HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: I don't exist?  (Re: Mutlu violating Usenet RFC)
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:24:21 GMT
Organization: Dis-
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <11746@ember.UUCP> pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley) writes:
>Either George is out to lunch, or all the people who Email me have
>been speaking to a figment of their imagination.
>
>I don't feel like a figment.
>
>George is out to lunch.

I'm feeling much better now, thank you.

>Should George wish to speak to me anyways, he should refer to the
>UUCP maps---the maps which are glaringly absent from his list of
>places that could have information on how to reach my site.  Or
>follow his own advice, and ask UUNET, a site that certainly
>understands how to reach UUCP sites.

Feeling like a grand idiot, I admit you're right.  I actually
did scan the uucp maps for zuma and ask uunet if they knew
where it was before I posted.  For some reason, having done
that, I managed to forget all about it (and everything else
I've ever had to learn about uucp mail paths and names...)
while posting.  Dangers of late night posts.  And why I
never let myself be the only person to reality-check my
work 'fore it goes out the door.

Anyway, with the acknowledged corrections about uucp admitted,
zuma.UUCp isn't in the maps and no gateway to it is given,
so I still don't believe it's real.  8-)

-george
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 5 Sep 92 01:17:56 GMT
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Sep2.135935.26031@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.193351.27896@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@ncar.ucar.edu
>(Greg Woods) writes:
>
>>One thing that *is* sure is that
>>giving the government the freedom to censor certain kinds of
>>speech is a fatal mistake.
>
>clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>
>>*Again*, the government does NOT have that power.  The courts and
>>juries do.
>
>In the U.S. we use the phrase "the government" to mean "the state".
>The courts are part of the "government". Juries act under the
>authority of the "government" and usually (but not always) merely
>decide the facts of a case, not the justness of a law.

Is the constitution part of the "government" (US meaning)?  I don't
think so.  It's a pact between the people and the state limiting
the power of the state.  Right; a jury (normally) only decides the facts
of the case w.r.t. the requirements of the law not the justness of the law.

But:
	- the jury *can* nullify if they choose to.
	- the jury isn't part of the state - while they in part act
	  under the authority of the state, they're selected jointly
	  by the defendant and the state.
	- The justness of the law itself, or any detailed requirements
	  for a conviction are subject to the constitution, as
	  well as the penalties of the law.

And aside from all that, your phrase "giving the government the
freedom to censor" is somewhat of a misrepresentation, unless you
are equally willing to say that *all* law is "giving the government
the freedom to convict for any crime".  Is that what you really want
to say?

Besides, where was the censorship?  Neither Zundel nor Keegstra were
ever actually muzzled.
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Mutlu violating Usenet RFC
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:59:25 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <18pjjiINNq81@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes:
>RFC850 and 1036 both require a valid Internet format electronic mail
>address for the individual sending the message in the From: line.

The key word in that sentence is "format".  The address "mutlu@zuma.uucp"
is in the correct format for an Internet email address, just as the
sentence "The blind desk threw the hungry eye at me" is.  They have correct
syntax, they just don't mean anything (assuming that you're correct that
there is no zuma UUCP node).
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:00:55 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
> Marx is "political" speech.  The KKK isn't - just plain incitement.

Coincidentally, last night I was watching a BBC documentary about the
McCarthy Communist witch-hunts of the 1950s.  One of the points made was that
at the trials, the prosecution proceeded on the basis that Marxist books
owned by the alleged Communists were inciting Communists to overthrow the US
government by violence.

It therefore seems to me that the distinction you are making is murky at
best.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
Newsgroups: news.admin
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 13:08:38 GMT

forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

>Oh, of course, I get it!  The whole world provides jj everything he wants
>without ever expecting anything in return!  JJ must have had a bad childhood
>to be expecting that the world owes him so much!

When I place my machine on the net, I am not placing it there so I can have
unlimited distribution capability to my postings. I am placing it on the net
because I wish to receive other information here.

Now, if you're going to start to resort to personal slurs (as I have seen
you do in other newsgroups carrying this thread) then please don't post.
People have to resort to personal attacks when they have no other arguments
to support their position, and very clearly we don't need such inane babble
cluttering the discussion.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: news.admin,misc.legal.computing
From: anselmo@nic.near.net (Ed Anselmo)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: UUCP newsfeed from NNTP?
Date: 10 Sep 1992 11:15:37 -0400
Organization: NEARnet, Cambridge, MA
	<18majdINNdis@gossip.pyramid.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.near.net
In-reply-to: romain@salt.eng.pyramid.com's message of 10 Sep 1992 02:06:37 GMT

> Caution: INN's current NEWNEWS implementation is quite slow; you
> probably shouldn't pound your friendly neighborhood server, lest
> they become unfriendly.

The current nnrpd implementation of NEWNEWS does a linear search
through the history database for looking for appropriate articles.

I'd started work on a version that did a binary search through the
history file, but it was never a high priority, and then I changed
jobs.
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: "Computers graphic when it comes to porn"
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:46:26 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <3800@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>I was merely answering the question about "converted", or perhaps, a
>better choice would be "perverted".  Forfeiture laws and Dr. A-M certainly
>indicates to me that your Constitution has been subverted by your
>Supreme Court.

1. It's not *my* constitution. I'm just an ardent admirer.
2. It sure sounded like you were saying that anti-hate-speech laws
   can help prevent the conversion/perversion of the military and/or
   government. If not, what was your point?
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Har du kramat din varg idag?            'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
From: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Mutlu violating Usenet RFC
Date: 11 Sep 1992 01:01:32 GMT
Organization: Dis-
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Summary: foot, mouth, remove: engage brain

	I know better than post anything of significance late at night,
as if that's an excuse.  Kick me.

	As has been amply pointed out by numerous people, and as I knew
(though not as I posted, twice, which strikes me as amazing even for me)
the pseudo-domain site.UUCP is a perfectly valid domain to use w/o
NIC or nameservice entries.  It is "strongly encouraged"
that UUCP sites on said distribution get an entry in the uucp maps.
What I should have said was that zuma is missing from nic, nameservice, and
latest uucp maps (not just first two).  From then, the argument that
the invalid sitename is true continues as such.

-george
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Why we need a "Copyright: " field (was: Re: NetNews/CD . . .)
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:37:15 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <1992Sep14.201526.23701@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>In article <258@ulogic.UUCP> hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>#Actually, this system records 
>#the article as $HOME/.article -- which is overwritten almost immediately 
>#once I reply to another article.
>
>Who cares? You get copyright as soon as you write something in a
>tangible medium. That you immediately over-write the file doesn't
>matter. (I am not a lawyer.)

You have no proof anymore.

>But only because you willfully deleted the original.

*I* didn't delete it.  I didn't even know about it (speaking as
the generic user, not as a sysadmin).

I stand by my "virtual document" model.

		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"186,000 mi/sec.  Not just a good idea, it's the LAW!"

Newsgroups: news.admin
From: arto@leland.Stanford.EDU (Artavazd Khachikian)
Subject: Re: Inappropriate Ethnic Crossposting (was: Only one in ten "Sipas" called up to join the Greek navy can swim.)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 05:12:41 GMT

>
>News administrators, is it time yet to yank these people into line?  And
>before Dave Hayes starts spewing the particular brand of EXTREME-LIBERAL-
>RIGHTS-TO-SAY-ANYTHING he is famous for, let me say that I AGREE WITH YOU.
>These people can say anything about anyone they wish; it just doesn't belong
>in news.admin.  These people are driving the wrong way on a one-way street.
>
>I do believe that Mutlu et al. have the right to say anything they wish.
>I DO NOT believe that Mutlu et al. have the right to inflict their views
>in inappropriate groups.


	Does one have a right to say anything to a person who does not
want to hear it?

	For example, if Mutlu comes to my window every morning and screams
through a loud-speaker : Arto, you are a murderer! - Does he have
the right to do so, or do I have the right not to hear that?
Can somebody enlighten me?
From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: NetNews Contract? NOT!
Date: 16 Sep 92 00:59:31 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <1992Sep9.031922.4667@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>  We have then, at least 4 possible
>network defenses against a copyright violation charge by a poster:
>
>1. Command model
>2. Implied contract (I know you don't agree with this one)
>3. Fair Use 
>4. Telephone network analogy

I guess nobody likes either my "virtual site" model or the 
"publisher/distributer" model .... *sniff* ....



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lazy day, Sunday afternoon.			|
Like to get your feet up, watch TV.		|	-Richard Hartman	
Sunday roast is something good to eat,		|	hartman@uLogic.COM
must be lamb to day 'cause beef was last week!	|
From: rap@peaberry.doc.ic.ac.uk (Ross Paterson)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Hasan B Mutlu
Date: 4 Sep 92 11:52:17 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK.
NNTP-Posting-Host: peaberry.doc.ic.ac.uk
Originator: rap@peaberry.doc.ic.ac.uk

From article <SES.92Aug28233608@cmns-moon.think.com>, by ses@cmns-moon.think.com (Simon Edward Spero):
> I just sat down and wrote a little perl script that scans through a list
> of newsgroups for postings by C'thulhu^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Mutlu which have
> been crossposted to more than 4 groups, and contructs cancel messages
> to remove them.  Although I have tested it by printing the cancel
> messages to the screen, I have not run this script with a bullet in
> the chamber, and I don't intend to do so.

Good.  No-one has to see Multu's postings if they don't want to;
the problem is all the people who want to engage him in conversation.
If anyone starts forging such cancels, he'll change his name (already
has), maybe switch from cross-posting to multiple posting.  He'll just
become a moving target for our KILL files.  (Just as now we get cascades
that aren't cross-posted to alt.cascade.)

Ross
From: kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Mutlu violating Usenet RFC
Summary: Incorrect assumption alert!
Organization: VideOcart Inc.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:39:28 GMT

In article <18mte2INNa09@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes:
>John Stanley makes two rebuttals noted below; one to several points I make
>explaining Usenet history/tradition that I try and explain WHY the RFC
>is and should be the way it is, and one claiming that the name is not
>basically invalid.  The first is irrelevant (you can argue why until
>the cows come home (Grand Olde Usenet Tradition to do so, no less),
>but that's what the RFC says).  The second is wrong 8-)
>
>>Neither name service nor NIC has anything to do with UUCP sites. If
>>you demand that either or both must know UUCP addresses, then you shut
>>off all UUCP sites (that don't happen to have an Internet address
>>to go with them).
>
>This is simply untrue, John.  Every site, Internet or Usenet that is connected
>to our greater email net has to have a valid domain name registered
>with the Network Information Center.  

This is not true.  ".UUCP" is not a valid registered top-level domain.  It
is a "fake" for those sites which don't have a "real" domain registry.

A real domain name implies that you have one or more "on the cable" sites
willing to act as mail forwarders (commonly referred to as "MX sites") or
that you be on the Internet itself.  This is a non-requirement for 
UUCP-connected sites; doing so DOES help mail connectivity, but it is hardly
required.

The canonical list of uucp sites is the pathalias maps, which are published
in comp.mail.maps.  However, there is no requirement that I register my
site in order to get a Newsfeed.  It is a convention; and I will have some
trouble getting mail if I don't do this, but it is not a requirement.  Most
feed sites will insist on registration however, and will even send in a
registration for you if you don't know how.

In fact, there are darn few requirements to be on the net (a PC and a
modem + some free software?)....

>definition.  If you don't believe me, ask the NIC or UUNET.

The NIC has nothing to do with this, nor does UUNET.  Neither is a
"governing body" for those people who are connected via common-carrier 
phone lines.

--
Karl Denninger 		Inet:  kdenning@hq.videocart.com
VideOcart Inc.		Voice: (312) 987-5022
Xref: sparky news.admin:7586 news.admin.policy:4
From: ses@cmns-moon.think.com (Simon Edward Spero)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: Spero violating US Constitution.
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:07:32
Organization: What's your clearance, citizen?
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmns.think.com
In-reply-to: sera@zuma.UUCP's message of 13 Sep 92 22:41:53 GMT

In article <9209131841@zuma.UUCP> sera@zuma.UUCP (Serdar Argic) writes:

Hey, call me Simon! Considering that nobody's done anything yet, and that
as Randall Scwartz said, the 1st amendment doesn't apply, your subject
line is obviously a massive libel- expect to recieve email from my virtual
lawyers (what do you mean  mail bounces - so do lawyers, if you drop them
from a high enough building). Aside from that, no one wants to censor you;
we just want you to follow the guidelines of nettiquette. 

   Followup-To: soc.culture.turkish,talk.politics.soviet,soc.history

Better, but why expand the newsgroup list beyond the original
news.admin{,.policy}?

   >If Mut'lu's posts really are forgeries, then it does open up a couple of 
   >net.loopholes for dealing with them. At the moment I'm not 100% sure that
   >they are forged; there is very strng suggestive evidence that this is the 
   >case (the path line in the latest batch is a little dubious, but credible
   >if a mail to news gatway is being used. 

   If you don't want to find out, I suggest you address the issues and
   not your bigotry and lies. 

I *do* want to find out! Really! Really! My biogtry included a passionate 
dislike of fat people wearing lycra; as for the rest, it's really 12" -
it's just a bit cold at the moment.


--
-----
Guest account at TMC 	|	Just Another  WAIS Hacker | DOD# 0612
From: terry@spcvxb.spc.edu (Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr.)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Sadistic, Automated, or Rabid map administrator.
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:19:27 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US

In article <T1o1qB1w165w@beltrix.guild.org>, peters@beltrix.guild.org (Peter Sleggs) writes:
> I had noticed - but dont they originate from an account at rutgers, or
> is it an automated approval process ?
>
> [header deleted]
>
> Why are these approved ? Do the originators have nothing better to do
> with their time ?
> 
> I have been wondering about this myself since the maps first started
> arriving here a couple of months ago.

  I am told (by the Swiss map administrator) that maps from Europe are auto-
magically forwarded to the US for distribution. In the past, this process had
failed and the map entries were stuck in limbo somewhere. After I reported it
(about 2 months ago) things got fixed. At that time, I got some repeated maps
due to the backlog. Are there dates in the maps themselves (as opposed to the
headers) which prove that they're recent? If not, this may be the problem.

  And yes, the approval process at Rutgers is automatic for maps that come from
an authorized source (or so I'm told).

	Terry Kennedy		Operations Manager, Academic Computing
	terry@spcvxa.bitnet	St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
	terry@spcvxa.spc.edu	+1 201 915 9381
From: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (Arthur Rubin)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.miracles
Keywords: Christianity Love Forgiveness Peace Miracles God Mysticism
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:41:32 GMT

In <BuBy7E.Bz4@uunet.uu.net> finchc@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (finch clifton d) writes:

>NewGroup request: soc.religion.miracles

>This newsgroup is for the discussion of the book, A Course in Miracles, which
>an inner voice "dictated" to Helen Schucman, a Professor of Medical Psychology
>at Columbia University.  The book teaches a mystical Christian view of the 
>world, and includes a workbook to help the reader apply the teachings to 
>everyday life.

I am opposed to this group, because it seems misnamed.  If I were looking
for a discussion of biblical (or other religious) miracles, I would look at
soc.religion.miracles.

--
Arthur L. Rubin: a_rubin@dsg4.dse.beckman.com (work) Beckman Instruments/Brea
216-5888@mcimail.com 70707.453@compuserve.com arthur@pnet01.cts.com (personal)
My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of my employer.
My interaction with our news system is unstable; please mail anything important.
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.apple2
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: CFV: comp.sys.apple2.gno
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 22:14:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep15.152443.14121@ms.uky.edu> kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) writes:
>>CALL FOR VOTES on the creation of COMP.SYS.APPLE2.GNO
>
>As far as I know, no formal RFD was ever posted for this proposal.
>None of Mr. Lawrence's last three lists mention this group, and there
>are no articles on the subject in news.groups.

Acually, this -was- discussed in news.groups, but as a part of the
unix reorginization RFD. But I did not see an RFD for this group
either.
 
>On the other hand, Mr. Lawrence apparently approved posting this 
>CFV, so I could be wrong.
>
>>The vote for this newsgroup will last from today (September 15, 1992) to
>>October 6 1992, a total of 21 days.
>
>And why is the voting period only 21 days?  The 30-day figure called
>for in the guidelines wasn't chosen out of a hat; it was established
>with good reason.
>-- 
>Kenneth Herron                                           kherron@ms.uky.edu
>University of Kentucky                                      +1 606 257 2975
>Department of Mathematics           "Thanks to the magic of the slow-motion 
>camera, we can now show you how ugly the inside of someone's mouth can be."


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: soc.culture.indian.american and soc.culture.tamil
Date: 11 Sep 92 11:28:19 GMT
Distribution: news
Organization: A.R.M. Ltd, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambs, UK

In article <1992Sep10.172553.15841@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>
alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:

>In article <06hn-x+@lynx.unm.edu>, lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
>> 
>> >>> What's so damn wrong in reminding people to cast their votes and hope 
>> >>> them to vote favorably ?   
>> 
>> "Hoping people to vote favorably" isn't "unbiased", Alok.
>> Now *shut the hell up*.
>> 
>Fine it is unbiased but the whole reason we are having this discussion
>(or shouting match from your side) is that similar unbiased comments
>were made by the soc.culture.tamil (SCT) vote-taker. 

[I think you meant "biased" in the last three lines above, not "unbiased",
and am replying on that basis.]

And, so far as I am aware, you have only presented evidence that he did so
before the start of the voting period, when it was quite legitimate for him
to do so. If you have evidence that he (rather than his friends) made such
comments during the voting period (rather than before or after it), please
make it public. Otherwise, you don't have a case.

>So if you must knock down SCIA vote on this ground (and so it was done), SCT 
>vote should be knocked down too.

They only need to be treated the same if the same misbehaviour (i.e.
campaigning *by the vote-taker* *during the voting period*) occurred in
both, and you have not yet shown us any evidence that this is the case.

David Seal
dseal@armltd.co.uk

All opinions are mine only...
Newsgroups: news.groups