HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Anti-Arab racism on the net (was: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:37:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.201606.7476@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
>In article <GPRIORES.92Aug28114045@fish.oracle.com>, gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi) writes:
>> we might have found Mr. Ed's female counterpart, the logical Jackee
>> Joyner-Kersee.
>
>My dear mr. gordon, if you read the first page of the Arabian Nights (that is
>if your ethnophobe self has ever considered reading anything with "Arab"
>on the cover), you will realize that the name Sheheryar is "male."  

Sheheryar, the guy was probably thrown off the scent by the first three
letters of your name.  The acuity of those who flame people based on the
Arabic or female provenance of their namesm, or post tired defenses
of the "freedom of speech" of racist punks, has already been clearly
demonstrated by "Jackanapes" Schaffer's and "Knucklehead" Morton's
attempts at coding in the C programming language.  The "arab" along with
the "feminist", is a feared Other on boysnet.  Before WWII, students at
the university where I work discriminated against Jews; now the favorite
target of some is the "arab."

It's also interesting that Gordon names a black female athlete.  The
origin of this is rather strange, but here it is.  Another poster had
compared me to the hurdler Carl Lewis, an unhappy analogy from his point
of view; for in attempting to compare what he thought were "leaps" of
logic, he overlooked the fact that Lewis makes his physical "leaps" fair
and square, after considerable training and, probably, concomitant
intellectual endeavor.  The original poster manifested a subconcious
racism in his contempt for Carl Lewis' achievements, as well as the (all
too typical) contempt of those with intellectual pretensions for
athletes, a contempt which has its origins in Cartesian dualism.
Gordon here compounds the original racism and dualism with sexism and
simultaneously renders the analogy even more unhappy, for the athlete he
names, a black woman who probably threatens Gordon, is not even a hurdler.

Sheheryar, keep those posts coming.  You are needed and welcome on this
net as far as I am concerned.


Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.legal.software
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Juridiscations, patents and such
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:45:08 GMT

Disclaimer: this is hypotetical, any universe couldn't be silly enough
to have cases like this really happening, right?

Something for any ambitious legal minds out there:

Craig Cryptographer, an U.S. citizen living in USA, logs in to a
machine in Finland, and writes, edits, tests, runs and finishes a
package of cryptographic software while logged on to the machine.  The
machine's mass storage is in Finland, while Craig uses a virtual
terminal connection (rlogin) to log into the machine in Finland.  The
cryptographic software never enters USA, exists in USA or is run in
USA, except when Antti Arkistomies, a Finnish citizen, takes snapshots
of the software (legally, since Craig has decided to allow public
dissemination of the software), puts them to a ftp site and Hugo
Hamster, an U.S. citizen living in USA, ftp's the software to USA.
Hugo however doesn't figure out what the software does or how to run
it, but emails it to his ten best friends and uploads it to five BBS's
anyway.

It so happens that the cryptographic algorithm is also patented in USA
and the patent holder Hoarders Inc., will vigorously sue anyone who
they feel is violating their patent rights and will grant permission
to use the patented algorithm for a one-time usage fee of ten thousand
US dollars only.

Then, Cathy Citizen, an U.S. citizen living in USA, finds and
downloads the software from a BBS, compiles and runs it, and only then
reads the documentation.  Cathy Citizen, as any honest citizen should,
is relatively familiar with U.S. munititions export control laws, all
U.S. patents, U.S. patent laws etc. and as any honest citizen should,
at once reports the incident to the U.S. government and Hoarders Inc.

Faithful to their role in the story, the U.S. government prosecutes
anyone mentioned above plus the BBS operator and owner, and Hoarders
Inc. sues everyone involved demanding 50 million dollars of compensation.

... and then what happens?  (for the sake of argument, you can also
describe cases with Craig being Finnish, Hugo being Finnish and
operating from Finland and other variations)

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: boomer@coplex.com (Mike Gallenstein)
Subject: Crossing that line ....
Summary: I'm in *way* over my head here
Keywords: free,speech,slander,defamation,character,prank,childish
Organization: Copper UNIX/USENET Services
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 05:21:39 GMT

I hope I can make this as brief as possible.  There is a lot involved, but I'll
try and get the "meat" of it all in as short a post as possible.

My problems arises from what started out as a harmless prank.  I wanted to make
a statement to my employer, and all conventional methods did not seem to be
working.  My now ex-employer, has 21 stored in the metro area.  I put my
complaints on paper and delivered them to all 21 stores.  The feedback I got
back from other employees was very positive.  I addressed the problems in a
humorous way.  Management, of course, did not care for it too much.

To cut to the chase, they have finally (after about 10mths) discovered that I
was the "rebel rouser."  Suddenly I am being classified as a "white collar"
criminal, threats of being indiated by the Grand Jury, Federal court cases,
and I'm not even going to mention the possibilities of civil recourses.  The
only light I see is that my ex-employer said none of this will ever see any
court of any type if I "come clean." (i.e. squeal, tell all, etc.)

I know the worse case scenario here.  What I would like to know is what is the
most likely "real" case scenario.  I have told them everything I know, put they
seem to refuse to believe that I could collect enough information through rumors
(which are *very* rampant) about the company.  They keep insisting there is
someone else.  Other than the 3 people who helped me deliver, and one other
person knew absolutely for sure I was doing this. 

I know there aren't too many details here.  I could waist *much* bandwidth with
that. :-)  Basically I want to know what Federal laws have been broken (if any)
based on the fact that all the information I received were from rumors.  And
secondly, if anyone wishes to go into greater detail I'd be more than happy
to take this up in mail.

Thanks for "listening" :-)

-- 
 __________________________________   Tyger, Tyger burning bright,
/         boomer@coplex.com        \  In the forest of the night,
\  ...uunet!coplex.com!plex!boomer /  What immortal hand or eye
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   Could frame they fearful symmetry?
From: kemery@nmsu.edu (Kendal Emery)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: First Ammendment Rights
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:02:43 GMT
Distribution: misc
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

Just Thought some of you legal types out there would like to know.

I was watching the 700 club a few nights ago, and a lawyer with
the "American Center for Law and Justice" was on.

He was referring to a case in Housten where a judge passed a
"Gospel Free Zone" in front of an abortion clinic.  There was
to be NO praying or Reading the Bible within 100 feet of the
clinic, and there was to be no contact with anyone entering the
clinic for 30 feet.

The case went to the Texas Supreme Court, and a writ of Habeus Corpus
(sp) was issued for those that were jailed for kneeling to pray
on the sidewalk.

Hmmmm.  It's amazing what courts can do when they want to.

BTW:  other things that were happening,  the lawyer for the clinic
had apparantly donated a sizable amount to the judges election.
When the judge was approached for a stay of sentencing pending
an emergency appeal, she said absolutely not.

That's the story as I remember them telling it.

Kendal "Thought you'd like to know" Emery

P.S. I am not posting this as to any moral issue on abortion.
Just on the Apperant First Ammendment Rights Violation.  If
any one wants to know where I stand on Abortion,  they can email 
me and we will talk privately.

--
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
** kemery@dante.nmsu.edu  (Kendal Emery)                         **
**                                                               **
**      "If Jesus came back today...                             **
**         We'd try to book Him on the Oprah Winfry Show"        **
**                      Randy Stonehill..Great Big Stupid World. **
**                                                               **
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: tan@infonode.ingr.com (Maribel Tan-Vanderzijp )
Subject: question about small CLAIM COURT : please help
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Distribution: misc
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:30:33 GMT


my question maybe very basic or maybe a FAQ, but please bear with me and
sent me a reply if you can help me with my questions.

1. what if the summoned party refuse to show up ? (I am told the 
   summoning party automatically win the case)

2. so what - if I win the case ? how can I collect the claims ? is it the
   court will give me the compensation first and collect from the other guy
   or I still have to chase that crook ?


I will be posting in a few days how we got deceived by the builder/seller
of our house in various related newsgroups when this thing is all over. 


thanks. please help. I have so far never receive any response from this group.

Maribel@maribel.b23b.ingr.com

  
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Anti-Arab racism on the net (was: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:12:16 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal

As quoted from <1992Sep12.153748.2618@Princeton.EDU> by egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges):

> In article <1992Aug28.201606.7476@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
> >In article <GPRIORES.92Aug28114045@fish.oracle.com>, gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi) writes:
> >> we might have found Mr. Ed's female counterpart, the logical Jackee
> >> Joyner-Kersee.
> >
> >My dear mr. gordon, if you read the first page of the Arabian Nights (that is
> >if your ethnophobe self has ever considered reading anything with "Arab"
> >on the cover), you will realize that the name Sheheryar is "male."  
> 
> Sheheryar, the guy was probably thrown off the scent by the first three
> letters of your name.  The acuity of those who flame people based on the
> Arabic or female provenance of their namesm, or post tired defenses
> of the "freedom of speech" of racist punks, has already been clearly
> demonstrated by "Jackanapes" Schaffer's and "Knucklehead" Morton's
> attempts at coding in the C programming language.  The "arab" along with
> the "feminist", is a feared Other on boysnet.  Before WWII, students at
> the university where I work discriminated against Jews; now the favorite
> target of some is the "arab."

Ah yes.  I knew that Nathan Bedford Nihilges, the Newt of the White Camelia
just COULDN'T stay away.  I also still note that he STILL hasn't got the 
intestinal fortitude to address me directly.  But then White supremacists
rarely do, do they...?

> It's also interesting that Gordon names a black female athlete.  The
> origin of this is rather strange, but here it is.  Another poster had
> compared me to the hurdler Carl Lewis, an unhappy analogy from his point
> of view; for in attempting to compare what he thought were "leaps" of
> logic, he overlooked the fact that Lewis makes his physical "leaps" fair
> and square, after considerable training and, probably, concomitant
> intellectual endeavor.  The original poster manifested a subconcious
> racism in his contempt for Carl Lewis' achievements, as well as the (all
> too typical) contempt of those with intellectual pretensions for
> athletes, a contempt which has its origins in Cartesian dualism.

If it makes you feel any better, I consider you a much better analogue to Tom
Metzger and Richard Butler.  I'm sure that they can tell peoples' race by their
names too.

> Sheheryar, keep those posts coming.  You are needed and welcome on this
> net as far as I am concerned.

Still talking to yourself I see....


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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Original Intent
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:53:43 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <12238@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>It is definitely more complicated than determining original intent.
>But your extrapolation of freedom of discourse from free speech
>and free press is far different from turning the Constitution on
>its head, as liberals are fond of doing.

Could you give some examples of "liberal" jurisprudence that are *not* 
extrapolations of the sort I mentioned (and of which you approve, I take
it)? Examples that are clearly "turning the Constitution on its head"?
The distinction you draw here would be clearer if you gave some
specifics.

>I happen to think that child pornography laws are stupid (for
>the same reason drug laws are stupid), and not the most effective
>solution to the problem of child molestation.  But I know that they
>are not what was intended to be protected by the First Amendment.

What is your evidence for supposing that the Framers meant to exempt
pornography (or child pornography in particular, if you insist) from 
the First Amendment?

(It should be noted that the federal child-porn statutes, at least, 
do not ban all depictions of sexual activity involving children--they ban
only those that *use* children engaging in sexually explicit conduct
for the purpose of creating visual depictions of such conduct.)

>Unfortunately, liberals don't seem to understand that.

The notion that the Framers intended to exempt sexual material
from the protection of the First Amendment is, IMHO, conclusively
refuted by Justice Douglas's dissent in Miller.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 13:39:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.184549.13359@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>
>>It would "surprise" the hell out of me, Matthew; the NSA is not a
>>law-enforcement agency any more than, say, the Census Bureau is.
>
>How about the FDA?

The FDA has a different sort of charter from that of the National Security
Agency. Enforcing (some) domestic laws is part of its purpose.
For the "charter" of the NSA, read THE PUZZLE PALACE.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Summary: White man's rules don't apply here.
Keywords: (312)-E-B-O-N-Y--M-T
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:55:50 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Sep12.023131.2723@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU 
(Ed Nilges) writes:

>In article <1992Sep11.232400.10813@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com 
(Seth Breidbart) writes:

>>>                             "EBONY MOUNTAIN
>>>
>>>    "A drive is underway to honor Black heroes by creating an
>>>     Ebony Mountain.  The mountain will represent a global tribute
>>>     to five distinctive great Black men:  Dr. Martin Luther King
>>>     Jr., Macolm X, Minister Louis Farrakhan, Marcus Garvey and
>>>     Nelson Mandela.

Seth Breidbart did not post this.  I, Matt Rosenblatt, posted this
advertisement which appeared in the Washington _Afro-American_ of
September 5.

>. . .Furthermore, Louis Farrakhan is alive and my understanding 
>is that you don't place a man on a mountain, or a stamp, until he is
>dead.   ^^^   [Ed Nilges; emphasis added]

Nelson Mandela is also alive.  Mr. Nilges may have in mind such examples 
as Mount Rushmore and Stone Mountain, carved by white men in memory of 
other white men who were dead.  But the drive for "Ebony Mountain" is 
being spearheaded by a Black man.  Why should the white man's rule
apply to Ebony Mountain?

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus"
From: walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hey, Roy, is that the law?
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:24:26 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <1992Sep14.200127.5979@access.usask.ca>, by choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.):
> What is the basis on which lawmakers anchor themselves? How do they
> determine the justice or rightness of something?

Well, I use the Magic 8 Ball (tm), while some use the
Ouija board.  I've heard reports of deep thought in use.
Any others?
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KC6RKZ@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hey, Roy, is that the law?
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:46:45 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <12339@optilink.UUCP>, walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) writes:
> From article <1992Sep14.200127.5979@access.usask.ca>, by choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.):
> > What is the basis on which lawmakers anchor themselves? How do they
> > determine the justice or rightness of something?
> 
> Well, I use the Magic 8 Ball (tm), while some use the
> Ouija board.  I've heard reports of deep thought in use.
> Any others?
> -- 
> Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh

It's a cute response, but doesn't answer the real question: in
a world where all values are relative, what constitutes justice?

The bumper stickers that say, "If you want peace, work for
justice," make an assumption of some absolute definition of
"justice."  But if insist that there are no moral absolutes,
as nearly all liberals I know insist, that how can "justice"
be anything but the wants of the moment?  The notion of a
Bill of Rights becomes nothing more than a purely procedural
obstacle to the majority will.  It is not surprising that
liberals are so insistent that it no longer serves a useful
purpose.

A good example is a paper by Stephen Holmes we were assigned
last week in a class called Media Ethics.  The thrust of his
argument is that the First Amendment protection of freedom of
the press was to protect against concentrations of power,
and therefore, if the government passes laws that regulate
the content of news broadcasts, or who may or must have access 
to the mass media, then this is perfectly constitutional.

Reading this sort of drivel from liberals is one of the reasons
I can't take Mike Godwin seriously when he claims that liberals
support the Bill of Rights.  I don't doubt Mike Godwin supports
the Bill of Rights, but in my experience, Mike Godwin isn't
a liberal.  At Sonoma State University he would be called a
conservative or perhaps a fascist, depending on the mood of
the heckler.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
There can be no peace as long as AB 2601 lives.
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: alt.flame.spelling,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Question for Charles Perez and Ted Frank
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:38:46 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

(Well, my name *was* in the header, so I should respond...)
In article <1992Sep15.145914.21637@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.203330.21048@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>>So, that anyone *would* proofread his pseudocode is surprising to you?
>>Or are you surprised that Ed Nilges doen't have enough pride in what 
>>he posts to proofread how his sentences parse?
>
>Touche, Goofus.  Your correction is accepted: the above should read
>"would not" where it reads "would."  Couple of points, however:
>
>     *  Your correction mis-spells "doen't."                    

That's okay; your correction misspells "mis-spells."  You also left
out the accent on your first word, but we'll forgive that, given the
limitations of Usenet (no doubt sublimated racism toward French people --
an oppressed minority, according to Ed's criticism of Alphonse and Gaston).

>     *  The complexity of the thought expressed was several orders of
>        magnitude higher than the complexity of the C code posted by
>        Jackanapes and Knucklehead.  

It must be really hard to come up with those witty nicknames, hm?

>Cf. the movie Bonfire
>of the Vanities, a horrid piece of racist/sexist trash in which an ending
>speech by Morgan Freeman attempts to "prove" political
>correctness.  The Right Stuff was a better movie than Bonfire, for the
>racism was a minor detail and the theme was genuinely heroic.  But the
>orderly did not appear in the book, any more than Morgan Freeman
>appeared in Bonfire's book (by the same author.)  The fact that
>screenwriters have to do this to Tom Wolfe's books just proves what a
>racist the guy is.

No, it just proves that they'd come under ridiculous criticism from
people who think anything beyond a two-dimensional portrait of minorities as
good folks who have nothing wrong with them that the removal of
oppression couldn't occur is "racist" that they had to have Morgan
Freeman play the part of the crusty Jewish judge.  Nothing at all racist
about the book -- the coverage of the Crown Heights riots is a wonderful
example of life imitating art, in this case, Wolfe's portrayal of the
media's response to Sharpton-types. 

The reason Right Stuff was a better movie than Bonfire was because
they were slightly more faithful to the book.  

>Note the abusive Parent in Goofus' posting here, as well as the

Oh, and by the way, it would be "Goofus's."
-- 
           .........................................................
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
         here i sit looking for a warming smile in a house of cold wit
Newsgroups: misc.legal