HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kayvan@satyr.Rational.COM (Kayvan Sylvan)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.kids,alt.flame,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Racism and humor [was: Re: <****> You ALL!]
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:00:21 GMT
	<1992Sep15.095550.16031@fel.tno.nl> <688nm6=.enigma@netcom.com>
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Rational, Santa Clara, CA
In-reply-to: enigma@netcom.com's message of 24 Sep 92 02:07:03 GMT

In article <688nm6=.enigma@netcom.com> enigma@netcom.com (Enigma) writes:

   [... about racist jokes ...]

   I usually just say "I don't think that's funny".  If I have to, I will 
   explain that I do not wish to listen to any racist jokes, and could we
   please change the subject.  But usually just saying that I don't think
   it's funny is all that is required.

It depends on who's doing the telling. I tell midlle-eastern or
Iranian jokes sometimes (I'm Iranian), but my intent is to laugh at
the *stereotypes*, not the people.

I also find that telling white jokes once in a while (when others are
telling race-related jokes) works to point out our fundamental
equality.

Face it, all people are funny!!

I completely see the point of examining our own motivations and
underlying assumptions when we find racist jokes funny.
Simultaneously, I think that humor can bring people together and be a
healthy expression of inter-racial tension that can be the starting
point for meaningful dialogue.

What I'm basically saying is that jumping down people's throats for
telling racist jokes will accomplish nothing towards the goal of
racial harmony. It will cause resentment and cause people to suppress
their feelings and *strengthen* the underlying racism.

Your job, if you choose to accept it, as a cross-cultural ambassador,
is to acknowledge the racism with *acceptance* and bring it to light.
Only then can you educate people about equality.

			---Kayvan
--
| Kayvan Sylvan, Expert Support, Consulting for Rational, C++ Development     |
| kayvan@satyr.Rational.COM  === W: (408) 496-3847 === Pager: (415) 694-0113  |
| "Dubito ergo sum --- I doubt, therefore I am." "Why say why?"               |
--
--
| Kayvan Sylvan, Expert Support, Consulting for Rational, C++ Development     |
| kayvan@satyr.Rational.COM  === W: (408) 496-3847 === Pager: (415) 694-0113  |
| "Dubito ergo sum --- I doubt, therefore I am." "Why say why?"               |
From: stillmmd@cnsvax.uwec.edu (Mark Stillman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: dissection software needed
Date: 1 Oct 92 10:48:25 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire

I am looking for Mac or MS-DOS software to replace dissection in college-level
biology courses.  I need the company names,phone numbers, cost, liscensing
info, and any other information you can give me.

E-mail me at Stillmmd@cnsvax.uwec.edu.

Thanks a million,
Mark
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:58:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.191857.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.190747.6478@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>> In article <14083.2acc9ef4@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>>>
>>>Republiclone slime. Eat shit and die.
>> 
>> There, there.  We should at least try to maintain a reasonable
>> amount of civility in the discussion, something the Young Republicans
>> can't manage.  (Michael Lewis, in the New Republic sometime last month,
>> painted this, uh, unfriendly portrait of the YR in Houston.)
>
>That's strange... I thought that Garrett was a Democrat. And he seems to be one
>of the very few people who loses his temper on a regular basis, so, your
>arguement that civility is something that [Young](you mean College) Republicans
>can't handle is rather baseless, isn't it? 

We're more inclined to tell ourselves that we're wrong, 'sall.  If
Garrett loses his temper, we'll occassionally remind him to count to ten.

My Young Republicans reference was to a very amusing article in TNR
by Michael Lewis.  BTW, _Liar's Poker_ is a very funny book, too.
Oh, I recall this quote by a Republican official during Houston, as
reported by the NYT.  He was walking by the YR as they were yelling
something, nodded his head towards them, and said, "Hitler Youth," to
the NYT reporter.  I found this amusing, but then, I would.

>Disclaimers.Disclaimers.
>		--VSG001@acad.drake.edu (Vince Goddard-ARCH Conservative)

Missed your .signature in your previous post, Vince.  Why is "ARCH"
capitalized?

--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
From: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Subject: Green peace [con]fusion
Reply-To: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Distribution: mod
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:55:51 GMT


[San Francisco]
Listening on radio Oct 4 morning to the 'green hour'.

Two 'Green Peace' representatives taking calls with questions.

A caller wants to know what the 'Green Peace' position was about nuclear
fusion (contrasting with fission).  The caller suggests that fusion was a
potentially safe [in terms of radioactive element waste] solution to our
energy lust.

The response from the green peace representatives is a casual dismissal of
nuclear fusion, invoking such hyperventilation as:
"Industry propaganda (sic) has lead you to believe that this is a safe
'nuclear' alternative."
"We want industry to prove it is safe before we'll
use it."

One, industry has nothing invested in nuclear fusion, aside from a few
conceptual mouseketeers.  The entry level scientific effort needed to
even begin to study the problem is out of reach of everyone but
governments- and even they rely upon [essentially free] graduate and
post-doc expertise.

Industry would benefit, as you would, as our home would, from the
perfection of a controlled fusion technique.  The point is that industry
has not and will not propagandize nuclear fusion [until we are close
enough to easily visualize profit].

Two, the apathetic response 'prove it to me' is the kind of limp-wristed
humanity that drags down the curve.  The obvious ignorance from the green
peacers about the subject is unattractive- but the disgusting fact is that
this ignorance sure didn't stop them from damming it.

This smacks of hypocrisy reminiscent of the 'no offshore drilling' bumper
stickers.  You want to make a statement and show that you support banning
offshore oil drilling?  Put out some effort to do a little environmentally
concious planning of your own lives, and get rid of the CAR in which you
are burning GASOLINE which is pumped from beneath the ocean floor (or
desert sands).  It is YOU who are choosing to drill beneath the oceans, by
supporting those oil companies (who, incidentally, take the burden of tough
choices off of your shoulders).

If you really care about maintaining your high life styles and having
a clean environment, maybe YOU should prove to INDUSTRY that nuclear
fusion is a safe and effective alternative to burning FOSSIL FUELS.

Positions of influence require responsibility.  Get on the ball. 
Think

about the sun.


## Personal opinions, pricing upon request ##
Xref: sparky alt.activism:17054 alt.desert-storm:1847 alt.politics.clinton:8149
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:29:17 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <1992Oct2.024226.21341@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>...
>I do not feel that the Gulf War was in any way necessary,
>and that Bush had put blinders on us to wage it.  I also feel that
>once the war had started, we had no real choice in the matter but to
>conduct it as effectively as possible.  That's all. 

I'm not sure what you consider the "start" of the war. Certainly, had
anyone in the rest of the world realized that Saddam was serious, we
might have dissuaded him before he attacked. But nobody, especially
his "brother Arabs" thought he was doing anything but trying to get 
his war debts forgiven by the Kuwaitis. The surprise was that, after
achieving much of this objective, he invaded anyway. Would we really
want the administration to make explicit commitments to defend nations
with whom we have no defense treaty? That would make much too clear,
by default, which nations we _would_not_ defend.

Or should we not have attacked the Iraqis, relying on sanctions? By now
the sanctions might just be beginning to bite. (Or whould King Hussein
have kept his border open to Iraq indefinetely, in which case the 
sanctions would _never_ have had much effect?) And Saddam would have
the first dozen or so of hundreds of nuclear warheads, probably without
us realizing that he did have them.

Speculate as you will about what could have followed from that situation.
5 million Iraqi deaths, maybe?



Xref: sparky alt.activism:16978 alt.desert-storm:1826 alt.politics.clinton:7986
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:24:33 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Sep29.212747.17042@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>I didn't know the death of enemy soldiers in a war was such a tragedy.
>Considering what they did to the people of Kuwait, why are we upset??
>

Are you serious?  Of course it's a tragedy when human beings are killed
simply to boost the approval ratings of an unprincipled US president.  What
the Iraqis did in Kuwait was no worse than what the Syrians did in Lebanon
while Bush and Baker cheered them on.

Peter Lauren.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:30:29 GMT


In article <60842@mimsy.umd.edu> biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.024226.21341@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>>...
>>I do not feel that the Gulf War was in any way necessary,
>>and that Bush had put blinders on us to wage it.  I also feel that
>>once the war had started, we had no real choice in the matter but to
>>conduct it as effectively as possible.  That's all. 
>
>I'm not sure what you consider the "start" of the war. Certainly, had
>anyone in the rest of the world realized that Saddam was serious, we
>might have dissuaded him before he attacked. But nobody, especially
>his "brother Arabs" thought he was doing anything but trying to get 
>his war debts forgiven by the Kuwaitis. The surprise was that, after
>achieving much of this objective, he invaded anyway. Would we really
>want the administration to make explicit commitments to defend nations
>with whom we have no defense treaty? That would make much too clear,
>by default, which nations we _would_not_ defend.

This is true, though we may have been able to dissuade the Iraqis from
invading except for the soft-line the Administration took with Hussein
prior to August.  Note that we did not have to have a defense treaty
with any of the neighboring countries to accomplish this.

Also, I don't believe most of the war debt had been forgiven.  Didn't
the news at the time note that several tens of billions were still
owed to the Kuwaitis, who were unwilling to forgive the debt?

>
>Or should we not have attacked the Iraqis, relying on sanctions? By now
>the sanctions might just be beginning to bite. (Or whould King Hussein
>have kept his border open to Iraq indefinetely, in which case the 
>sanctions would _never_ have had much effect?) And Saddam would have
>the first dozen or so of hundreds of nuclear warheads, probably without
>us realizing that he did have them.

I was thinking more of Powell's reluctance to go to war in August.
He was thinking in terms of a blockade.  Bush had decided to go to
war only a few weeks after the invasion.

In regard to the nuclear weapons, this is somewhat in hindsight.  One
may also ask if the Iraqis could have developed and delivered a
nuclear weapon in the face of an allied blockade.  This, of course,
ignores the question of whether Bush's policy of supporting Iraq was
wise.

My problem with this is that there was no true debate over the war,
except on some college campuses.  As said, Bush and the Kuwaiti
government had begun a campaign of disinformation to generate support
for the war.  I'm not sure what else could have been done.
--
"Sounds interesting....  Sounds interesting...."
				-- Homer Simpson
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
From: sdr57@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:59:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.032433.27492@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.212747.17042@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>I didn't know the death of enemy soldiers in a war was such a tragedy.
>>Considering what they did to the people of Kuwait, why are we upset??
>>
>
>Are you serious?  Of course it's a tragedy when human beings are killed
>simply to boost the approval ratings of an unprincipled US president.  What
>the Iraqis did in Kuwait was no worse than what the Syrians did in Lebanon
>while Bush and Baker cheered them on.
>
>Peter Lauren.

Mr. Lauren

Your argument, then, is that if we do not act to fix all
the problems and evils in the world, we should not act
to fix *any* of them? An interesting view, but one which
seems to me somewhat fallacious - what Mr. Hussayn did
was surely wrong - acting to reverse that, even if our
motives were not (as you suggest) pure, was surely right.

******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley "Ya nee speon" Roberts

Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,alt.pagan,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Subject: Re: High costs of college education
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 07:29:33 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Reply-To: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles C. Lin)

   There was a similar protest at the University of Maryland which
had to do with state budget cuts which affected the university
(library hours reduced, tuition increased, etc.)  

   My question is what a protest will accomplish.  Yes, it will
certainly raise attention to the matter.  Yet, unless the cost
of education is being increased due to frivolous waste, then
there must be some other reason for increases in tuition, etc.
And, what is the proposed solution?  Cuts in services?  Cuts
in salaries?   Professors on campus (TAs and staff members)
haven't had a raise in two years (if I recall).  This makes
it tough to be competitive with schools which are private
and may be able to live without the good graces of the state
with their huge endowments (and the tuition at many private
schools are already quite expensive).  Tough, in the sense,
that it may be harder to compete for good faculty without
a reasonable salary.

   Of course, I am no education expert, so perhaps there is
some relevant information that I am unaware of.   It would
be more meaningful if there were ideas on what could be
done to allieviate the high cost of education rather than
just protesting it.

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu
From: carhart@netcom.com (Raymond E. Carhart)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: outdials
Date: 5 Oct 92 03:40:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

I have no Idea where to post this, and I know this isls wrong. but this is
such a busy newsgroup, its a good place to start. anyd ideas on how i could get my hands on an extensive telnettable outdials list?
thankx for any help
p
(like emailing me a number, a list, a place to file a list, a newsgroup to go
to find a list)
thanx in advance. .
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: End of Privacy
Date: 4 Oct 1992 11:38:53 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


   I just read about this..I live here in California so it is
 relevant to me and who knows other states may be doing this
 as well:

  A bill has passed both the Assembly and the Senate here
  in California and is up for the governor's signature
  that allows the Department of Motor Vehicles to 
  ==sell== information about drivers ==including==
  name, mailing and residence address to
  commercial mail marketing companies who are then
  ==supposed== to keep this information confidental
  from others....

  I can't quite believe this is happening...didn't we
  recently have at least one stalker killer who got
  info thru DMV and that was when it was still
  illegal to do so?  
  What next?
-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
From: Dorothy Morse <dmorse@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:36 PDT
Subject: POINTER: grassroots for Somalia
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1296500388:000:130
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmorse    Sep 29 18:36:00 1992


Information on grassroots action for Somalia can be found in soc.cult.afric
(or soc.culture.africa on usenet) in topics 204, 215.
From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: "Strong Family Values" (IV)
Date: 4 Oct 1992 18:48:02 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


It occurs to me that this article is a good example of something
that I have long felt was an intellectual failure of liberalism.
Liberals tend to identify a real social problem (e.g. lack of adequate
health care) and then propose a plausible sounding solution (e.g.
public health insurance). Without bothering to actually win the debate
over whether their preferred program is actually the best (or even an
adequate) way to address the underlying concern, they then shift the 
terms of the discussion so that THE FAILURE TO ADOPT THEIR PROPOSED
SOLUTION becomes identified as a social problem in itself.

The article I'm responding to is far from the worst in this genre. It
just happened to be in the right place at the right time to irritate
me enough to provoke a response.

My observations on the health care crisis are as follows. As long as
the objective costs of providing adequate care are large compared to
typical income levels there will be a problem. Schemes for reslicing the
cake may change the shape of the problem and re-allocate the suffering,
but they will not alleviate it. To resolve the problem we need a genuine
economic recovery, so the typical person becomes wealthier, and better
able to afford medical care, and lifes other necessities. On the medical
front specifically, we need to bring the cost of medical technology down
by investing in a new generation of medical equipment that will have the
kind of design and cost advantages over present technology such as we have
seen in the field of computers.

-Steve
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16866 news.admin:7819
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,news.admin
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Misusing Federal Computer Network Resources
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:04:44 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

========== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/policies/nsf ==========
[Source: anonymous ftp to nis.nsf.net in directory cise.]

THE NSFNET BACKBONE SERVICES ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY

GENERAL PRINCIPLE:

(1) NSFNET Backbone services are provided to support open research and
    education in and among US research and instructional institutions,
    plus research arms of for-profit firms when engaged in open
    scholarly communication and research.  Use for other purposes is
    not acceptable.

SPECIFICALLY ACCEPTABLE USES:

(2) Communication with foreign researchers and educators in connection
    with research or instruction, as long as any network that the
    foreign user employs for such communication provides reciprocal
    access to US researchers and educators.

(3) Communication and exchange for professional development, to
    maintain currency, or to debate issues in a field or subfield of
    knowledge.

(4) Use for disciplinary-society, university-association,
    government-advisory, or standards activities related to the user's
    research and instructional activities.

(5) Use in applying for or administering grants or contracts for
    research or instruction, but not for other fundraising or public
    relations activities.

(6) Any other administrative communications or activities in direct
    support of research and instruction.

(7) Announcements of new products or services for use in research or
    instruction, but not advertising of any kind.

(8) Any traffic originating from a network of another member agency of
    the Federal Networking Council if the traffic meets the acceptable
    use policy of that agency.

(9) Communication incidental to otherwise acceptable use, except for
    illegal or specifically unacceptable use.

UNACCEPTABLE USES:

(10) Use for for-profit activities (consulting for pay, sales or
    administration of campus stores, sale of tickets to sports events,
    and so on) or use by for-profit institutions unless covered by the
    General Principle or as a specifically acceptable use.

(11) Extensive use for private or personal business.

This statement applies to use of the the NSFNET Backbone only.  NSF
expects that connecting networks will formulate their own use
policies.  The NSF Division of Networking and Communications Research
and Infrastructure will resolve any questions about this Policy or its
interpretation.
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.activism:17106 alt.desert-storm:1866 alt.politics.clinton:8294
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:15:48 EDT

In article <1992Oct2.174315.17999@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> Listen--I saw the photos from the 1988 gas attack on the Kurdish
> villages--I was sickened by that like everyone else.
> 
> Simon
> 
> 

But being a blind supporter of Ray-Gun and Fearless Leader you turned your
head and looked away, ignoring it. Lets face it, the Republiclones armed
Saddam, they are at total fault and bear total responsibility for the
whole thing happening in the first place. When the Little Dictator stopped
cowtowing to Bush and started acting on his own initiative THEN it was
time to stop them.

The problem with these Republiclones is that they are only concerned with
immediate consequences, they never look farther than their nose to see
what it is that they are really doing. Fools.

-Garrett