HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sh_strawn@vax.muskingum.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
Subject: Idealism vs. realism?
Date: 12 Apr 92 21:13:22 -0600
Organization: Muskingum College

wow!  

thank you all for excellent reasons.  

i still think that the only real reason for space exploration (and progress in
general, i suppose) is our race's desire to continue manifest destiny. 
explorers of the past searched distant shores mainly for wealth or for a place
to live outside of society, or to build a new one.  could it be that, barring
greed as an excuse, we have run out of places to run?

really, i know this is a gloomy view of the situation; that's not entirely how
i mean it to sound.  the reasons, as you all have pointed out, are many and
almost inarguably valid.  i simply mean to point out that, like Mr. Costanzo   
hints, we should solve the problems that have caused us to fight and kill over
the conquest of new horizons in the past before we plunge into the greater
horizons ahead of us.  imagine if we had space colonies today.  would we all be
working peacefully together out there to seek knowledge, prosperity, and
evolutionary interests for all of humankind?  i think we would be more likely
to extend our racial and nationalistic differences and competitions, and
basically have the same problems with bigger weapons to solve them with.

but we are close.  at least getting close.  the dream of space must inherently
include the dream of a peaceful society that can really work together as you all
describe.  hopefully these gene-sequencing experiments will help.  hopefully
the 'end' of the cold war will help.  and in our lifetimes, let's see
cooperation towards the exploration of space, and it can be carried out as
ideally as we envision it.

shane s.
  


Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
From: stephen@estragon.uchicago.edu (Stephen P Spackman)
Subject: Re: Idealism vs. realism?
Organization: University of Chicago CILS
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 05:03:22 GMT

Either we are trying to provide food, housing, clothing, education and
healthcare to everyone in the world, or we aren't. If we are, space
technology is on the critical path, for engineering and environmental
reasons.

There's no reason silicon can't be pink, green and capitalist!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
stephen p spackman         Center for Information and Language Studies
stephen@estragon.uchicago.edu                    University of Chicago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sh_strawn@vax.muskingum.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
Subject: Lunar colony: why?
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:21:18 -0600
Organization: Muskingum College

Wow, an empty newsgroup!
 
Maybe now that i am posting here, someone can tell me what this board is about.
Perhaps the evolution of the human specie?  Or the possibilities of societal
change, or maybe even upheaval, that the future may hold?  This sounds like it
could be an interesting newsgroup if someone else wants to talk about something
futuristic with me.  (warning: i am not a scientist or tech wizard, though i
would still like to hear about anything at all that might be scientific or
technical regarding anything at all about breakthroughs in this field.)

Since i am posting, i should offer some gristle to start on.  How about this: i
am 21; Spacelab in orbit this decade, maybe lunar mission as well; include
about fifteen years of downtime for nasa at any rate; will there be a lunar
colony in my lifetime?  And why do we need one?
 
I think that a lunar colony at this point in time would be a major shopping
spree that the world economy can not afford to go on.  The reasons seem to me
to be purely scientific.  Though there is some thought as to the limited
resouces and living space that earth has to offer, i think it would be wiser to
dedicate resources to solving problems rather than running from them.  

It's too bad i'm so pragmatic on this issue, becaause space exploration is so
exciting and heroic for us.  I guess the question is, can this type of venture
support itself economically?  I think not, at least now.

-shane s.-
From: 3442Q7Z@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
Subject: Re: Lunar colony: why?
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:24:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: CMUVM.92104.1624293442Q7Z
Organization: Central Michigan University

Is it me or is this group just a little weird?????????????
From: eireann@triton.unm.edu (The Fisher King)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Right to Privacy: Real or Not?
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:26:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.yaqjnk+
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


In all the hullaballoo that is coming about because the U.S. Supreme
Court might overturn Roe v. Wade, I thought it would be nice to have
a discussion on the alleged right to privacy implied in the U.S.
Constitution.

To make things easy, I propose that we at first limit ourselves to the
Constitution itself. This means no discussion of case law, i.e. what
some judge said in some case or another. Since the right to privacy is
supposed to be consitutional (according to some), then I say let's
try to prove it is or isn't according to what is written in the document
itself.

Of course, there may be times when one _has_ to refer to case law. For
example, comparing the Supreme Court's ruling in one case to a
reasoning that proves/disproves the right to privacy. This would be
allowable (in my holier-than-thou view), as it is not citation
intended to prove the existence of the right.

This is a good time of year to talk about this, folks. We've got a
major election coming up and most states have a majority of legislators
up for re-election. So let's get down and dirty on this one.

Of course there's little point to it, but it'll be fun.

So who wants to start?


-- 
eireann@triton.unm.edu               /\        FORNIT
really: The Fisher King             /  \           SOME
from: The Waste Land               / () \            FORNUS
fornit: Delphe                    /______\   
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberties
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Right to Privacy: Real or Not?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:22:15 GMT

eireann@triton.unm.edu (The Fisher King) writes:

>To make things easy, I propose that we at first limit ourselves to the
>Constitution itself.
[...]

Your friends are your business (to some extent):

AMENDMENT I: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right
of the people peaceably to assemble ... ."

Your home is your business (to some extent):

AMENDMENT III: "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any
house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a
manner to be prescribed by law."

Your person, house, papers, and effects are private:

AMENDMENT IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized."

You have rights beyond those listed:

AMENDMENT IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people."

AMENDMENT X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States

=================
law/README
=================
CAF Law Archive
  [part of the Computers and Academic Freedom (CAF) Archive
     [part of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Archive]]

This is an on-line collection of law related to computers and academic
freedom. It includes both case law and legislation.

The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4). It is in directory "pub/academic/law".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
      send caf-law <filenames>
where <filenames> is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.

For more information or to make contributions, contact Carl Kadie
(kadie@eff.org).

=================
=================

To get these documents by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s):

  send caf-law constitution.us
  send caf-law README

The files are also available via anonymous ftp from ftp.eff.org
(192.88.144.4) as file(s):
  pub/academic/law/constitution.us
  pub/academic/law/README
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberties,alt.politics.correct,soc.motss
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: GLB at Auburn University
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberties,alt.politics.correct,soc.motss,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 19:10:27 GMT

[This is a repost from "Computers and Academic Freedom Talk".  For
information on CAF-Talk, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include
the lines:
  send acad-freedom caf
- Carl ]

Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: bsc835!ehunt@uunet.UU.NET (Eric P. Hunt)
Subject: GLB at Auburn University

The State Attorney General, Jimmy Evans, recently released an official
'opinion' as to the legality of the GLB receiving state funds. He said it's
illegal, period.

A local Birmingham TeeVee station did an unscientific, unofficial poll
asking the residents of the metro Bham area what their opinion was. I think
you know the answer already. In a 4 hr period, there were 800+ calls against
the GLB and 100+ for the group. The station, WVTM 13, has a voice-mail type
system that is used with touchtone phones to record votes.

None of this surprises me, especially now that we have a primitive Baptist
preacher as governor.

Finally, the ACLU of Alabama apparently has papers ready to file in various
courts if the Trustees of Auburn University overturn the administration's
stance on allowing the GLB to have an official charter.
--
Eric Hunt
Birmingham-Southern College, Birmingham, AL
bsc835!ehunt@uunet.uu.net (preferred)
eric.hunt@matrix.sbs.com

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberties
From: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov (Keith S. Freedman)
Subject: Re: Right to Privacy: Real or Not?
Reply-To: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:19:11 GMT

In article 1977@transfer.stratus.com, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>Rights are not GRANTED by the Constitution -- the Constitution simply
>recognizes that you already HAVE them.  It is NOT an exhaustive list of 
>citizens' rights, but an exhaustive list of POWERS that we gave the 
>government to regulate them.

I think that you make a good point here.   It is the PEOPLE who GIVE the government
its power (supposedly).  WE choose who the law/decision makers are and are given
an opportunity to replace these people if we are not satisfied with their decisions
(or ethics, morals, etc.).  Even the constitution has changed with society as it was
designed to do.  Although the original wording is still the same, many ammendments
have been added to it. 
I, however, feel that the Abortion issue is not one that involves
the constitution of the United States and that there is no way of making a clear cut
determination on this issue without the use of "Religious Views."  Since the constitution
proclaims a separation of church and state, religious views cannot be taken into
consideration by the Government in determining law for ALL the people.
Therefor, abortion should remain the determination of the individual where they can
employ ther own religious and moral beliefs while allowing others to express theirs.

---
Keith Freedman
Los Alamos National Laboratory
freedman@ilmen.lanl.gov
From: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov (Keith S. Freedman)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Reply-To: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:49:30 GMT

In article 19251@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu, dweinste@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (David Weinstein) writes:
>
>If no one shows up at the rally, they will get perhaps 15 seconds of air
>time on the local news; by arranging a counter-protest you will do
>nothing but make the Klan look *good*.
>
>Perhaps you should look at the footage of the Denver riot in January,
>and realize how you are letting the KK use you...
>
I think, david, that you make a good point.  (one that I've been trying to make).
We had a representative from the American Indian Movement discuss with us
the events that took place in Denver.  He was quite elated by the violence and
told us how easily people got caught up in the turmoil.  This is why the United
Coalition Against Prejudice position is, in general, to find more constructive
ways of spending our time.  Then, after the Hate Speakers have gone, analyse
what they have said in a calm, objective, non-violent manner--one where they
cannot immediately capitalize on people's anger.
(Each situation, however, must be dealt with differently, but for the most part,
it is better to have them speak to no one.)

---
Keith Freedman
Los Alamos National Laboratory
freedman@ilmen.lanl.gov

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberties
From: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov (Keith S. Freedman)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Reply-To: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:28:23 GMT

In article 8946@cs.umn.edu, dege@cs.umn.edu (Dege Jeffrey Charles) writes:
> 
>    I can understand and support the counter-demonstration.  When folks like
>the KKK gather, it's important that somebody be there to point out how few
>people agree with them.
> 
I think that they'd get a better impression of how few people agree with them if
they stood up to speak and no one was around to listen.
The only reason they want to speak is to piss people off.  Once they have them there,
the are masters at getting people to become violent.  It is much worse for
them to have no one there.

Also, in general, they will have "seeds" in the audience.  These are the ones who will
first become violent towards the klan (they will throw thing with the intention of
hitting no one).  This, however, will give others the impression that it is acceptable
for them to become violent as well, since, "someone else started it."

In the words of Shawn Slater, Exulted Cyclopse of the Colorado Knights of the
Ku Klux Klan, "They fell right into our hands, they always do."

(PLEASE don't fall into their hands.)

---
Keith Freedman
United Coalition Against Prejudice
freedman@ilmen.lanl.gov

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberties
From: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov (Keith S. Freedman)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberties,alt.activism,alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.motss,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:54:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: newshost.1992Apr13.185431.10455
Reply-To: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberties,alt.activism,alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.motss,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article 19251@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu, dweinste@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (David Weinstein) writes:
>
>If no one shows up at the rally, they will get perhaps 15 seconds of air
>time on the local news; by arranging a counter-protest you will do
>nothing but make the Klan look *good*.
>
>Perhaps you should look at the footage of the Denver riot in January,
>and realize how you are letting the KK use you...
>
I think, david, that you make a good point.  (one that I've been trying to make).
We had a representative from the American Indian Movement discuss with us
the events that took place in Denver.  He was quite elated by the violence and
told us how easily people got caught up in the turmoil.  This is why the United
Coalition Against Prejudice position is, in general, to find more constructive
ways of spending our time.  Then, after the Hate Speakers have gone, analyse
what they have said in a calm, objective, non-violent manner--one where they
cannot immediately capitalize on people's anger.
(Each situation, however, must be dealt with differently, but for the most part,
it is better to have them speak to no one.)

---
Keith Freedman
United Coalition Against Prejudice
freedman@ilmen.lanl.gov
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Right to Privacy: Real or Not?
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:21:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <yaqjnk+@lynx.unm.edu>, eireann@triton.unm.edu (The Fisher King) writes:
> In all the hullaballoo that is coming about because the U.S. Supreme
> Court might overturn Roe v. Wade, I thought it would be nice to have
> a discussion on the alleged right to privacy implied in the U.S.
> Constitution.
> 
> To make things easy, I propose that we at first limit ourselves to the
> Constitution itself. This means no discussion of case law...
> Since the right to privacy is
> supposed to be consitutional (according to some), then I say let's
> try to prove it is or isn't according to what is written in the document
> itself.

Fine.  Try the following:

 9th Amendment
 The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not 
 be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 

Rights are not GRANTED by the Constitution -- the Constitution simply
recognizes that you already HAVE them.  It is NOT an exhaustive list of 
citizens' rights, but an exhaustive list of POWERS that we gave the 
government to regulate them.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberties
From: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov (Keith S. Freedman)
Subject: Re: REQUEST: E-mail Privacy Legal Issues
Reply-To: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:06:21 GMT

In article 4865@midway.uchicago.edu, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>I'm interested in asking the collective knowledge of the net whether
>they have any information on corporate liability for:
>
>(1) E-mail/corporate mail messages posted by employees (libel, etc.)
>(2) Unauthorized reading of private electronic mail
>(3) E-mail privacy issues in general.
>
this is all just my opinion:

(1)  I believe, unless otherwise stated in a message,  that opinion expressed in messages
belongs solely to the poster and, therefor, the company for whom they work cannot
be held libel for any information posted. 

(2-3) If an authorized agent of the employees company reads e-mail, that is probably
acceptable (shouldn't be, but it is the companies time and money being used).  However,
if an employee who is not authorized by the company reads e-mail, then that person
should be treated as if they commited an invasion of privacy.

Hope that helps,
---
Keith Freedman
Los Alamos National Laboratory
freedman@ilmen.lanl.gov

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberties
From: efranqui@girtab.usc.edu (Eduardo Franqui)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Veterans
Date: 8 Apr 1992 11:12:08 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: girtab.usc.edu


	I am doing a research project on U.S. veterans.  Their status today,
the kind of help they are getting, and the kind of help they need.  It is for
an Administration class and I am very interested in how their plight has been
administered not only by congress and the administration, but at local levels 
as well.
	I'm not even sure if this is the right newsgroup to ask, if not could 
someone direct me to the correct one?  I need facts as well as opinion.  
Sources of other useful information would also be appretiated.  If you could
directly send it to me over e-mail I would greatly appretiate it.

				Thankyou in advance,
	
					Eddy Franqui
					<efranqui@girtab.usc.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberties
From: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov (Keith S. Freedman)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Reply-To: freedman@bellman.lanl.gov
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:47:25 GMT

In article 703260565@cdc835, 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.

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."
by taking away someone else's rights, you are, therefor, taking your own.
(Including freedom of speech).

>Be serious!! Nazis, and any fascism must be stopped, with violence if necessary
>and even when these organizations are supprtd with government's money.
>(by the way, do you americans know that CIA and your government financed 
>illegal fascist movements throughout Europe during the last 40 years).

It is generally the right of U.S. Citizens to disagree with the government
and other people.  This is the foundation of our country--disagreement
with a (at that time British) government.

---
Keith Freedman
United Coalition Against Prejudice
freedman@ilmen.lanl.gov
From: ELLBRUA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (The Lemming)
Subject: Lust from afar
Organization: Yale University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 12:07:04 EDT

Last night, the chorus I am in rehearsed the Brahms Requiem with the
orchestra.  I spent the whole night staring at the first chair second
violinist who was quite attractive.
 
Peeve:  She is a student in the physics lab I teach so I can't date
        her, or even indicate my attraction.
 
ObWeirdness:  She has been in my physics lab all semester and I never
              noticed that she was attractive until last night.  I
              guess I was seeing her as a peer for the first time.
 
 
Alex Elliott
The Lemming.
ellbrua@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
From: rickg@netcom.com (Rick Gordon)
Subject: Re: Lust from afar
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 22:52:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - SF Bay, Cal Northifornia 
Summary: The weather in Peevetown
Followup-To: alt.peeves

In article <92107.144815SEK@psuvm.psu.edu> Sonja Kueppers (thanks for the
GIF, btw) writes:

>In article <kulchkINNpdt@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, banta@blagg.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs
>before cooking) says:
>>
>>How unusual.  Most of my underwear is meant to prevent chafing.
>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you incontinent?
>
>Most of my underwear is intended to allow me to wear the same pair of
>pants more than once between laundry days without smelling like a whorehouse.
>
>Some of my underwear is intended specifically to appeal to the advertising-
>induced ideas men have of what is attractive in women.  (Of course, I have
>some of the same advertising-induced ideas, so I find wearing lingerie
>enjoyable.)
>
>>>[discussion of sex in the afternoon.]
>>
>>Too bad for you.  Quiet weekend mornings, the picnic table in the
>>back yard ... oh well, you get the point.  Have you ever considered
>>black lights and flourescent body paint?
>
>No, but you're welcome to come visit and show me.

It's Springtime in Peevetown, friends and neighbors.

The weather ahead: warmer.  And muggy.

>-Sonja

-- 
Rick Gordon      | "What in the hell are you talking about, or dont' you even
rickg@netcom.com | know?? You're compleetly mental, get the net!"  Gene Moreau
Newsgroups: alt.peeves