HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Date: 7 Nov 92 13:06:56 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH



In <1992Nov6.212159.3128@miki.pictel.com>
  harling@miki.pictel.com (Dan Harling) writes:

>In article <1992Nov6.072244.25226@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>  guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone) writes:
  [...]
>> What I object to is censorship (short defn) - the selective filtering of
>>communications for the purpose of eliminating ideas deemed unorthodox,
>>nonconformist or otherwise unacceptable.

>I suspect it's more like "the selective filtering of communications for
>the purpose of eliminating frequent complaints that are being received
>by the SysAdmin."

 Yes, you are probably correct, but the filtering mechanism you describe
could well be functionally indistinguishable from censorship.  If the
frequent complaints being received by the Sysadmin are based on content
and not posting practices, then the result will be the elimination of
all unpopular and controversial ideas and views emanating from that site
and an effective dilution in the diversity of the net in general.
Netnews user policies that allow for content-based restrictions
institutionalize censorship, and all net users suffer as a result.

>>  Consider the following situation.  Let's say, for the sake of argument,
>>that you are a highly motivated member of the Republican party.  Further,
>>let's imagine that your sysadmin interpreted HP's NetNews policy as meaning
>>that only the views of the dominant party, the Democrats, are appropriate
>>material for posting to NetNews, and the views of all other political
>>parties must be suppressed on the grounds that they are offensive to the
>>majority.  Would you then consider your company, HP, guilty of practicing
>>censorship?

>The above example could also be related to a company policy toward
>solicitation.  PictureTel might not look kindly upon me if I went
>around to all my co-workers' desks and handed out pamphlets sponsored
>by the Republican party.  They might even ask that I stop.

 Yes, but following my example above, what if PictureTel asked you
to stop, but allowed your Democratic fellow employees free rein?
It is precisely the *selective* filtering of information that I
find objectionable.

> [...]
>The above is purely speculation; I have no specific facts to support
>any of these suggestions, as the details are none of my business.
>____________________________________________________________________________
>Daniel A. Harling                        (harling@pictel.com)
>PictureTel Corp.             Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
>Peabody, MA  01960                 PictureTel, but they ought to be!

  -Guy Schiavone
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:26:48 EST
From: Chris Hoffman <CXH181@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: John DiNardo and AT&T

Could it just be that AT&T or some of the big cheeses within AT&T know
something we don't?  Was JD getting close to something or someone?  Or maybe
AT&T just got some pressure from part of the government.  Try tossing those
ideas around in your heads for a while.

-- Chris Hoffman

Responses are more than welcome - that includes flamers.

cxh181@psuvm.psu.edu These ideas are all mine and I didn't say YOU had to
like them.  I do, and that's all that really matter to me.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: If it were I - Was: Re: Dallas TV coverage that d
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:22:31 GMT

wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks) writes:

>ObGroup:  With all the films that were "confiscated" and have
>since disappeared, how did the Zapruder film manage to survive
>and become available?

1) Zapruder decided to make some serious money and sold it to Life.
   250,000 is the amount.

2) Eventually, through the Freedom of Information Act, it has been
   discovered the Zapruder film spent 24 hours or so at the NPIC,
   the CIA's photographic centre where almost anything can be done.

   It is possible therefore, that the red blob is an "addition" to the
   film, added to make people think the front of JFK's head was leaking a
   big red blob. It is also possible that the back of the head was
   blacked out, which is where the actual massive head wound was.

   Whether the film was altered by the CIA is hard to prove.

   What can be proven is 4 frames are missing immediately before JFK
   went behind the Stemmons freeway sign. Zapruder testified to the WC
   that JFK began reacting to his throat wound "before" going behind the
   Stemmons sign. The four frames may have been removed to cover up this
   evidence. Why? Because if JFK was shot before frames 207-211, then the
   magic bullet theory is *completely* invalid.

   Note: Actually it is frames 207 - 214 missing from my copy of the
         Zapruder film in the WCH vol 18. Maybe it was 8 missing, not 4?

   In addition, several frames were switched at the time of the head
   shot making people think JFK moved forward -- like Dan Rather claimed.


   In summary, the Zapruder film is not unsullied.
-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
From: michaelg@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Michael Greenwald)
Subject: New book
Keywords: Media, JFK
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: alt
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:35:09 GMT

Here is an ad I saw in the New York Review of Books for a relatively
new book.  It's not about a conspiracy to kill JFK, it's not even
directly about the assassination.  Rather, it's subject is the way the
media covered and covers the JFK assassination, and how that coverage
affects our memories of the event.  Still, it might be interesting to
some readers of this group.

    "Covering The Body: The Kennedy Assassination, the Media, and the
    Shaping of Collective Memory" Barbie Zelizer, The University of
    Chicago Press.

    Not one of the more than fifty reporters "covering" Kennedy in
    Dallas actually witnessed the assassination.  Yet it was they who
    shaped our myths and memories of this momentous event.  In
    analyzing how they functioned in this crisis, Zelizer raises
    serious questions about how the media define our reality.

    "This is an elegantly written and brilliantly argued demonstration
    that one of the main things journalists are busy doing when they
    are telling stories is legitimating their own authority as
    storytellers."  -- Michael Schudson

I haven't seen any reviews of the book yet, so I know nothing more
than this ad says.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
From: greenjb@curie.cs.clemson.edu (Jeffrey B. Green)
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Organization: Clemson University Computer Science Dept.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:45:39 GMT

In article <1dfidhINNdbd@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>
>Does this newgroup have any purpose other than this thread?
>
>Just thought I'd ask....
>

Are you a new reader of this group or just bored ??

Over the time that I've been following this group, it has covered
many, many topics. This *particular* topic is relevant because
suppression of the truth AND suppression of the search for the truth
is one of the main charges against the Warren Commission and the official
government investigative bodies by dissenters.
Therefore, an action by a corporation to restrict the flow of
information is a bit disconcerting, especially when *that* corporation's
primary business is to facilitate the exchange of information.

If you are a new reader and want to catch up, then I don't know of
any ftp sites where this group is archived. However, there is (I believe)
a bbs which has archived much of what is going on here. I don't know
the dial-in number off hand, but I think I saved it when it was posted,
if you are interested.

-- Jeff

J.B.Green (greenjb@cs.clemson.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
From: prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:09:15 GMT

(Guy Schiavone) writes:
> Yes, but following my example above, what if PictureTel asked you
>to stop, but allowed your Democratic fellow employees free rein?
>It is precisely the *selective* filtering of information that I
>find objectionable.
>
Now, hold on a minute! If this is how the game is being played,
that's fine with me! 

Now, let's get down to the brasstacks. Let us open the hood and
see what's wrong with this issue. 

Now, corporations do not filter opinions based on political
affiliation. It's that simple. Are you with me?

What corporations hate is controversy resulting from expression
that is extra-curricular to its business, be it be Republican
or Democratic. Is that clear? I know of no corporation that
says there is free expression as long as it is Democratic.
Or republican. It's like a corner grocery store selling only
Coke when it stocks both Coke and Pepsi. You get my point?

Now, what's your problem. If you survive thanks to a company's
fortnightly paycheck and your information dissemination is thanks 
to their investment in computing and networking infrastructure, 
then play according to their rules. If you ain't happy, have some 
self-respect and get the hell out of there. It's that simple! Now
whaddaya say? 

Satya Prabhakar

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3759 alt.conspiracy:12000 alt.activism:18491 alt.society.civil-liberty:6487 alt.individualism:5961 alt.censorship:8676 talk.politics.misc:58888 misc.headlines:6959 soc.culture.usa:8347
From: prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 12:03:26 GMT

(Guy Schiavone) writes:
> The following is an illustration of my point.  I currently reside in the
>State of New Hampshire.  Let's say the State of New Hampshire implements
>an amendment to its constitution that eliminates my right to free speech.
>Could they justify this amendment on the grounds that I could always
>travel to Vermont to speak freely, and thus, they are not *really* denying
>my right to free speech?  Of course not.
>
You are confusing the obligations of a STATE with those of a CORPORATION.

> The issue at hand is whether a large corporation should be
>allowed to selectively impose on the basic rights of its employees, with
>the effect that only those political beliefs deemed acceptable by the
>corporation are expressed.  I believe that such policies damage our society
>and our system of democracy.  I also believe that the corporations have
>a responsibility to aid and work within our system of democracy.  Therefore,
>I believe that AT&Ts decision to silence John DiNardo is irresponsible.  It

Corporations do have the responsibility to work within our system
of democracy and grant absolute freedom to its employees. But
this is only as long as the company does not deem the actions of
its employees (mostly when they are at work and sometimes even
outside) detrimental to its interests. Let us take two examples:

1. Suppose a guy and his girl friend at work pet each other and do
   soft porn stuff during lunch hour in public. Now, the STATE has
   no right to interrupt their libidinous bliss. Does a COMPANY
   have the right to ask them to cool it?

2. Does a company have the right to forbid employees from doing
   part-time work that competes with the company's business itself?

My answer is: YES, unless you have any other. This is because a
corporation is not a state and need not respect all rights that
the state may respect.

Maybe this gentleman who thinks his freedom of speech is curbed should
take a 3 month leave of absence from ATT and tour the country in his
car and give speeches in front of the City Hall. Surely ATT should have
no problem with that!

Satya Prabhakar 




>is also unjust in that no financial cost has been incurred by AT&T due
>to the specific content of John DiNardo's posts.  AT&T is practicing a
>form of censorship that has no place in a free and democratic society, and
>I look forward to the day when such practices are eliminated, either
>voluntarily or by force of law.
>
>   -Guy Schiavone
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Castro organizes anti-Castro attacks
Date: 12 Nov 92 03:39:41 GMT
Organization: AT&T

This might only be of peripheral interest to the JFK assassination. Or...

But check out today's (11/11) New York Times (other papers too most likely)
about a guy named Avila who joined Alpha 66 in "the early sixties" as a
teenager and continued on in anti-Castro circles since then. He is now
afraid that the Castro regime may be coming down soon, and wants to admit
something before it comes out anyway: he has been working in cahoots with
both the US government and the Cuban government, and claims that Castro
encouraged raids on Cuba for his own political purposes.

Anyway, read the article... it might be the beginning of more revelations
about the true nature of the paramilitary Cuban exile operations over the 
years.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
From: gfv@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (gregory.f.valvo)
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:36:05 GMT

From article <1992Nov6.194926.693@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, by guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone):
> 
> 
> 
>  The following is an illustration of my point.  I currently reside in the
> State of New Hampshire.  Let's say the State of New Hampshire implements
> an amendment to its constitution that eliminates my right to free speech.
> Could they justify this amendment on the grounds that I could always
> travel to Vermont to speak freely, and thus, they are not *really* denying
> my right to free speech?  Of course not.
> 
>  The issue at hand is whether a large corporation should be
> allowed to selectively impose on the basic rights of its employees, with

Since when is free access to a computer with considerable online storage and
networking capabilities for the purpose of expressing personal opinions
one of the BASIC RIGHTS of a corporation's employees??? I look at access
to these news groups as a perk. If AT&T were to discontinue access it
would simply make them slightly less attractive as an employer. If
I felt strongly enough about it I would have the right to seek work
elsewhere. (Of course, if someone were to leave a good job because they
were denied access to netnews I'd advise them to get a real life!)
I know it's been said before but I'll try one more time, THEY ARE
AT&T's COMPUTERS. I would think AT&T has the right to arbitrarily say
who uses them and how.

BTW, has it been established why John posted those articles in such
an obnoxious manner (ie multiple postings under different names,
unreasonable number of news groups, etc)? I would suggest that he
try some of the excellent ideas proposed by others on this group and
post in fewer places with appropriate pointers. If the complaints stop,
then this whole conversation will be moot.

Greg

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson)
Subject: Re: What Has Happened to All the Traffic on alt.conspiracy.jfk ?
Reply-To: m_henderson@csc32.enet.dec.com (Marty Henderson)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. (VMS Software Support - Colorado)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:29:36 GMT

--
I don't know about some of you but I have noticed that this group has reached
a semi-point of diminishing returns. In other words the same things are being
re-hashed over and over.

From my point of view it's not that I have lost interest it's just that I've
already heard/studied the same topics over and over again.

Marty
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 M_Henderson               | "Could you please continue the petty bickering?
 Marty Henderson           |  I find it most intriguing."   ---    Data, 
 Woodland Park, Colorado   |  Star Trek, The Next Generation, "Haven"
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: rahayden@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Robert Hayden)
Subject: Re: I Killed JFK
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 05:34:35 GMT

greco@elec.uq.oz.au (John Greco) writes:

>Get a life dickheads. He's dead.

Right, and the government that killed him is alive and well.


-- 
>> Robert Hayden | rahayden@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu | aq650@slc4.INS.CWRU.Edu <<
>>>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<<<
>> I have this sneaking suspicion that Bill Clinton is going to smoke some <<
>>  of his wacky weed and then paint the White house in psychadelic colors <<
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Friday, 6 Nov 1992 17:39:37 CST
From: <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: J. Edgar Hoover

The authors name is Curt Gentry.  I have been browsing through it for a while.
If I remember correctly it doesn't have great revelations on JFK.  But for
anyone who wants to remember JEH as some kind of saint and his immediate
staff as apostles should stay away from this book.  I have been existing
through the years with some friends telling me ad nauseum how clean the FBI
was.  Reading this book on the investigations into the financial chicanery
uncovered by Cong. investigations in the aftermath of JEH's death will
forever kill that saintly image.
  There is quite alot of material on chasing the trail of who got the files
(you know, the REAL FILES) after JEH's death.  Absolutely fascinating!!!
If there was anything was hidden by the FBI on a conspiracy involved in the
JFK assassination, it would have been in those files and as best as anyone
can surmise, the greater portion of those files were destroyed in a fire
which burned down the cozy hunting club (whose membership comprised the
cream of the FBI and CIA) just ahead of investigators probing into
 the whereabouts of those files.
  Anyone interested should read this book.
ALAN ROGERS
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
From: wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks)
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 07:14:41 GMT

In article <1df1b1INN2h5@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
>
>And my proposed solution is to have the Feds set up the equivalent of a 
>			USA FREENET w/800 toll-free numbers.
>
>Maybe now w/Clinton...
>:-)
The FBI, etc. will love that!  Then all they will have to do is plug
into "their" network and build huge dossiers on all of us!

Remember, Bill Clinton may not win four years from now, and if he does, 
he can't even run in 2000.  So, No Thanks!  I would rather continue
paying my dues to my friendly neighborhood BBS and not worry as much
about Big Brother looking over my shoulder!
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
From: wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks)
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:10:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.193727.27547@u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone) writes:
>>rights vs. John DiNardo's basic human right to express himself freely.
>
>There are dozens of Usenet sites that would be happy to give DiNardo
>access to express himself.  Some are free.  Some charge a few dollars
>a month.  Some charge more.  He has had no right interfered with.
>
>--Tim Smith

Thanks for bringing some calmness and common sense to this thread!

There are probably _hundreds_ of sites that have news feeds 
that are _not_ schools or corporations!

And the cost is about the same as the newspaper and a weekly news
magazine or two.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: bwood@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (William Wood)
Subject: Re: If it were I - Was: Re: Dallas TV coverage that d
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:58:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.030405.4919@eskimo.celestial.com>, wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks) writes...
>In article <3948.1176.uupcb@spacebbs.com> mark.stevens@spacebbs.com (Mark Stevens)  writes:
>>
>>If I'm not mistaken there was a still professional photograher that
>>took pictures during the assination but the FBI confiscated his
>>photos and he has never seen them since.
>>                 
>Based upon the above, and other things I have read here, if I ever
>happen to get some fantastic pictures of anything important, I am
>going to do the following:
> 
>1 - Leave, quickly!
>2 - Get the film developed.
>3 - get the negatives duped, several times.
>4 - Get many prints made.
>5 - Hide them in as many different places as I can think of.
>6 - Then and only then, let the concerned authorities know that
>    I _might_ have some pictures they just _possibly_ would
>    be interested in.
> 
>ObGroup:  With all the films that were "confiscated" and have
>since disappeared, how did the Zapruder film manage to survive
>and become available?


>Wasn't the Zapruder film first sold to LIFE magazine, and then
became distributed through them????  Comments????
From: melchar@shakala.rahul.net (Barbara Haddad)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: test message
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 10:05:06 PST
Organization: Shakala - (Clan Zen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA 1-408-734-2289

    Forgive the post -- can someone e-mail back so I can know if I'm 
actually here (or just think I am)?  Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Haddad  
melchar@shakala.rahul.net or shakala!melchar@clubzen.fidonet.org 
Shakala - (Clan Zen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA 1-408-734-2289
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa