HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Kenneth R. Brownsberger <brownsbe@ucsu.colorado.edu>
Subject: Aerial Wolf Hunting in Alaska
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A731414C8A038C51@wcstar.colorado.edu>
X-Xxdate: Thu, 19 Nov 92 20: 04:12 GMT
Organization: JILA
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:04:26 GMT

I've heard a rumor that aerial wolf hunts are scheduled to begin
again soon in Alaska ... the justification being the usual tripe about
trying to increase the Moose and Caribou populations by removing
their natural predators.  Does anyone have any hard FACTS on this?
Is this rumor true?  Who is responsible for this decision?

Answer via e-mail or posting...        Thanks.  Ken B.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kenneth R. Brownsberger                 Ph# (303) 492 - 5122
 JILA - University of Colorado           FAX (303) 492 - 5235
 Campus Box 440            
 Boulder, CO 80309-0440                  brownsbe@ucsu.colorado.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: cburke@nexus.yorku.ca (Carolyn Burke)
Subject: Anarchism and happiness
Organization: York University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:56:49 GMT

glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:

>First why shouldn't you spend you life fearing death and letting
>this dictate your values?   I've got news for you, death is
>inevitable.  It's a given.  Accept it.  No matter how much
>violence and coercion you use, you are going to die.  So you
>might as well use NO violence and coercion, since it isn't
>going to change the final outcome.

Death is inevitable, but happiness is not.  It is within the context of
life that violence and coercion (or their absence) has any meaning, as
they reduce happiness (rather a lot).  Within life, one may sometimes be
subject to coercion or violence.  It is only with these two conditions
that I would consider responding to coercion with coercion.  And that
response would be moderated by its potential effectiveness in creating
freedom.

And still you say that I am acting to make might right.  Being alive
does not have to be the highest value one protects.. Rather, without
being alive, one cannot protect any other values that one deems
important.. such as freedom, or happiness.  If I only engage in 'might'
to convince (nice euphemism, eh!) others to leave me alone, then I am
not actively supporting 'might'.  I would be using it optionally to
remove the coercive leaning of others who believe in using might for
other types of reasons.  

I am suggesting that the REASONS behind a belief / action are more
important than the belief in a lot of cases.  

-- 
........................................................................
...... C L Burke ... cburke@nexus.yorku.ca ... (416) 604 2235   ........
........................................................................
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: singram@eng.auburn.edu (Scott Ingram)
Subject: Re: Explaining anarchy to your friends?
Reply-To: singram@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:43:38 GMT

In article 1@cs.cmu.edu, dwp+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug Philips) writes:
>+you boil it down degenerates into might makes "rights".  I believe
>+rights lead to contradiction.  Because if someone violates your
>+"rights" you seek justice, and so arises the motto 'with Liberty
>+and Justice for all.'  To me this motto is a complete joke.
>
>Perhaps.  But your position of complete freedom leads to a contradiction /
>joke of at least equal magnitude.  If I have understood your idea of
>complete/absolute freedom correctly, then any one must be free to do
>anything (within the limits of Physics).  Therefore, anyone can do something
>that removes someone else's freedom.  When that happens complete freedom no
>longer exists.  Complete freedom cannot exist for everyone unless it isn't
>actually exercised, but then it isn't complete (freedom) anymore.
>
Well, look at it this way. If you have respect for others, and refuse to
use violent or non-violent means to coerce/force others to do your will,
then you are an anarchist. Allowing others to coerce you means you respect
their absolute freedom to do whatever they wish, although they are not
anarchists. We anarchists must live with all the rest of you, either by our
rules or yours. Glenn and I have chosen our rules.

>
>+But perhaps neither of us truly lives the life of no fear, for while
>+we do not fear death, emotional pain seems to be something that we
>+still fear. [...]  At this point I am just having a real hard time
>+dealing with other people's "expectations" of me.  It's easier just
>+to avoid people altogether than having to deal with their expectations.
>
>Are you unwilling to give others their (complete) freedom, or is it
>that their freedom is conditional, based on their not imposing upon you,
>even if only in the form of expectations?  

We are willing to give everyone their freedom, without any strings attached. It
is just that people start throwing these expectations on you... they expect
you to act in any certain manner, and it is against your own personal desires
or beliefs. They are free to expect this crap, but I am just as free to
distance myself from these aspects of life that cause me pain and discomfort.
I tried explaining this to my friends and they simply couldn't see it. I doubt
that you understand what the big deal is either.

It is hard to let you know exactly what goes on through my mind, what
makes me feel and think and do what I do. But I will say, that although your
views on Neuromancer and I might have some semblance of truth/authenticity,
you really don't see exactly what it is that makes us the way we are. 

See my next post for a reply to your email.

Orion.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: matta@lclark.edu (Matt Alexander)
Subject: Re: Explaining anarchy to your friends?
Organization: Sacajawea's Voice, Portland OR
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:16:32 GMT

Well, I think the first step is to watch "Harold and Maude" with them and
find out which parts they liked best...

-- Matt "Boober" Alexander

   "Right, everybody out! Smash the Spinning Jenny! Burn the
    rolling Rosalind! Destroy the going-up-and-down-a-bit-and-then-moving-
    along Gertrude! And death to the stupid Prince who grows fat on the
    profits!"			- Anarchist from Black Adder II
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchism and happiness
Date: 19 Nov 1992 22:39:50 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

You tell me that I'm the means to your end.
You tell me that I stand in the way of the lives of all your children.
What did I do to stand in the way?  
You say that it isn't my fault, it's just the guy with the gun
who hides behind me.
What did I do to you?
You say that when the soldiers raped me, that it was the price
to be paid so that many others would not be raped.
You say my mother was killed so that your mothers could live.
I have not had wonderful life up to this point.  I haven't lived
in a house like yours.  My parents didn't own a car.
But still my life means something to me.
What does my life mean to you when I'm your means to an end?
 
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: dwp+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug Philips)
Subject: Re: Explaining anarchy to your friends?
Summary: something salient, shortly stated, sadly seldom satoric
Organization: EIEI-U
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:27:04 GMT

In article <1e16ukINNjpe@uwm.edu> glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
+cburke@nexus.yorku.ca (Carolyn Burke) writes:
+You may not have created the present lump of dung society that we
+live in, but you perpetuate it by being a part of it.  You're like the
+chimp who puts his hand into a hole in a tree to grab some food,  but
+the hole is too small for you to get your hand out with the food in
+it. [...]

Wow, all that (and more) from a few sentences by Carolyn.  I guess your
work has yeilded results beyound anything I've ever dreamed possible! ;-)

+You don't have to fight the government!  Just make it irrelevant
+by doing a hell of a lot better job meeting people's needs!

A semantic difference perhaps.  Or maybe just one of tactics.  In any
event, however you put it, you are working to eliminate the gov't, which
is an assault/battle/fight, if not exactly frontal.

+If you value life more than you value liberty, liberty doesn't have a
+stinking chance.

If you have no life, liberty is incoherent, irrelevant, meaningless.

[Ranting elided.]
+Passive and non-resistive are two VERY different animals.

Why are you taking out your anger(?) against the system on someone else
who is an ally in the struggle?  (Getting the opposition to fight
amongst themselves is a very efficient defense of the status quo.)

+>I guess I'm asking whether there is a way for me to stop being a middle
+>of the roader, without losing any chance of happiness in this life.

+I have no clue as to why you and just about everyone else cannot see
+an intensely active and creative, but non-violent and non-coercive
+life as fulfilling.

Not a single, itsy bitsy clue?  ;-)?

-Doug
-- 
---
email to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us is preferred to From: address but both work.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: dwp+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug Philips)
Subject: Re: Explaining anarchy to your friends?
Organization: EIEI-U
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:07:57 GMT

In article <cburke.721670968@yorku.ca> cburke@nexus.yorku.ca,
	(Carolyn Burke) writes:
+Without some positive or active resistence to the governments and pushy
+neighbours of the world (with the hope of affecting a change for the
+better), I don't believe I could survive.  Well I know I couldn't be
+very happy with what I see as a passive solution.

Anarchy may not be chaos, but it seems that very few anarchists have
common ideas about what anarchy is.

Glenn's reply to you was presumptuous and rude.
For all his talk about contributing to the dung pile, he did quite a job
of it himself.  Will he remove his part of the pile as publicly as he
added to it?

+I guess I'm asking whether there is a way for me to stop being a middle
+of the roader, without losing any chance of happiness in this life.

Personally, I feel that a true anarchist has to decide that personally.
Not that one has to derive everything from first principles, but the
ultimate decision/synthesis is personal.  Contrast this to following the
party line of a political party or religous organization.

As for your questions... I don't have any answers, except what I've
already said.

-Doug
-- 
---
email to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us is preferred to From: address but both work.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Explaining anarchy to your friends?
Date: 19 Nov 1992 05:02:22 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

dwp+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug Philips) writes:
>Glenn's reply to you was presumptuous and rude.
>For all his talk about contributing to the dung pile, he did quite a job
>of it himself.  Will he remove his part of the pile as publicly as he
>added to it?
 
I will apologize if I hurt someone's feelings, although Carolyn told
me in E-Mail that she enthusiastically enjoyed my style.
I will however not retract my assertion that she adds to the dung
pile of violence and coercion unless she says she renounces it
in ALL situations.  Are you trying to tell me that I should retract
the substance of what I have said, not because you can convince
me that I am in error, but simply because it pisses you off?  A
retraction in substance will require rather more.  Say for example
you convincing me that she does not contribute to the dung pile of
violence and coercion.  Note I can remember several occasions of
making retractions on this newsgroup.  However, in these cases,
people had offered evidence as to why my assertion was incorrect.
 
As far as my contribution to the dung pile of violence and coercion,
do I participate in a sort of ascii violence?  As I told you earlier
in E-mail, my mother didn't hit us much but her screaming fits were
a form of abuse.  I will have to think about this to see if this is
simply a case of me replaying patterns that I have been taught as
a child and am I truly am verbally abusing other people.  I had simply
tried to be open and honest, but I do think that perhaps my posts can
border on the abusive.  I assure you that I have no intent of being
abusive.  I am simply trying to reflect how something that someone
has said makes me feel.  Up until this point, noone has said that I
have hurt them.  I hadn't considered the possibility of hurting someone
through this medium.
 
If I have hurt anyone on this newsgroup, I do fully apologize
for my abuse.  It was not meant as an attack, but simply as an
attempt to express my own feelings on the subject at hand.  And on
the subject of freedom, my feelings are INTENSE.
 
Glenn
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: slgsn@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-disob
Subject: pyro-parties
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:46:35 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Let us all delve into wine, women, and song...
%!!$C
From: infante@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew  Infante)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-disob
Subject: Re: .Pyro-politics.House
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:33:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Nov17.192551.60960@cc.usu.edu> slgsn@cc.usu.edu writes:
>Burn the White House now that we have a faggot president.
>How's that for extreme civil disobediance? I'd like a follow-up to know how I
>did or maybe a better suggestion.
>Viscous Cheese-Beer
>%!!$C 

Amazing what they teach mormons these daze!

I suggest you stay in your salt-lake and dry up.

Viscous Cheese-Beer - sounds like snot to me.

later.
From: seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (hemostat)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-disob
Subject: Re: .Pyro-politics.House
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:58:00 GMT
Organization: Duke University Medical Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov17.192551.60960@cc.usu.edu>, slgsn@cc.usu.edu writes...
<Burn the White House now that we have a faggot president.
<How's that for extreme civil disobediance? I'd like a follow-up to know how I
<did or maybe a better suggestion.
<Viscous Cheese-Beer
<%!!$C 

This has little to do with civil disobediance and lots to do with hate 
and intolerance.  You could easily start your own newsgroup alt.bigot.
From: slgsn@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-disob
Subject: .Pyro-politics.House
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:25:50 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Burn the White House now that we have a faggot president.
How's that for extreme civil disobediance? I'd like a follow-up to know how I
did or maybe a better suggestion.
Viscous Cheese-Beer
%!!$C
From: 471-1@ellie.atmo.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-disob
Subject: Re: .Pyro-politics.House
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:14:04 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <18NOV199208585965@mivax.mc.duke.edu> seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (hemostat) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.192551.60960@cc.usu.edu>, slgsn@cc.usu.edu writes...
><Burn the White House now that we have a faggot president.
><How's that for extreme civil disobediance? I'd like a follow-up to know how I
><did or maybe a better suggestion.
><Viscous Cheese-Beer
><%!!$C 
>
>This has little to do with civil disobediance and lots to do with hate 
>and intolerance.  You could easily start your own newsgroup alt.bigot.

I agree, you need a little truth in your agenda.
-- 
Take 'er easy.... Shane
.watch out for the lightning (a large-scale high-tension natural electric
discharge in the atmosphere)......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..informal... a sudden usually improbable stroke of fortune.......
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:07:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.115024.24735@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>>Actually, I would: My opinion of the "advice and consent" is that
>>the Senate should accept anyone technically qualified and able to
>>do the job (e.g. exactly what it means when in the case of appointed
>>executive officials like the Secretary of Interior. In these cases,
>>the Senate doesn't subject appointees to political litmus tests.)

>You don't seem to be giving any force to the word "advice".
  
"Advice" by it's very nature, is non-binding. I don't think "advice"
implies "a veto in cases of disagreement."

>...As to
>executive officials, there's much less reason to apply political tests
>because they are under the control of the President anyway, who is
>responsible for their acts.

The Senate doesn't necessarily agree with the President's policies and
views. Therefore, control by the President isn't generally a relevant
as far as the Senate is concerned (E.g. it doesn't cause the official
to agree with the Senate's views.) However, this is excatly the intent
of bringing up political views in the confirmation of Supreme Court
Justices. Also consider the case of officers in the independent 
regulatory commissions: They are appointed by the President with
the advice and consent of the Senate, are not under the control of
either the President or the Senate, and weld a great deal of delegated
power. The only practicle difference between them and the Supreme Court
Justices, is their lack of lifetime tenure. However, they (like cabinet
officials) are not subjected to political litmus tests.

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:04:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.032353.23876@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>>...Simply disagreeing on debatable political
>>issues does not, in my opinion, fall within the Senate's "advice
>>and consent" powers.

>Why not?

Such disagreement would not be "advice", which is by definition non-binding.
"Consent" means a willingness to accept, regardless of agreement.
Refusing to consent usually goes far beyond just disagreeing. (For example, 
Senators often vote for bills which contain some provisions they disagree with.
For their own reasons (usually as part of a compromise), they consent to 
measures with which they disagree. Refusing to consent would mean, in this 
case, that no compromise containing the objectionable provision would be
acceptable.)

>The Constitution pointedly doesn't give the criteria that the Senate should
>use in choosing whether or not to consent to a choice.

However, the word itself implies reasons stronger than simple disagreement.
I agree this is, as the Supreme Court would say, a "political question."
The distinction between "agree" and "consent" is an ambiguous and undefined
one, and a court of law couldn't draw the line. (If someone is completely
and totally rigid in his views, and uniformly unwilling to accept 
compromise, there might be little difference between "agree" and "consent."
In the case of real politicians, compromise is very acceptable and
there is a great gulf between "agree" and "consent.")

>Exactly, assuming you mean "the Senate has the power to not give consent for 
>political reasons".  If you mean "the Senate is not allowed to withhold
>consent if the reason for withholding consent is political", I don't agree
>at all.

I'm not exactly saying that: The Senate can, of course, refuse to consent
for political reasons. However, "refusing to consent for political
reasons" is a stronger statement than "disagree over political issues."
It implies extreme disagreement, to the point of complete unacceptability.
As a measure of this, I'd suggest the following test: If the appointment
were combined with a particular Senator's absolute favorite, pet bill
(the one he's been trying to get passed for the past four years), would
he vote for the combination? If he would, then he is willing to consent
to the appointment, regardless of his objections. If he feels so strongly
about it, that he would under no circumstances accept the appointment
as part of a compromise, then he clearly does not consent.

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: A British attack on (What) civil liberties?
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:57:17 GMT

From Kopel's "The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy"

p. 100:
The Security Service Act of 1989 provides
"No entry on or interference with property shall be unlawful if it is
authorized by a warrant issued by the secretary of state." Upon an
order from the secretary of state, theft, damage to property, arson,
procuring information for blackmail, and leaving planted evidence are
not crimes.

p. 102:

One reason the police do not need to care about legality [of evidence]
is that Britain lacks an exclusionary rule to deter illegal police
acquistion of evidence. Indeed, it is UNLAWFUL in a Britsh court to
point out the fact that a police wiretap was illegal.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
 
GE knew there was lots of money to be made in the diagnostic medical
machine field since it was only a matter of time before people started
getting sick from the effects of all of GE's toxic and radioactive
waste dumping. I expect GE to get into the Mortuary business next.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,misc.jobs.misc,alt.privacy
From: graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 19:24:04 GMT

In article <Bxy12o.Dxw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cbl@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>	I would contend, and the Supreme Court agrees, that militial
>	weapons are the only ones protected. By the way, the ACLU position
>	is the fraudulent ' the 2'nd protects the National Guard's right
>	to arms' which is patently absurd, as well as explicitly addressed
>	in another S.C. ruling. In other words you are full of shit, and
>	haven't read 1) any of the relavent S.C. ruling, and 2) The
>	ACLU position paper that addresses the question.

Note that nowhere in my original posting did I state my opinion on
the right to keep and bear arms. 

Strangely enough, I have read both Miller and the relevant ACLU position
paper, as well as a number of other relevant documents. Perhaps your
reading of the ACLU position paper is correct and I'm mistaken, but
I didn't read it the way you did.

You might benefit from reading the precise definition of the militia
contained in the Federal Code. The National Guard is the Organized
Militia.

You definitely need to learn to read. Most people find that reading all
of a document helps. You assume what the document will say, read only
those portions that agree with your assumption, and ignore the rest. 

>	The ACLU supports left-wing 'rights' because it is made up
>	of left wing supporters. No surprise. I have no beef with
>	the causes the national ACLU fights for (though some of the
>	state chapters need serious mental help), it's just that
>	they do so little to protect non-left-wing rights. 

It might surprise you to find out how unpopular the ACLU is with much
of the "left-wing." Something to do with their defending the right to
free speech by the KKK and neo-Nazis.
-- 
Stephen Graham
graham@cs.washington.edu	 uw-beaver!june!graham
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.theory