HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patricka@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Patrick Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Privacy Act
Summary: Clarification
Keywords: Privacy Act,FOIA,State Department,FBI
Date: 12 Oct 92 03:32:31 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Oct12.024025.25297@u.washington.edu>, tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
> patricka@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Patrick Anderson) writes:
> >Is it true that, under the Privacy Act, the State Dept. can't go
> >through anyone's passport files without their written permission?
> >(i.e. it is immune from the FOIA).
> 
> Although Congress passes some unnatural acts, I don't think they've ever
> managed anything THAT weird.  What would be the point of prohibiting an
> agency going through the files maintained by that agency?
> 
> --Tim Smith

"I can't go through anybody's file without their written permission
... Certainly not on the basis of your (a reporter's) request."
 
                                  William Whitlow
                                  Bureau of Consular Affairs
                                  State Dept.
 
"The Privacy Act is very strict ... There are criminal sanctions for
violating it." - Ann Snuggs
                 FOI Office
                 State Dept.
  
Got this from an article by Lar-Erik Nelson of NY Daily News:
 
"In response to an (FOIA) inquiry, an official might check to see if
a file in fact existed ... He can only give two answers: There is no
such file, or there is a file and you can't have any part of it."
 
Of course, the News is a liberal paper so I hope someone will be
better able to clarify the issue (which was the intent of my post).
 
Love,
Zemu
 
"How about a drink to clear the phlegm?" - Nick Charles
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Nukes Over Iraq?
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:54:14 GMT
Organization: IBM Rochester
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <1992Oct15.164144.3318@cs.brown.edu>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
|> Is it true that General Schwartzkoppf suggested exploding a 
|> nuclear device high above Iraq in the beginning of the Gulf war,
|> in order to screw up their communications (like in the movie
|> "The Day After" when all electronic devices fail when the nuke
|> explodes)? Does this idea have any scientific basis?

Certainly.  The electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear weapon 
detonated 450 miles above the central United States would
effectivly render all ground communications useless.  The
EMP destroys the capability of telephone and telegraph 
wires to conduct electricity.  Fiber optic communications,
however, may survive.

Jared Dahl
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Jared Dahl             | "My heart is human, my blood is boiling, | 
| Systems Programmer     |  my brain IBM"                           |
| IBM - Rochester, MN    |              -- STYX,  "Mr. Roboto"      |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Opinions expressed are mine, not IBM's.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W)
Subject: Bo Gritz
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Keywords: Jews, anti-Semitic, white supremacy
Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 16:59:00 GMT

Is Bo Gritz an anti-Semite or a white supremacist?  I want to know.  I NEED to
know before I vote on November 3rd.

Please respond by e-mail if you believe as I do that the Trilateral Commission
and the CFR are sinister, criminal organizations devoted to the overthrow of
the U.S. Constitution.

If you are Chip Berlet or others who think the Trilateral Commission and the 
CFR are benign organizations devoted to world peace through international
organizations such as the U.N. don't bother answering my question.  I don't
trust your judgement or your motives.  No offense intended, of course. <grin>
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:11113 alt.activism:17316 sci.med:18897 sci.research:1154 talk.environment:4149 sci.environment:11826 talk.politics.misc:50614 misc.headlines:6563 soc.culture.usa:7698
From: bsou@cs.arizona.edu (Brandon S. Ou)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: FDR and Pearl Harbor
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:40:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U of Arizona Computer Science Department

Hmmmm.  Some of the books I've read indicates that FDR indeed knew about
the Pearl Harbor attack.  He (FDR and whoever else is under his control)
withdrew aircrafts and ships out of Pearl Harbor before the attack.
It was also mentioned that the aircrafts that are "left" there were
grouped in circles with their propellers all facing inward as the result
of an order by FDR.  And of course we got this thing about everybody
warning each other around that PH was going to be attacked and FDR didn't
listen, Kremlin's involvement, the Japanese's effort to avoid the war etc...
A bunch of theories and mysteries wrapped inside an enigma, people.


Brandon
--
Brandon S. Ou  ~{E7Ji:j~}     Department of Computer Science    
University of Arizona               Tucson, Arizona
Internet:  bsou@caslon.cs.arizona.edu
" It's up to YOU... "  - Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison, "JFK"
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Growth of Christian Identity
Date: 10 Oct 92 16:12:38 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1299600095@igc.apc.org>, NLG Civil Liberties Committee <cberlet@igc.apc.org> writes:
> 
> 
> Andy Byler claims that since I am a member of the National Lawyers
> Guild, I am a communist. Wrong, Andy.

	[Text deleted]

>    You may be interested in knowing that the false charge that
> someone is a communist is recognized under the law as "libel per
> se" which means the person making the charge has to prove it or it
> becomes a libel and then the only question is how much damages and

	[Text deleted]
> 
> -Chip Berlet

	What about calling people fascists?  Your list seems to be
a long one including names from Ezra Pound to Bo Gritz and a broad
range of patriotic citizens you lump into your "Christian Identity
Movement".  Lately you have been hinting that you think maybe Perot's
running mate falls in the fascist category.  Is calling a patriot
a fascist not libelous?  
	For years it was standard operating procedure for communist
writers to call those who disagreed with them reactionary fascists.
You may have no sympathy for the communist party but should you really
be surprised if your broad definition of and use of the word fascist
evokes such a response from someone on the net?  Is this an attempt
of yours to intimidate those on the net who have the audacity to
disagree with someone who perhaps is accustomed to speaking to more
sympathetic audiences already in tune with their viewpoints?  
	
 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer)
Subject: Re: Makeup of the House (was Re: A Technical Request)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Texas at Arlington High Energy Physics Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:54:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.221241.1005@zia.aoc.nrao.edu>, gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin) writes...
> 
>A possible "first blush" assession on the presidential election being
>decided in the House of Repesentatives is that since it is likely that
>the Democrats will be the majority party in the House in the next congress,
>the Democratic candidate will win.  But it is my understanding that *if*
>the presidential election goes to the House, the vote will be by states
>with each state having *one* vote.  (Does the Speaker of the House have
>a tie breaking vote?)
> 
>Well with neither the Constitution nor an almanac at hand, my question is
>this:
> 
>Let's make a simplistic assumption that each state will caucus and each
>representative votes according to party (also assuming no third parties
>or independents).  Which party will be the majority party in the
>majority of states?  I think that there is a least one state with only
>one representative.  New Mexico has three and in the next congress it
>will likely be two Republicans and one Democrat.  If the polls are
>corrrect, Clinton is likely to carry the state which would imply
>a lot of split ticket voting.  I am likely to vote a split ticket myself.
>[deletions]
>-- 
>George Martin
>Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
>Internet: gmartin@something.aoc.nrao.edu
>"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)

 The voting is "in the House", but the delegation consists of Representatives
plus Senators, with the votes then cast by state, with 26 needed for election.
D.C does not vote, I believe. The assumption of no third party candidates is
order of magnitude corrrect, but there is one Independent from Vermont, who
could be influential in a fairly Republican delegation.

 This is an interesting thread - I would like to hear some clarification on D.C.

       ================                           
         Lee Sawyer                                  

         Dept of Physics                          
         Univ. of Texas                            
               at Arlington                        

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:11344 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5520
From: sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 12:51:15 EDT
Organization: Monsoon Software, Inc.

spl@alex.uucp (Steve Lamont) writes:

> In article <D92msB2w165w@monsoon.com> sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta) writes:
> >The perception that RR was elected twice by landslide margins is
> >evidence that the big lie works. He was elected in 1980 by the
> >slimmest of margins but took every opportunity to claim that he had
> >a mandate from the people. 
> 
> The popular vote margin was over 7 million votes in 1980 (out of about
> 86 million votes cast), which we can play with semantically.  The
> Electoral College vote was 489 to 49, which is certainly an
> overwhelming margin by any metric you choose to apply.  The 1984
> election margin was close to 17 million votes and 535 to 13 in the
> Electoral College.
> 
> While we can argue whether 7 million votes is a "landslide" (certainly
> a subjective term), it is still a considerable margin.  Jimmy Carter's
> victory over Gerald Ford, for instance was by under 1.7 million votes
> and Nixon beat Humphrey by fewer than a half million votes.  Kennedy
> beat Nixon by less than 125,000.  Now *those* are narrow margins.

[stuff deleted]

Well, this topic was beaten to death by the press in the aftermath of
the 1980 election, so I have little taste to pursue it now. I'll just
make 2 quick points:

    1) One of the great unknowns in that election was the effect of
       the major network news organizations declaring RR the winner
       a few hours before the polls closed in western states. Most
       analysts conceded that the race would have been a lot closer
       in those states, possibly putting Carter over the top in CA.

    2) Given the above numbers, it was *still* one of the closest
       presidential elections.

Sunil Gupta
Monsoon Software, Inc.
sg@monsoon.com
From: mf44+@andrew.cmu.edu (Mark Sycip Frondoso)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Philadelphia Experiment
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:12:56 GMT
Organization: Freshman, IM - H&SS Track, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

This is my first time to post here, so I hope this won't irritate anyone
if this has been asked before.

Has anyone heard about the Philadelphia Experiment?  It was supposed to
be a navy experiment to try to make ships invisible, some decades ago. 
The effects were that the people who participated started dying off
because of radiation or something.  I remember seeing this
conspiracy/coverup/mystery on some show, but the details are vague.  I
hope someone can answer is question, and give me as much infor.

thanks.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Add
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:48:25 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <718868629.4@iphase.fidonet.org> Ken.Cusick@f29.n112.z1.fidonet.org (Ken Cusick) writes:
>From: Ken.Cusick@f29.n112.z1.fidonet.org (Ken Cusick)
>Subject: Add
>Date: 11 Oct 92 09:59:00 GMT


> * SLMR 2.1 * 
> * Origin: U_CONSPIRE: <<<<<<<<<< RE-ELECT NOBODY! >>>>>>>>>> (1:112/29)

Yeah, and then let congress elect M. Gorbachav!
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
From: bhjelle@carina.unm.edu
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Pt 1, RADIOACTIVE MEAT, MILK & PRODUCE: Supermarkets Selling Leukemia?
Keywords: radioactive meat, milk & produce: supermarkets selling leukemia?
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:11:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

Before you get to part 17, please take sci.med off your distribution list.

Thanks.

Brian
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Part 2, RADIOACTIVE MEAT, MILK & PRODUCE: Supermarkets Selling Leukemia
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:02:58 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Distribution: na
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct8.161347.24421@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo) writes:
>Kerr-McGee is also the only "farmer" who spreads fertilizer with
>leased tank trucks whose doors read "Chemical Waste Disposal Division."

That may be true.  However, please bear in mind that "organic" farmers ought to
spread their fertilizer in trucks labelled "Active Biological Waste Disposal."

>As to the validity of his tests, he says:
>    the fertilizer "has been tested since 1973. If it hasn't been 
>    adequately tested, then I don't know how to adequately test it."
>
> [JD: Tucker is conveying the impression that the fertilizer is being
>      adequately tested. But he is using carefully chosen words to state,  
>      with semantical strictness, just the opposite -- that he is NOT   
>      sure that he knows how to adequately test the fertilizer.  
>      This semantically honest statement technically clears his 
>      implied meaning of any dishonest inferences.]

If JD's comment above isn't utter bullshit, I don't know what is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.alien.visitors
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:44:24 GMT

> Well, honey, that "socialism" got us out of that Depression.
> And as for fear tactics, I'm afraid for the economy, hell yes.  While Bush
> is stressing optimism and saying our economy is "the envy of the world".
> Shyeah right.
>

Hmmmm.  This is commonly believed.  I believe if you check things
out, it was WWII that ended the depression.

Can you quote some statistics to show that the US economy is
worse off than the rest?
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas Moore)
From: cberlet@igc.apc.org (NLG Civil Liberties Committee)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Satanic Roots of Rock - Creatin
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:34:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1a3rqrINN3pu@usenet.ins.cwru.edu:1094892905:cdp:1299600097:000:1573
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cberlet    Oct 15 19:34:00 1992



It is a real chore to try tp keep up with the utter misrepresentations
of Steve the Crock regarding LaRouche.
 Steve says LaRouche is not homophobic. Complete lie!. LaRouche has written
thousands of words attacking homosexuals, engineered two attempts in
California to round up and detain persons who tested positive with HIV.
Finally, LaRouche writing about AIDS, said that history would not judge
harshly those persons who took baseball bats and beat to death homosexuals
to stop the spread of AIDS. I toured California on behalf of gay and civil
liberties groups several years ago to stop the LaRouche initiative. There
was no doubt in anyone's mind that LaRouche was one of the most vicious
homophobes in the current political scene.
 Steve cites Phil Ochs as a good folk performer. Surprise, Steve, I worked
with Phil in antiwar and anti-fascist projects and he used to stay at my
apartment in Washington. We both thought LaRouche was a fascist, and used to
argue about whether or not he was an intelligence plant. Turns out Phil's
suspicions were right. In the early years of the Reagan administration, 
LaRouche intelligence operatives provided information to the CIA and the
National Security Council.
 Steve, why post this garbage and then claim you can't verify the
information? Take responsibility for what you post. Incidently, much of
the LaRouchian rap on rock is "borrowed" from the writings of David
Noebel of Summit Ministries, author of such lunatic standards as 
"Communism, Hypnotism, and the Beatles," and "Rock, Rhythm and Revolution."
 -Chip Berlet
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: <None>
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:54:02 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Oct7.133335.21576@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, cooper@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (Ralph 'Hairy' Moonen) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Oct7.120408.6949@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo) writes:

> [stuff deleted]

[more deletion]

>> Technically known as raffinate, this toxic sludge contains
>> radioactive elements like radium-226, thorium-230, and uranium, as
>> well as seventeen toxic and heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium,
>> mercury, lead, molybdenum and selenium. 
> 
> Bzzzzt. Arsenic is a non-metal, let alone a heavy metal
> 

	As a Group V (5) element in the periodic table Arsenic is
classifiable as a metal.  Please note the wording of "seventeen
toxic and heavy metals", not "seventeen toxic heavy metals".  Arsenic
does have an atomic weight of 74.91 which is well above that of iron.
I don't think the statement in question casts any shadow on the
credibility of the article.

[further deletion]
> 
> --Ralph Moonen

Joe Gaut
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:11221 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6756 talk.abortion:42294 talk.bizarre:33958 talk.politics.guns:22063
From: bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:55:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion,misc.test,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.guns
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

Quick Poll: Which of the following advertising jingles do you find to
be more appealing? Why?

"See the USA in your Chevrolet"

"Everybody doesn't like something, but nobody doesn't like Sara Lee"

"You can take Salem out of the country BUT -- you can't take the
country out of Salem"

mr HEINOUS
disenfranchised youth of dear advertising slogans departed
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.theory
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 17:53:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.153406.9383@csc.ti.com> dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:

>|> Explain, please, why favoring abortion rights constitutes politics of
>|> exclusion, division, and fear.  Likewise the Dem platform.

>You obviously didn't notice that those that believe sodomy is immoral
>were routinely ridiculed for not being "gay bashers," even though
>sodomy is still illegal in over two thirds of the states.

I presume you mean they were ridiculed for being gay bashers.  Even so,
the complaint makes no sense. The prevalence of a form of violence or
coercion does not make it less violent or coercive; otherwise, we could
prove Hitler was not an antisemite by showing he murdered a large number of
Jews, instead of a small number.

If I were to come to your home some night with a gang of people armed with
guns, batons and handcuffs, and drag you off, it would be considered a
violent act.  My protestation that in fact the kidnapping in question
involved only the threat of bodily harm, since as it turned out you
went quietly when you saw the guns, would not be sympathetically received.

A person who wants to send gays and lesbians to jail wants to commit
an act of kidnapping with the state as the instrument. Such a person is
a gay-basher.

>BTW, Buchanan's "cultural war" was declared in the Humanist Manifesto II
>twenty odd years ago.  Sure, their term is "revolution," but it is clear from
>the context that it was meant as war.

In wars, people get killed.  If you want to send me to jail, and try
to, I could argue I have the moral right to shoot you.  This whole idea
of introducing war into the political process is a bad one.  If the
moral justification for societies use of force is the social contract,
then people must be included in that contract until they act against
it. If you declare a group of people who have not acted against society
to be criminals, then they are not morally bound by the social rules.  

I conclude from this that it is only the fact that laws against gays
and lesbians are seldom enforced which gives the states which have such
laws any legitimate claim to enforce any law regarding them.  When such
a law is enforced, the state loses its moral basis.  Did Hardwick have
a moral right to shoot the majority on the US Supreme Court?  I'm not
clear on what argument says he did not.  Wouldn't it be self-defense?



-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:11324 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6957
From: ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles Blair)
Subject: Passport file searches
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:57:01 GMT

   Since the state department has been so diligent and prompt about
Clinton's passport, maybe we could expect similar service on the
movements of William Casey and others alleged to have been in secret
meetings with Iranians before the 1980 election.
From: spl@alex.uucp (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: PRISONERS RIGHT TO VOTE
Date: 11 Oct 1992 15:36:29 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: alex.ucsd.edu

In article <BvxoGC.6w0@ais.org> tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler) writes:
>  I give you credit for trying to direct your campaign towards your true
>peers.

Need one point out that the simple fact of arrest is not _prima facie_
evidence of guilt and that under our system of justice even prisoners
have rights?  Or is the presumption of innocence just more Liberal
claptrap, to be discarded in this new enlightened day of Conservative
ascendency?

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"Twit twit twit/Jug jug jug jug jug jug/So rudely forc'd./Tereu"
                - T. S. Eliot, "The Waste Land," III. The Fire Sermon