HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Organization: sgi
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 00:29:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.123302.98021@cs.cmu.edu>, jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes
|> > kjcarey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kevin J. Carey) writes:
|> > |> Exactly the same argument applies to the humbug the week before over the
|> > |> Independent's exposure that Virginia Bottomley had been an unwed teen
|> > |> mother - just after she had been lecturing the people on the evils of
|> > |> teen motherhood.
|> > 
|> > This makes no sense.   Quite often, experiencing something is 
|> > *exactly* what you need to be a credible advisor to someone else.
|> > 
|> > Do you really mean that if I am caught shoplifting as a teenager,
|> > I can't tell people later in life that it's a bad idea?
|> 
|> If you were a politician, and you included your experiences in your
|> advice, you'd even get brownie points.  But if you *didn't* reveal
|> them, *and* then took the moral high road on the issue, then in the
|> current political climate you're being bloody stupid.

And it's the "current political climate" that I am talking about.
Wasn't that obvious enough for you?

What's going on at the moment, in the US and apparently in the
UK as well, is that a good number of people have a prurient
interest in the private lives of politicians and other public
figures.

This is an absolutely lousy idea.   If you want politicians
to feel uneasy about giving advice that they have not personally
always followed, then leave that to them.   Don't get the idea
that you were put on this earth to police the private lives
of other people, no matter what their job might be.

If you can't deal with that, then the consequences are very
obvious: noone who has had an "interesting" private life is
going to go in for public life, no matter what their talents
might be, and even people who have led a fairly blameless private
life will also refuse, rather than subject their families to
the harassment of the Press.

Your choice.

jon. 
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6202 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3755 alt.rush-limbaugh:3001
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Prayer at graduations
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:47:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Organization: Culturale Elit

In <nate.372@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu sez:
>    Let's try the sex education argument here... students *are* going to 
>hear about religion somewhere. Would we rather they hear about it in 
>the schools, or are we going to stick our heads in the sand and let the 
>kids learn about it on the streets? 

Let's not.  It's not a question of where we'd prefer to have kids
learn religion (except insofar as we can send them to private
religious schools); it's a constitutional prohibition we're talking
about.  All your notions about what's preferable for the moral
development of our children are entirely beside the point.

-- 
O net, thou art sick.  The invisible newbie that lies in the night in
the howling subject header has found out thy bed of followup joy, and
his dark secret cross-posting doth thy life destroy.  (Film at 11.)
	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6128 soc.culture.british:10503
From: 01camera@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 22 Jul 92 09:39:56 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Dear John,
So far today I have read approximately six postings authored by you. Each one
has not only been highly opinionated but extremely antagonistic. It is
certainly appropriate to "wind " the netters up once in a while, but boorish
and obnoxious behaviour is quite far removed this approach. Perhaps you would
oput a bit more thought in your postings.

Sincerely yours,
Craig

In article <njhrph8@zola.esd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.234944.1844@dircon.co.uk>, uad1123@dircon.co.uk (Graeme Lyall) writes:
> |> 
> |> It is not a perfect world when the press spend a lot of energy 
> |> exposing minor sex scandals and ignore far more important stories. 
> |> However the bottom line is that we have to know what the politicians 
> |> are getting up to.  Mellor used photographs of his happy little 
> |> family as propaganda only 3 months ago in the general election; 
> |> that stinks, and must be exposed.
> 
> Oh really?   It stinks when a politician who has had an affair
> has his photo taken with his family, and ought to be exposed.
> 
> Who says so?   To whom does this apply?   Just politicians?
> Doctors?   Psychiatrists?    The Police?   Reporters?  Actors?
> Military personnel?    Athletes?    How about people who post
> on the net?
> 
> Does every person who has significant public exposure have
> to open their life to you?   Do you have to know the intimate
> details of everyone's private life?
> 
> Why?
> 
> jon.
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6370 soc.culture.british:10786
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 28 Jul 92 11:24:36 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
>"So badly" because losing threw them into a debate about their
>very future, whether they ought to merge with the centre-left
>Party.

No-one is debating merging Labour with the Liberal Democrats.
The debate is about whether there should be some sort of
agreement that in certain seats one of the two should
not put up a candidate in order to give a clear run to the
other.  E.g. in a seat where the Tories get 40% of the vote,
and the rest is split 35/25 between Labour and Liberal
Democrats, the one on 25% would not put up a candidate and
encouarge its voters to vote for the other.

There are still enough people in the Labour Party who think
that anyone who isn't a member of their party is a class
traitor to make this a no-go with them. The Liberal Democrats
have also rejected it on the grounds that some of their best
results have come where they're fighting against corrupt,
out-of-touch and autocratic local Labour parties.

Matthew Huntbach
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6126 soc.culture.british:10499
From: Adrian.Waterworth@newcastle.ac.uk (Adrian Waterworth)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 22 Jul 92 10:37:00 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

[ I just can't resist this immortal thread. Must be addictive. ]

hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:

>Have other people noticed that the only cases that are claimed show the
>need for legislation to gag the press are when a member of the Cabinet
>or Royal family gets bad publicity from a true story?

Depends upon who is doing the claiming. If you're referring to the
cases that the established regime claims show a need for legislation,
then you're pretty much right.

On the other hand, if you're referring to the cases that _I_ would
claim show the need for legislation, I would refer you to the large
amounts of interminably boring and inconsequential utter rubbish that
most of the Press produces most of the time. For instance, I couldn't
care less whether Mellor is bonking some actress, whether Charlie and
Di Windsor are going their separate ways (to mention the thread that
started this discussion once before), if the plane taking Lady Helen
Windsor to her honeymoon had a minor hydraulic leak or who the Hell
gets the custody of Freddy Mercury's cat! Unfortunately, large sections
of the Press seem to be convinced that these are the very things that I
_would_ wish to read while eating my toast (with Marmite, of course) in
the mornings.

It's got so bad, that I usually give up on them. I'm reading a
biography of Adolf Hitler with my breakfast nowadays. It might be
crazy, but at least it's interesting.

				Ade.
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6369 soc.culture.british:10785
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 28 Jul 92 11:18:06 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.

From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
>Doubly furious that anyone with two neurons can see that
>given the recent German interest rate moves, a UK Government
>really is well advised to do this very thing, and that
>Labour is going to look very crazy indeed if they come right
>out and say "No, no!   Spend, spend, spend!   Borrow, borrow
>borrow!".

A government may well be advised to cut spending in this
situation, but the complaint is the fact that we're in this
situation in the first place. We have endured 13 years of
rather nasty Tory government on the grounds that it would get
us out of this sort of situation. The Tory elecetion victory
three months ago was on the groudns that they'd created an
economy wealthy enough for the country to be able to spend
without excessively taxing or borrowing.

Matthew Huntbach
From: Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Nea... a need!
Date: 22 Jul 92  02:40:00 EST

     Dear Mr. Vessell,

     You stated that even though the National Endowment for Arts (NEA) accounts for less than 1 percent of our taxes that it is still a waste of money.

     You are terribly wrong, the NEA is an incredible investment.  Conisdering the cost, it is even more impressive.

     You want to neatly spend each penny on a bare minimum concrete basic need, but (pardon the idealism) are failing to remember the need to build & sustain the human spirit.

     This is what a good culture does for its people.  Private funds should NOT be the only source.  Not because we merely need government to add to the volume of money but rather we need our governemnt to encourage the arts, free thinking, free expression, etc.

     The NEA does this so well for so little.  Why do you think the fundamentalist right-wingers want to control or kill the NEA???

     They know it is a great danger to them taking control of
 our lifes!!!

     The NEA must live, so that Americans can live!

     Boot out Anne-Imelda Radice (newly appointed Chair of the NEA, ordained by Bush), vote Clinton & save the NEA, & by doing so save your FREEDOMS!

                              Thank you for your time,

                              Mark Sablow
                              aka, Professor Atget

 * "Quick hide!  A liberal artist has escaped! *

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)

Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 05:59:41 GMT

In article <2397@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F.
Mays) writes:

|>It amazes me that you evidently read the first five replies and managed to
|>misunderstand all five.  Each of those replies asked what the hell you 
|>are talking about.  No one outside the UK has ever heard of this Mellor
|>guy. 

Apart from the person who had him as their MP, another who signed off "A
N Other tory caught screwing around" and Jon who has a picture of
Margret Thatcher in every room in his house and offers daily
supplications to the god of the free market at the shrine of free
enterprise he bought from a thrusting young man at a young Tories
conference in 1988. this left only the comment "What's all this about
Mellor?" from Nick which is sufficiently ambiguous for me to be able to
take it any way I like (which is more or less what Mellor was doing to
the actress).

|> People around the globe were (like) myself wondering who he is and
|>what he's done.  I was not one of those five posters, but I read all of 
|>them and kept expecting you to respond with a brief explanation.  You 
|>never have.

Thats because you are expecting there to be something more to this story
than there is. The doings of Mellor are irrelevant except in the fact
that they have produced the familiar knee jerk reaction of the
establishment.

|>Who is Mellor?

As I said in the first post he is a minister in the British Cabinet.
`Minister of Fun', good at it isn't he? ie Heritage, this includes
press, broadcasting, arts etc.

|>Why is the fact that he has slept with some woman important?

It isn't.

|>How does this threaten the freedom of the press?

His chums are rushing to say that this proves how irresponsible the
press are and how this demonstrates the need for `privacy' (ie
censorship) laws.


Phill Hallam-Baker

PS I refuse to be drawn on Jon's post except to say that the biterness
that it displays is clearly due to him being a trotskyite practising
entryism in the Tory party who is frustrated at being forced to do daily
`Hail Tebbits' and generaly say what a wonderful lot the tories all are.
Talk about sore losers? gee it's a damn sight better than being a sore
winner.

Jon's just pissed off becasuse he knows the ecconomy is headed for the
soup and theres no way Major and co can escape the blame.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.rap,alt.thrash,alt.music.alternative
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Body Count: "Cop Killer" removed from album
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 12:54:19 EDT


>>I just head on the evening news that Ice-T is removing "Cop Killer" from
>>the Body Count LP because Time Warners board members are getting death
>>threats from police officers.
>>
>>I'm not going to debate the ethics of the song, I just want to call
>>attention to the reason for this action.
>>
>>Death threats from police officers.
>>-----------------------------------


Did somebody actually hear the it was death threats from *police*?

The news reported that it was due to death threats, but since such threats
are generally anonymous, how could one attribute them to the police?
(Other than just guessing, since police groups have been very vocal on this.)

At the same time, I don't doubt that Ice-T has some legitimate fear of
what some cops might do.  I wouldn't want to be Ice-T, j-walking in Los
Angeles--they might not want to take him alive.

Of course, I don't think that taking Cop Killer of the record will change
that one iota...

-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Organization: sgi
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 02:31:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.234944.1844@dircon.co.uk>, uad1123@dircon.co.uk (Graeme Lyall) writes:
|> 
|> It is not a perfect world when the press spend a lot of energy 
|> exposing minor sex scandals and ignore far more important stories. 
|> However the bottom line is that we have to know what the politicians 
|> are getting up to.  Mellor used photographs of his happy little 
|> family as propaganda only 3 months ago in the general election; 
|> that stinks, and must be exposed.

Oh really?   It stinks when a politician who has had an affair
has his photo taken with his family, and ought to be exposed.

Who says so?   To whom does this apply?   Just politicians?
Doctors?   Psychiatrists?    The Police?   Reporters?  Actors?
Military personnel?    Athletes?    How about people who post
on the net?

Does every person who has significant public exposure have
to open their life to you?   Do you have to know the intimate
details of everyone's private life?

Why?

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:12:57 -0400 
From: Jeff Gates <jg58+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Nea a need *3*
	<1992Jul29.142927.24653@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

Rob Dobson (rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU) writes on the NEA:

>...the military spends more money on its cheesy bands to
>spew out Souza marches than the entire NEA budget...

That's military band UNIFORMS believe it or not!


Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6237 soc.culture.british:10619
From: kjcarey@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kevin J. Carey)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 24 Jul 92 01:34:33 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <nm144g4@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.055941.10005@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>>
>> Jon's just pissed off becasuse he knows the ecconomy is headed 
>> for the soup and theres no way Major and co can escape the blame.
>
>Poor Phill.   So clueless.   The reality is that I bought Sterling
>futures after the election at around $1.75 and sold them a couple
>of weeks ago at around $1.88.
>
>jon.

All this shows is that the US economy is even more clapped out than that
of the UK. Then again, some people were making money during the Great
Depression.
---- Kevin
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:04:01 GMT

In article <njegii4@zola.esd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon
Livesey) writes:

|>In article <1992Jul21.200203.20658@dscomsf.desy.de>,
|>hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
|>>
|>> What I don't support is the idea that the Press should not be 
|>> allowed to report it. I suspect that given your libertarian 
|>> principles you possibly did not realise that this is what was 
|>> being suggested.
|>
|>On the contrary, I'm sure that at any given moment in time, 
|>someone somewhere is suggesting this.
|>
|>Now, are you going on record that this is a serious legislative
|>proposal?   Bill number?   White paper title?

The spectacle of MPs flocking round demanding curbs?

The Mellor Quote `the Press are drinking at the last chance saloon'

The private members bill that went in last year from Clive Soley?


How much more evidence do you need?


This will become a bill if the crooks in Parliament can con public
opinion into taking their side.


Phill Hallam-Baker
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:43:41 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <NICKH.92Jul22085411@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>, nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
|> In article <njhrph8@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
|>    Oh really?   It stinks when a politician who has had an affair
|>    has his photo taken with his family, and ought to be exposed.
|> 
|>    Who says so?   To whom does this apply?   Just politicians?
|>    Doctors?   Psychiatrists?    The Police?   Reporters?  Actors?
|>    Military personnel?    Athletes?    How about people who post
|>    on the net?
|> 
|> That's not what he said. What he said is this:
|> 
|> - David Mellor, in common with many politicians, _used_ the image of
|> 	the `happy little family' as _propaganda_ in the general
|> 	election campaign. Doubtless the Tory leafletting included
|> 	phrases like `a family man,' `happily married,' etc., and
|> 	probably also gave his wife's name, and certaily depicted the
|> 	whole family cavorting in the sunshine or whatever.

So what?   My dentist sends me leaflets containing pictures
of his wife and family.   Many people have bosses who keep
such pictures on their desks.   You can't open a newspaper
without seeing some happy sportsman/film actor/businessman/
whatever being portrayed in a way that inplies that they 
have a happy and stable family life.   These days, such people
even employ media consultants to help them maintain the image
that they would like us to have of them. 

However, I expect that at least some of them are actually
enthusiastically polygamous.     So does this somehow make
it morally acceptable for the newspapers to go after such
people?

These people project an image of marital bliss because some
of the rest of us are stupid enough to think that's a good
thing.   So what are we saying here: the Public, having 
been stupid enough to demand this entirely irrelevant image
from its public figures - an image which actually has very
little to do with their performance in their jobs - is now,
ipso facto, entitled to violate someone's privacy in order
to enforce it?

I can't think of any better way to reduce public life to
a bunch of people sneaking around, with another bunch spying
on them, while public service goes to hell.

jon.
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:6221 soc.culture.british:10600
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Date: 24 Jul 92 00:05:59 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <1992Jul23.170155.25171@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
|> From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
|> |> In article <1992Jul21.200203.20658@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|> |> Who is Mellor?
|> 
|> A UK government minister.
|> 
|> |> Why is the fact that he has slept with some woman important?
|> 
|> >It's not, but since the next election may not be for nearly
|> >another five years, the losers have to have something to
|> >complain about.  If they can't beat the government on its
|> >policies, they'll just have to attack it on its sex life.
|> 
|> No this is not at all what it's all about.

And then he goes on to explain in some detail that this really
*is* what it's about.  It's politics-as-usual translated into
an attack on someone's sex life.

Labour is absolutely carpet-biting furious that the Tories
won, and then, as if that's not enough, the Tories have the
gall to say "Hm, well, looks like we're spending too much.
Better take a reef in the mainsail"

Doubly furious that anyone with two neurons can see that 
given the recent German interest rate moves, a UK Government 
really is well advised to do this very thing, and that 
Labour is going to look very crazy indeed if they come right
out and say "No, no!   Spend, spend, spend!   Borrow, borrow
borrow!".

So Labour is in a box of its own making.     So what's left?   
Someone's sex life.   Heck, in the US we'd be asking Mellor 
to spell "potato".   It's about as relevant.

jon.
From: Mark.Sablow@iphase.UUCP (Mark Sablow)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP