HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ac@apmaths.uwo.ca (alka chandna)
Subject: Re: Celebrating National Meatout Day
Organization: Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:38:42 GMT

In article <1992Apr09.030629.27842@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>ac@apmaths.uwo.ca (alka chandna) writes:

>>what gives you the right to eat meat

>The right to self-sufficiency.

do you mean self-sustenance?  or are you saying that you kill all of the 
meat that you eat yourself?


>>"if you can live without meat, why not give it a try?"

>I enjoy the flavor of meat. I don't want to discontinue ingesting meat.

is this an ethical argument?  maybe you should go into philosophy and write 
a book.  that aside, there are now many meat analogues which are delicious 
and filling. 

>>my life *
>>is* a bitch, because when i see suffering, it pains me enough that i decide 
>>that i must do something about it.

>Why not take some arsenic and end it all now? That way you won't have to
>endure watching all this suffering you claim to see.

wow .. and they call animal rights activists "misanthropic".  why don't you 
see your doctor & get your testosterone levels checked; this kind of 
hostility & macho posturing just can't be healthy - it's certainly far from 
intelligent.

alka



>MD
>-- 
>--  Michael P. Deignan                      / 
>--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /   I'm not a bigot,
>--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /    I hate everyone.
>-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas (was Socialism Security Rides
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:06:51 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.hac.com (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <11368@borg.cs.unc.edu> bell@tigger.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr9.141507.1@hamp.hampshire.edu> jyanowitz@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
>>>BTW, I don't like Thomas, and I think it's a disgrace that
>>>he (along with 7 others) upheld beatings of prisoners in jail, along
>>>with other heinous decisions.
>
>7 of them decided in favor of the plaintiff,  that the eighth amendment
>was somehow relevant in this case.  It really wasn't.  The government did
>not initiate the beatings.  It was the action of an individual empowered
>by the government,  but unless one could show that the government either
>condoned or even encouraged the beatings,  why should this matter?  If

Long long ago in a galaxy far far away there was a gargantuan metropolis 
named Lala (for "Long Ago") Land.  It had lots of cops.  They routinely beat
people senseless or sicced their dogs on their defenseless victims for the 
heck of it.  They had a chief who was the most arrogant son of a bitch
(thus the penchant for dogs) you could ever meet, who thought drug
users should be shot, etc.  The code of silence was rigidly enforced.
They threatened anyone who complained.  They were beyond control of
any democratic process.  Nothing could be done until one bunch was  
videotaped performing a particularly brutal and senseless beating. 
They never had a chance to burn a parliament building and attempt to 
exterminate their enemies.  That came later, when the thugs of
another local tyrant were thought to be mere aberrant individuals. 
 
Granted the individuals should not be allowed the Nuremburg defense  
for their egregious brutality, but should the government be held
blameless and allowed to continue its thinly covert policy of
encouraging such brutality?  If it is not held accountable, what
incentive does it have to discourage brutality?  Which is more dangerous, 
a lone madman with an automatic weapon or a government without 
accountability?   How many beatings would you like before you found
the government guilty of negligence or abuse?


	George Tucker        tucker@kali.hac.com
		Just say NO to incumbents.
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: pangrle@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Barry Pangrle)
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Election Results
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:02:23 GMT

jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:

> IMHO, Carter was the best president in my lifetime as he cared about
> the people and seemed to want to do what was good for them. We haven't
> had one like him since.

  IMHO, you're close but not quite correct. IMHO it should read, "Carter was the
best man to hold the office of president in my lifetime as he cared about
the people and seemed to want to do what was good for them."

  IMHO as a president he was a disaster.  People generally point to the Camp
David accord as his success.  It was certainly a notable accomplishment but
what else of any real significance was there?  His foreign policy for the most
part was a disaster.  In the failed Desert One operation, he didn't even tell
his secretary of state (Cyrus Vance) about the mission before it occurred.
I consider Vance to be perhaps the best appointment he made to his cabinet.
Vance resigned, rather quietly after that.  I think that if I had been
in that situation, I perhaps wouldn't have been so quiet in my resignation.

   I had a self-professed liberal American history professor tell a class of
over 100 students that he thought that Carter would go down in history as
one of the least notable presidents.  Although, Carter is an intelligent
man, he didn't know how to delegate responsibility.  This is important
if you are going to turn your dreams into reality as a president.
Many of his cabinet appointments seemed to have been made based on
"back-home" friendship rather than ability to do the job with Vance being
a notable exception.

   If you don't think that Carter's administration was a disaster, look at where
the democratic party has been in the presidential elections since his
presidency.  Do you really think that in the long-run he has advanced the
party's cause? I think most republicans and perhaps democrats too, believe that
Carter was the best thing to happen to the republican party in decades.  It
certainly was a big boost for the republicans after the Watergate years.  Did
anybody else get the feeling that it was really the "kiss of death" for Mondale
when Carter got up on the platform with him at the convention?

   I don't think that there is much debate about Carter being one of the most
honest and well-intentioned men to hold the office, likewise I don't see
much debate over the fact that he his performance a president has certainly
hurt democratic candidates that have come after him.

---
Barry M. Pangrle		|	E-MAIL: pangrle@cs.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.censorship,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: HOLOCAUST MYTHS
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:43:10 GMT

In article <6e9wiB1w164w@b-cpu.UUCP# pfaust@b-cpu.UUCP (Pete Faust) writes:
#
#                 FOREVER FIGHT WITH FACTS
# 
#     Excerpts from THE GREAT HOLOCAST TRIAL by Michael A.
#Hoffman II:

Note how Dummkopf cites a book by a revisionists as a reliable source...
typical slimy trick.

The FACTS, of course, are completely different; Zundel was convicted
(as other revisionists have been) of spreading lies and hate
propoganda.

-Danny Keren.



Xref: sparky alt.activism:7795 alt.activism.d:1669 soc.culture.jewish:8114 soc.motss:20496 soc.rights.human:1454 alt.discrimination:1645 alt.society.civil-liberties:526
From: rjb@milton.u.washington.edu (LeGrand Cinq-Mars)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.motss,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:46:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Apr16.154628.3903
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


Does this mean that each (or every) side to a controversy has a right
to make as much noise as they feel necessary to drown out each and
every other side in a public demonstration?  Does this mean that
each side can bring to bear whatever amplification resources they
can muster?  Or does the first amendment right to drown others out 
limit this drowning outto an (unlimited number of) unamplified
human voices?  Or must there be numerical parity between shouters on
one side and shouters on all others?

Does this apply to print and other media? Does one have a right to
publish anything, but no one else have a right to be able to read it,
see it, or hear it?

Does this mean one has thr gith to show up with flares or strobe lights
at a rally to prevent others from seeing the speaker(s)?

Does this mean one has the right to jam objectionable broadcasts with other
broadcasts?

The potential implications of this line of argument are vastly entertaining.

--LeGrand
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties,alt.censorship
From: mark@fenris.albany.edu (Mark Steinberger)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Organization: State University of New York at Albany
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 00:39:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.163117.31069@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>The Nazi's crime was violence, not speech.

The violence of the Nazis began with the incitement of speeches.

The speeches carefully prepared the ground for the bloodshed that
followed. 

--Mark
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7636 alt.individualism:2418 talk.politics.misc:17999 misc.legal:9212
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas (was Socialism Security Rides Again)
Date: 13 Apr 92 06:42:00 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

In article <1992Apr12.223835.10614@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
|> > in support of beating prisoners.  Read the opinions rather than the
|> > propaganda regarding the opinions.  (I don't believe seven others
|> > voted with Thomas either -- I thought he was on a losing 7-2 side.)
|> 
|> It was an 8-1 split, with Thomas in lone dissent. 
 
Apparently Thomas should just vote any damned way he pleases on the
issue, because people are going to go with whatever makes them the
most pissed off anyhow.  It was 7-2, with Scalia, hence the political
cartoons showing him as Scalia's lackey, etc.  And he did vote against
the child pornography conviction of the farmer in the government
entrapment operation.    But not in the lovely fairly land of UseNet...
-- 
Into each life a little fallout must rain.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7422 alt.censorship:3200 alt.conspiracy:6180 talk.politics.misc:17469
From: jdeutsch@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Jeffrey Deutsch)
Subject: Re: Larry Agran IS being denied "free speech"
Followup-To: alt.activism,alt.individualism
Summary: Excellent comeback
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Va.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 05:01:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.113244.28920@csusac.csus.edu> emamid@athena.ecs.csus.edu (David Emami) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.073411.29451@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
>>
>>In response to my post suggesting that denying Larry Agran access
>>to well publicized forums IS a denial in fact of his right to free
>>speech Michael Demigan (sp?) misses the point rather deftly by noting:
>>
>>"just because yoiu have the right to free speech doesn't mean anybody
>>has to listen to you".
>>
>
>Mr. Demigan is absolutely correct. Your arguments miss the fact that this
>applies to the news media as well as to anyone else.
>
>>But suppose I WANT to listen to Larry Agran, or Gene McCarthy, or
>>Frank Zappa, or Lyndon LaRouche.  As it happens, I'm fortunate 
>
>Well, go listen to them. We're not stopping you!
>
>>enough to have access to usenet, the last uncensored mass medium.
>>But suppose I depended solely on TV as so many people do? Where 
>>is my right to listen? 
>>
>>-Steve
>
>
>Gag! More of the typical left-wing inability to tell the difference between
>"preventing" and "not assisting." The news media have no more obligation to
>talk about Mr. Agran than anybody else does. Mr. Agran's right to speak does
>NOT mean that ANYONE is obligated to help him get is message out; your right
>to listen to him does not obligate anyone to help you hear him. Your (and Mr.
>Agran's) right to freedom of speech means exactly that: you have the freedom
>to say anything you want. It does not mean that you may compell someone to
>be your soapbox.

	Well said, Mr. Emami. You took the words right out of my mouth.
Take a bow.


-- 
"A top-secret government study indicates that we wouldn't be any worse
off if we let the economists predict the weather and the meteorologists
predict the economy."
-Paul Harwitz, _Wall Street Journal_, March 19, 1980
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7541 talk.politics.misc:17813
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: CUBA: Congress Lobby Day Apr 7
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:37:45 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

fscofi@igc.org (Frank Scofi) writes:
>"END THE BLOCKADE - LET CUBA LIVE"
>   In recent months people throughout the country have started to
>bring the message of ending the U.S. economic blockade against Cuba
>to our elected officials in Washington, DC. Many of you have
>already sent letters, signed petitions, called and visited your
>representatives and senators.

Well no wonder you can't get anything done.  You don't know the
difference between a blockade and an embargo.
-- 
Christianity might be a good thing if anyone ever tried it.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7277 talk.politics.animals:4856
From: grx0751@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown on Animal Rights
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:51:30 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <ac.37@apmaths.uwo.ca>, ac@apmaths.uwo.ca (alka chandna) writes:
> In article <1992Apr4.152848.17161@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Apr3.194013.6831@uoft02.utoledo.edu> grx0751@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Apr3.052620.8088@beach.csulb.edu>, bwong@beach.csulb.edu 
>>>(Bradley Wong) writes:
>>>> 
>>>> Jerry Brown on Animal Rights
>>>> 
>>>> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
>>>> by the way its animals are treated." Mahatma Gandhi
>>>
>>>      EEEKS! That is a gross misquote, as far as I know. Correct me please,
>>>      but the word 'animals' in the above quote is actually 'women'.
>>>
>>>      Siva Prasad.
> 
>>No, the quote is correct. Now that *would* have been one hell of a misquote,
>>if that is what it had been!
> 
>>Paul
> 
> The quotation by Gandhi, as given above, is given correctly.  Interestingly, 
> Prasad's memory of the the quotation brings to mind some of the connections 
> between the struggle for the emancipation of women, and that for the 
> liberation of nonhuman animals.  
> 
>	**** Interesting stuff from Alka deleted ****

	Sorry netters, I was wrong in saying that the original quote has the
	word 'women' in it. I don't remember why, but I was stuck with the
	wrong impression; must have been due to hearing to the wrong quote
	again and again. I received Email from a lot of persons that the
	quote was correct as was given in the original post. And thanks to
	Ted, I even have the original source now. Also to Alka, thanks a lot
	for that interesting piece of information.
                                                                    
	Siva Prasad.			(grx0751@uoft02.utoledo.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7649 alt.individualism:2427 talk.politics.misc:18036 misc.legal:9238
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas (was Socialism Security Rides Again)
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:33:32 GMT
 <1992Apr12.223835.10614@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
 <kuhklcINNbn2@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>  <rdippold.703147320@cancun>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <rdippold.703147320@cancun>
rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

> |> It was an 8-1 split, with Thomas in lone dissent. 
>  
> Apparently Thomas should just vote any damned way he pleases on the
> issue, because people are going to go with whatever makes them the
> most pissed off anyhow.  It was 7-2, with Scalia, hence the political
> cartoons showing him as Scalia's lackey, etc.  And he did vote against
> the child pornography conviction of the farmer in the government
> entrapment operation.    But not in the lovely fairly land of UseNet...

Thank you for the correction.  I read about two cases on the same day:
the 8th amendment case and another case in which Thomas dissented in an
8-1 split.  I got them confused.

However, I resent your implication that my error in this matter was
somehow intentional or maliciously motivated.  Grow up.

Frankly, I'm *more* disturbed that Scalia joined Thomas in the dissent,
not less.
Xref: sparky alt.activism:7296 alt.censorship:3165 alt.conspiracy:6113 talk.politics.misc:17075
From: imcc@cs.strath.ac.uk (Iain McCord)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.censorship,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HOLOCAUST MYTHS
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:21:22 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland.

pfaust@b-cpu.UUCP (Pete Faust) writes:
> Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, ad infinitum.  We have not gassed (a
> new dimension in inhumanity) and do not gas people...any
> people.

By this do you mean that there is nobody of German decent maning the gas
chambers in American prisons.  Or is Leuchters morbid hoby an irelevancy
in this case.



		~~~~~/\~~~~~
Iain McCord	~~~~/()\~~~~	Mon Apr  6 15:21:20 WET DST 1992
		~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines,soc.misc,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc
From: jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs)
Subject: Re: THE HOLOCAUST STORY:  HOW MUCH IS FALSE?  The Case for Open Debate
In-reply-to: ralphw@b-cpu.UUCP's message of 9 Apr 92 16:36:51 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: 10 Apr 92 07:46:24

In article <gate.5BuyiB1w164w@b-cpu.UUCP> ralphw@b-cpu.UUCP (Ralph Winston) writes:
>
>   From _The Daily Northwestern_
>   (Northwestern University's newspaper),
>   Thursday, April 4, 1991:
>
>
>		 THE HOLOCAUST STORY:  HOW MUCH IS FALSE?
>

[munch]
>   ______________________________________________________________________
>
>	This article [was] sponsored by the Committee for Open Debate on
>   the Holocaust (CODOH).  If you would like to access revisionist
>   scholarship on the Holocaust, or arrange a speaker to appear on your
>   campus, call (209) 733-2653, or write CODOH   PO Box 3267   Visalia, CA
>   93278.  (Member:  National Association Against Censorship; National
>   Association for College Activities; Free Press Association.)
>   ______________________________________________________________________
>
>				   Ralph Winston

From a previous article, "Ralph" writes (about someone else, could be
just about anyone....)

>You're lying.  I posted clearly at the bottom of the article (the SAME
>WAY it appeared in _The Daily Northwestern_!) that it was a paid
>advertisement.  You're just trying to fool people who didn't read it,
>as you Zionists and Holocaustomaniacs frequently do.  Tsk, tsk, tsk!

Neither of the words "paid" or "advertisement" appear in your comments.
The phrase "This article [was] sponsored..." clearly imply that is was
an article rather than an advertisement, and the word "sponsored" implies
only that CODOH (aka Bradley) supported the work on the article itself.

You are just trying to fool people who didn't read it, as you
revisionists _always_ do.  Tsk, tsk, tsk!  Who is the liar?
--
Steve Jacobs  ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu)
"Limit congressmen to two terms.  One in office.  One in jail."
From: ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Jerry Brown's Agenda For Destroying America
Date: 12 Apr 92 09:06:38 GMT
Organization: University of Scranton

In article <1992Apr7.063336.358@cs.ucla.edu>, pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
> For further information see:
> 
> Author:        King, Dennis.
> Title:         Lyndon LaRouche and the new American fascism / Dennis King. 1st
>                  ed. New York : Doubleday, 1989.
> Description:   xv, 415 p., [8] p. of plates : ill. ; 25 cm.
> 
> Notes:         Includes index.
>                Bibliography: p. [379]-397.

	This is an excellent and scarry book. If you want a copy of it, cheap,
try writing to:

	Edward R. Hamilton
	Bookseller
	Falls Village, CT 06031-5000

	Catalogue # 973262  cost $3.95 (originally $19.95)

	I'm a very satisfied ERH customer, ask to be on the list for their
catalogue, they deal in everything from politics to fiction ALL REAL CHEAP.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave D. Cawley		   |	Where a social revolution is pending and,
University Of Scranton	   |	for whatever reason, is not accomplished,
ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu	   |	reaction is the alternative.
ddc1@SCRANTON		   |				-Daniel De Leon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.motss,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties,soc.culture.african.american,alt.censorship
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Apr11.204349.23377@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 11 Apr 92 15:38:06

In article <1992Apr11.204349.23377@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

   In article <dragon.702962857@camelot> dragon@camelot.bradley.edu (Matthew Korth) writes:
   >In <1992Apr9.231614.17905@ucunix.san.uc.edu> schectr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (ROBB SCHECTER) writes:
   >>**                    THE  KKK  ARE  COMING  TO CINCINNATI                 **
   >>**   - On University of Cinncinati campus, we have started organizing a    **
   >>**         counter-demonstration.  The general idea is for it to be        **
   >>**         confrontational but not violent.                                **
   >Sorry, you lose me here.  I may, and in fact *do*, disagree with what
   >the KKK has to say.  However, they have a right to say it.  The First
   >Amendment applies to them, too.

   Why do people constantly make this fallacious argument about the First
   Amendment?  Does the Ku Klux Klan's First Amendment rights suddenly
   preclude the First Amendment rights of those who wish to hold a 
   counter-demonstration?
   -- 
   Ted Frank          + "He wanted to be the car rather than the thimble or the
   1307 E 60 St, #109 +  hat."  -- District attorney explaining Marc Cienkowski's
   U o' C Law Skool   +  murder with bow and arrow of Michael Klucznik in
   Chi, IL 60637      +  Doylestown Borough, PA over a game of Monopoly.

You have a right to hold a counter-demonstration as close as will not
prevent the hearers of the KKK demonstration from hearing their
speeches.  However, if the police fear that having the two groups too
close together would lead to fighting, the police may have the right
and duty to keep the two groups physically separate.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties