HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  7 Apr 92 03:13:54 GMT

miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:

>susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>>miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>>>db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:

>>>>>>out for a fight, gave me shove and when I didn't react, he poured
>>>>>>a bottle of beer all over my head.
>>>>>>I just ignored him and he was
>>>>>>booed out of the park by the other picnickers. Non-violence
>>>>>>is much more effective. Had I been a Terminator type maybe I
>>>>>>would have shot him. The Christmas party would have been ruined, I
>>>>>>would have spent years and years in jail..... instead we had a
>>>>>>great party and I made lots of new friends.
>>>>>

>>>First of all, you must be pretty spineless to allow such acts to go
>>>unpunished. I personally would have knocked the guy out (or teied).

>>	Yep, rather proves my point now doesn't it?  Another of the boys
>>who likes to talk tough.......


>Talk is cheap. Pour something on my head and observe actions in progress.

	And so he responds yet again and in the same vein.....

	So, are you that afraid of having some beer spilled on your addled
brained pate?  Or do you like brawling for a living?

>Why didn't you respond to the rest of the letter? Too tough?

	No, it was just some more whimperings from a little tough boy who
likes his cap guns.

>PS
>Your signiture stinks too.

	Oh!  I am so hurt, I really am.  Is this the best you can do?

	Could it be that you don't like assertive wymmin little boy?



--
|   *      | But I think Australians have a sort of independence, and I       | 
| *--\----*| think that, rightly or wrongly, they tend to make their own      |
|      \ ' | decisions as to how a thing has gone.  Pioneers are apt to be    |
|__________| like that. I think thats not a bad idea. - Dame Joan Sutherland__|
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Kill for a penny myth
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:47:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.014355.18095@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>Oh sure Roberta.... like in the case of the guy that said he
>would kill for a penny;

Said person doesn't seem to exist outside Bowman's head.

I'll repeat the relevant put up or shut up.  I'll mail Bowman a check
for AU$5 if he'll first send the penny (or even whatever sum Bowman
finds appropriate) to that person and get evidence showing that s\he
actually killed someone for that sum.

Surely if the penny killer actually exists, Bowman can demonstrate
that "fact"....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:36:36 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Apr8.124224.4131@ncsu.edu>, hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
> In article <1992Apr7.031848.5817@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
> >In article <1992Apr6.104946.15968@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:

> >>Gee, we have a fire department in my town, too.  But I still have smoke
> >>detectors in my house, and fire extinguishers in my kitchen and my car.
> >>To do otherwise would be pretty stupid, IMO.  Fire department response

> >You must have a miserable life, worrying all the
> >time about what can go wrong. I would get such equipment if
> >I lived in the bush, but in the inner city, no way!

>   I can understand a pacifist saying he will not protect himself or his 
> family using violent methods, even if I don't agree.  However, I really 
> have trouble with the philosophy which says that simple (nonviolent) 
> methods to protect against fire should not be used.  The apparent
> reason is that the city has a fire department and that a fire in a
> person's home is the Fire Department's problem!  Don't install a smoke
> detector, just let the Fire Department worry over whether your children
> will be able to get out in time to save their lives - unbelievable.

Henry, you fail to understand the symmetry of the modern Australian state.

  Your family's fire safety is up to the government to handle.
  Your family's personal safety is up to the government to handle.
  Your family's health care is up to the government to handle.
  Your family's financial support is up to the government to handle.
  Your family's retirement income is up to the government else to handle.

Do Australian men still have to knock up their own wives, or is the
government living up to their expectations in that arena as well?
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Salmon Rushdie's insight into America
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:53:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <1992Apr7.032205.5971@matilda.vut.edu.au> by db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ):

> >>Who said that everyone in England has a bodyguard? Do you think
> >>that the police should just ignore the threats against SR? Or
> >>do you think he should be left to defend himself?
> >>
> >Nooooo, I just can't understand why he simply doesn't run away when
> >someone threatens him instead of relying on men with *gasp* GUNS.
> >He could rely on non-violence, you know, but I guess he just doesn't
> >want to reason instead of force. I can't see how a situation like his
> >could come about in an enlightened, civilized country like England
> 
> I really suggest you do some reading. Salmon Rushdie's life is
> endangered due to fanatics from Iran. Nothing to do with England.

Oh, so the dispositive factor is whether your assailant is of the same 
nationality?  In that case, are you saying that if the gentleman who poured
a beer on your head had been say, Iranian, you would have cheerfully inflicted
upon him a savage and inhuman beating?  That seems odd, but given the racial
and ethnic attitudes abroad in Australia in the past, perhaps that's exactly
what you mean.  

Or is the controlling factor whether your assailant is a fanatic?  If for 
instance he'd been a Helen Reddy fanatic festooned with picture buttons of that
entertainer, would you have made him eat the beer bottle?  Perhaps he wouldn't
have been the only fanatic involved....

You reall do raise a number of posers.  Too bad you don't realize it....

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@m4-035-17.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
Subject: Re: And they called it a "Police Riot!"
Keywords: rodney king / chicago '68 convention
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:38:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.010213.5102@athena.mit.edu> sybok@m4-035-17.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>>One baton blow to these people was more than enough to
>>split skulls, break bones and cause concussions. Hitler would have
>>been proud of the Chicago police on that day.
>
>Everyone in favor of gun control raise your right hand.  (Picture of
>Hitler appears with his right arm locked in the Nazi salute.  Behind
>him, three huge flags bearing swastikas hang in a row.)

(There, that's what I meant.)
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:14:08 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr7.171912.11842@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA) writes:
>In article <1992Apr07.153323.8882@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>In article <susan.702616434@coombs> susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:
>
>>>	So, are you that afraid of having some beer spilled on your addled
>>>brained pate?  Or do you like brawling for a living?
>
>>I certainly wouldn't let anyone get a bottle near enough my head to
>>pour it on me-- how do I know the guy isn't going to do something more
>>damaging with the bottle?
>
>>Of course, you probably wouldn't understand, as in Western society,
>>most low-lifes won't pick fights with women.
>
>Sure they would.  They're men, right?  Or rather, males, probably "little
>boys" since they talk and act tough.  And we all know (or should, by now)
>that these "little boys" are nothing but priggish sexists...Just ask
>Susan...or Pirani...or Kate...
>
>Wait a minute!  Maybe they're sexist because they *don't* pick fights with
>women.  After all, we want to be equal in every way, including getting beat
>up on.  But then, that would make us wymmin, wouldn't it?  I wonder if they
>pick fights with wymmin, or just women?  Help me Susan, I'm so CONFUSED!!!
>
>
Roberta, surely you jest? *All* fighting is wrong. I know you
really know this. You would do well to read Susan's postings more carefully.
I was a bit worried about her at first, I must admit. The wymmin thing
seemed a bit uncalled for... but I think she makes valid points.
I guess I just like gutsy women ;-).

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Serious Moonlighter)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:29:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32342
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing


In article <1992Apr8.005718.15174@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>Well in Australia, the police recognise that private gun ownership
                               ^^^^^^^^^ have the misguided opinion
>does not help minimise crime, and that it has the opposite
>effect. 
Oh? Do tell. Perhaps you can post some of your wonderful statistics on how
countries with the RKBA are pits of iniquity etc., while as usual ignoring
the fact that Switzerland and Israel, two countries with about 80% of the
adult poplulation owning guns, have even lower crime rates than your much
vaunted Australia.
>That is why the Police Associations plus the Chief
>Commissioners are right behind our gun laws, specifically
>the new ones which prohibit the ownership of guns for
>"self defence".
Well, no. They are behind these laws because a disarmed populace is that
much closer to being sheep for these political wolves, IMHO.
I don't trust the average politician any farther than I can throw him and
I'm surprised that you would be so naive.

Marc Reeve
cmraman@ucscb.ucsc.edu cmraman@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us
>
>-- 
>   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
>    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
>    was swatting at flies.
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Lawmaster Case in Tulsa OK
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:46:17 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


Re: Informing representatives

Already done.  I've bugged my own congrssman (a former Volvo dealer)
who couldn't care less, and Lawmaster's own rep who was a bit more
responsive.

I still think the government is hiding behind the so-called "Privacy
Act" which really isn't when convenient to them.
 
Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marijuana: Clinton never inhaled....Brown never exhaled.
Democratic Primary: A choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledummer
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-239-8993  or  703-764-0527  To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Salmon (sic) Rushdie's insight into America
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:05:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.233113.12184@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.140300.7626@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>>>> ...
>>>>  Will everyone who is in danger of being attacked be provided with
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  PLEASE note this!

>>>>armed bodyguards?  If that service is available to all then I see
>>>>no inconsistency in Rushdie being provided these services.  However
>>>>if bodyguards are not provided to all, and the government prevents
>>>>people from effectively defending themselves, then inconsistencies
>>>>abound. 
>>>
>>>Henry, I am astounded! I thought you would have some understanding of 
>>>this case. Rushdie is under a death sentence. There is a price on his
>>>head. He is in known danger because some people find a novel he wrote,
>>>offensive. He is in a different category that the rest of us.
>>>If you can't see this, I pity you.
>>
>>  Oh, now I see - Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than
>>others.  Rushdie is clearly in a different category than others
>>who are "in danger of being attacked" because, um, er, well, it
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 PLEASE note this!

>>is clear anyhow, and I can see it.  You can cease your pity.
>>> ...
>So you think that you for example are under the same death threat
>as Rushdie! My pity for you increases.

  I have quoted my post exactly in the above, except for adding the
emphasis on two lines above (carets and PLEASE ...).  If you really
interpret my post as saying that I think that I'm under a death
threat then I feel pity for either your ability to read and comprehend
or perhaps for your mental stability.  (Or could this be another
case of the Australian and American dialects having diverged to the
point that "others who are" means "I am" in Australia?)

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: phil_herring@itsus-gw.uow.edu.au (Rev Dr Phil Herring)
Subject: Re: Aussies
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 06:48:33 GMT

At last! Another chance to be pedantic!

In article <brian.703050463@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
>        The amount of "supervision" which most convicts recieved (and please
> remember in your thesis that most of the immigrants to Australiaafter about
> 1815 were indeed free settlers, not transported convicts), was the same as
> the normal immigrant.  The only difference was that a transported settler
> could not return home - ever.

Ahem! I might make a wee correction here. In the vast majority of cases,
convicts were transported for terms of seven years or fourteen years.
After that period, the convict could go home any time they wanted. The fact
that about 93% chose to stay perhaps indicates that their tenancy in the
antipodes was less involuntary than Clyde expects.

Of course, one might make a big deal about the 40,000 convicts transported
to the colonies in North America, or the vast numbers of slaves... but that
would be as pointless as Clyde Spencers' (admittedly half-joking) ramblings.



-- Phil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Rev Dr Phil Herring,University of Wollongong, Australia 
  ph@cs.uow.edu.au        This article is copyright (c) 1992 Phil Herring
"My manner of thinking, so you say, cannot be approved. Do you suppose I
care? A poor fool indeed is he who adopts a manner of thinking for others!
My manner of thinking stems straight from my considered  reflections; it
holds with my existence, with the way I am made. It is not in my power to
alter it; and were it, I'd not do so." Donatien Alphonse Francois de Sade
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leroy.Pyle@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Leroy Pyle)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: NRA excludes Libertar
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:12:18 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:143/223 - The Paul Revere Net, San Jose CA

-> From: tighe@convex.COM (Mike Tighe)
-> Date: 9 Apr 92 15:37:38 GMT
-> Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Texas
-> Message-ID: <1992Apr09.153738.19896@convex.com>
-> Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
->
-> Leroy.Pyle@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Leroy Pyle) writes:
->
-> <Stuff about Libertarian candidate deleted>
->
-> >Why do you think it is the NRA's responsibility to publicize the LP
-> >its views? You think the policy stinks because NRA membership monies
-> >are not used to promote the LP? You blame the NRA and its policy for
-> >the LP's lack of exposure?
->
-> The POINT is, the NRA is totally ignoring the MOST pro-gun candidate,
-> will most likely endorse a documented gun-banner, George Bush, who wa
-> a supporter of the 1986 Machine Gun ban, among other gun-banning
-> legislation.
->
-> For an organizaton that is allegedly trying to support the 2nd Amendm
-> would think they might even mention the name of the candidate that su
-> it the MOST, instead of endorsing the candidate that has a documented
-> history of banning guns.
->
-> Mike "I am NOT the NRA, because I support RKBA" Tighe
-> --
-> Mike Tighe, (214) 497-4206
-> tighe@convex.com
-> --- DB B1064/002710
->  * Origin: Fido's Kennel - uucp newgroup gateway service (1:143/8)

No, that wasn't the point.
    Leroy


3
--  
Leroy Pyle
UUCP: uts.amdahl.com!kennel!223!Leroy.Pyle
INTERNET: Leroy.Pyle@f223.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG
"The views expressed above are those of Leroy Pyle only."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx02.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:39:06 GMT
Distribution: na
X-Bytes: 

In article <1992Apr15.050338.21277@crash.cts.com> jca@crash.cts.com (John  
C. Archambeau) writes:
> In article <viking.703224192@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu  
(Dan Sorenson) writes:
> >	Just as a point of interest, I happen to live within 1000 feet of
> >both a university campus and a junior high school.  Five years and five
> >grand for posessing a gun, as in the ones locked in my house?  So, who
> >wants to pick up my legal fees when I get busted?
> 
> I also live within 1000 feet of an elementary school.  But I do know
> that in your own home or private business you can carry a loaded firearm
> on your person; at least under CA law.  It's your place, do whatever you
> want with respect to carry.  Off your business or property, it's another 
> matter.

I repeat.  The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act specifically exempts guns  
which are owned / discharged on private property.  This law (for all its  
flaws) does not threaten you for owning firearms at your house.

... but, a point should be made that it would not matter what CA (or any  
other state's) law was on legal ownership / carry; this is a Federal law.
----
To ALL:  I just realized that my local newspaper may not be publishing  
complete Federal Court (E. District KY) records as they do with the state  
court records.  Perhaps people are being nailed under this act?  I'm going  
to check this week.

RIK
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: (In)sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:52:12 GMT

susan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Susan McDonald) writes:

[....]

>	Fine, Roberta you can take on the responsibility for controlling
>the behavior of that rapist if you want to.  I don't.  I prefer to make
>them responsible for their own actions BEFORE they occur.

Lets look at what you just said.  The optimum is of course where everyone
is nice and no one goes around hurting anyone else.  This is unfortunately
unobtainable in practice.  What you just said is *you* are relying on it
but *if* someone attacks you, you automatically relinquish control of the
situation to a person that means you or your family harm.  

Most people would rather have agressive people
responsible for their actions *before* they hurt someone else (some of
us would like for them to be held responsible *after* the fact as well).
The problem is that it is not always possible.  After all, it only takes
one person to initiate an attack.  Once that attack is initiated, the
victim has a rather limited choice of responses.

Actually, it isn't as clear cut as all that.  Even if the victim does
respond by 1) trying to run; 2) cooperation; 3) passive resistance;
4) pleading; 5) active defense, it is no guarantee that the victim will
either prevail or even survive.

I would venture to speculate that most of the people who post to this
group would certainly rather coexist in harmony with others.  Speaking
for myself, I know I would.  I simply prefer not to automatically
relinquish control of a potentially lethal situation to the perhaps
non-existant good will of someone else.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I recognize that being armed is not a
panacea.  Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't  make a difference,
and sometimes it is an active liability.  On the whole, it improves your
chances and gives you additional options.

--
Larry                                   |   Thunder makes all the noise;
                                        |   lightning gets the job done.
larryd@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Results of Berkeley gun buy back
From: case1@husc4.harvard.edu (John Case)
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:21:01 EDT
Distribution: na
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Apr4.204641.2373@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Terminator) writes:
>>Funny, my girlfriend would go ballistic if I suggested _not_ having a gun in
>>the house. :)
>
>Looks like your a lucky man; you get both the guns *and* the girl!


My wife of ten years is not particularly thrilled with guns, hates it when I
wear one to a wedding, and doesn't like to shoot, took an NRA safety course
with me years ago, before we were married but after she moved in, so she could,
as she says, 'be able to safely move them when she has to vacuum around them.'

That's called not trying to intefere with someone's personal freedom.

John Case
jcase@husc.harvard.edu