HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 09:52:58 EDT

In article <UeYz6mS00XsEA6g0Vc@andrew.cmu.edu> David O Hunt <dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>If you want to pray at graduation, feel free.  Nobody's stopping it.  The
>decision was to prevent _organized_ prayer.  e.g.  Valedictorian says
>"Let us now thank the Lord who enabled us to graduate" type of thing.

To my knowledge, there is nothing explicit in the decision prohibiting
a valedictorian from saying a prayer.

Furthermore, since, normally, a valedictorian is not an agent of the state, it
does not appear as though there is any implication in the decision prohibiting
a valedictorian from saying a prayer.

A clergyman (or anyone else) becomes an agent of the state in giving a
benediction because the clergyman was brought to the ceremony by the
state (school) for the purpose of giving a benediction.

The same is not true of a valedictorian.

>Same thing with prayer in schools - nobody is saying you can't pray.  
>What they're saying is that prayer cannot be organized and sanctioned
>(purposefully or by default).

Whether or not this creates problems, it does not appear to be addressed in
this case, in any way.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:40:39 GMT

hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:

[...]
>That is what they (the system's owners) did.  Then people started
>all this "you can't do that" b*tching and moaning.  The U of Manitoba
>(I think it was) cut of a.s.b because it was found to be in violation
>of the Canadian laws.

You make it sound as if the University administrators involved went
though some careful deliberation. In fact, to the best of my
knowledge, no court, or even lawyer, even looked at the law and the
material before it was cut.

According to one report, the administrators, reacting to newspaper
criticism, were so sloppy they initially cut alt.sexual.abuse.recovery.

> The group is still in violation even if only
>one article is the actual culprit.

Can you support this claim or did you just make it up?

My understanding of both U.S. and Canadian law is the opposite.  My
understanding is that if one part of a whole has some value, then the
whole is not obscene. Here is an excerpt someone sent me from the
recent Canadian Supreme Court decision:

|    Second, materials which have scientific, artistic, or literary merit
|    are not captured by the provision.  As discussed above, the court must
|    be generous in its application of the ``artistic defence''.  For
|    example, in certain cases, materials such as photographs, prints,
|    books, and films which may undoubtedly be produced with some motive
|    for economic profit, may nonetheless claim the protection of the
|    Charter insofar as their defining characteristic is that of aesthetic
|    expression, and thus represent the artist's attempt at individual
|    fulfillment.  The existence of an accompanying economic motive does
|    not, of itself, deprive a work of significance as an example of
|    individual artistic or self-fulfillment.


Also, note that it also
  1) suggests that noncommercial material is less likely to be found obscene
  2) recognizes that self-fulfillment through expression
     is a reason for protecting expression.

I see not justification in the decision for banning alt.sex.

>  So they cut it off.  If everyone
>said as you did "that's their privilege" we wouldn't be here in this
>thread.
[...]

If they had done their duty to academic freedom rather than caving in
to newspaper criticism, we wouldn't be here in this thread.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: mesm@netcom.com (Mary E. S. Morris)
Subject: Re: Commerical use of the net?
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 04:28:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

zen@hophead (Nick Zentena) writes:
: Hi,
:         could someone forward me any information on
:         commerical use of the net? My understanding is this
:         is VERY Very bad. Or is it just me?
:         Thanks
:         Nick

For right now, the NSFNET (a large part of the Internet)
restricts use to research and education only...
The reasoning behind this (I think) is that the government
funds part of this. If some companies were using the Internet
commercially, they could be considered government subsidized.
And that would be favoritism...

According to the Sept Boardwatch, a bill has passed the House of
Reps. that would allow some commerical use if it "increase the 
overall capabilities of the networks to support such research and
education activities...
--
Mary E. S. Morris    |  The future exists first in imagination, then
mesm@netcom.COM      |  in will, then in reality. -- Galivan Burwell
=====================================================================
Netcom - Online Communication Services San Jose, CA
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD . . .)
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:44:34 GMT

In <23480@alice.att.com> jj@alice.att.com (jj@alice.att.com, curmudgeon and clueless white boy) writes:

>I particularly had to laugh when some poor dweeb claimed that
>"alt" was part of USENET.  It was created specifically because
>it was NOT part of USENET.  Learn the facts before you flame
>away, guy.

Quoting from spaf's "What is USENET?":

>WHAT USENET IS
>--------------
>Usenet is the set of people who exchange articles tagged with one or
>more universally-recognized labels, called "newsgroups" (or "groups"
>for short).

"alt" seems to be included to me.  The newsgroup creation guidelines are a
little (well, a lot) more relaxed on "alt", but there are still guidelines.

--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; if you want to be sure I see a post, mail it.
Xref: sparky news.admin:7166 alt.censorship:7016 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2649
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 20 Aug 92 04:00:56 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <3kfyzf#@rpi.edu> aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
|In article <MV6I5X3@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
|   In article <1992Aug10.072814.6300@sfu.ca> laidley@fraser.sfu.ca (Jennefer Anne Laidley) writes:
|   >And what kind of truth do you propose we counter lies with?  Who's
|   >truth? And who is to determine which truth is truly true?

|   The reader or listener. Everyone has to decide their own truth, and they
|   can only do that when there's nobody else filtering their information flow
|   for them.

|Except of course for the only moral absolute of Usenet:  Censorship is wrong.

I musta missed the vote.  On the other hand, is there a guideline
posting that shows how to vote on morals?
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:31:43 GMT

aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:

[...]
>Are you going to say that no one
>has ever died in the production of hard-core pornography, (including 
> snuff films)?
[...]

People have died in the making of many films (Ben Hur, Twilight Zone).
I've never heard of anyone dying in the making of adult films, but if
some have, then those responsible should be held accountable. (If you
want to know more about so-called snuff films, I suggest posting to
alt.folklore.urban.)

>How about a quote from Justice Warren Burger:
>
>   "To equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and
> political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene
> material demeans the grand conception of the First
> Amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle
> for freedom. The protection given speech and press was
> fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for
> the bringing about of political and social changes
> desired by the people.

With all due respect to Justice Burger, free speech is not just a tool
in the struggle for freedom, it is a freedom in its own right.

>  But the public portrayal of
> hard-core sexual conduct for its own sake, and for the
> ensuing commercial gain, is a different matter."
[...]

Even on its own terms, this argument fails. Netnews is not for
commercial gain. Moreoever, a less puritanical treatment of sex is a
social change desired by many people.

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: COURCOUL@vmtecqro.qro.itesm.mx (Juan M. Courcoul)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Site requesting NNTP host access authorization
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:16:18 GMT
Organization: Instituto Tecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Queretaro

This may not be the best or the appropiate newsgroup to post this type
of request. If so, please accept my apologies and my thanks for pointing
me in the correct direction.
 
As administrator and systems programmer for this node, I have set up
News access for our users, by means of Paul Campbell's NetNews Reader
for VM client software. We currently use the host mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx as
an NNTP host for gaining access to news.
 
Unfortunately, that host has now reached a point of CPU saturation where
all "low priority" tasks such as incoming NNTP feeds, etc., never get a
chance to run. Plus, there are plans for deactivating the machine in the
medium term future.
 
As a result, I would like to seek other NNTP hosts willing to allow our
users access to Usenet News thru them. Our link to the Internet is via
NCAR, in Boulder, Colo., so a host in the topological neighborhood would
be best, minimizing link traffic.
 
Thanks in advance for your help.
 
Juan
--
Juan M. Courcoul / Dir. Tech. Support  Voice:  +52 (42) 17-38-28
Monterrey Institute of Technology      Fax:    +52 (42) 17-38-23
Henry Ford 10 / P. O. Box 37           Net:  COURCOUL@VMTECQRO.qro.itesm.mx
Queretaro, Qro.  76000   MEXICO              COURCOUL@VMTECQRO.BITNET
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson)
Subject: Controlling access to newsgroups.
Organization: Wayne State Univ.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:30:30 GMT

We are running a news server. We have gotton requests from some of our 
local users for private (local) news groups. This would also be ideal 
for dealing with internal news items. How would something like this be
set up? I've thought of permitting the news groups to only select
groups, but thought someone else might have a better idea than that.
Please post the answer (I'm sure I'm not the only one that might be
able to use this information).
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright:" field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 11:45:21 GMT

In article <237@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>Archives & FTP fall w/in the "USENET",

I'm not convinced of that. Some do (for example, archives of comp.sources,
or other complete groups). Most archive sites do a lot of selection, either
by the administration or submitters, and wouldn't be considered part of
Usenet.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
From: bogstad@blaze.cs.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD . . .)
Organization: Johns Hopkins Computer Science Department, Baltimore, MD
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:17:05 GMT

In article <a_rubin.714260674@dn66> a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin) writes:
>
>"alt" seems to be included to me.  The newsgroup creation guidelines are a
>little (well, a lot) more relaxed on "alt", but there are still guidelines.

	However, I don't think I've ever seen any formal written
guidelines.  I also have seen people say fairly clearly that anyone can
create any "alt" group they want with no explanation required.  It is
considered common courtesy to let people know why you did something, but it
doesn't seem to be required.  It's not clear to me that non-written
"guidelines" which allow such activities are in fact guidelines at all.  In
written form they would be:

====

			ALT NET Guidelines

	You are allowed to attempt to create/remove any alt.* group that you
want; but don't expect other people to neccesarily pay any attention to you
at all.  They might even attempt to undo your actions or get abusive if they
don't like what you did.  If you want to you can post something to
alt.config explaining your actions.

====

Not too much guideance there.  On the other hand, it sometimes seems like
that is in reality the way USENET works as well...


				Bill Bogstad
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 11:45:20 GMT
Organization: D'Arcy Cain Consulting

hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>I usually make a distinction between the term "USENET" and the more
>specific term "USENET News".  The "USENET News" is the interactive reading
>reply message system that sometimes is not interactive and some people
>cannot reply to <g>.  The "USENET" is just about any from of allowable
>data transfer between systems that participate in the USENET.  These
>include FTP.  Archives on USENET sites are a long-established phenomenon,

And on Saturday night the words you use come around to be paid?  FTP is
not Usenet and the fact that a Usenet site has an archive doesn't make
it a Usenet archive even if it is an archive of Usenet.

>and as mentioned elsewhere starting to object to them now would likely
>end up the same way as when the movie industry woke up to late to
>stop Sony & Betamax.

I don't see how they could have stopped them any sooner.  As far as I
understand the court ruled that they weren't doing anything illegal.  You
imply that they got away with something.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid.com)  |
D'Arcy Cain Consulting              |   There's no government
Toronto, Ontario, Canada            |   like no government!
+1 416 424 2871          DoD#0082   |
Xref: sparky news.admin:6995 comp.org.eff.talk:5349 misc.legal.computing:1916
From: mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer)
Subject: Re: NetNews/CD - USENET News Available
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.computing
Distribution: na
X-NewsSoftware: Amiga Yarn 3.4, 1992/08/12 15:49:52
Keywords: 
Summary: 
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:44:08 PST
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica

In <23421@alice.att.com>, jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon) wrote:
> You show clearly that you have not bothered to read much of the early
> discussion on "pay for read" before the anti-copyright people got
> involved.  Definitions have been offered, and they've been attacked
> ONLY by people who have otherwise indicated that they do not want
> to honor copyright.

JJ, that's a flat lie. I attacked your definitions on the basis that
they were no less ambiguous than your original copyright. I never in
any way indicated that I don't want to honor copyright.

> You will now retract your unsupported and unjustified presumptions.

And I mean it!

	<mike
Xref: sparky news.admin:7136 alt.censorship:7002 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2637
From: aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault)
Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,sfu.general
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:27:01 GMT
	<1992Aug10.072814.6300@sfu.ca> <MV6I5X3@taronga.com>
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY

In article <MV6I5X3@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:


   In article <1992Aug10.072814.6300@sfu.ca> laidley@fraser.sfu.ca (Jennefer Anne Laidley) writes:
   >And what kind of truth do you propose we counter lies with?  Who's
   >truth? And who is to determine which truth is truly true?

   The reader or listener. Everyone has to decide their own truth, and they
   can only do that when there's nobody else filtering their information flow
   for them.

Except of course for the only moral absolute of Usenet:  Censorship is wrong.

How is it that (seemingly) everyone accepts moral relativism, and
still holds unwaveringly to the idea that censorship is wrong?  Just
trying to point out some flaws that I see in this ever-present
argument.

Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu    <><
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Subject: Re: Usenet Feeds Available By Fax!
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 17:47:09 GMT

Others said
# So how many rolls of fax paper does it take for a full newsfeed? :-)

More important, how long does the roll last between changes?

I recall the BIG laser printer years ago at NASA-LeRC. 
ISTM it was 38,000 lines/min. We called it the forest eater.

Now, let's see:
	{There has to be an envelope around for some back of the...}
    say: 25 meg/day.

    25E6/75 chars per line = 333.33E3 lines/day
    333.33E3/1440 min per day = 231.5 lines/min.

No problem!
We can slip this in between the real work........

:-}

--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright:" field (was: Re: NetNews/CD  .  .  .)
Date: 16 Aug 92 12:57:26 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <240@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.044101.9904@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
>>So, if someone FAXed all the articles to Byte, and they
>>ran them with headers included, it would be Usenet? They
>>would not be preparing derived works? I'm sorry, this
>>strikes me as _way_ to unrealistic to be functional.

>Would that follow the RFC's?

Hey, I'd love it if Byte started doing this. I'd start posting messages
about what I think of Jerry Pournelle's columns (as a computer columnist
he's a fine science fiction writer) and they'd have to print 'em.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:52:30 GMT

clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

>Certainly not south.  The Americans have an unwritten "notwithstanding"
>clause.  How else could Dr. Alvarez Machain, or violations of due process
>in the anti-drug and anti-organized crime laws and other constitutional violations
>be upheld?

As I understand civil forfeiture, it _is_ due process, at least that is
conjecture of the lawmakers and the courts who've so far not thrown the
whole damn thing out.  It's an abomination.

Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)
From: hoey@zogwarg.etl.army.mil (Dan Hoey)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: STRAW POLL: changing a moderator
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:16:15 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin.policy
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC

In article <1992Aug15.235942.3502@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <1127@zogwarg.etl.army.mil>, hoey@zogwarg.etl.army.mil (Dan Hoey) writes:
>	(news.admin.policy was the followup, be we don't get it yet)
>> [vote]   Kottman chose an obviously biased set of questions to ask.
>
>	No.

Maybe I should remind you that your posted vote can't be counted?

Dan
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: USENet defined, one easy lesson...
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<23401@alice.att.com> <232@ulogic.UUCP>
	<mwm.1ggx@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 20:50:28 GMT

Mike> == Mike Meyer <mwm@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us> 

 Mike> Defining USENET is the set of heirarchies that net. broke into
 Mike> during the great renaming: comp., rec., sci., soc., talk., misc.,
 Mike> and news.  (it's been a long time, and I may have mangled the
 Mike> list) seems accurate to me, because the others have different
 Mike> kinds of traffic, different newsgroup creation rules, or - well,
 Mike> you get the idea.

Except, of course, for INET, which is within the comp, rec, sci, soc,
talk, misc, and news hierarchies, but has different rules for creation
(namely that the INET Ghods think it's a good idea).

Which is one of the reasons the current INET groups should get quickly
grandfathered in with a mass vote, and new ones should wind up in a new
hierarchy, say, inet.* or something.
--
Christopher Davis * ckd@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
            ``Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ti Kwan Leep.
            Approach me that you might see.'' -- The Master
Newsgroups: news.admin