	last time you had to wait in line at the supermarket for a loaf of
	bread?  Now you might argue that the price of that bread would drop
	if all the grain we feed to cattle was made into bread, but this
	overlooks the fact that the U.S. Government already buys EXCESS grain
	production JUST TO KEEP THE PRICES UP!  Without these subsidies,
	the price of bread would drop __in_spite__ of the animal industry.

	Food production isn't the cause of hunger in the U.S.
	The simple fact is that poor and homeless people don't vote in
	significant numbers, with the unfortunate result that, when programs
	to help them are suggested, they tend to be ignored by the politicians
	who would put these programs into practice.  It is sad, but true,
	that "the leaders of the USA don't care."

[...]

-Rich (young@serum.kodak.com)

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

Don't get angry, get accurate information.
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:1622 soc.culture.jewish:7928 soc.motss:20189 soc.rights.human:1402 alt.discrimination:1543 alt.society.civil-liberties:501 soc.culture.african.american:4557 alt.censorship:3283
From: kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.motss,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties,soc.culture.african.american,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:13:44 GMT
Reply-To: kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Apr12.200532.23604@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>I understand the KKK is going to have a demonstration in
>Cincinnati; and people are divided as to whether it is proper to
>prevent their speeches from occurring or not.
>
>I don't have any particularly strong opinions on the ethical aspects of
>the matter. But aren't there more clever -- and more effective --
>themes for a counter-demonstration than just drowning the bastards out? 
>Aren't there
>better ways to make them look like fools than that? 

I think they should be able to have their demonstration.  Before anyone
asks, yes I'm African American.

You stop them from speaking and next thing you know somebody will be trying
to stop me if they don't like what I say.

There is one condition.
1. They should not be allowed to wear hoods.  The hoods conceal their
   identities which ahould be known if they plan to rally.


Personally I like to know who my enemies are.
I like vocal racist.  Why, because I know where they are coming from and
can try to avoid them.  The ones you can't see are the ones to fear.

I don't agree with what they say but they do have a right to say it.
--
/*  -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers.    */
/*      For I can only express my own opinions.              */
/*                                                           */
/*   Kent L. Shephard  : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com   */
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu (Don McGregor)
Subject: Re: ANALYSIS:Libyan Sanctions Have Little Support
Reply-To: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu
Organization: Oregon State University - Univ. Computing Services
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:38:27 GMT

N.Y. Transfer writes
>
>On April 2, the Libyan masses took to the streets in angry
>response to the U.S.-led sanctions against their country voted on
>March 31 by the United Nations Security Council.
>
A "spontaneous" demonstration in a totalitarian police state.  Uh-huh. 

BTW, now that the World Court has ruled that Libya must turn over the  
suspects I hope that all progressives will unite behind the cause and demand  
that Libya yield the ruling.     

--
Don McGregor             | California danger signs: you own more pairs of 
mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu| shorts than you do long pants.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu (Don McGregor)
Subject: Re: Cuba solidarity newsletter
Reply-To: mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu
Organization: Oregon State University - Univ. Computing Services
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:42:11 GMT

Rich Winkel writes
> 
>United States.On January 25, more than 4,000 demonstrated their support for
>Cuba at a rally in the Javits Convention Center in New York.

This is the demonstration in which the counter-protestors outnumbered the  
marchers by a hefty margin.  Something like 3-1.

--
Don McGregor             | California danger signs: you own more pairs of 
mcgredo@bluto.ie.orst.edu| shorts than you do long pants.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.motss,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties,soc.culture.african.american,alt.censorship
From: entropy@oconnor (Lawrence C Foard)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 05:15:39 GMT

In article <f7Fv029B0fw=01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com writes:
>There is one condition.
>1. They should not be allowed to wear hoods.  The hoods conceal their
>   identities which ahould be known if they plan to rally.
>
>
>Personally I like to know who my enemies are.
>I like vocal racist.  Why, because I know where they are coming from and
>can try to avoid them.  The ones you can't see are the ones to fear.

There is a solution, get a bunch of people together to track them when they
leave, find out where they go, and publish names and photos of them without
there hoods. I bet many of them will be to cowardly to show up when they know
that people will find out who they are.

-- 
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are 99.44% true.            ------  0<p<1  
Hackers do it for fun.  |  Being Bisexual squares your         \    / therefore
"Profesionals" do it for money. |  probability of not getting   \  / p^2<p and
Managers have others do it for them. |  laid on a saturday night.\/ 1-p^2>1-p 
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: wlarkin@hounix.org (Ward Larkin)
Subject: Re: A Collection of Amazing Facts!
Organization: Houston Unix Users Group
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 05:14:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.220716.23689@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>gunter@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) writes:
>
>>Number of people who could be fed by the grain saved if Americans
>>reduced their intake of meat by 10%:  60,000,000
>
>Same crap as above.  Self-serving, unthinking, maladjusted twits like
>yourself don't stop to think that THE STARVING PEOPLE AREN'T IN THIS
>COUNTRY AND WE LOGISTICALLY CANNOT SAVE EVERYONE IN THE WORLD.  The
>other country leaders wouldn't allow it anyway.
>
Are you actually saying that there are no starving people in the
United States of America?  Scientific American -- as apolitcal a
magazine as I've ever read -- stated a couple of years ago that
15% of the population in the USA is chronically malnourished.  
I'm confident that things haven't improved since.

Scientific American refused to use the term "Starving", and instead
used the term Chronically Malnourished.

Additionally, this article did a statistical regression analysis
on the incidence of chronic malnourishment in the USA, and according
to the numbers they used, then problem started in January of 1981,
almost to the moment Ronald Reagan took office.


-- 
-- Ward Larkin
   wlarkin@hounix.org
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Apr11.122901.26868@athena.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr14.113845.19582@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
Date: 14 Apr 92 10:03:47

In article <1992Apr14.113845.19582@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal) writes:

   In article <1992Apr11.122901.26868@athena.mit.edu>
   wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

   >Okay, here's my position: The right of freedom of speech includes by
   >necessary implication several subsidiary rights, without which the
   >primary right becomes worthless:

   Because this was posted to soc.culture.jewish and is now only marginally
   relevant, I'd like to try to bring it back.

   On what are these rights and subsidiary rights based?  Law?  If so, what
   law?  Natural law?  American law? Jewish Law?  Who says?  What are the
   sources?
   -- 
   Sam Saal      homxb!saal OR saal@homxb.att.com
	   Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton

American law as interpreted by the Supreme Court over the last
200 years.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Date: 14 Apr 92 11:38:45 GMT
Organization: NetNews Readers Anonymous

In article <1992Apr11.122901.26868@athena.mit.edu>
wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:

>Okay, here's my position: The right of freedom of speech includes by
>necessary implication several subsidiary rights, without which the
>primary right becomes worthless:

Because this was posted to soc.culture.jewish and is now only marginally
relevant, I'd like to try to bring it back.

On what are these rights and subsidiary rights based?  Law?  If so, what
law?  Natural law?  American law? Jewish Law?  Who says?  What are the
sources?
-- 
Sam Saal      homxb!saal OR saal@homxb.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
From: mark@fenris.albany.edu (Mark Steinberger)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Organization: State University of New York at Albany
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 00:04:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.122901.26868@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
[A bunch of stuff.]


Yes, Mr. Starr has the right to support the right of KKK members to
say that Jews should be lynched.

And I have the right to tell Mr. Starr that he's got pudding for brains.


--Mark
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:1670 soc.culture.jewish:8120 soc.motss:20507 soc.rights.human:1456 alt.discrimination:1646 alt.society.civil-liberties:527 soc.culture.african.american:4616 alt.censorship:3355