HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (.)
Subject: Re: Reply to Marc Talbot #2
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:17:00 GMT

spl@ivem.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) writes:
: In article <lkk1afINN95j@news.bbn.com> ingria@BBN.COM writes:
: >In article <1i8bsgINN29q@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> kar5@po.CWRU.Edu (Kevin A. Roll) writes:
: >   So why the hell didn't they kill HIM to shut him up???
: >
: >That's just the sort of question THEY want you to ask...
: 
: He's dead, isn't he?  Do we *really* know it was through "natural
: causes?"
: 
Who told you he's dead?: 							spl
: 
: 
: -- 
: Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
: UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
: "Personally, I don't care whether someone is cool enough to quote Doug
: Gwyn--I only care whether Doug Gwyn is cool enough to quote." - Larry Wall
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13867 alt.atheism:25468 talk.politics.misc:66865
From: jeon@carson.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: contradictory nature of free will and omni-anything
Date: 9 Jan 1993 04:09:16 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu
Keywords: Signs

I lost track of who the original poster was, my apology to her.
She said;

>
>3 - the free will argument. I recently had a discussion about this with my
>boyfriend and it does not follow that just because God knows what i'm going
>to do means that i have no free will. so big deal. God knows what i'm 
>going to do. What's the connection between God knowing what i'm going to
>do and me knowing what i'm going to do? divine intervention? Highly
>Unlikely. God can know what i'm going to do and i can not know. These are NOT
>dependent events in any way, shape or form. God may know that i'm going to
>choose to become a dentist in 20 years but i certainly do not know and will
>not know. it's a choice i am *going* to make but just haven't yet. anyway,
>i've made my point.
>
>thanks for listening. o btw, if i sound like a theist, please forgive me -
>i know not what i'm doing ;)
>
>wendy

This has been beat to death in this new group, most will say, 

Another lost soul.

and ignore.
But let me try once more with an analogy. As with all analogy this
one has holes, too. Nontheless, I find it worth to think in this way.

Think of space-time as a four dimensional manifold and events
as paintings on it. God's knowing what will happen in the future means the 
painting is all done, fixed, like a map. (If you cannot accept this, don't
bother to read on.) Even my contemplating on
free-will is an already painted event, my will to do so included,
somebody's else's will to assert that there IS a free will despite
there being an omni-anything included. Point is, every single thing,
whether I am conscious of them all or not, whether it happens in my mind
or outside of it, is a point on a map, or a story in an already written
book. Whether god can change this painting or not is a mute point if god
only can change it.

It does not matter that I seem to have a choice at this time or not. The
point is, when the choice is made, I cannot go back and unmake the choice
and start again. That is, my thinking that I had a choice must also have
been a planned event, another speck on the painting, just as my act of
choice must have been, if an omni-anything being exists at all.
How do I know I actually had a choice when I cannot go back to the
time when I hadn't made the choice yet and try another choice? I
should be labeled as a sophist if the future is not actually fixed
beforehand, but if some thing or one or being knows what is in the
next page of this book we call life, this is not a sophistry.

Opinions here are mine and mine only.
jeon
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa,misc.activism.progressive
From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: MKULTRA and Lee Harvey Oswald
Keywords: MKULTRA JFK Lee Harvey Oswald
Date: 13 Jan 93 00:08:51 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <1993Jan12.223740.22742@ncsu.edu> lggidden@eos.ncsu.edu (LARRY GRANT GIDDENS) writes:
>
>From the facts about the number of shots Lee Harvey Oswald and the type of gun
>he was using, it is impossible to fire that many shots in a row a gun
>that would have been required to stop a reload.

Of course it's impossible!  The whole thing was staged by Zapruder just to
get his name in the newspapers.  (I don't know where you people have been,
jeez!)


--
****************************************************************************
"Generally, things have gone about as far as they can possibly go when
 things have got about as bad as they can reasonably get."--Tom Stoppard
   Jason D. Corley  (aka corleyj@gas.uug.arizona.edu) Physics, Lunacy, etc.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.revisionism
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (brett mcinnes)
Subject: Re: Germany and racism
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:29:42 GMT

Your point?
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: timper@iat.holonet.net (Tim Perkis)
Subject: Query: Document on AIDS as a biotech mistake?
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:19:30 GMT

I'm looking for a document which I've heard exists but never have seen.
Supposedly an(East) German biochemist wrote a technical report on why
he thought HIV was a synthetic virus. 

DOes anyone have any more information about the whereabouts of this
or other technical documents in this area.

Thanks in advance. Please respond by email or posting here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
	Tim Perkis		timper@holonet.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
	Tim Perkis		timper@holonet.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705)
Subject: Re: alt.conspiracy archive site?
Organization: The Barbarian Illuminati
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:25:07 GMT
Keywords: Cthulu.  "Bob".

In article <1992Dec27.164125.1@acad2.alaska.edu> astlc@acad2.alaska.edu (Tom Claydon) writes:
    Is there an alt.conspiracy archive FTP site around somewhere? If so, could
   someone point me to where it might be? Thanks!

There was one, but the CIA RockeFeller Trilateralist Society are
hiding it somewhere ..... if I told you where I'd have to kill you ....
and they're just the front for the REAL organization ....

--
#				Pray for peace;      Bill
# Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
# !egassem terces eht dnuof ev'uoY  !snoitalutargnoC 
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13942 talk.politics.misc:67135 alt.president.clinton:1500
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Execute Amy Fisher!!!
Date: 9 Jan 93 19:23:15 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1ilcd8INNc7@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:
>Why is it that when we have a government infested with tyrants and crooks,
>all I hear is Amy Fisher, Amy Fisher, Amy Fisher...


Naturally the tyrants and crooks wish to divert attention from their
activities. Hence they make various TV movies about Amy Fisher, and
generally fill the whole of public discourse with trivia.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tuesday, 5 Jan 1993 11:24:09 CST
From: <U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Blessings of MULTICULTURALISM

In article <19249@mindlink.bc.ca>, Jeremy_Reimer@mindlink.bc.ca (Jeremy Reimer)
says:
>
>> U19807@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>>
>
>ALL racists are idiots.

You'll get no argument from me on that point...I will admit to the fact that
I was more than a little steamed at Schmidling's,er,"post",and that I
couldn't think of a more apt way of insulting him.

>I have yet to see a post from ARF that makes the slightest bit of sense and
>isn't filled to the brim with spelling, grammar and logic errors.  (I am not
>one to flame occasional errors of this type, but one sentence of his had five
>spelling mistakes and two grammatical errors, yet was only seven words long!)

For someone who rants and raves about the alleged failings of
non-European cultures,he has a rotten grasp of the intricacies of the
English language,that's for sure...

      ** Chris Krolczyk,esq.  * DISCLAIMER: My opinions are in **
      ** Maniac-at-Large      * no way endorsed by the Univer- **
      ** U19807@UICVM.BITNET  * sity of Illinois at Chicago.   **
      ** u19807@uicvm.uic.edu * So much for frivolous lawsuits.**
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa,misc.activism.progressive
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism.d,misc.legal
Subject: Tenth Amendment (was: Weinberger's Pardon)
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:04:56 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <16B4B10573.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu 
(David Veal) writes:
>        The tenth amendment.  You *must* realize that was just a silly little
> sop to the anti-federalists and isn't taken seriously by anybody.  Just a
> little joke on Madison's part.

No, no, no, the phrase the Supreme Court used is "essentially a tautology":

     It is in this sense that the Tenth Amendment "states but a truism
     that all is retained which has not been surrendered." United States
     v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941). As Justice Story put it, "this  
     amendment is a mere affirmation of what, upon any just reasoning, 
     is a necessary rule of interpreting the constitution. Being an
     instrument of limited and enumerated powers, it follows irresistibly,
     that what is not conferred, is withheld, and belongs to the state
     authorities." 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the 
     United States 752 (1833). This has been the Court's consistent
     understanding: "The States unquestionably do retain a significant
     measure of sovereign authority . . . to the extent that the 
     Constitution has not divested them of their original powers and
     transferred those powers to the Federal Government." Garcia v. San 
     Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, supra [469 U.S. 528 (1985)],
     at 549 (internal quotation marks omitted). . . .

     The Tenth Amendment likewise restrains the power of Congress, but 
     this limit is not derived from the text of the Tenth  Amendment 
     itself, which, as we have discussed, is essentially a tautology. 
     Instead, the Tenth Amendment confirms that the power of the Federal
     Government is subject to limits that may, in a given instance, 
     reserve power to the States. The Tenth Amendment thus directs us
     to determine, as in this case, whether an incident of state 
     sovereignty is protected by a limitation on an Article I power.

             New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (June 19, 1992)

[followups directed to misc.legal]

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13971 talk.politics.misc:67245 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12270
From: cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: (no subject given)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 11:15:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu

alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush Limbaugh: Is He For Real?
Reply-To: cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)

Is Rush Limbaugh a liberal masquerading as a conservative?  Could he be
a genuine conservative hired by the liberals to make conservatives look
bad?

The reason I ask, he seems to be a big wind bag continually running off
at the mouth.  Does this help the conservative movement in this country?
Or does it just make us look like idiots?

I agree with almost everything he says, but then I feel like a fool for
listening.  

And why doesn't he ever talk about the things Pat Buchanan was talking
about?  Why doesn't he rant against the United Nations like a good
conservative should?  Why won't he ever let a caller bring up the topic
of the Council on Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Commission?

Perhaps most puzzling, why does he speak so glowingly of George Bush?
George Bush wasn't much more conservative than Ted Kennedy.  That's why
he lost the election.	

Is Rush Limbaugh really a conservative, or is he just masquerading as
one?
-- 


--------- All my opinions are tentative pending further data. ---------
------------ John W. Redelfs, cj195@cleveland.Freenet.edu -------------
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Query: Document on AIDS as a biotech mistake?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:09:35 GMT

In article <1istfiINNgn0@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) writes:
>In article <C0M0sJ.M8q@iat.holonet.net> timper@iat.holonet.net (Tim Perkis) writes:
>>I'm looking for a document which I've heard exists but never have seen.
>>Supposedly an(East) German biochemist wrote a technical report on why
>>he thought HIV was a synthetic virus. 
>
>I have a transcript of a talk by Dr. Struecker (sp) that is similar to 
>this.  I will re-post it sometime soon (I posted it appx. 1 year ago).

Do either of these people explain how HIV was synthesized in the 1950's,
when the first cases of AIDS arose, years before genetic engineering
existed?

Sheesh, John Birch, now the Strecker theory.  Do you have a skeptical
bone in your body, Lance?
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.religion.misc
From: muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Subject: Re: _Jesus: A Life_ by A.N. Wilson
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:48:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.211303.27927@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.215038.21489@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
>>Agreed (on condition of my statement above) on your last sentence.  As
>>to whom the gospel blame, I think it can anyone of either the mob outside,
>>the Pharisees, the high priest, or even the whole of the religious establishment
>>of that time.
>Even the evangelists simply say, "there they crucified him".  The words are
>profound. The "they" is really the whole of mankind, of which the Jews, the
>Romans, the mob, and even the disciples who ran away or stood by helpless are
>a kind of representative picture. But the deed itself was Christ's own, and a 
>free one.

I can't speak for the whole of mankind :-), but as a person who is only
interested in trying to grasp the situation from a historical perspetive
and to learn about human nature, all I can say is that indeed Christ did
precipitate the later events on himself.  Nobody asked him to march into
Jerusalem on passover day and then call for the Jews to march out of the
city and then the whole of Isreal (much like Moses had done for Jews from 
Egypt) -- it would have been considered a rebellion of the highest order 
by the Romans.  That people are willing to stake their lifes in the name
of freedom, one can only admire the courage.
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13849 alt.atheism:25425 talk.politics.misc:66787
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A nation chosen by GOD -- New-Israel
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:31:30 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <7JAN199321154250@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Mineral) writes:
> In article <16B4FBE8C.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>, 
> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes...
>>
> 
>>In article <5JAN199319431894@utarlg.uta.edu>
>>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Inspiracy) writes:
>> 
> 
>>The fancy point is, that you think that you have it all figured out. 
> 
> I've expressed (in no uncertain terms) my =belief=. I could be wrong,
> childish, deranged, manipulative, human, machine, etc.... I could be
> a different person tomorrow than today or yesterday. That's why I
> put my faith in GOD, rather than myself. Very different than saying
> "I know."
> 
> So -- to make it very, very clear -- I don't think I have anything
> figured out. 
> 
The big clue!  We try to figure God out.  The problem is, He won't
fit in our understanding... too big...would blow the circuits.  So
why not let him put His understanding in us.  All we have to do is
sincerely ask Him.  If He was wise enough to put the universe
together, He can certainly find a way to communicate with us if
we're interested.

-Joe Gaut
From: pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: "Report from Iron Mountain" (an ele
Date: 4 Jan 93 15:28:36 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department

In article <1299600158@igc.apc.org> NLG Civil Liberties Committee <cberlet@igc.apc.org> writes:

>The book "Report from Iron Mountain" was written as a satire.

The recent posting referred to "Report from Iron Mountain" as a "novel".

>That means it was meant to poke fun at people who promoted the war
>industry. The author has repeatedly confirmed it was a satire.

Nobody's arguing with you about that.

>Perhaps we can post Gulliver's Travels?

If you have it in electronic format, please do!

>-Chip Berlet

-- Brad Pierce --
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: zonker@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (     Regis     )
Subject: MK-ULTRA
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:23:11 GMT

anyone got pointers to info about the CIA's LSD project?  (called, i
think, MK-ULTRA or something similar)

thanks!
--r
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Execute Amy Fisher!!!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 12:07:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.105826.10310@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.162320.17278@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan8.150808.6452@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>>>Need I say more?  We've got to do something about murderers!

>>She didn't actually kill anybody, but I must agree.  The punishment should fit
>>the crime, and the fact that it seldom does in this country is the sole reason
>>crime is now running rampant here.  Ferchrissakes!  Fisher beats a woman over
>>the head with a gun, shoots her, and she's going to spend a few scant years in
>>a cell and come out MAKING MONEY on the deal.

>>And who says crime doesn't

>I think the victim is entitled to some if not all of the money Fisher is
>getting from the obscene number of book/movie deals she got.

I don't think the victim is suffering too much financially.

Amy Fisher only got one of the three TV movies.

And the Buttafuccos got one of the others.  So they're doing quite well
on the money end, I'm sure.  Not that *really* makes up for getting
shot in the head, but...

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13968 alt.atheism:25745 talk.religion.misc:25914
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: _Jesus: A Life_ by A.N. Wilson
Date: 9 Jan 93 05:02:01 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA

In article <C0G7Lo.4GE.1@cs.cmu.edu> tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price) writes:
>
>Matthew 27:24-25
>
>	When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather 
>	a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the 
>	multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person:
>	see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be
>	on us, and on our children.

I don't understand your purpose of quoting this passage ...
But, anyway, the crowd mentioned in this passage must be the pro-Roman
partisans of the Roman-appointed high priest.   The fact they could
shout in unison is indicative of two things:

(1) The crowd wasn't very large, probabily not beyond several hundreds,
    if not smaller.  A large crowd can NOT shout in unison.

(2) The crowd was highly organized.   Only a highly organized crowd can
    shout in unison.

All evidences point to the Roman-appointed high priest as the organizer
of this small band of pro-Roman partisans (i.e. traitors to the Jewish
nation), who wanted to do away with Jesus simply because Jesus inspired
so much nationalistic sentiment, as evidenced by His triumphant entry
into the city of Jerusalem.  In this sense, Jesus died a nationalistic
hero of the Hebrews.  The nationalistic fever among the earliest
followers of Jesus is evident in the pages of the New Testament and
did not escape the notice of the scholars.  Some scholars, such as
Prof. Robert Eisenman (Cal. State U.) and Prof. Michael Wise (U.
Chicago), would even try to speculate on the link between the earliest
followers of Jesus and the Zealots (Reference: Biblical Archaeology
Review, January/Feburary 1993, pp. 60-61).  I would not go that far,
and in my view, the Divine Mission of Jesus was certainly misunderstood
by His nationalistic followers before His Crucifixion and Resurrection.
It was gradual process that His followers came to realize and comprehend
the significance of His Work and Person, and that His goal was beyond
just the restoration of the nation of Israel.  Anyway, my point is
that the earliest followers of Jesus exhibited strong nationalistic
fever, and it was this nationalistic fever, especially that outpouring
at His entry into Jerusalem, which greatly troubled the Roman-appointed
high priest and his pro-Roman partisans, who recognized the _potential_
of this nationalistic sentiment inspired by Jesus' messianic claim.
And I might add that Pilate, being a person who only recognized the
power of the sword, did not fully comprehend the _potential_ of the
messianic claim in the Jewish context, and thus did not treat Jesus
as a real threat.


Regards,
-- 
For Christ and His Kingdom
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13788 alt.atheism:25199 talk.religion.misc:25360