HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Forecasters of Doom
Date: 6 Sep 92 22:08:10 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <Hw1oqB3w164w@cellar.org>, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon)
writes:
>Forcasters of doom part 3 of 3 parts Hot & COLD
>   Environmentalists have blown hot& cold on the greenhouse effect. [...]

>These days of course environmentalists are predicting that the sea level will
>rise as a result of global warming,not global cooling. (pretty neat eh? the 
>environmentalists can have it both ways.... )

increased dust particles and the like in the atmosphere will block sunlight,
thus cooling.  increased carbon dioxide will cause the atmosphere to
trap heat, thus heating.

incidentally, dear, the astronomers must be in on this little scam of yours as
well, since the CO2 effect is commonly believed to be a factor in venus'
climate.

perhaps we could keep increasing CO2 and particle pollutants in the hope of
_simultaneously_ heating and cooling the earth, thus achieving a stable
temperature.  of course, then we wouldn't be able to breathe.  most of us, that
is.

>     The forecasters of doom have been wrong inthe past, and they are wrong 
>now (summer of 1992 has been prety mild, I guess now the environmentalists 
>will now try to figure out how they are going to switch their scary scernios 
>without any one noticing, I suppose a fawning media is a great asset!). Never
>the less, their scary scenerios do not have to be true--- only belived -- to 
>convince the world that their authoritarian agenda for "saving the planet" 
>must be implemented.

due to solar events (the astronomers again!) and the normal chaos of the
bioshphere (the meterologists!) average annual temperatures fluctuate quite a
bit, as does precipitation and television programming.  pick up a copy of the
farmer's almanac sometime, why don't you.  (unless _they_ are... naw.)


regards,
dave
-- propaganda front for the Trilateral Commission
>
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16037 alt.individualism:5364 alt.pagan:8928
From: atfurman@cup.portal.com (A T Furman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
Date: Tue,  8 Sep 92 11:13:57 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <hurd.715734437@sfu.ca> <1992Sep8.070252.6252@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
  <exukjb.129.715967081@exu.ericsson.se>

>Yeah, take a look at the UN's Declaration on Human Rights to see a specific 
>application of exceptive clauses in the specification of rights as a matter 
>of policy -- "Such-and-such a right [freedom of speech, etc]", it reads, "
>shall not be abridged, UNLESS.." the government deems it necessary in 
>order to establish law, order, peace...". 

Goodness me.  Sounds just like that pretty little constitution written
at Weimar, Germany in 1919 by some of the warmest, fuzziest Social Democrats
in the realm.  They weren't about to let obsolete ideas like inalienable
rights get in the way of their Utopia.

The pretty little constitution had a pretty little clause that allowed
the parliament to grant the Government (chancellor) dictatorial powers
if things got really, *really*, REALLY bad.  None of this old-fashioned
"do-nothing government" ideology for them.  In 1923, things got really,
*really*, REALLY bad.  The only way Hjalmar Schacht could implement his
Rentenmark plan to end the hyperinflation was if the government could
overrule the endless debates in Parliament over monetary policy.  It
worked.  And so, four years after the writing of the Weimar Constitution,
Karl Helfferich became the first chancellor to invoke the dictatorship
clause.

The last chancellor to invoke it did so in 1933.  His name was Adolf Hitler.

Reference: _The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America_ by
Leonard Peikoff.

>No, uh uh.  Give me the absolute guarantees in the Bill of Rights 
>without exceptive clauses anytime, because remember, the purpose of those 
>ammendments were to protect citizens' rights against encroachments from the 
>state, and with such absolute guarantees, any right can be abrogated in 
>the name of some ostensibly overriding good. "Let no more be heard of the 
>power of man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the 
>Constitution. (TJ)" I dunno, call me an extremist. 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
>Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        ANTHEM BBS 386-7907
>P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
>Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)

Me too.  :-)


    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  atfurman@cup.portal.sig  |   (800)682-1776 for more information
From: fischer@li.serum.kodak.com (Chris Fischer (x39613))
Subject: Re: THIS MONTH IN HISTORY: 9/25/69...
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co. - Clinical Products Division
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 11:59:49 GMT

In article <1296500340@igc.apc.org> New Liberation News Service <nlns@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>THIS MONTH IN HISTORY: September 25, 1969
>
>from LIBERATION News Service #197
>
>Nixon Withdrawals: Keeping the War Awar From Home
>LIBERATION News Service
>
>

I always thought that you guys were a bunch of sixties activists coming out
of the woodwork.  But come on.  This is 1992.  That is a 23 year old article
that you are wasting bandwidth with.

Say Hi to Jerry Garcia at the next concert


-- 
Chris Fischer (fischer@serum.clpd.KODAK.com)
They never even listen to my opinion, why would they make it policy?
"The healthy gum tissue of our liberties are being eaten away by the 
 periodontal disease of government regulation." - D.Barry
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15943 talk.environment:3574 talk.politics.misc:43843
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: NAFTA COULD COST 150,000 JOBS LABOR SECRETARY SAYS 
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:32:54 EST
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: misleading, at best

In article <1992Sep12.003828.4776@mont.cs.missouri.edu>, harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:

	So, are you no longer demanding that the North transfer it's wealth to
the South?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.activism:16159 talk.environment:3663
From: EcoNet via Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.environment
Subject: NEWS & ACTIVISM: Government Policies Lobbied by Paper Industry
Followup-To: alt.activism.d,talk.environment
Date: 11 Sep 1992 16:57:52 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: jym@remarque.berkeley.edu

[From EcoNet en.alerts Conference and Environet]
[Also Posted to misc.activism.progressive (by somebody else)]

The U.S. paper industry's refusal to halt the use of chlorine in
paper production has extended to possibly illegal inteference in
federal purchasing activities.
 
Current methods of paper production exact a demanding price on
our environment and public health.  The chlorine bleaching
process creates as many as 1,000 organochlorines, many of which,
including dioxin, are known carcinogens and mutagens.  While
European companies switch to alternatives -- hydrogen peroxide,
oxygen, ozone -- the U.S. paper industry refuses to change to
safer methods.
 
The federal government, the nation's largest consumer of paper,
has the purchasing power to make the paper industry change.  But
there are serious obstacles to using this power.
 
In June 1992, the General Services Administration (GSA), the
federal buying arm, sent a survey to U.S. paper mills, inquiring
about their capacity to produce non-chlorine bleached printing
and writing papers.  The American Paper Institute (API), the
industry's lobby, sought to prevent its membership from
responding to the survey.  A July 6, 1992 letter from API to its
members states, in part: "It is important for you to know that
YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED to respond to this questionnaire in total,
or in part. The GSA HAS NO GOVERNMENT MANDATE requiring this
information." (Emphasis in original.)
 
In fact, the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 and the National
Pollution Prevention Strategy establish the goal of using
federal procurement to promote pollution prevention.
 
Urge the following members of Congress to authorize an
investigation into API's behavior, and to legislate procurement
mandates and goals for non-chlorine bleached paper products:
 
Senator Carl Levin, Chair, Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Operations, 442 Hart, Washington, DC 20510
 
Representative John Conyers, Chair, House Government Operations
Committee, 2157 Rayburn, Washington, DC 20515
 
Senator John Glenn, Chair, Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee, 446 Dirksen, Washington, DC 20510
 
And tell GSA to continue its efforts to purchase non-chlorine
bleached paper products:
 
Richard Austin, Administrator, General Services Administration,
18th and F Sts. NW, Washington, DC 20405
 
For further information contact: 
Government Purchasing Project 
P.0. Box 19367  
Washington, DC 20036 
(202) 387-8030
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Forecasters of Doom
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:46:30 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <10999@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu>, bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill
Gunshannon) writes:

>Long before man does real serious damage to planet earth, mother nature will
>sweep us off her back like the annoying little insects we are.  And the next
>major species will begin reforming the world into it's idea of habitable.

yes, humans will be among the many species killed by our rampage, and the
earth will probably develop a new ecosystem in a few million years hence.

so we will die, and before we do our children and their billions of
children will suffer illness and misery along with every other species.

some of us would like to prevent that.
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: The Crimes of the Sandinista Government (FSLN)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:51:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.132703.19495@mont.cs.missouri.edu> harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:

>The Crimes of the Sandinista Government (FSLN)...

Come now Harel, the crimes of the Sandinistas include censorship, jailing
people without trial, torture, killing opponents, and a host of laws
designed to suppress dissent.

I always thought you knew about these but approved of them since 'the
ends justifies the means'. Could it be that you are not aware of these
abuses? I'm sure you will find it more comforting to ignore this post
and pretend you didn't see it but I would be interested in your
answer.

   Allen


-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------222 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Why The Statue of General Albert Pike Must be Destroyed
Summary: Lunatic!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:39:58 GMT


I didn't include the original message here because you can go
back and read the original.  If anyone can read that message
and doubt for an instant that everything that's been said
about LaRouche being a foaming at the mouth, psychopathic,
anti-semitic lunatic is true, then there's no convincing.  I've seen
dozens of his idiotic messages on here but this one hits
every button there is.  I mean the only thing left for the
guy is for his brain to burn out like a lightbulb.

He starts with the statue of some guy and moves on to 
topics like:

B'nai Brith being the "Pro-slavery" arm of American Jews,
founding the Klan, sending neo-nazis and skinheads into
Germany.

The Klan being an arm of British Intelligence, and the
civil was actually a war against Britain.

the Masons being behind all this stuff as agents for
Britain.

After that he spins off into Aristotle (bad), Plato (good),
Henry Kissinger, the Warbugs, the Federal reserve, the
income tax and his 2500 year struggle between these dark
forces behind the scenes.   There's too many things in
that message to even catalog.

Jeez.  What would really be educational would be a video
of Larouche typing or dictating this insanity. It might
be very educational.


marc colten
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: The Crimes of Nicaragua (II)
Date: 8 Sep 92 05:50:32 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <1394@esl.ESL.COM> drm@esl.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.170435.29032@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean  
>Alaska) writes:
>> 
>> ACtually, the Sandinista's themselves were widely supported because they
>> were the ones who won the war.  
>
>There are Sandinistas and there are "Sandinistas."
>
>During the revolution the Sandinista movement has widespread participation  
>from all sectors of the population, inlcuding the middle classes and  
>smaller business enterprises.  After the revolution the Sandinista party  
>lurched Left and purged itself of more moderate elements.  The Sandinista  
>movement of 1978 and the Sandinista movement of circa 1984 were very  
>different creatures.
>
>--
>Don McGregor
>drm@esl.com  

I agree with this, but I don't think these points are in contention.  A lurch
to the left that is supported by the majority is not a totalitarian
situation.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,alt.pagan,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Who's "free-er"? Intrnat'l response wanted!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:22:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.144018.21221@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>>The reason for securing the right of our civil population to keep and 
>>bear arms is precisely to ensure a proper regulation of the militia [armed 
>>forces]. How else are you going to control [i.e. regulate] a military except 
>>by allowing citizens to remained armed? 

You seem to misunderstand the intended meaning of "militia" by original
intent (of everyone, even people as far apart politically as George
Mason and Alexander Hamilton) was an armed population, including
all citizens physically capable. This meaning is supported by Supreme
Court rulings in Presser v. Illinois and US v. Miller.

>> IMO, this is the only rational 
>>interpretation of the II Ammendment right, whether or not it coincides with 
>>original intent.

What interpertations you, personally, consider rational is totally
irrelevant: The Constitution was written as a "supreme law of the
land", not as a loose set of rules subject to change at whim.
If the original intent doesn't seem rational, you might want to
study it more carefully, not reject it.

I believe the following paraphrasing of the Amendment is consistant
with the text, original intent and all Court precedents on the
subject:

A well armed and trained militia, composed of all able bodied citizens,
is necessary to the security of a free state (and a threat to a
repressive government.) To promote the continued existance of such
such militias, the right of individual citizens to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed.

                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: The Crimes of Nicaragua (II)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 17:04:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.143659.245@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <9209060844.AA18278@tba.msi.cornell.edu> harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>
>>==============================================
>>Life Before the Revolution -- a brief overview
>>==============================================
>
>So what's this? Are you setting us up for the old 'ends justify the
>means' arguement?
>
>I have no problem with the revolution which threw Somozza out. Indeed
>it had widespread support; although this support didn't extend to the
>Sandinsitas.

ACtually, the Sandinista's themselves were widely supported because they
were the ones who won the war.  This support was demonstrated by the 
majority they won in the 1984 elections.  I know you consider these
elections to be rigged but the facts don't support this conclusion.
America's Watch says:

	The November 1984 Nicaraguan elections,though deficient,
	represented an advance over past Nicarguan experience and
	a positive step toward pluralism, resulting in significant
	representation of opposition parties in the Constituent
	Assembly.  Nicaragua should be prodded to take additional
	steps to advance a democratic process.

>
>   Allen
>-- 
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
>|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
>+----------------------228 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+



I have almost finished the research I started after last participating in
these Nicaragua threads.  I will be responding to your specific complaints
about the Sansinista's soon but I felt this point needed to be made now.

-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.latin-america
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: The Crimes of Nicaragua (II)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:25:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.170435.29032@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>ACtually, the Sandinista's themselves were widely supported because they
>were the ones who won the war.  

We don't know that. What we do know is that the Sandinsitas felt they needed
several years to allow elections. During that time they enacted a wide
variety of laws to suppress dissent and jailed thousands of political
prisoners.

If in fact, they where as popular as you claim why all the repression? Surely
they could have held quick elections to draw up a new constitution and
elect a government. The US did it under far more severe conditions.

>This support was demonstrated by the majority they won in the 1984 elections.

Sorry, when somebody jails opponents without charge, threatens opposition
activists, violently disrupts opposition rallies, censors the press, and
uses extrajudicial procedures to jail thousands of dissidents and then turns
around and claims to be popular I jsut don't buy it.

>America's Watch says:

>	The November 1984 Nicaraguan elections,though deficient,
>	represented an advance over past Nicarguan experience and
>	a positive step toward pluralism, resulting in significant
>	representation of opposition parties in the Constituent
>	Assembly.  Nicaragua should be prodded to take additional
>	steps to advance a democratic process.


Well I don't find this a ringing endorsement. It's more like damning them
with faint praise. I'll accept that it was an advancement over the past
but that isn't saying much.

So has your research uncovered what America's whatch said about
the tribunals and other abuses? How can YOU call the elections fair (which
I note AW didn't)?

   Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------228 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.peace.corps,alt.peace-corps
From: dld@cs.monash.edu.au (Seeking ANU)
Subject: Peace Research Centre, Australian National University
Summary: Looking for e-mail address of Peace Research Centre, Australian Nat U
Keywords: Australia, Australian National University, ANU, Peace Research Centre,PRC
Organization: Computer Science, Monash University, Australia
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 10:59:21 GMT

   Hello.  I am looking for the e-mail address of the Peace Research Centre
(PRC) at the Australian National University (ANU).  In particular, I am looking
for the e-mail address of one of the PRC's staff, Ms W R Lambourne.

Any help greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Regards,  David D.
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: The Crimes of Nicaragua (II)
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:28:09 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Sep15.105352.8886@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <7025@stan.xx.swin.oz.au> brian@stan.xx.swin.oz.au (TEHAN B) writes:


>>Why don't you sanctimonious hypocrites in the good old USA leave those, who
>>are unfotunate enough to live in close proximity to the USA, alone! You can
>>hardly compare the situation in the U.S. a couple of centuries ago with the
>>situation in Nicaragua in the 80's. 

Actually, Tehan, I agree about such comparisons.  Please inform the
Sandinista apologists of this, however.  They are the ones who took
advantage of the woeful historical ignorance of many American to try
to claim that the Sandinistas had not delayed elections any more than
our own Founding Fathers did.

These Sandalistas were careful not to lie when they pointed out that
we didn't have national elections for many years after the Revolution.
They just neglected to mention that this was hardly necessary as our
extremely decentralized form of government had no chief executive and
representatives to the Continental Congress were being freely elected
even during the Revolution itself.

Now are you lying if every individual statement you make is true but
you deliberately lead your listeners to a totally incorrect
conclusion?  Well, that's a question for philosophers.

>>Maybe if the US had
>>been NICE to the Sandanistas, they would have been more flexible along the 
>>way, but no, they had to declare war on them.

>Again, you seem not to be familiar with the history. The US was very
>nice to the Sandinistas from when they took over to the time of the
>Reagan administration. We gave them millions in foreign aid even
>during the Reagan administration.

To be a bit more exact, we gave them $70,000,000 dollars.  If that's
being nasty then you can be nasty to me any time you want.  

Also, we never declared war on them.  Learn some history.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: alt.activism