HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk]  Re: right to have .plan
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:29:55 GMT

}[A repost - Carl]
}Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
}From: colinj@engin.umich.edu (Colin Johnson)
}Subject:  Re: right to have .plan
}Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 18:50:45 EST
}
}	My first reaction to this is that anyone who looks at you .plan
}file does so by choice. 

Perhaps not.  For example, should you "finger john@iastate.edu"
you will get more than you might expect...

    pooh.cc> finger john@iastate.edu | wc -l
         999

(there are a *lot* of John Somebodies here).

John
-- 
John Hascall                   ``An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger.''
Systems Software Engineer
Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center  +  Ames, IA  50011  +  515/294-9551
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk]  Re: right to have .plan
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:29:42 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: cb@wixer.cactus.org (Cyberspace Buddha)
Subject:  Re: right to have .plan
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 03:58:21 GMT

moon@Virginia.EDU (M. Yi) writes:
>recently i recieve a complaint about my .plan file
>which contains quote from the book of isaiah.  one
>user in my system accuses, "[i was] protelyzing over
>system."  i consider this as a challege in my freedom
>of expressing my thought and freedom of religion.
>

A complaint about your .plan?  seems kinda far fetched to me.
were I a sysadmin and got such a complaint, I'd tell the plaintiff
to go whistle up a rope.  After all, how do you get to see a
persons .plan, anyway?  is there a way other than finger? If
not, I'd say that fingering someone and then whining about
the results is kinda begging the question...

cb
-- 
 Cyberspace Buddha { Why are you looking for more knowledge when you  } /(o\
cb@wixer.cactus.org } do not pay attention to what you already know? {  \o)/
 Is this thing on? { Just say no to war, Bush, NSA, CIA, IRS, etc...  } fnord
-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Summary: More on school harassment
Organization: VideOcart Inc.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:58:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.111253.29392@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) wrote:
>>morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>
>>>	"In Petaluma, Calif., eighth grader Tawnya Brawdy had to run a gant-
>>>	 let of boys gathered outside her school who would begin mooing
>>>	 as she approached. [...] The US Department of Education found, in a
>>>	 211-page report, that the schools had failed to protect her."
>>>
>>Good for her.
>
>Is it really good for her?  I'll discuss that a bit later......

....

>I guess that I look at things a bit differently than these parents.  I can
>remember having problems with a few classmates, thanks to my size (currently
>6'5" and 285 lbs.).  When the school's efforts failed, my parents sat
>down with the parents of the other kids involved; the matter was dealt with,
>and neither the school administration nor the judicial system had to be in-
>volved.  I think we've all seen similar situations handled in the same man-
>ner.  I consider such things as part of "parental responsibility".

I feel differently.

I believe that since a student in this country is >required< to attend 
school until age 16, the school therefore has a responsibility to protect 
students against this kind (or any other kind) of harassment.  

I was a victim of several raucous students in my primary and early secondary 
school years.  The school was NOT interested in suspending or expelling these 
students who were the instigators of these offenses.  They quite frankly did 
not care.  The staff and faculty was certainly aware of the problem -- but 
they just decided not to act -- despite repeated complaints on my part.

If I had been an adult these "kids" would have been brought up on assault
and battery charges, and in some cases aggrevated battery.  Some of them would
have undoubtably done time in jail.  But since they were "kids" this didn't 
happen -- NOR WERE THEY STOPPED.  

If you're going to require kids to attend a school, and force them to attend
a particular school at that (ie: no "choice") then it is incumbent on the
administration and staff of that school to maintain order.  Those who offend
against that order should and must be removed.

I applaud the lawsuit and its result.  I would look favorably on the
extension of these lawsuits to individual faculty and staff members who are
aware of these offenses, sexual or not, who choose not to act in the defense
of those kids who are being abused at the hands of their schoolmates.

It is high time that some accountability be brought to educators.  If they
can't do it internally, then the courts are my next best choice.

--
Karl Denninger 		Inet:  kdenning@hq.videocart.com
VideOcart Inc.		Voice: (312) 987-5022
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Due process at state universities
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:27:13 GMT

nbc2134@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil (Robert F Solon) writes:

[...]
>Steve:

>     Believe me, I'm not belittling your case at all.  I'm not "dismissing"
>the case as isolated.  What I am saying is that so far no one has been able to
>come with eveidence to support Carl's far-reaching claims.  Your above
>evidence is anecodtal; I would very much like to see some hard numbers. Can
>you provide them?
[...]

That it is impossible to get "hard numbers" about flaws in university
justice, is itself a serious flaw in university justice.

- Carl

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3386 alt.censorship:8790
From: barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Mr. Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Re: [news.sysadmin, et al.] Re: a.b.p.e. distribution (was, Re: Does USENET condone CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:53:47 GMT
Organization: Evanston, Illinois, U.S.A.

:[A repost - Carl]
:
:I must be bored, following up my own posts, but apparently I was
:mistaken. The reason actually given by the higher-ups at the UW
:for removing a.b.p.e. was:
:
:The picture groups take up waaaayyy too much disk space; we can't
:afford them. We will, therefore, kill the entire a.b.p. hierarchy.
:
:And they did.
:
:Now, I suspect that reasons 1 and 2 as given in my previous post
:are what really drove this decision, but maybe not. Hard to believe
:that they couldn't just have put a pretty quick expire time on the
:a.b.p. groups and let it go, but I guess they didn't want to.
:
:Apologies if I misled anyone through my ignorance.
:
:Josh

Well now, I'm not sure ignorance is yours to keep, Josh.  How long's
it been since most of our readers here have checked the bandwidth
specs on the a.b.p. groups?

In a word, it's unbefuckinleevable.  Saul had his thousands, but
Long Dong Silver had his tens of thousands.  Lookit these three
month old figures from UUNET:

         No. of        $ Cost  % of  Cumulative
Rank  Kbytes Articles per Site Total  % of Total  Group (Articles/contributor)
   1 35253.4     817     93.03  7.7%     7.7%     alt.binaries.pictures.erotica (4.8)
   2 16878.4     412     44.54  3.7%    11.4%     alt.binaries.pictures.misc (3.8)
   3  6049.4    2855     15.96  1.3%    12.7%     talk.politics.misc (4.3)
   4  6044.8     167     15.95  1.3%    14.0%     alt.binaries.pictures.tasteless (4.5)

Some periods I have seen a.b.p.e. as high as 57 megabytes.  8 percent
of Usenet sloshing along one little waterway!

Quite apart from the 1st Amendment/academic computing policy issues,
I think people should be aware of the overgrown size of these groups,
because then claims like UW's, while not airtight, are certainly
defensible and definitely understandable.

And ignorance doesn't stop there.  For instance, I have no idea whether
that "Cost per Site" is in the grand tradition of mainframe funny money,
or whether it at least hints at the actual cost these megabinarygroups
are bringing upon sites.  And what about the redundancy of newsfeeds?
When UUNET reports 35 megs of bandwidth in two weeks for a group, is\
that just a fraction of the total gross received for that group by
each site?

The Usenet FAQs are very good at answering a lot of questions, but
certain technical questions aren't addressed -- just the ones that
might shed a little new light on this heated subject.

Aaron
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: [news.sysadmin, et al.] Re: a.b.p.e. distribution (was, Re: Does USENET condone CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?)
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:02:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

[A repost - Carl]

From: josh@cqs.washington.edu (Josh Hayes)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin,news.admin.policy,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
Subject: Re: a.b.p.e. distribution (was, Re: Does USENET condone CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?)
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:44:11 GMT

I must be bored, following up my own posts, but apparently I was
mistaken. The reason actually given by the higher-ups at the UW
for removing a.b.p.e. was:

The picture groups take up waaaayyy too much disk space; we can't
afford them. We will, therefore, kill the entire a.b.p. hierarchy.

And they did.

Now, I suspect that reasons 1 and 2 as given in my previous post
are what really drove this decision, but maybe not. Hard to believe
that they couldn't just have put a pretty quick expire time on the
a.b.p. groups and let it go, but I guess they didn't want to.

Apologies if I misled anyone through my ignorance.

Josh

--
Josh Hayes, Quantitative Sciences HR-20 U of Washington
josh@mowgli.cqs.washington.edu             206 543-5004
      We got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand.
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Organization: Aston University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 08:24:35 GMT

martelli@cadlab.sublink.org (Alex Martelli) writes:
: jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
: 	...
: :It is policy because it is the law regarding sexual harassment, not
: :harassment in general.  The unwelcome behavior must be of a sexual
: :nature.  In the case of sexual harassment complaints, the supervisor is
: 
: I think you're missing a crucial point.  This discussion, we should
: recall, started about the alleged "sexual harassment" nature of what a
: user chooses to display on hir windowed-screen background.  If such
: choices, which are so obviously in the nature of free-speech
: expressions, are to be labeled "sexual harassment" under the "hostile
: environment" doctrine, then the "must be of a sexual nature" clause
: which you take as a given (and would make sense!) is NOT guaranteed AT
: ALL.
: 
: If display of a scantily clad female body is "of a sexual nature",
: then why not the display of a scantily clad young male nailed to a
: cross and wearing a cross of thorns?  Thus, no crucifixes allowed,
: I presume.  Similarly for other religious depictions, such as naked
: Ishtar descending to Hell, Botticelli's Venus, Bosch's Inferno (LOTS
: of nudity there!), and so on and so forth.

Are there organised, loud, legal and powerful preasure groups trying to
outlaw the examples you give.
: 
: And why stop at graphics?  Isn't wearing a pink T-shirt emblazoned with
: "GAY, AND PROUD OF IT!"  a similarly "sexual nature" behavior?
: Homophobes would certainly feel it unwelcome and hostile.  And what if
: the message is "MY BODY, MY CHOICE!"?  And the pink-shirt example which
: you were responding to is NOT as silly as you seem to imagine:  a male's
: wearing pink, even without the accompanying words, IS taken (in certain
: circles) as a signal of out-of-the-closet homosexuality, a "sexual
: nature" message not that much different from the gay-liberation one
: mentioned above, or from displaying a Mapplethorpe photo on your
: office's wall, or on your workstation screen's background...
: 
: The threshold, in my humble opinion, was crossed when it was conceded
: that a "free expression"-nature act, such as the choice of what to
: wear or what to display in one's personal working environment, was
: in any way equivalent to "harassing" somebody else sexually, with
: unwelcome sexual advances.  This way bleakest censorship, dress codes,
: and tiranny lay...

The problem is as you say that the line already has been crossed, and those
who created the situation are going to do their best to uphold it.
(no matter what sort of daft situations it will lead to)
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jbcondat@attmail.com
Subject: Please rush you opinion...
X-Unparseable-Date: 31 Dec 69 23:59:59 GMT
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 10:19:10 GMT

Dear Sir:

Could you please help me and give me your opinion related to the following
article that you can find in reprint form?

I offer a free copy of _C'est decide! J'ecris mon virus_ for all the 20 first
opnions send to my e-mail address:  jbcondat@attmail.com  (don't forget to
give you *physical addresse*).

Regards,
jbc
--
Jean-Bernard CONDAT (General Secretary)------Chaos Computer Club France [CCCF]
B.P. 8005, 69351 Lyon Cedex 08// France //43 rue des Rosiers, 93400 Saint-Ouen
Phone: +33 1 40101775, Fax.: +33 1 40101764, Hacker's BBS (8x): +33 1 40102223

==============================================================================
From "Intelligence Newsletter", No. 202 (Oct. 8, 1992), Page 5, by O. Schimdt


                    MAKING THE NEWS AND BOOKSTANDS


The computer virus "threat" is back in the news with a new study by IBM
specialist Jeffrey O. Kephart and on the bookstands with a French do-it-
yourself build-your-own manual on viruses. According to Kephart of IBM's
High Integrity Computing Laboratory, most previous theories on the "social
structure of computer use and networks were faulty": not every machine
could make contact with every other machine in one, two or three "steps".
Most individual computers are not connected to others systems but only
to their nearest neighbors. Therefore, most infections take place not through
networks, but through the physical exchange of disks. Moreover, many of the
1,500 known viruses are not good replicators and many are not destructive.
Even the remaining good replicators are "almost all defeated by normal
anti-virus programs." To advance knowledge such as this concerning viruses,
*Chaos Computer Club France* (CCCF) has decided to publish the French trans-
lation of "The Black Book of Computer Virus" by Mark Ludwig "which was
censored in the U.S." (French title, "C'est decide! J'ecris mon virus,"
Editions Eyrolles). [...] The book contains "computer codes for writing your
own virus," but according to CCCF any such virus can be defeated by normal
anti-virus programs. Moreover, there is no French law forbidding the publi-
cation of virus computer codes. The book is intended for "responsible adults"
and bears the warning "Forbidden for readers not 18 years old".

==============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: morgan@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan)
Subject: [NOT A REPOST] Re: [news.sysadmin, et al.] Re: a.b.p.e. distribution 
Organization: University of Kentucky Engineering Computing Center
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:12:10 GMT

[ All newsgroups deleted except alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk -- Wes ]

kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) wrote:
>[A repost - Carl]

Yup, and quite a few of them at that........

Please, please, PLEASE, can't you just say "there's an interesting discussion
over in news.sysadmin; check it out"??!!

It gets rather annoying to see articles two and three times, thanks to
such reposting; I'd say that 'spreading the discussion' in this fashion
actually performs a disservice, given readers' propensity for chopping
Newsgroups lines.....

It's also rather annoying to see only a few articles in a thread; we then
almost always have to go searching for its conclusion elsewhere.  This is 
another reason to provide pointers to discussion (instead of reposts of
discussion).  This has the added benefit of concentrating the discussion
(as best we can) in the original group; our opinions will reach more people,
and we'll all become widely-respected, honored net.legends.    8)

Seriously, though, I'd like to think that the majority of readers are able 
to find their way to news.sysadmin; it isn't that difficult, and most sites 
carry it. (In this case, more sites carry news.sysadmin than carry alt.comp.
acad-freedom.talk, but we're reposting to the smaller group with the poorer 
distribution!)  


-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.admin.policy
From: barnhart@ddsw1.mcs.com (Mr. Aaron Barnhart)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:18:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Evanston, Illinois, U.S.A.

This is in reply to kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger), who wrote:
:I was a victim of several raucous students in my primary and early secondary 
:school years.  The school was NOT interested in suspending or expelling these 
:students who were the instigators of these offenses.  They quite frankly did 
:not care.  The staff and faculty was certainly aware of the problem -- but 
:they just decided not to act -- despite repeated complaints on my part.
:
:If I had been an adult these "kids" would have been brought up on assault
:and battery charges, and in some cases aggrevated battery.  Some of them would
:have undoubtably done time in jail.  But since they were "kids" this didn't 
:happen -- NOR WERE THEY STOPPED.  
:

I might add that right now as it currently stands, the usenet is made
up of a lot of well-educated, often technically-minded people .. just
the kinds of folx whose school experiences resound with the recurring
theme of being square pegs jammed into round holes.

It sure seems as though even 20 short years has done a lot to change
schools -- of course, in those two decades I migrated from small-town
Montana to progressive Evanston.

But I can still remember what my classmates did to me and other misfits,
and with one or two exceptions the countenancing of those actions by
our so-called guardians in the school system.

I'm not sure legal recourse is always the best, and in fact I would
encourage parental involvement, responsibility, and reconciliation
wherever possible.  But don't start rattling off kids' lawsuits as
proof positive we are a litigation-crazy society.  That misses the
point that the suit is often trying to make -- somebody, please, take
notice and take responsibility.

Aaron

Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: [comp.org.eff.talk]  Re: right to have .plan
Followup-To: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:29:36 GMT

[A repost - Carl]

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: colinj@engin.umich.edu (Colin Johnson)
Subject:  Re: right to have .plan
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 18:50:45 EST

	My first reaction to this is that anyone who looks at you .plan
file does so by choice. 

	Colin J.

-- 
Colin Johnson           |Colin.Johnson@um.cc.umich.edu
Ann Arbor Michigan      |colinj@caen.engin.umich.edu


-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Preventing Sexual Harassment?
Summary: Yes I can say that ;-)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:22:06 GMT
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Chicago, IL

In article <1992Nov06.143255.40060@wap.oau.org> bdixon@wap.oau.org (Bill Dixon) writes:
>In article <Bx95st.AM1@portal.hq.videocart.com> kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov5.111253.29392@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
>>....
>>
>>I believe that since a student in this country is >required< to attend 
>>school until age 16, the school therefore has a responsibility to protect 
>>students against this kind (or any other kind) of harassment.  
>>
>>....
>>
>>If you're going to require kids to attend a school, and force them to attend
>>a particular school at that (ie: no "choice") then it is incumbent on the
>>administration and staff of that school to maintain order.  Those who offend
>>against that order should and must be removed.
>
>At the risk of branching too far away from the original issue (sexual
>harassment), I would like to say that you cannot say that a child is
>required to attend a particular public school.  There are other options
>available.  For instance, if you believe that attending the public school
>in your area is detrimental to the well-being (physical / emotional / 
>educational) of your child(ren), you can always enroll them in a private
>school.

Non-issue really.  Remove the tax burden that a parent (in fact, that we
all) pay for that school that we then THROW AWAY when you enroll in a
private school and I would agree with you. 

However, since its my money that is going to fund that school, and yours as
well, I believe that the students have a right to a harassment-free
environment.  Further, federal law on this matter agrees with me.

If the administration of a school is unwilling to take care of this matter,
then they deserve to find themselves on the wrong end of action of various
kinds.  

>amounts of time and effort into it, but you cannot state categorically
>that children are <required> to attend a particular school, whether it be
>public or private.

I can, however, say that I'm paying for that public school system and
therefore I am going to damn well get my money's worth.  And that means a
safe and harassment-free environment -- even if I had to sue for it.

I think the idea of holding these folks' feet to the fire is a wonderful
idea.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk