HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: limahl@tka.uucp (Paul Leclair)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Problem - help?
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:00:05 EDT
Organization: The Kobayashi Alternative BBS - (207)/946-7246

 Hi... I'm new to this newsgroup and was told that maybe someone on here may be
able to help me or at least direct me to where I can get help..

  I run a bbs here in Maine which is tied into Internet through a 3rd party
connect (via another bbs).  The phone company has decided to charge my 4 lines
to my board at business rates due to my connect with Internet.  They claim that
Internet is a business system and thus, my bbs must be charged as such.  I have
2 letters from the phone company here stating their tariffs on what they
determine residential use vs business use of a phone line.  If anyone is
interested in reading them and can possibly help me, I can post the 2 letters.
My phone bill just doubled due to this change... and I can't seem to win with
them...  help?
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: duggan@terminus.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan)
Subject: Re: Want _Your_ Blood to Boil too?
Organization: College of Computing
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:36:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.133159.4961@tijc02.uucp> pjs269@tijc02.uucp (Paul Schmidt) writes:
>I want people to be able to get the necessities in life.  I think people
>in society should provide them -- voluntarily.  Americans give
>$100,000,000 a year to charities in time and money voluntarily.  People
>are willing to pay for the necessities of other people.  Government
>collects its money by using force and has no incentive to use the money
>wisely so the quality of the services will be poor and the cost high.
>

Okay, let's say your hundred million a year figure is true.  
Conservately, I would estimate that 10% of the U.S. population
lives in poverty.  That's 25 million people.  So, the rest of
the generous Americans (I hate the word USans) give a paltry 
$4 a year to each of these people, who, by some definition, are
needy.  That doesn't sound like enough to really help at all.
Even if it's only a million people, $100 is nowhere near enough.

>This is where you have implied force.  Force is needed to collect taxes.
>If a robber comes into your home and steals money from you, this is
>morally wrong.  If 10 robbers steal from you, it is still wrong.  Same
>with 100.  How many people does it take in a gang to make the immorality
>of robbery a moral tax?

There is very little similarity between the government and a robber
who steals from you.  Does the robber provide you with police 
protection (obviously not :-), fire protection, roads, etc?
The robber isn't providing you anything with the money he
takes.  You might argue that the government doesn't provide 
services effectively or efficiently with its (your) money, but they 
are provided.  

Look, government isn't designed to be efficient.  I learned that
in 8th grade U.S. history.  If it were efficient and able to 
change quickly, it could too easily bend to current whims
and deny rights to minorities.  (Or at least that's why I learned
a bureaucracy isn't supposed to be efficient.)

-rick

"Random acts of violence just don't do it for me anymore.  Call it 
 maturity.  Bang!  Bang!  Heh, heh." - Cactus Jack WCW Saturday Night 07/04/92
Rick Duggan | duggan@cc.gatech.edu | CS1410 TA - Section A
Office Hours (CC 103): Tue 1:30-3:00 Thu 1:30-2:30
From: keithf@pacifier.rain.com (Keith Furrow)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: LOD T-shirts HELP WANTED!
Date: 24 Aug 92 02:14:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: pacifier.1992Aug24.021446.26210
Distribution: na
Organization: Pacifier BBS


Well I don't have the guy's # or I would call him.  Obviously it's unlistied.
(Tried DA)  If anyone has any way to contact him besides mail I would appriciate
it!

it!
-- 
  _____                                                              _____
 /  o  \  ||Mutants for Nuclear Power||keithf@pacifier.rain.com ||  /  o  \
< \___/ > ||-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_|| < \___/ >
 \_____/  ||   Radioactive waste, Glowing stronger every day!   ||  \_____/
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Hackers and Pagans and Phre
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:03:23 GMT

In article <199208261457.AA23696@eff.org> mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com writes:
>Peter, you're missing my point

No, I'm not missing the point. I'm denying that your analogy has any validity.
The circumstances were *radically* different. Paganism is not, in and of
itself, an illegal activity. The small freelance nuts harassing you were
not also engaged in illegal and unethical activities that you shared. The
fact that they were Pagans is irrelevant.

>But Pagans in the late 80s and hackers/phreaks in the early 90s do have
>something in common, though: a lot of unfounded hysteria among the public,
>fed mostly by ignorance and bad news reporting, is whipping government in
>general and law enforcement in particular to trample the Constitution
>underfoot.

This might be true, but in the Pagan's case they have done nothing wrong.
The phreaks have.

>As a result, I think it would behoove current and former
>hackers and phreaks to behave in a way that doesn't pour gasoline on a
>raging fire.  And when there's a McCarthy-style witch-hunt going on, it is
>just not right to cooperate with it just to punish people you don't like.

THIS IS NOT A MCCARTHY STYLE WITCH HUNT. The people being hunted *are*
engaged in objectively dangerous and unethical behaviour. McCarthy was
after people whose only sin was to disagree.

This isn't to say it's not outrageous, nor that they're not overreacting,
nor that they're not sucking up innocent people (Steve Jackson, for example)
into the mess. But in this case, unlike the McCarthy witch trials, the
pagan situation, or the original Salem witch trials for that matter, there
is a real problem at the core. The folks harassing Goggins, if they did
all of the things alleged, are crooks regardless of whether they harassed
him. The neopagans you were talking about weren't.

By binding the two events together, you will hurt the pagans and not help
yourself.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.allsysop,alt.bbs.ads
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Back to Taxes again (was Re: Want _Your_ Blood to Boil too
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 00:44:26 GMT

brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.232954.28765@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
>>The tax rate was not what provoked the revolution; it was the refusal
>>of the British government to grant the American colonies representation in
>>Parliament. "No taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION".

>Well, I pay taxes, but as a non-citizen, I am not allowed to vote.
>I guess you must have lost that revolution.

Around 1913 to be exact.   No matter how long it takes, government
always manages to snatch that defeat from the jaws of victory.
-- 
You will think of something funnier than this to add to the quotes.
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:5522 alt.censorship:7139 rec.audio:11818 soc.history:7771
From: ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,rec.audio,soc.history
Subject: Re: The Stamp Act (was The Stamp Act and the DAT tax)
Date: 26 Aug 92 07:03:50 GMT
Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk
Organization: The Hacker Conference

In article <1992Aug25.215553.16416@m.cs.uiuc.edu# kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
#winalski@adserv.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski) writes:
#
#
##Actually, the Stamp Act was imposed as a means of having the colonists
##pay for the expense that the British government went through in defending
##them during the French and Indian War.  Such an excise tax, while new in
##the Colonies, had existed for years in England.  It was not an unfair tax
##under English law.  The secessionist movements in the Colonies siezed upon it
##as a useful political and propaganda tool for whipping up opposition to
##British rule.  Their legal arguments were relly pretty bogus.
#[...]
#
#The main reason that the colonist opposed the Stamp Act what that
#would have set a precedent for taxation without represenation. That it
#was a special tax on media was, as you suggest, a secondary reason for
#their opposition. (But note that both reasons for opposition to the
#Stamp Act influnce current U.S. law.)

No, the REAL reason the colonists didn't like the stamp tax, along
with a whole other bevy of British taxes, was because they didn't want
to pay them! The British government had been away doing it's own
thing and the colonists had mostly been left to themselves. All of a
sudden the British were back and they wanted cash. The colonists
came up with every possible reason why they shouldn't have to pay
those taxes and finally went into 'natural law', how do you argue
with god? There is nothing nobel about early american intentions.
They were tax dodgers, and boy am I glad about it!

				The Jester
--
			The Jester
"Whats a Knock Out like you doing in a computer generated Gin
joint like this one?"-William Riker
"I'm god, whats your excuse?"-The Jester
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: cb@wixer.cactus.org (Cyberspace Buddha)
Subject: Re: Re- Legion of Doom
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 00:30:07 GMT

In article <IWUIF87@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.135220.29630@wixer.cactus.org> cb@wixer.cactus.org (Cyberspace Buddha) writes:
>>how it works & it catches my fancy, I hack that thing until I either get
>>what I want or a warning to cease & desist.  Even after some warnings, I
>
>This is why we *have* this problem.
>I suggest you try quote-hacking-unquote the next police car you see.
>I hope you get the point.
>-- 

*EXUSE* me...  police cars aren't something that catch my fancy.  I *do*
have an active neuron, and have *no* desire to learn more about the
inside of a police car.  Been there, seen that.  Got yer point *long*
before I got your reply.

Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:5671 alt.allsysop:80 alt.bbs.ads:1344
From: jl8z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Julian Leonard Lanphar)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.allsysop,alt.bbs.ads
Subject: Re: Want _Your_ Blood to Boil too?
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:53:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.4edjb6y00WCXQQiUVb
	<1992Sep3.234655.8534@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Organization: Freshman, MCS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

The thing we have to keep in mind is that (I think most of us can agree
on this) military spending does in fact need to be cut.  The problem is,
it simply cannot be done overnight, unless you want  to create a bunch
of Flint Michigans all over the country.  Sure military spending is no
more necessary or practical, especially now that the cold war is over,
but whining about military spending will not accomplish a thing.  It
will decrease in its own time at its own rate.  But for right now, we
kind of have to adhere to that Machiavellian concept of the ends
justifying the means, because at this point in time the US military is
doing a hell of a lot more for the economy than the chaos that would
result if it were cut at this moment.  

One thing that's been puzzling me for days now is how this discussion
ended up being cross-referenced to alt.bbs.ads......whatever.


Lenny Lanphar
-On an eternal quest to locate the off switch on the Mac
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.allsysop,alt.bbs.ads,co.general,nyx.mis
From: woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Subject: Re: Back to Taxes again (was Re: Want _Your_ Blood to Boil too
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:29:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.171416.28262@portal.hq.videocart.com> kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>We are also taxed today at over THREE TIMES that rate which was sufficient to 
>provoke revolution 200 years ago.

The tax rate was not what provoked the revolution; it was the refusal
of the British government to grant the American colonies representation in
Parliament. "No taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION".

>I don't think I'm getting my money's worth.

I agree with this wholeheartedly!

>I'll gladly pay for the common defense of the country

Me too, but I don't consider most of what is done with our "defense"
budget to have much to do with common defense.  How does it "defend"
us to be over there attacking Iraq? Even if Hussein is a slimeball,
you can't call this 'defense'.

--Greg
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:5603 alt.censorship:7308 rec.audio:11988
From: winalski@adserv.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,rec.audio
Subject: Re: The Stamp Act and the DAT tax
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:35:08 GMT
Reply-To: winalski@adserv.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Nashua NH


|>In article <1992Aug27.175440.21504@serval.net.wsu.edu>
yeidel@tomar.accs.wsu.edu (Joshua Yeidel) writes:
|>>
|>>What I don't understand is, why there's any political benefit
|>>in the DAT tax.  I would think that the arguments against it
|>>would be good electoral medicine, and the arguments against 
|>>would make the pro-taxers vulnerable.  

1) Very, very few members of the public own DAT decks.  The vast majority of
them thus don't care about the tax.

2) The major record companies and the recording industry are able to put up
big bucks for campaign contributions and other forms of lobbying.

--PSW
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Re- Legion of Doom
Date: 28 Aug 92 01:18:45 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <1992Aug27.181008.11002@tic.com> erikb@tic.com (Chris Goggins) writes:
>You can call yourself whatever you want.  I call myself a hacker.  You
>may or may not think that "I" should have the right, but you don't
>know anything about me or what I do other than my known association 
>with LOD.

You're right. You may be a hacker. I don't deny that. I'm just pointing
out that being a phreak doesn't make one a hacker. And being a hacker
doesn't make you a phreak.

>For you, that association alone seems to bristle the hairs
>on your neck.

Actually, no, it doesn't. What makes you think it does? I haven't said
anything any which way about you, or the LOD, just about the MOD. The
MOD, if even a significant fraction of the charges are true, are definitely
in the hard phreak category.

When I was at Berkeley some friends and I ran "the Chaos Mailing List",
which would probably be Secret Service meat these days just from the name.
But the subject matter was entirely mundane (alas, which is why it didn't
last).

>most from my background.  Anyone who breaks into a computer system
>isn't necessarily a hacker.  It's what they do onec inside that
>makes that decision.

Now this I disagree with. What they do isn't relevant. It's how they
do what they do that makes them a hacker, whether or not they're phreaks
as well.

Most hackers I know aren't... it's not a terribly effective tool.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Re- Legion of Doom
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:47:53 GMT

In article <webbOcm00XQGAFs=A6@andrew.cmu.edu> dl2p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas Allen Luce) writes:
>peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> You're right. You may be a hacker. I don't deny that. I'm just pointing
>> out that being a phreak doesn't make one a hacker. And being a hacker
>> doesn't make you a phreak.

>LANGUAGE IS NOT FACT.

Is that a slogan, a joke, an irrelevent non-sequiter, or what?
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: lcypher@nuchat.sccsi.com (Louis Cypher)
Subject: Re: Re- Legion of Doom
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 11:37:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.050429.5362@tic.com> erikb@tic.com (Chris Goggins) writes:
>Lcypher:
>
>I don't think Brad was at this last Summercon.
>
>I also don't remember you at the one I met him at.
>
>I could be wrong, but I don't think you know him, nor
>do I think you know what you are talking about.
>
>Blindly calling someone a "loudmouth jerk" is almost
>as bad as men in their 30's yelling "nark" and 
>"squeeler."  Rather childish IMHO.
>
>And Peter:  rest assured, I don't think anyone would ever
>be so brash as to compare you to anything in fear
>of "pissing you off,"  heavens no.  In fact, perhaps
>you should just consider that any comparisons made
>in the future, unless directly applied to you by name, 
>are not meant to relate to you directly, indirectly, or in any
>way shape or form.  :)
>
>->ME

I thought he was the guy giving you and sc all the shit....oh well, my
bad....Brad, my humble apologies....


Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: karn@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Reply-To: karn@chicago.qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:58:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.181158.4511@eff.org>, Da Feds (Federal Bureau of Investigation) writes:
|> Accordingly, the Attorney General has the authority to except, for 
|> example, whole classes, categories or types of private branch exchange 
|> operators where no serious criminal law enforcement problems are likely 
|> to arise, such as hospital telephone systems. 

Am I the only one to see this as a rather clumsy attempt by the FBI to
deflect criticism that the bill's requirements might interfere with
critical communications, or that the FBI might be seen as "picking on"
defenseless people (i.e., the patients in a hospital)?

I find it very difficult to believe that the FBI would *never* be
interested in the communications within a hospital, given their rather
large stores of Controlled Substances...

Phil
From: aragorn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: LOD shirts
Organization: The Banzai Institute
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:22:42 GMT

rita@eff.org (Rita Marie Rouvalis) writes:
: 
: 	Chris Goggins sent me e-mail saying there was a delay at the
: printers, and all remaining orders were sent out today (Monday).

Does anyone know where these t-shirts are available from?  I saw some of
them at GenCon this past weekend ... quite cool.  Also, how much?

: 	Don't ask me anything else, cuz that's all I know.

'k ... I'll just ask everyone else   ;-)


Steve J. White		|	Reality is for those who can't handle	|
aragorn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu|	roleplaying games.			|
skeptic@large@9600bps	|		- t-shirt at GenCon		|
From: dougg@kbsw1.uucp (Doug Gerecht 806 1031)
Subject: Re: Want _Your_ Blood to Boil too?
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:39:43
	<1992Aug25.133252.10275@tijc02.uucp> <h2jn_2_.avery@netcom.com>
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

In article <h2jn_2_.avery@netcom.com> avery@netcom.com (Avery Ray Colter) writes:

   Bush wants line-item vetos so he can pass all military taxes
   and kill all civil aid and educational ones. If he wins that, so be it,
   but when a Democrat gets in the white house, the militarists' own weapon
   will be used against them. Maybe then we will have the day when schools
   get all they want and the Air Force has to have a bake sale.

What is legislation for "civil aid and education" doing on a bill for
"military taxes" in the first place?  These items hardly seem related.
No wonder politicians are so confus(ing/ed).  They have to say yes/no
to expenditures/taxes that we/they want/reject all at the same time on
the same bill ( :{ ).
-- 

		dougg@kentek.com	Doug Gerecht
From: Roger.Franz@p0.f16.n8012.z86.Toadnet.org (Roger Franz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: taxes, theft, police, etc.
Date: 31 Aug 92 05:28:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 86:8012/16.0 - Java Shoppe, Manchester MO



 > GW: God, you "taxes are theft" people are so thick it's just incredible. 
 
Perhaps we're in the majority? 
 
 > GW: dollars. Why 
 > GW: can't I just walk into your house, put a gun in your face, and 
 > GW: take what 
 > GW: I like with impunity, because tax dollars pay for police to protect 
 > GW: you. 
 
You can probably do that now. The police won't arrive until 15 minutes after you've shot your victim dead. And they can't be sued for poor service (sovereign immunity laws), so the poor victim's family has no recourse. 
 
 > GW: a government to stand behind  the money so you don't have to 
 > GW: lug a bushel 
 > GW: of wheat around to barter to get shoes for your kids. 
 
This didn't happen in other semi-anarchist societies; why would it happen now? 
 
Barter is a long-established custom; it goes on today. The underground economy is close to a trillion dollars strong nowadays, and growing stronger daily. Hooray for capitalism! Down with socialism! 
 
 > GW: As a matter of fact, without government funded schools and universitys, 
 > GW:  we 
 > GW: would still be a backward agrarian people. 
 
Not true either. You socialists really like to distort the truth. 
 
 > GW: Taxes  are the dues you pay to society in return for all the 
 > GW: benefits you 
 
Ah, the benefits. Like housewives being gunned down for protecting their children (Tahoma, WA); like innocent 84-year old women being shot in drug raids based on anonymous tips; like people being shot by police during warrantless and permissionless searches; like SJGs property being seized without warrant and not returned; like the drug seizure laws, where ANY property can be seized upon "reasonable cause" to believe it's drug-related (and you have to prove you're innocent to get it back); like the corrupt




 
 > GW: elect someone who'll vote the way you want. 
 
We can't; you won't let us put him on the ballot! 
 
Roger 

--- Opus-CBCS 1.99.12
 * Origin: Bob and Rog's Java Shoppe (86:8012/16.0)

--  
Roger Franz - via Toadnet/UUCP Gateway 86:86/200
UUCP: ....!wupost!8012!16.0!Roger.Franz
INTERNET: Roger.Franz@p0.f16.n8012.z86.Toadnet.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.allsysop,alt.bbs.ads,co.general,nyx.mis
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Back to Taxes again (was Re: Want _Your_ Blood to Boil too
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 03:45:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.232954.28765@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.171416.28262@portal.hq.videocart.com> kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>We are also taxed today at over THREE TIMES that rate which was sufficient to 
>>provoke revolution 200 years ago.

>The tax rate was not what provoked the revolution; it was the refusal
>of the British government to grant the American colonies representation in
>Parliament. "No taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION".

As I recall, a good many Britons were also unrepresented at the time, and
most of them were pretty confused by the Colonial arguments.

I believe that the big trigger was the British starting to seriously cut
into the rum-smuggling trade. What do you know... the Contras *are* the
moral equivalent of the founding fathers!

(besides, I don't get no representation)
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:5537 alt.censorship:7197 rec.audio:11868