HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Ask not what your country can do for you ...
Date: 4 Sep 1992 18:56:40 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep3.170232@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
>In article <18689tINNr38@agate.berkeley.edu>, martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>|> Concerning "'Family Values' taking precedence over individuality.":
>|> 
>|>   A persons individuality is best protected under the ancient institution
>|>   of the family.
>|> 
>
>
>What?!  Where did you get this crap from?
>

Where?  From myself.  One of the goals of a family is to produce 
human beings who are autonomous from society.   The offspring have to
be free FROM society, not a slave to it.  

Now when the family breaks down, the children will tend to look towards
society, government, and other externalities.  In such a situation, a
government intending to control its people will rejoice.  For what is the
best way for a few to control the many?  Divide and Conquer.  This idea
is prevalent and a very successful means of overcoming and conquering people,
lands etc.  When the family is disunited and broken, this is a perfect
opportunity for government and society to extend their will.

Ever heard of communes, breaking up families, and collective farming?

Strong families preserve individuality and prevent government, society,
from taking that individuality away.

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: root@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Super-User)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Super-User)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:28:10 GMT

In article <71976@apple.Apple.COM>, Pete Bickford writes:
>Jeff, after reading your, ahem, interesting view of the matter, I feel
>obliged to point out how really !@#!@# out of touch with reality you are.
>I mean, cripes! Get a clue!

I don't think you've read closely enough. Jeff is not complaining so much 
that, having fallen down and faced with a machete-swinging maniac, the
cop was way out of line shooting her, but that the mistake was to send 
the cop in alone in the first place, thus guaranteeing the use of deadly force
would become necessary. Once the cop was alone in the house
with her, (or at least, by himself...there may have been other cops in the
house) he had no real choice but to shoot to kill.  I said before that if I was
confronted by someone with a knife in my home and I had a gun, you 
bet I'd put four slugs into them.....without hesitation. 

But if I was outside the house, with plenty of buddies, I wouldn't go in 
alone. Actually, I probably wouldn't go in at all. Because doing so is inviting
a dangerous situation. 

>Or, what might be more interesting, get yourself trained as a policeman,
>and try to calmly take down the next machete wielding psycho in the manner
>you so arrogantly suggest from the comfort of your computer chair.

Nothing personal, but the old "Oh yeah, well why don't *you* go do it" response 
is kind of tired. Especially when one is criticizing someone who is paid with our 
money to do a job. We have every right to second-guess and kibbitz about what 
cops do, just like politicians. If you hired someone to paint your house and
were dissatisfied with the outcome, would you expect that person to say,
"Oh yeah, why don't *you* try it" --Point is, that guy is paid to be a cop,
therefore we, the payors of his salary, can kibbitz. QED. 

>Get a clue, dude.
>-Doc

Jeff has a big clue, imho. You may not ultimately agree with his assessment, 
but he has raised some undeniably compelling questions about this incident. 

JZ
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:23:53 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug30.205801.20243@island.COM>, guido@island.COM (Guido
Marx) wrote:

> I don't think that it is fair to compare Pat Buchanan with Jerry Brown.
> Jerry Brown didn't get a prime-time speech at the Democratic convention.
> If the Republicans want to write of Pat B. as just a member of their
> lunatic fringe, then he has no business getting the kind of time that
> he got at the RNC.  The fact is that the George Bush is pandering to
> people like Buchanan and his supporters to win this election.  That
> makes them much more than the Republicans lunatic fringe.

I've tried replying to this post 8 times now.  Our vax is having problems I
guess.  Okay...

I am proud at the inclusiveness of the Republican Convention.  You can't
just go hiding your major players.  The thing that bothered me about the
Democratic Convention was that they did just that!  They hid congressional
leaders, Pro-Lifers, and moved Jerry to a non-Prime-Time spot.  For the
"inclusive" party, that's pretty exclusive.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
HERSCHENSOHN for US Senate.  Just say "No" to 6 years of Boxer!
From: steven@hwlab1.net.com (Steve Nelson)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Ask not what your country can do for you ...
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:24:30 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City, CA

In article <-wln+#a.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Sorry this took so long, but it took me forever to find the right
>archive I had this kept in.
>
>Context: I have stated that John F. Kennedy was a prototype of the
>American fascist 
>
>He is rather famous for the Subject Line phrase.
>

If John F. Kennedy was a prototype of the American facist, what was 
Ronald ("Bedtime for Bonzo") Wilson Reagan?  I'm just trying to get
a perspective on the school of thought from which the above statement 
comes.  All things are relative.  Once a standard has been established
from which comparisons can be made, statements can then be put into 
proper perspective and discussed accordingly.

Xref: sparky ba.politics:5043 ca.politics:7449 talk.politics.misc:43775
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: First Clayton and Melinda, next Serbia & Croatia!
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:09:29 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <qvmnc5n.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>can we stop the flame fest?

>I mean, Jeff Dauber and I had lunch yesterday

Congratulations! Now, Clayton, have you permanently shelved that lunch
date with Owen Rowley? I mean, just think, the four of you could
"double-do" lunch soon!

>I'm sick of the debate getting lost in the noise.
>Could we start anew? For example, can we DEFINE "family values" and THEN
>flame our little hearts out?

Great idea! First we'd have to define "family".

Biological definitions are out, because of adoption.
Children as a qualifier are out, because of sterility/choice.

What does that leave us?

"Family" can be defined at its most basic level as any group of two
or more people who provide mutual support for each other on a regular
basis, whether financial or emotional, and who have mutual love and
respect.

What does a "family" do? They usually live together, or spend a lot
of time together. Love each other.

What CAN a family do? They can raise children, but they don't have to.
another.

Sexuality doesn't really enter into it.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cramer@optilink.uucp (Clayton Cramer): Message-ID: <12133@optilink.UUCP>
I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as [Brian Kane].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 01:03:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Ah, I thought there'd probably be some discussion of this case here.

In article <jyc.715034056@Leland> jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
>   A well-known Usenet far-out rightwinger has been posting articles
>suggesting that the actions of one mentally disturbed person who had
>hung out around radical political groups somehow is evidence that
>progressive leftist politics is an illegitimate and destructive activity.      

It isn't the action of Rosebud that reflect badly on the "progressive
leftists"/"Berzerkley Rent-A-Mob".  Absent the action of those leftists
[supporting Rosebud, holding candlelight vigils for Rosebud, taking to
the streets (again, *sigh*), pontificating about "Peoples Park", and
condemning the vicious fascist pigs for daring to have the gall to
defend their worthless oppressor lives from Rosebud's Politically
Correct machete] this would be just a sad, tragic incident, and not
worthy of a whole lot of comment.  It is the response of the leftists
that has converted the incident into high camp.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:52:39 GMT

In article <!3hnn+-.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:


>Third, we can not afford to surround every house with dozens of men,
>to wait 24-48 hours to wait out the suspect and get 'em peacefully.
>We send in as few (1 or 2 in most cases) as possible to do the job.

However, this was not a typical situation... This seems like a
rationalization for the use of excessive force... "We cannot afford to
send in enough cops to keep from killing someone, so we send in a couple
with guns a blazing..."

>I believe that EVERY individual, cops included, has a foremost and
>primary right to protect his/her life, AND that that individual does
>NOT have to "flee" instead of acting in self-defense. The cop had a
>RIGHT to be there, the kook didn't. The cop had a right to his life,
>the kook had no right to take it. The cop was acting in the protection
>of the lives and property of other people -- the kook was a self-admitted
>asshole looking to destroy.

True... However, the kook was a kook, and therefore is not completely 
responsible for her actions, while the cop was sane, and therefore is.

>Why are you so cocerned with the criminal, and so little concerned with the
>victim?


What victim?  That is what is so frustrating.  If the cop had not been 
in the house, there would not have been anyone for her to threaten.


Jeff
-FWA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:26:13 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <p6gtgbk@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
> In article <n0dntvq.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> >A firearm is NOT a warning device, it is NOT a noisemaker, it is NOT for
> >brandishment. In general, do not draw your firearm unless you are going to
> >use it to STOP someobody.
> 
> The officer had the time to pump three bullets into this woman... Three
> bullets into her knees would certainly have stopped her from coming
> towards him.
> 
> FWA

Jeff, I think you need to go to one of the training schools where
you fire at moving targets, preferably with no warning.  I think
you would begin to appreciate the difficulty of such an action
being successful.

There's a world of difference between shooting at a paper target,
and entering a room where a woman with a machete is running towards
you, with the intent and ability to either kill you, or maim you.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4997 talk.politics.misc:43328
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Selectivity vs Objectivity in the Media
Keywords: Bronze Age, anal sex, press cover up
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:32:26 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <95202@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >This bizarre story out of recent reports from Austria:
    >
    >Remeber "Otze"? The 5,500 old Bronze-Age hiker who froze to
    >death during a snowstorm in the Tirolean Alps in Italy, and
    >was found almost completely preserved last year?
    >
    >Well, it seems that a part of the story that was originally
    >reported in Austria, Switzerland, and Italy, "somehow escaped
    >attention" here in the United States.
    >
    >What the press here declined to mention, in order not to
    >offend our delicate sensibilities, was that during the
    >autopsy, researchers found human semen in "Otze's" rectum.
    >The frozen sperm was dated at the same age as the man's body.
    >
    >The world's first known "bottom".
    >
    >Perhaps the press wanted to avoid certain individuals jumping
    >to conclusions. After all, Otze was wearing a leather outfit,
    >black jewelry, and had tattoos.

Worst case of "outing" I have ever heard of ....

Then again, from the issue that he had gone into the mountains rather
unprepared for the weather, maybe he just realized he'd fucked himself
when the storm broke ... :-) :-)


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:34:16 GMT

Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:

>A 19 year old nutcase was shot after she attacked a cop with a machete
>after breaking into the Chancellor's home in Berkeley. She had left a note
>saying that "they're probably going to shoot me, tell my friends goodbye,
>this is to defend People's Park against the University".

>Now her friends are raising hell in people's Park, upholding this
>kook as a martyr. She had a record of arrests, and had plans to steal
>an MX warheard and blow up Washington or something like that. What do
>all you activist have to say about this character?  I thought this
>sort of madness went out with the 60's. 

   A well-known Usenet far-out rightwinger has been posting articles
suggesting that the actions of one mentally disturbed person who had
hung out around radical political groups somehow is evidence that
progressive leftist politics is an illegitimate and destructive activity.      

   What do the rest of you conservatives say about this logical lunacy?
I thought that this sort of generic character-assissination went out
with the 50's.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 19:07:50 GMT

In <yvjndkn.adamsr@netcom.com>, Rick Adams writes:

(much "control gun nuts" stuff deleted)

;>>I have no doubt that you would have shot that woman without
>>hesitation, exactly as Chew did.  I also have no doubt that a more rational,

Were you there?  Did you see the police report?  How do you know that Chew shot
her *without hesitation*?  Sounds to me like you are trying to shape the
incident specifically to match your agenda.

And when you or your family is shot by a burglar in your home because you
didn't have a gun, will you still feel this way?

Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
**************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist Paper #51
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: How to Profit from Death
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:05:14 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug22.004600.8461@ntmtv> jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski) writes:
    >How it works: a PWA has a life insurance policy for $100K.
    >The "investor" pays the PWA a fixed amount of money (say
    >$70K) then waits for him/her to die, at which point said
    >investor will collect the insurance money and pocket a
    >profit. Of course, the key doing being successful is to study
    >the person's health record and hope to get somebody that
    >isn't going to last long.
    >
    >Here's Bush's "gold standard" of health care in action! It
    >only requires the following: 1) people who are so desperate
    >for help ($$/medication/food/housing) that they will do
    >anything 2) greedy investors that are able to grab $$ without
    >questioning who they turn a profit on.
    >
    >Remember all the stink about using fetal tissue for research?
    >(or selling bodily organs?) This is even worse, since the
    >only person who profits is the investor. (the goal of
    >research is to make some medical progress)

Well, since you have the typical medieval phobioa about profit, then I can
only assume that you have ensured that you salary from the company
at which you work is only equal to the amount needed to barely sustain your
life.

Of course, I rather doubt this is the case. As I assume you work from where
you post, and that I also assume you draw more salary than needed for bare
subsistence, your salary of course increases the cost of telecommunications.
Think of all the poor people unable to afford basic phone service because
of you and your ilk.

Now, how do you feel after being subjected to the same stupid reasoning
(above) as you spew forth?

The whole concept of this life insurance proceeds before death occurred
arose from PWA. And unless, again, you are only drawing bare subsistence
pay, how dare you be such a hyprocrit about people wishing to make a
profit.

To not make a profit is immoral. Profit is THE basic economic signal that
tells you that what you are "investing" in is something desired by the
community at large.

To be non-profit means you are wasting resources on thinsg the community
at large does not want.

    >Patti Jazanoski
    >
    >P.S. Did you hear that a rich, white, hetero woman Republican
    >spoke at the GOP Conv about living with AIDS? She got it from
    >her rich, white, hetero, drug-taking Republican husband. How
    >many more of the "people with family values"/"cultural
    >underclass" have to get this before something is done?

How long have you had these phobias, fear and/or hates about rich, white,
hetereosexual people?




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:29:13 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <7wknfpq.terry@netcom.com> terry@netcom.com (Terrence Craig) writes:
    >As many as it takes. Their job is to protect the public even
    >at the cost of their own lives. Rosebud was part of the
    >public. If the police are not willing or are incapable of
    >doing this they should find other employment.
    >
    >One other point the officer involved had already been thrown
    >off one police force for excessive force. How do you justify
    >the fact that he is still in the profession.

1. Really really stupid post.

2. The police are to portect US FROM the Rosebud's of the world.
   After all, do you think a dozen or so police surrounding an innocent
   citizens house is a good thing to have happen? Especially if their
   weapons are drawn? I mean, that citizen could get hurt! But, that's
   exactly what we WANT to the police to do to bad guys.

3. The officer was not thrown off the police force. Either you are incredibly
   sloppy or you are deliberately distorting facts to make a twisted set.

-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4940 ca.politics:7307 talk.politics.misc:43073
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:27:46 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug30.051305.1235@adobe.com>, pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
> In article <11973@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >She had a machete.  That's adequate.  Policemen are badly injured 
> 
> And he had a PK-24. That's a metal baton with a side handle, designed

PR24.  It's plastic, not metal.

> to be used for blocking blows, among other things. You grip the side
> handle in your fist and the entire length of your arm is protected
> by the metal baton. Blocking a machete with that ought to be a piece
> of cake.

Ought to be.  Are you willing to bet your arm on it?

> I believe he was operating alone and was surprised by her. Wouldn't
> it have been prudent to operate in pairs, two cops watching each
> other's backs so they don't have to immediately use deadly force?

Definitely.  It sounds like a failure of procedure.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Political Correctness (was Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective))
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:01:10 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1992Aug15.221404.8652@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp
(Michael Friedman) wrote:
> 
> In article <ohcqfhc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug13.163538.10464@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
> 
> >>2.  As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among straight males
> >>is that the ugly ones are welcome to do whatever the heck they want,
> >>but the pretty ones are such a waste.
> 
> >Sexist asshole.
> 
> I'm giving this a slightly wider dissemination because I think it's a
> beautiful example of poltical correctness.
> 
> Look at it.  I state a fact that Dauber doesn't like.  He responded
> with a personal attack.  I said something that attacks his view of the
> world, therefore I am evil.

No, he didn't say you're evil, he said you're a sexist asshole.  Now as for
sexist, I think the quoatation demonstrates that pretty obviously.  And as
for asshole, we've all known that for a while.

[further wanking about "political correctness" and "liberals" omitted
'cause it's so goddamn boring]

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!