HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobh@troy.cc.bellcore.com (hettmansperger,robert)
Subject: Re: YYYEEEEESSSSSSS!!!
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 20:10:30 GMT

In article <1e7d74INNel2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>
>In a previous article, eastmer@yang.earlham.edu () says:
>
>>How about residential streets, are you going to put one of 
>>your great private sector toll booths at the end of every driveway before 
>>you get on one of your private sector roads.  At what point would it be 
>>O.K. with you for a community to gather money throughout the population to 
>>finance something that is beneficial to everyone?(i.e. taxes)
>>
>Well, I *live* in a neighborhood with privately own roads.  It is a mobile
>home court, about one mile on a side.  The roads are generally better
>quality than the ones the city maintains only a few hundred feet away,
>and there are sidewalks and streetlights.  We have a very low crime rate.
>No tollbooths; it is part of the monthly lot rent, which is $175/mo.
>It is not hard to imagine such a system being extended to a neighborhood
>of another type.  In areas where the residents own the property their
>homes sit on, the cost might be stipulated in the deed.
>

So let's see... If you rent, the costs for roads is taken from the rent.
If you own, then the costs for roads is stipulated in the deed.

Not only have you just created the illusion of taxation, but you have also
completely removed your beloved concept of usage-based fees.

Not only that, think what a pain it would be to run utilities throughout 
neighborhoods.  Or do you believe that when a utility company wants to run
a new gas line, sewer, phone line, etc. under a roadway, that they must
make individual negotiations with each of the land owners of that road?
What a nightmare...

-Bob
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.sex
From: coleman@rocky.cs.ucla.edu (Mike Coleman)
Subject: Re: HEY!!!! COLO AMENDMENT 2 PASSED!! HELLO?
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 10:58:09 GMT

Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|The single best way to get people to galvanize is to threaten them. 
|Give Coloradoans(sp?) a hard time, and a lot of them may back up #2 as a
|protest against outsiders trying to run their state.

Perhaps so.  On the other hand a boycott would certainly galvanize the tourist
industry--I suspect that they will not be willing to give up their livelihoods
to support the bigoted and ill-considered attitudes of their neighbors.

Frankly, I don't see your suggestion that I shouldn't spend my money as I see
fit as being very compelling.

Mike

-- 
--Mike Coleman (coleman@cs.ucla.edu), Lord High Executioner of Anhedonia-----
We divide ourselves into groups, so that we will always have somebody to hate.
From: Dorothy Morse <dmorse@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:58 PST
Subject: POINTER: Good news about Somalia
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1296500440:000:561
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmorse    Nov 17 18:58:00 1992


From: Dorothy Morse <dmorse>
Subject: POINTER: Good news about Somalia

/* Written  6:57 pm  Nov 17, 1992 by dmorse@igc.apc.org in igc:reg.africa */
/* ---------- "POINTER: Good news about Somalia" ---------- */
Please see the conference soc.cult.africa, the topic "'Word' on Somalia" for
updates on the Abilene action, new fundraising by the Somalia Relief
Association, eyewitness report from Somalian refugee camp AND
example of letterwriting by young mother that I hope will inspire lots
of netpeople to *keep on phoning, faxing, and writing for Somalia*!!!

Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Subject: Re: EDITORIAL: Weyerhaueser: The Tree Whackers
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:50:39 GMT

	Jym, is this typical of your material?

	If so, then it's poorly researched, unfamiliar with corporate
structure and conflates far too many bits of information to paint an overly
black picture of one company.

	For example, lumping together Pope and Talbot, Norton Clapp's empire
and other companies with Weyerhaueuser is far too simplistic.  It makes
the relationships much closer than they really are.

	I'm not impressed.

-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@u.washington.edu
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: American communists and the Soviet Union
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Nov18.221959.5205@starbase.trincoll.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:42:13

In article <1992Nov18.221959.5205@starbase.trincoll.edu> nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller) writes:

   In article <1992Nov18.205021.25244@mont.cs.missouri.edu> jmc@sail.stanford.edu (
   John McCarthy) writes:

   > The people who said it was *all* a
   >witchhunt are refuted.  Some of Senator Joseph McCarthy's more
   >ambitious charges are not supported.  There is no evidence as yet that
   >any major American politicians were under communist control.
   >
   >--
   >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
   >

   I'd appreciate hearing from Mr. McCarthy a _single_ specific charge
   --one naming a person or persons--that has since been borne out.

   Norman Miller

I already mentioned the verification that Harry Bridges, who successfully
denied being a communist in order to avoid deportation, was in fact
a member of the CPUSA Central Committee under the name of Rossi.  The
Comintern documents list him as such.

Would you like something else?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:4206 alt.rush-limbaugh:9931 talk.politics.misc:60682
From: nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu (norman miller)
Subject: Re: American communists and the Soviet Union
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:19:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.205021.25244@mont.cs.missouri.edu> jmc@sail.stanford.edu (
John McCarthy) writes:

> The people who said it was *all* a
>witchhunt are refuted.  Some of Senator Joseph McCarthy's more
>ambitious charges are not supported.  There is no evidence as yet that
>any major American politicians were under communist control.
>
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>

I'd appreciate hearing from Mr. McCarthy a _single_ specific charge
--one naming a person or persons--that has since been borne out.

Norman Miller
From: orwell@reg.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: LaRouche is a fucking Nazi!
Date: 17 Nov 1992 18:03 PST
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: reg.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Nov17.040757.15651@muddcs.claremont.edu>, 
weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) responding to me:
[my ** emphasis]:
>	No need to get upset. **I don't know what the original post was.** By 
>'not just a smear' I was referring to the fact that calling nazism a form of
>socialism does not have to be derogatory towards socialism
> 

My apologies, then, if you didn't see the original post.  To expand beyond
mere abuse, let me note that one could indeed, e.g., discuss the Keynesian 
(public-works/military) economic policies of the Nazi government in the
thirties -- which were in fact very successful in revitalizing the German
economy -- in a reasoned way without it being a smear intended 
to pyschologically equate Keynesianism with Nazism.  But in the
actual context of Steven Fordyce's one-liner "hit-and-run" rejoinder --
which imparted no useful information -- it is a smear.
To sincerely believe otherwise is to be deeply ignorant 
of both the techniques of rhetoric and the emotional connotations
of the term `Nazism'.  (Note the title of this thread!)


Ron Balden
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: LaRouche is a fucking Nazi!
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:45:05 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <13NOV199222300153@reg.triumf.ca> orwell@reg.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON)  
writes:
> This is quite wrong; if Steven Fordyce wants to attack socialism then he
> should do so directly without resorting to utterly disreputable smear  
tactics.

So by your definition socialism can't be evil? Following along that line of  
thought then Lenin and Stalin weren't communists since they certainly did not  
follow marxist teachings (except in retoric). Words seem to mean only what you  
want them to mean.

--
Barry Wise
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: American communists and the Soviet Union
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Nov18.213350.27870@vexcel.com>
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:22:30

I see from articles listed in the UCB Melvyl database that the "top
communist" "exonerating" Hiss is Gen. Dimitri Volkogonov, a military
historian.  I didn't see the articles themselves, but it is all a
question of what files he had access to, as well as his credibility in
a matter, the identity of Soviet agents, that the Russians have said
they will continue to keep secret.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: LaRouche is a fucking Nazi!
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:17:29 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

In article <1992Nov16.211217.3192@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>
>Fascism is not a form of socialism. 
	Fascism is fairly vaguely defined. So this can't really made as a
definite statement.

>Most enterprise in Nazi Germany was privately owned.
	There was a good deal of nationalization, so there was at least some
degree of socialism.

>The fact that socialism can take an authoritarian form does not mean it is
>fascist. 
	It doesn't have to be, but it can be.

>Socialism usually implies some form of
>collectivism where the needs (or at least supposed needs) of the whole
>override the needs of the few.  In fascism, the needs of the _state_,
>as defined by its leader override the needs of any citizen.

	The line between the two can get somewhat fuzzy in some instances.

>-- 
>
>		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)

	*********************************************************
	*  William Everett		Tan, Rested, and ready  *
	*  Harvey Mudd College		     NIXON in '96       *
	*                                                       *   
	*  These opinions are mine- you can't have them         *   
	*********************************************************
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Nazism and Socialism (was: LaRouche is a fucking Nazi!)
Keywords: Socialism
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:20:44 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1137@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>In article <13NOV199222300153@reg.triumf.ca> orwell@reg.triumf.ca
>(BALDEN, RON) writes:
><In article <1116@bug.UUCP>, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes...
><>In article <1992Oct28.195121.9455@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com
><>(Dean Alaska) writes:
><>>Note that the party of Adolf Hitler was a fascist party that had the
><>>word "socialist" in its name. 
><> 
><>And correctly so.  Nazism was a form of socialism.  Most or at least many
><>of the important industries were nationalized under the Nazis.
><
><This is quite wrong;
>
>No, it is indisputably correct.  And many prominent socialists of the day
>(before the war) had no problem admitting this and approving of *some* of
>Hitler's actions, although certainly not all of them, nor necessarily his
>reasons for doing them.  You can read about this in, "The Road to Serfdom",
>by F. A. Hayek.

Most socialists and communists I have read of did NOT identify with the
Nazis and were horrified when Stalin made his agreement with them.
>
>I don't think your problem is so much with me, Ron, as it is with the
>truth.  You seem to gauge truth by how it reflects (in your mind) on
>socialism.  Saying that National Socialism is a form of socialism, is no
>more an attack on other forms of socialism, than saying Hitler was a human
>being is an attack on you (or me).  It is simply the truth in both cases.

You are representing your opinion as absolute truth.  This is the
definition of dogma.  That Hayek, or other individuals, connect
National Socialism with socialism does not make it so.  That many
disagree makes it a minority opinion.  Whether or not it was
intended as a smear I am not too concerned with because it just
isn't true.  There is a tendency among some laissez faire fans to
define any country with even minimal governmental involvement in
economic matters as soclialist.  Is a system defined by its
dominant attributes or the miniscule ones that an individual's
ideology wishes to focus on?
>
>-- 
>orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
>uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: LaRouche is a fucking Nazi!
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 07:12:02 GMT

In article <13NOV199222300153@reg.triumf.ca> orwell@reg.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON) writes:
>In article <1116@bug.UUCP>, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes...
>>In article <1992Oct28.195121.9455@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com
>>(Dean Alaska) writes:
>>>Note that the party of Adolf Hitler was a fascist party that had the
>>>word "socialist" in its name. 
>> 
>>And correctly so.  Nazism was a form of socialism.  Most or at least many
>>of the important industries were nationalized under the Nazis.
>>-- 
>>orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
>>uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
>
>This is quite wrong; if Steven Fordyce wants to attack socialism then he
>should do so directly without resorting to utterly disreputable smear tactics.

	No, it's correct. Note- saying Nazism is a form of socialism is not
the same thing as saying that all socialism is associated with Nazism. So
this is not just a smear.

>errors -- just sloppy copy-editing.) One of the first things Hitler did upon
>coming to power was to smash the German trade unions.  If Steven Fordyce thinks
>this represents socialism, then perhaps he would also accept the definition of
>a guillotine as a headache cure. 

	There is not jone form of socialism to be represented. There are
many and they aren't all friendly to one another.

>Ron Balden

William Everett
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: American communists and the Soviet Union
Date: 20 Nov 92 06:59:45 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


Seeing the subject reminded me of an old question...  I saw the movie
"Reds" some years ago - and never did understand why John Reed made
the perilous trip to Moscow on behalf of U.S. communism.  Why
did communists anywhere else in the world feel they needed a license
or a franchise from Moscow to make their activities legit?
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Ya can argue all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!"
"No it aint!  But ya gotta know the territory!"
        Meredith Willson: "The Music Man"
From: @prism.cs.orst.edu ()
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: American communists and the Soviet Union
Date: 19 Nov 1992 17:36:58 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.
NNTP-Posting-Host: prism.cs.orst.edu

In article <JMC.92Nov19002233@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I see from articles listed in the UCB Melvyl database that the "top
>communist" "exonerating" Hiss is Gen. Dimitri Volkogonov, a military
>historian.  

According to press reports, he's a historian with a good reputation.
I'm not sure what files he had access to.

Being a relative youngster, I don't recall all the details of the 
government case against Hiss, nor the relative strength of evidence.
From: orwell@reg.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: LaRouche is a fucking Nazi!
Date: 16 Nov 1992 17:37 PST
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: reg.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett), commenting on my
rebuke to Steven Fordyce [my emphasis]:
[Previous Fordyce comment and my rebuke omitted]:
>	No, it's correct. Note- saying Nazism is a form of socialism is not
>the same thing as saying that all socialism is associated with Nazism. **So
>this is not just a smear.**
> 

To me, this statement indicates that

a)  William Everett is being deeply disingenuous.

or

b)  He is a fool.

I do him the compliment of assuming a).  Presumably, if he thinks
"this is not just a smear" then he also saw nothing wrong with
Lee Atwater's statement-- and tactics -- in the 1988 U.S. Presidential
contest that he was "going to make voters think that Willie Horton
was Michael Dukkakis's running mate".

Ron Balden
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: American communists and the Soviet Union
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 21 Nov 92 22:36:56

In article <1ei2d1INN46r@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) writes:

   Seeing the subject reminded me of an old question...  I saw the movie
   "Reds" some years ago - and never did understand why John Reed made
   the perilous trip to Moscow on behalf of U.S. communism.  Why
   did communists anywhere else in the world feel they needed a license
   or a franchise from Moscow to make their activities legit?
   -- 
   haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
   haynes@cats.bitnet

   "Ya can argue all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!"
   "No it aint!  But ya gotta know the territory!"
	   Meredith Willson: "The Music Man"

The Russian revolution inspired many socialists all over the world,
including my parents, just as religious causes often did previously.
Previous socialism was reformist, and many people were inspired by
something more vigorous.  The fact that each European socialist party
had supported its own government in World War I with the exception of
the Bolsheviks was importance.  In 1919 the Soviets formed the Third
International, headquartered in Moscow, and many socialist parties,
including the American, split with some people going to the Third
International and some staying with the Second, which still exists and
includes the European Social Democratic Parties.  Stalin dissolved the
Third International in 1943; why isn't clear, although he had killed
many of its prominent figures.

The bad aspects of Lenin's communism, its intolerance of difference of
opinion, mendaciousness, one man leadership, economic bullheadedness
and readiness to kill manifested themselves early and were apparent to
many.  The corruption mostly came later.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: vest@novavax.UUCP (Steven Vest)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Aging population
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:10:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

pierce@CS.UCLA.EDU (Brad Pierce) writes:

>According to Jerry Pournelle, "A Computer in the Hand", _Byte_,
>December 1992, Vol. 17, No. 14, pp. 97-112 (page 106):

>    "The U.S. inevitably faces an aging population: fewer working-age
>     people and vastly more retired people. It looks to me as if our
>     choices are very limited: increase productivity, or have a
>     declining standard of living. Or both."

>What about increasing immigration quotas?


The problem here is that too many of the people who want to immigrate to
the United states come from low tech/agrarian societies.  Many of them
have nothing approaching the skills needed to fill the increasingly 
high-tech jobs that are expected to see growth in the next few decades.
With the exception of a few high growth areas, we have more than enough
people to do the low tech jobs.  We need to spend our resources bringing
people up to speed in dealing with technilogically challenging applications.

Increasing immigration quotas will do very little to fill this gap unless 
we want to place even more restrictions on the type of legal aliens we 
let through.  I'm curious as to why you would believe that a country that
is already reeling under a massive influx of illegal aliens would want to 
increase the quota of legal aliens.  What would be gained?  Perhaps we might
gain a bit more control of who comes in.  But this is accepting the idea that
this would lessen the amount of illegal aliens.  Something I've never seen
proven to any degree of veracity.

-- 
========================== vest@novavax.nova.edu =============================
= Steven Vest: Electronic Reference Librarian: Nova University, Ft. Ldl, FL  =
=      Anything you see by me is just MY opinion.  Don't blame Nova.         =
=================Life is strange. Yeah, but compared to what?================= 
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d