HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Re: Mike Royko: Schwarzenegger and Family Values
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 05:35:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.152130.5388@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.133350.27568@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.190319.22799@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>>>>Dig.  Ice T's work (as well as his public statements) supports killing
>>>>>cops.  Arnold's work does not.  There are two different messages here.
>>>>>This is a very difficult distinction, I know.  But strive if you can
>>>>>to grasp it.
>>>>
>>>>Please support this claim by providing in-context quotes where Ice-T
>>>>supports killing cops.
>>>>
>>>>I have heard Ice-T speak on this issue on a number of occassions.  I have
>>>>heard him say that we need to get rid of (note--that doesn't mean kill)
>>>>the bad cops.  I have heard him say that he believes that many youths
>>>>have been so victimized by cops that they have developed a mentality
>>>>such as that portrayed by his song.  I have heard him explicitly say
>>>>that his *portrayal* of a character in the song has been misinterpreted
>>>>for his own feelings.
>>>>
>>>>I have yet to hear him say that he supports doing what is portrayed
>>>>in his song.
>>>
>>>See his remarks recorded on video tape at the outbreak of the L.A. Riots.  
>>>They were widely distributed about a month ago.  He does not use the words
>>>"it's time to kill cops," but he comes quite close to that.  
>>
>>I did not see whatever video tape you are refering to, nor do I think that
>>it is likely that I will (or that I could find it very easily even if I
>>really wanted to).
>>
>>If you want myself (or others) to be convinced, you'll have to provide
>>a better quote than "He does not use the words 'it's time to kill cops,'
>>but he comes quite close to that."
>>
>>This could mean anything.  Most people are very good at heraing what they
>>*want* to hear (or what they *expect* to hear).  We have no way of
>>distinguishing what he actually said from how *you* interpreted it, when
>>you only gives us *your* interpretation.
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>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?"
>
>
>You know, it was a big news story at the time.  I'm not going to find the
>tape for you.  Everyone who saw it knows what I'm talking about.  You can
                ^^^^^^^^                       ^^^

How _CONVENIENT_.  All your friends, with your view of life, agree with you.
What a surprise.

>choose to believe whatever you like.

It seems that Greeny would prefer facts to beliefs.  You do not.  All you
can provide is rhetoric and personal attacks.  Sorry, I don't go for
rumor-mongering.
  
>-- 
>Roger Shouse
>The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu

Michael Lax, lazarus@wixer.cactus.org
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.sex
From: elf@halcyon.com
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 09:08:16 GMT

     Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:

>   Actually, Shakespeare is just rattling good theatre, for the most
>part.  This "elevate the soul" bulldada comes from people who have never
>actually seen or performed the stuff, but have learned that Shakespeare is
>a sort of Cultural God -- someone you worship but not enjoy.

   Well, after reading Shakespeare and his contemporaries, his stuff is
stunningly different from anything else anyone else was writing back
then.  But it's still _enormously_ erotic reading at times, especially
when you analyze the environment in which Shakespeare was writing.
Take "As You Like It," with it's tranvestite heroine who plays a boy
for much of the play, yet is encouraged to masquerade as the girl she
is pretending not to be for one scene.  A boy actor, playing a girl,
playing a boy playing a girl!  Hot stuff, genderplay...

   I'm sure that would never get past the Religious Right.

            Elf !!!
-- 
Elf Sternberg    __   |     I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss
elf@halcyon.com  \/   | has looked into me.  Neither liked what we saw.
elf@polari.online.com |                              - Brother Theodore
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,alt.sex,rec.arts.fine
From: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au (Iain Sinclair)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Reply-To: axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Date:  9 Oct 92 02:41:40 GMT

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
 >[Michael Lax has posted the Republican Platform to
 >alt.politics.elections. Here are the excerpts related to pornography,
 >arts funding, and censorship. - Carl]

If Carl is going to crosspost any more "Republicans on Pornography"-type
articles to rec.arts.fine, could he please ensure that Followup-To
is somewhere other than rec.arts.fine?   The ensuing responses are
usually completely irrelevant to r.a.f.

Better still, post them to somewhere like usa.censorship, usa.liberty,
or whatever.  If no such group exists, it's high time one did.


--
 Iain Sinclair    axolotl@socs.uts.edu.au
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7933 alt.politics.elections:15498
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:31:47 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson) writes:

> Fine.  I (and I hope most others) do not care what your personal values are,
> provided that it does not impact on anyone else.  You are probably like many
> people for whom porn is pure entertainment and will not be lead to lower your
> opinion of women, or to rape, kill etc.  But there are a large number of men
> out there for whom pornography lowers their respect for women, thus lowering
> the standards by which women are treated, and there are a very small number
> who will be lead to violence by pornography.  I would be prepared to forego
> some minor entertainment to prevent women getting raped - how about you?

I don't like guns but I don't tell people they shouldn't have them. This
is because I recognize a parallel between freedom of speech, which I value,
and freedom of gun ownership, which I don't. There are a number of things
you can say about both freedoms. Both are more beneficial than harmful;
both would be hard to regulate in American society as it stands; both are
constitutionally protected, although its debatable from the wording of the
amendments how far the protections extend. So this is the deal for both
wings: hands off the books and hands off the guns.

John
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.sex,rec.arts.fine
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:42:41 GMT
Followup-To: alt.censorship

As quoted from <1992Oct6.234545.19442@u.washington.edu> by sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman):

> What about violence inspired by people who claim to
> represent the will of God?  Can Bible publishers be
> sued for this?  

An EXCELLENT point, one which I always try to bring up.  If pornographers can
be held responsible for the supposed "results" of their messages, why not
religious figures as well?  If a homosexual is murdered by a fundamentalist,
can the Rev. Lou Sheldon be held to account if the accused claims that he
committed the crime after listening to the good Reverend condemn homo-
sexuality...?

> 


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:18:15 GMT
Subject: Re: Please Help
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.censorship

Oops! My apologies for posting my previous "Please Help" survey to this
group. It was an honest mistake and won't happen again.

Kingsley
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.sex
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 14:28:51 GMT

mgmam@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Mark A. Morrell) writes:

[...]
>In other words, let art support itself.  I have a good appreciation for
>what I consider good art, and I am willing to pay a premium for it, in
>order to allow that artist (and that type of art) to continue their role
>as artist in our society.  The problem with government subsidy is there
>is no person to approve the art (and no person capable of it, since
>tastes differ so vastly) and I consider most of the money wasted.
[...]

[From ACLU Briefing Paper #13 on Artistic Freedom]

"[Q:] Even if the government can't suppress art, surely it shouldn't
use tax monies to fund art that offends!

[A:] The Constitution does not require the government to subsidize
artists and private art institutions, so a government decision to end
all arts subsidies would not violate the First Amendment (although
that decision would impoverish the nation's cultural life).  But as
Chief Justice William Rehnquist has said, the Constitution forbids the
government once it has established a subsidy program, to "discriminate
invidiously" and "aim at the suppression of dangerous ideas" in its
administration of that program. Government funds pay for our sidewalks
and streets, but the government cannot decide which ideas and opinions
are expressed there. An art subsidy program is like a government-
funded street, library, park, or university: a public forum for the
expression of diverse ideas.

Art is inherently challenging and often provocative. If the
government, fearing controversy, funded only art so bland that it
offended no one, creativity would be stifled."

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8088 alt.politics.elections:17368 alt.sex:33223
From: sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: 8 Oct 92 10:31:39 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand


In article <1992Oct7.165817.29077@news.iastate.edu>, tarjan@iastate.edu 
(Scot 'ONE T!' Kight) writes:
> 
> 
> I myself am a pacifist, I dont hurt anything (except maybe playing football..)
> 
> I coud never Kill anything or abuse any one, I have friends who have been
> abused and every time I hear of it it sickens me, But I also like 'Porn'
> I have no problem with it and I appreciate it, Who are you to tell me what
> I may like and not like. I dont care about what you feel should be my family's
> values, I know my own values and will teach those to my children.
> 
Fine.  I (and I hope most others) do not care what your personal values are,
provided that it does not impact on anyone else.  You are probably like many
people for whom porn is pure entertainment and will not be lead to lower your
opinion of women, or to rape, kill etc.  But there are a large number of men
out there for whom pornography lowers their respect for women, thus lowering
the standards by which women are treated, and there are a very small number
who will be lead to violence by pornography.  I would be prepared to forego
some minor entertainment to prevent women getting raped - how about you?

> Where does anyone else get off saying 'Pornography causes violence'
> 
Oh, probably someone who has been looking at some evidence, rather than just
supporting one's self-interest.


Stephen..
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:41:38 GMT

sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson) writes:

>> Where does anyone else get off saying 'Pornography causes violence'
>> 
>Oh, probably someone who has been looking at some evidence, rather than just
>supporting one's self-interest.

What eveidence?  Please share it with us.

If there does exist such a causal link, why didn't the members of the
Meese commission turn into raving rapists?  Or judges, juries, and
everyone else involved in obscenity prosecutions?  In fact, how can
anyone be trusted with determining what is harmful without falling prey
to the causality you claim exists? 

Millions of people every day use porn.  A minute percentage of them are
rapists.  Millions of people every day read the Bibile.  A minute
percentage of them commit crimes and claim it was because God told them
to.  Ban one, ban the other.  Gotta protect those people whose minds are
so twisted they might snap under various stimuli.  While we're at it,
let's shut down grocery stores to protect obese peopel from doing
further harm to themselves.  And outlaw driving cars -- they kill tens
of thousand each year.  And...

What a wonderful world to live in. 

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: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:05:37 GMT
Subject: Please Help
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.censorship

              Please answer these 9 questions and return.

1.) Do you think equal rights for men and women is generally a good idea?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

2.) Are you pro choice?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

3.) Are you in favor of adoption?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

4.) Do you think men should be allowed to legally terminate their parental
rights and responsibilities before fetal viability?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

5.) What sex are you?
Male               [ ]
Female             [ ]

6.) How old are you?
Under 18           [ ]
19 to 65           [ ]
Over 65            [ ]

7.) What religion are you?
Protestant         [ ]
Catholic           [ ]
Jewish             [ ]
Other              [ ]

8.) What political party are you affiliated with?
Democratic         [ ]
Republican         [ ]
Other              [ ]

9.) How many years of education have you completed?
Grade School       [ ]
High School        [ ]
College            [ ]
More               [ ]
From: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Please Help
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:19:00 GMT
Reply-To: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Organization: COMANDOS Project, Glesga Yoonie

kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse) wrote:
>               Please answer these 9 questions and return.
> 1.) Do you think equal rights for men and women is generally a good idea?
> 2.) Are you pro choice?
> 3.) Are you in favor of adoption?
> 4.) Do you think men should be allowed to legally terminate their parental
>     rights and responsibilities before fetal viability?
> 5.) What sex are you?
> 6.) How old are you?
> 7.) What religion are you?
> 8.) What political party are you affiliated with?
> 9.) How many years of education have you completed?

This guy has a long track record of posting anti-semitic, neo-fascist, and
crank medical material, none of which he seems to have written himself,
without ever explaining his motives.  I can't imagine what he wants these
questions answered for, but it might not be a good idea to reply until he
comes up with a plausible reason why the world would be a better place if
he got your response.

For a start, since none of the questions obviously relates in any way to
parapolitics, why this group?  The only substantial question suggests
talk.abortion as the appropriate forum.

-- 
--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections,uiuc.civil-liberty,alt.sex
From: joe blow
Subject: Re: Brush up your Shakeapeare (was: [Republicans] On Pornography)
Reply-To: joe blow
Organization: JB INC.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:28:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.181549.23573@microsoft.com>, lorenmo@microsoft.com
(Loren Moore) writes:
[previous article deleted]

|>
|>it might be helpful here to remind ourselves that Shakespeare is (at least
|>nominally) attributed to having helped translate the King James Version
|>of the Bible. Check out Psalm 46 (I believe). Count 46 words from the top, 
|>note the word, count 46 words from the bottom. It spells 'shake spear'.
|>So, this might be why he is a Cultural God. My question has always been:
|>Why didn't god strike him dead for tampering with his precious Word?


Maybe GOD didn't speak a word of it, so he didn't care if what was said
to be his word was mistranslated or had liberties taken in the translation.

|>
|>daemien
|>/* shake them bag of bones */
                                   
--------------------------------------
Joe Blow
From: debra@creatures.cs.vt.edu (Debra Potts)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:40:02 GMT

Marc Colten writes:

>I find it hysterical that people are using Shakespeare as a role model
>for writers.  Shakespeare "elevating" the human spirit?  How about
>assassination, suicide, witchcraft, cannabilism, betrayal, -
>in the dramas.  What about cross dressing and falling in love
>with a guy with a donkey's head in the comedies?  :-) Then there are a host
>of lesser issues that Shakespeare's supporters might or might not
>support, like anti-semitic characters and  rascist characters
>as heros.  

>...Shakespeare was the Wes Craven of his day.
>

		Ha ha!  I was thinking *something* along those lines
		myself when I read about Shakespeare "elevating" folks!
		You know, if we lived in his day and actually went
		down to the Globe to catch his latest edifying edition,
		we probably would have left with nothing more lasting
		than crumbs in our pockets/grease on our fingers (from
		our lunch) and lice in our hair (from our neighbors).

		Although I'm not sure that I would label Shakespeare the
		Wes Craven of his day.  I would say more like the
		Aaron Spelling, the Sidney Sheldon, or the Jackie Collins			of his day!

deb
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:8044 alt.politics.elections:16234
From: shou@quads.uchicago.edu (roger colin shouse)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Mike Royko: Schwarzenegger and Family Values
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:41:12 GMT
Reply-To: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct8.161347.10467@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.152130.5388@midway.uchicago.edu> shou@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>You know, it was a big news story at the time.  I'm not going to find the
>>tape for you.  Everyone who saw it knows what I'm talking about.  You can
>>choose to believe whatever you like.
>
>Read: If you won't just take my word for it--even though it contradicts
>      what you have observed yourself--then I'm going to pack up and go
>      home.
>
>
>Funny how "everyone" hasn't spoken up to provide an (in-context) quote
>to back up your claim, or even to agree with you.
>
>You can claim whatever you like, but as I said, I have heard Ice-T
>speak several times on the topic, and I have never heard him endorse
>the killing of cops--though I have heard him specifically reject the
>idea that he *endorses* such behavior.
>
>As such, when someone makes a claim to the contrary (but provides no quote--
>just their own interpretation of the quote) I have to be extremely skeptical.
>It could be that he was lying, or that he has changed his story, but I'll
>need a little more than just your say-so to draw that conclusion.
>
>I've also heard lots of people claim that "Cop-Killer" itself *endorsed*
>killing cops, and we know how much merit that claim has...
>



Look dude, this is not your high school debate team.  Keep your eyes closed
if you like.  The people who saw it know about it.  If you don't want to
believe it, fine.  Don't worry, be happy!



-- 
Roger Shouse
The University of Chicago 		Email: shou@midway.uchicago.edu
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: [alt.feminism] MacKinnon Legislation Based on Urban Legends?
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:38:53 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Oct6.120429.26737@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>In article <Bvo5Au.6rn@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley]) writes:
>>This was shot down in alt.folklore.urban
>
>I have no doubt that this was an urban legend, but...
>
>>basically, without a model release, which she can retract at any time

(1)  I was recently interviewed on a post in comp.risks concerning
computers and women by the filmmaker Jon Friedman (who made Hotel
Terminus.)  At the end of the interview, I signed a release giving up
all rights to the material to Jon.  Although I said in the interview
that women are not disempowered in computing by mathematicians like
Edsger Dijkstra, but instead by the culture of the addictive computer
hacker, it would be a simple matter for Jon to distort what I said if he
needs a male programmer as a sort of modal chauvinist to be the Klaus
Barbie of the film he's working on.  I have no rights whatsoever to
revoke my quitclaim.  I am leaving Princeton to return to corporate
computer consulting, and Jon plans to eventually make this film into a
PBS special.  If he distorts what I said, I could be seriously harmed in
my professional relationships with women managers who see the film.

(2)  The owner of 1979 photographs of Madonna placed a copy of the
release she signed (for thirty bucks) at the beginning of the book.
There is no way Madonna can withdraw these photos or profit in any way
from their publication.

Since Madonna is wealthy, the harm done to her is minimal (although she
may prefer to display HER body under HER terms, not under terms dictated
by a soft-core pornography entrepreneur.)  Although I am not well-off,
Jon's film, if it gets made and gets on PBS, could do me good.  The
point is that both of us have NO say in the matter.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.politics.elections