HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Billyboy Starr has had it with me
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:31:22 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

There are more sophisticated ways to put someone in your kill file.  I
don't know if misc.legal is your primary group or not (it is mine) but
of course this group gets a lot of slop from cross-posters that are
discussing abortion, dad's rights, etc.  On the subject of snuff
films, for example, I think that misc.legal is an after thought.  Take
the subject thread "Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?", which is hot and
heavy right now.  Below is all the groups cross posted that I took
from one of the newitems with that subject line, which I picked at
random.  Note that misc.legal is last.

soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal

A more clever way to set up your kill file (I haven't used rn in a
long while, but I know it can be done) so that you don't read a bunch
of posts that have little or nothing to do with misc.legal (if that's
your primary group), is kill off newsitems with certain crossposted
groups.  You will probably never read Ed Nilges related stuff again,
because he crossposts a lot (as many obnoxious people of his ilk).  I
haven't set up a kill file yet for misc.legal, but if I decide to do
so, I'll probably get rid of anything from the talk hierchy (the
participants from those newsgroups argue about the pickiest things,
they bore me), the abortion hierchy (I've made up my mind on the
issue, and I don't see anything new to add to the arguments), and
maybe soc.men, and soc.women.

I do think that allowing cross-posting is a good idea.  (I've seen
proposals to limit or get rid of that ability.)  When a newsitem is
cross-posted, the text of the item goes into one newsgroup and
pointers or aliases are placed in the other cross-posted newsgroups. 
This means that the text of the message is stored in one place only on
all the newservers.

On the other hand, if a person posts the same text in several
newsitems (not crossposting), then that wastes space on all those
newservers, and bandwidth also, because that person is sending each
newsitem, with the same text, seperately.

I think it's bad taste to advertise you're putting someone in your
kill file.  Just do it.  Why start a stupid flame war over stupid kill
files?  Such a flame war, BTW, belongs on news.misc.  I also believe
that trying to ask others to put certain things in their headers, is
unrealistic.  It implies that we are responsible for making sure
someone else's kill file will work, which I resent.

Most of this subject belongs on news.misc.  The only reason one
would post, for example, to misc.legal about kill files, is to ask for
or give suggestions of what is best to place in your kill file
specific to that group.  === Al Sparks
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Question concerning Airlines Antitrust
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:43:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.160751.28754@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>Last Saturday, I received a strange mailing from an outfit calling
>itself the Airlines Antitrust Administration which named me as part of a
>class action lawsuit against the major carriers for their monopolistic
>practices.  This notice said that, pending the outcome of a hearing to
>be held Oct 19 1992 in Atlanta, I may be awarded free travel
>certificates because I flew on United, one of the defendants, in the
>period 1988-1991 during which anticompetitive practices were alleged.
:
>Question: anyone else get this?  Anybody aware of the likelihood that
>any kind of awards will be made?

It has been discussed in misc.consumers a lot lately.  I think it's
fairly likely that the certificates will be distributed; if you look
closely, though, you'll notice that what you're getting is no better
than the certificates airlines often mail out for free.

It will cost the airlines almost nothing; you're limited to about 20%
of the cost of a ticket, and you can't buy the ticket through a travel
agent.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 06:46:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.183014.5795@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:

>Justice Clark's language in _Mapp_ is
>more mealy-mouthed than Justice Jackson's in _West Va. v. Barnette_
>with regard to applicability of the previous decision.

Almost any other justice seems more mealy-mouthed than Justice Jackson was--
especially if held to the standard of the "fixed-star-in-the-Constitutional-
horizon" opinion of Barnette.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.  
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Legal criticism (was: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:35:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.141542.11698@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.224110.7264@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Jul20.142402.29351@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>>[diatribe about how Posner used the phrase "black miscegenator," and is
>>>therefore a racist deleted]
>>
>>Ed, please, for the edification of the rest of the net, explain the
>>politically correct non-racist way to convey the idea that race-mixing
>>was not approved of, and, indeed, considered monstrous, in the fifteenth
>>century, all while using only a few words.
>
>Not until you get your centuries straight.

Fine, sixteenth.  Quit dodging the question.

>Posner reveals his racism in other ways.  For example, he describes
>British repression of the 1916 Dublin rebellion as being conducted with
>great "firmness."  I should have thought they conducted themselves with
>savagery, but for me to say so would be to violate the language game in
>which Britons and Americans conduct themselves with firmness whereas
>people from Burkina Faso conduct themselves with "savagery" and are
>indeed terrorists.  

You're imputing a hell of a lot into one word.  Including the use of another
word in a way that he didn't ever use it.  Demonstrate where Posner discusses
Burkino Faso.  Or *ever* uses "savagery" in the way you describe it.

Leaving aside whatever the truth of the 1916 Dublin rebellion may be,
(1) "Firmness" and "savagery" are hardly mutually exclusive, and it's
    improper to read "firmness" as "not savage" or "savage," when it
    doesn't address the question in the slightest.

(2) There happens to be a literary technique called "irony" which Posner
    uses to great extent.  It's bound to upset pc-mavens eventually, but
    is not a demonstration of racism.

I'm sorry, Ed, Posner's lack of use of Newspeak does not demonstrate racism.
The man has written widely on hundreds of subjects, and these are the best
examples of his alleged racism you can find?  It certainly isn't because
he shies away from controversy -- if Posner was a racist, he would have
spoken as such at great deliberative length.  That you continue to fail to
produce anything other than single adjectives that are marginally racist when 
placed in a completely different context than that which Posner used them
is beginning to be demonstrative.  
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
From: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: s&l prosecutions
Date: 22 Jul 92 03:55:20 EST
Reply-To: "nigel allen" <nigel.allen@canrem.com>
Distribution: misc
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

Press release from U.S. Justice Department

 Justice Department Reports Activity in Major Savings and Loan
Prosecutions
 To: National and Business desks
 Contact: U.S. Department of Justice, Public Affairs, 202-514-2007

   WASHINGTON, July 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Department of Justice
today issued the following information describing activity in
"major" savings and loan prosecutions from Oct. 1, 1988, through
June 30, 1992:

  Informations/Indictments                    718
  Estimated S&L Loss               $8,310,450,286
  Defendants Charged                        1,188
  Defendants Convicted                        905 (93%)
  Defendants Acquitted                         71 (note a)
  Prison Sentences
      Sentenced to prison                     582 (78%)
      Awaiting sentence                       170
      Sentenced w/o prison or suspended       168
  Fines Imposed                       $11,287,961
  Restitution Ordered                $439,239,594
  CEO's, Board Chairmen and Presidents
      Charged by indictments/informations     137
      Convicted                               102
      Acquitted                                10
  Directors and other officers
      Charged by indictments/informations     195
      Convicted                               166
      Acquitted                                 7

   Note a: 21 borrowers dismissed in a single case.
    ------
   NOTE: All numbers are approximate. Numbers are adjusted due to
monthly activity, improved reporting and refinement of the data
base.
   "Major" is defined as (a) the amount of fraud or loss was
$100,000 or more, or (b) the defendant was an officer, director or
owner (including shareholder), or (c) the schemes involved multiple
borrowers in the same institution, or (d) involved other major
factors.  This information is based on reports from the 94 U.S.
Attorneys' offices and the Dallas Bank Fraud Task Force.
 -30-
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Xref: sparky misc.legal:15150 alt.censorship:6466 talk.politics.misc:36548
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   )
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Reque
Keywords: egnilges
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:35:07 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

> In article <1992Jul29.145349.25372@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Vi
> >/egnigles/h:j
> >
> >next, i move on to ban all books with the word "fuck" in them
> >
> >-.net nazi
> 
> Trying to be funny?  Why is "the argument of the slippery slope" valid
> when applied to enable Viktora, but not when used to extrapolate from
> the concomitant use of a kill file and an announcement that one has "had
> it?"  "First, I set up a kill file to exclude Ed Nilges.  Then, I
> excluded all people whose names begin with Ni: they seem to be dweebs,
> like Nilges and Nixon.  Then I added a sophisticated regular expression
> to exclude all Germanic names.  Then I became systems administrator for
> the Electronic Frontier Foundation and decided to make my workgroup
> adhere to my standards.  This was not so much anti-free speech as a
> desire to gain efficiency through consistency.  Then I got elected to
> the House of Representatives...."
> 
> Now, I believe that one can use kill files as nano- or micro-censorship
> without getting on this slope, but the logic of the "free speech" forces
> is that we must avoid these slopes at all costs.

"You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?"
                    --  Terrence Mann (James Earl Jones, Field of Dreams)


---
Bob Kirkpatrick  --  Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
root@dogear.spk.wa.us           bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Legal criticism (was: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:28:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.142402.29351@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul19.213235.15531@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>  The only coherent statement on the matter
>of "race" comes from the United Nations, which has clearly stated that
>all human beings belong to a single species.

There are plenty of "coherent" statement on the matter of race.  The
one from the UN might be the best one.

>  "Race" is an outdated,
>nineteenth-century concept which we should

no longer use.

> use only to redress the
>considerable amount of mischief caused by "race."

Thereby causing more mischief [sic] in a never-ending cycle.


>  The Harvard incident did not address Frug's ideas, but
>made light of her as a woman and as a person.

I thought it lampooned her legal writings.  I haven't seen the parody
itself; can someone who has, please comment?

>  It caused pain to her
>surviving relatives

Which proves what?

> whereas addressing the IDEAS of even a recently-dead
>theorist will do nothing of the sort.

Proof by blatant assertion.

>  It is clear that some individuals
>(white male members of the power elite) are to be exempt from even
>challenge to ideas,

Says who?  As someone who you would probably consider a "white male
member of the power elite" (isn't that redundant?) I welcome attacks
on my ideas.  I've even changed some of my ideas, when someone
attacked them with sufficient logic to convince me.

> wherease those who attempt to join what they think
>is a dialogue, and who are either not members of the referenced group or
>who do not buy into its program, are to be destroyed without restraint

No, only those who can't handle logic or redefine words in order to
prove their points are attacked.  With others, we (well, I at least; I
can't really speak for anyone else in this) argue the ideas.

>(as was Anita Hill.)

Is there a purpose to bringing up her name?  How destroyed was she?
Was she murdered?  Imprisoned?  Does she still have a job?  Or did
people say unnice things about her?

Xref: sparky misc.legal:14946 alt.censorship:6355 talk.politics.misc:36200
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Stare Decisis
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:36:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: aplcen.1992Jul26.183653.11132
	<1992Jul25.122946.5484@athena.mit.edu> 
	<1992Jul25.173205.1643@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> 
	<1992Jul26.064332.3581@eff.org>
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>William December Starr writes:

>>>Which brings me to a sort of trivia question: How many examples can
>>>anyone come up with of the U.S. Supreme Court _explicitly_ overruling
>>>a previous Supreme Court holding on a question of law?....

>Gideon v. Wainwright is a notable example of such a case. Lots of 
>convicts were freed as a result of that case, which not only overruled
>previous cases, but also nullified previous convictions in which the
>right to counsel had been denied.

If anyone's interested, the decision which Gideon overruled was 
Betts v. Brady (1942).  Interestingly, Justice Black said that Betts
was itself a break with earlier precedents and that, in overturning
it, the Court was returning to those older precedents.  Also, Betts 
had been emasculated in several previous decisions before Gideon 
finally put it out of its misery.

By the way, this old text I have is pretty good.  It's Lockhart,
Kamisar, and Choper, _Constitutional Law: Cases, Comments, Questions_.
Too bad it's two decades out of date.  Does anyone happen to know if
anything significant happened in constitutional law during that
period?  :-)


Keith
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: AS.RFS@forsythe.stanford.edu (Russell Sole)
Subject: Re: Arizona DUI Laws
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:48:00 GMT

In article <Jul24.212315.53718@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>,
peterson@CS.ColoState.EDU (james peterson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.205124.29784@morrow.stanford.edu> AS.RFS@forsythe.stanford.edu (Russell Sole) writes:
>>Hello,
>>
>>A friend of mine was just arrested in Mesa, Arizona for Driving
>>while intoxicated.  I think in California there are mandatory
>>penalties involved with this.  Does anyone out there know whether
>>there are mandatory penalties involved with first time DWI
>>offenders??
>>
>
>Hmm.  Arizona.  If I'm not mistaken the mandtory sentence is to
>be taken to the outskirts of Phoenix, stripped to the waist, and
>bound hand and feet to stakes spread-eagled in the noon sun.  Or
>was that New Mexico...?
>
>
>
>
>--
>james lee peterson                              peterson@CS.ColoState.edu
>dept. of computer science
>colorado state university               "Some ignorance is invincible."
>ft. collins, colorado  (voice:303/491-7137; fax:303/491-6639)


I didn't know that this was a humorous BB.  I thought that it was
for legal matters.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Using killfiles is a form of censorship (was: Re: A Modest Request
Followup-To: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:41:25 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.145132.21496@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>I just set up a kill file for Henry Schaffer, so try to keep in mind
>that because kill files are a form of censorship I don't eschew them.

But earlier you said:

|>First of all, a metaphorical reference to murder is made in the
|>description "kill" file, showing a suppressed rage and desire to "kill"
|>one's opponent when one, like Starr, is bested in argument. 

I trust that you have now admitted a suppressed rage at and a desire to kill
Henry Schaffer?
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 20:57:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.124613.5321@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <92Jul26.044147edt.47521@neat.cs.toronto.edu> cbo@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) writes:
>>Mike Godwin insists upon knowing why I have bothered to point out his
>>numerous errors with respect to the usage of "CLS".  Why is it 
>>so important, he repeatedly demands to know?
>
><Lots of text deleted.>
>
>I'm sorry I asked. I think you need to get a life. 

Calvin, down here in the states the phrase "get a life" means "you spend
too much time thinking and criticizing, especially in criticism of
powerful targets which can do your career  a world of hurt.  You need to
chill out and spend time in consuming upper-middle class symbols
including a BMW and a skinny girlfriend, tout suite."  Or, as
Shakespeare wrote:


     Let me have about me men that are fat,
     Sleek-headed men and such as sleep of nights;
     Yon Cassius hath a lean and hungry look;
     He thinks too much: such men are dangerous."


>know about it suggests that this is a poor conception. I'll even concede
>that my own usage is probably inconsistent, although I doubt this
>inconsistency is as "systematic" as you say. One can criticize others
>without claiming one is perfect. I take pains to concede my errors when
>it's clear to me that I made them, and my transposition of of "Iago" and
>"Othello," like my misspoken comment about Critical Legal Studies, were
>errors. Apparently it's important to you to let me know that you don't
>think they were the kinds of errors I thought they were. Fine. Thanks for
>sharing.

Actually, this is quite gracious.  Thank you Mike and Calvin.
>
>That said, my problems with Ed Nilges go far beyond any quibble about the
>usage of "Critical Legal Studies," and I wonder why you choose the most
>tangential thing about my comments and decide to focus on it.

God I am so scared.  Should I quail?  Should I faint?  I'll just have to
try to hold my keyboard steady and remember the subset of vi commands
that I have deigned to learn, then, won't I?
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sexual Misconduct Laws
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:29:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <1992Jul24.155816.14653@bradley.bradley.edu>, pwh@bradley.bradley.edu sez:
>In <1992Jul23.010746.26406@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>I invite you to name a single jurisdiction that makes homosexuality a
>>criminal offense.  
>>If what you mean is that some states make homosexual conduct an
>>offense, then say so.  Don't be so obtuse as to conflate status with
>>conduct.
>
>"It's legal to be a Jew, but illegal to go to Synagogue."
>
>Tell me how your idea differs.

Leaving aside entirely the existence of the Free Exercise clause, it
doesn't differ substantially, except to the extent that you might
argue that "being a Jew" -- by which one might well mean simply
"holding dear the moral tenets of Judaism" -- is more volitional than
being gay.

For the record, I happen to think that it's entirely legal for me to
hold the beliefs of a bank robber (banks are bad, money belongs to
them what kin take it, etc.).  I'd be most enlightened if you could
demonstrate that it's *not* legal.

If you think I'm arguing in favor of _Bowers v. Hardwick_, I'm not.
I'm simply making the observation that status and conduct are two
different things, as even the most casual observer of the current flap
over gays in the military could tell you.

If what you want is relevant legal precedent, for starters I'd suggest
_Robinson v. California_, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), in which the Supreme
Court struck down a California statute making it a criminal offense to
"be addicted to the use of narcotics."


[And before the inevitable flames ensue: no, I don't consider
homosexuality or homosexual conduct especially worthy of criminal
sanction, nor do I regard homosexuality as a disease like unto drug
addiction.  I am simply making the rather obvious distinction between
status and conduct, so spare me the obligatory indignation.]

-- 
O net, thou art sick.  The invisible newbie that lies in the night in
the howling subject header has found out thy bed of followup joy, and
his dark secret cross-posting doth thy life destroy.  (Film at 11.)
	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: topless in NY state?
Keywords: NY ERA??
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:08:07 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <dank.711938153@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov> dank@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov 
(Dan Kegel) writes:

>. . .A minority ruled broadly that the statute violated the NY ERA.  
>[Dan Kegel]

Violated WHAT??  

The minority opinion ruled that the statute violated the "equal protection"
clause of the XIVth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, and presumably
some similar passage in the New York State Constitution.  I saw no mention
of any "NY ERA."  The last I heard was that in 1975, the voters of New York
State had the opportunity to enact an Equal Rights Amendment to the State
Consitution, and voted overwhelmingly against doing so.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TRUTH     JUSTICE     FREEDOM     YIDDISHKEIT     IVY     THE AMERICAN WAY
Newsgroups: misc.legal