HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Dead Criminals Don't Kill
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<abeals.702588800@melange> <19882@castle.ed.ac.uk>
	<ART.92Apr8224008@world.std.com> <19943@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:14:15 GMT

In article <19943@castle.ed.ac.uk> asr@castle.ed.ac.uk (Angus "Fluffy" Rae) writes:

   art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

   >In article <19882@castle.ed.ac.uk> asr@castle.ed.ac.uk (Angus "Fluffy" Rae) writes:

   >[...]

   >   **Please, no flames from the arms lobby. I may have a view of the states
   >   that is thoroughly incorrect, I only pick stuff up from 60 Minutes
   >   repeats and Hunter S Thompson articles. 

   >Which shows exactly how much you know about the "states".

   Maybe I should start adding smileys or something.

Good idea.

   I got a far better response from the originator of the post.

Perhaps if you had made a far better post.

   For those who missed the humour of the last bit (comparing Hunter
   Thompson and 60 Minutes as sources of info) I know a little bit more
   than that.

   Basically it's pretty impossible to compare both countries, especially
   in the area of guns (which is probably got the above poster annoyed).

No, it was a snotty European attitude about how superior we cultured
Europeans are to you rough crude yanks are.

   This is to do with the fundamental difference between the USA and the
   UK. The UK was stable many, many years before someone thought about using
   that Chinese stuff to fire bits of lead about. Since the invention of
   the gun it has been mainly used by soldiers and criminals. It's been a
   tool for destruction. The USA is only a couple of hundred years old.
   Guns were sent off with the first settlers and were used as survival
   tools against animals and hostile natives. Hence it's been absorbed as a
   "friend in times of need".

Right.

   Hence the basic difference. In general, the British regard guns as
   "nasty" (I couldn't find a better word). This is not the case in the
   USA, where guns are almost essential.

No, but they were not so nasty when used to keep your empire intact.
Remember the Zulus?  Remember the Boers?  Remember the Revolutionary War?
You Brits didn't think guns were so nasty then.

   However - no one has actually commented on the first (and far larger)
   part of my article on the death penalty - everyone seems to have jumped
   on four lines about gun control.

I think the death penalty is important and must be retained.  As did the
folk who dreamt up Tiburn Hill.  The last people on earth who should be
giving lessons in morals to the rest of the world are the British
From: sasjzs@VMS.SAS.COM (Joe Slater)
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime
Subject: Re: Books on Serial Killers
Keywords: murder, rape...serial
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:38:58 GMT
Reply-To: sasjzs@VMS.SAS.COM (Joe Slater)
Distribution: na
Organization: Or lack thereof
X-Bytes: 519

Try "Deviant" by Harold Schechter. This is the only book
out of many that really spooked me. Someone a while
back also reported he wrote one entitled "Deranged" but
I haven't seen it.

Whenever I need a true-crime fix, I just go to the public
library.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Slater INTERNET: SASJZS@VMS.SAS.COM  SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC
(The above is my opinion only)
"I don't care if there's chemicals in it, 
as long as my lettuce is crisp!" - Grace Slick, 1972
From: asr@castle.ed.ac.uk (Angus "Fluffy" Rae)
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime
Subject: Re: Dead Criminals Don't Kill
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:42:36 GMT
Organization: CATHY_VoiceMail_Project

abeals@autodesk.com (Andrew Scott Beals, KC6SSS) writes:
>Dead criminals don't kill again.
>It is because mealy-mouthed bleeding-heart liberals like you that
>we have a legal system that lets the criminals go "Because they
>were abused as a child." or "They've learned better now." or
>my all-time favorite "He's paid his debt to society."

Here in the ol' UK we have a slightly different perspective on things
after a number of cases where the polic were proved to have been "less
than straightforward" (read: downright criminal) in a number of cases or
murder and successfully convicted the wrong people. In cases such as the
Birmingham Six (convicted of planting a bomb in a Birmingham pub because
of dodgy forensic tests, dodgy confessions and public hate), the
Guildford Four (another IRA case, again dodgy confessions) and a recent
case of a "educationally backward" man who was convicted of murder on
the evidence of semen samples when he was actually sterile and impotent.

If a death penalty still existed here they would all be dead.Instead
they have been released. Admittedly they have spent many years in jail,
but they can now enjoy whatever time they have left.

However you look at things, in most cases there is no such thing as a
totally certain conviction. Unless evidence is totally overwhelming, a
good prosecutor and poor defence can convince a jury that a man is
guilty when he isn't, even without corruption.

America could drop it's murder rates dramatically simply by getting rid
of the "right to bear arms" bit. It's like poisons and kids. Make the
bleach difficult to get to and they've got a far lower chance of
drinking it. Britain doesn't have the high rate of "casual" murder, or
murders committed because a simple fight escalated and there was this
shotgun in the cupboard... maybe our license system isn't perfect, it
isn't, but it does help. And at least we haven't got schools where the
kids carry guns to class.

**Please, no flames from the arms lobby. I may have a view of the states
that is thoroughly incorrect, I only pick stuff up from 60 Minutes
repeats and Hunter S Thompson articles. 

-- 
Angus G Rae, the Cuddly Vampire Teddy Bear [asr@castle.edinburgh.ac.uk]
CATHY VoiceMail, Computer Science Dept., Edinburgh University
"I'm on the run from the Facist Police with a murderer and
 a mass murderer and a man in a bri-nylon shirt."  Rimmer, Red Dwarf V
From: mf2w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Marc Kevin Fischer)
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime
Subject: Re: Reading list
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:03:59 GMT
Organization: Junior, Art, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Here are a few personal favorites - or at least a few of the books that
have given me the most insight. I also tend to be most interested in
books that come from a more psychological perspective. There is a TON of
sensationalist and very dubiously researched garbage out there but here
are a few starters that I think would be of great interest:

-The Shoemaker- by Flora Schreiber. 
Based on Schreiber's very lengthy psychoanalysis of Philadelphia
psychotic Joseph Kallinger who among other things, killed one of his own
children with the help of one of his other sons. Schreiber actually
became a mother figure for Kallinger (lucky her) and this book is
fascinating for it's many vivid recollections of Kallinger's paranoid
schizophrenic halluciantions - many of which are simply not to be
believed. Like any good true crime book this also delves heavily into
Kallinger's highly disturbing childhood. I recommend this one pretty
highly but be prepared to lose a little sleep over parts of it.
Schreiber by the way also wrote -Sybil-.

-Hunting Humans- by Elliot Leyton.
I mentioned this earlier. It's a good intelligent study of the phenomena
of serial and mass murder focussing on Berkowitz, Bundy, "Unstoppable"
Eddie Kemper, Essex, Starkweather, and Albert DeSalvo. Note that there
is another book that was recently released under the same title and it
looks like real crap so make sure the book is by Elliot Leyton and not
some hack. Leyton by the way is an anthropologist so his explorations
are more along the lines of murder as a radical form of social rebellion
and he dismisses quite a few psychiatric perspectives or conclusions on
people like Mullin and Kallinger. Worth reading though. 

-In The Belly of the Beast- by Jack Henry Abbott
Here's violence and the prison experience from a the perspective of a
very sharp self-educated inmate who has spent nearly his entire adult
life in the worst prison conditions due to his constant defiant attitude
toward authority. Descriptively explores inmate relations, the more
extreme methods of punishment (all of which Abbott has been subjected
to), and other cheery topics. Extremely well written and though this
came out in I believe 1981, an inmate friend in a Florida max security
prison told me things haven't changed much since. To a much lesser
extent, I can validate parts of this book through correspondences I've
had and my experience volunteering inside a max-security prison.   

Okay there are a few for ya. I could list more but I'll hold off for now.
Organization: Youngstown State University
Date: Wednesday, 8 Apr 1992 14:31:18 EDT
From: <00124961@ysub.ysu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime
Subject: Re: books

Do you happen to work for "Unsolved mysteries?"
From: sasjzs@VMS.SAS.COM (Joe Slater)
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime
Subject: Re: Dead Criminals Don't Kill
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:59:53 GMT
Reply-To: sasjzs@VMS.SAS.COM (Joe Slater)
Organization: Or lack thereof
X-Bytes: 463

art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) 
asr@castle.ed.ac.uk (Angus "Fluffy" Rae) 
Well, neither one of you seem to have much to say about
true-crime, but at least this group has some traffic now.  {:*)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Slater INTERNET: SASJZS@VMS.SAS.COM  SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC
(The above is my opinion only)
"I don't care if there's chemicals in it, 
as long as my lettuce is crisp!" - Grace Slick, 1972
From: asr@castle.ed.ac.uk (Angus "Fluffy" Rae)
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime
Subject: Re: Dead Criminals Don't Kill
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:42:24 GMT
Organization: CATHY_VoiceMail_Project

art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:

>In article <19882@castle.ed.ac.uk> asr@castle.ed.ac.uk (Angus "Fluffy" Rae) writes:

>[...]

>   **Please, no flames from the arms lobby. I may have a view of the states
>   that is thoroughly incorrect, I only pick stuff up from 60 Minutes
>   repeats and Hunter S Thompson articles. 

>Which shows exactly how much you know about the "states".

Maybe I should start adding smileys or something.

I got a far better response from the originator of the post.

For those who missed the humour of the last bit (comparing Hunter
Thompson and 60 Minutes as sources of info) I know a little bit more
than that.

Basically it's pretty impossible to compare both countries, especially
in the area of guns (which is probably got the above poster annoyed).
This is to do with the fundamental difference between the USA and the
UK. The UK was stable many, many years before someone thought about using
that Chinese stuff to fire bits of lead about. Since the invention of
the gun it has been mainly used by soldiers and criminals. It's been a
tool for destruction. The USA is only a couple of hundred years old.
Guns were sent off with the first settlers and were used as survival
tools against animals and hostile natives. Hence it's been absorbed as a
"friend in times of need".

Hence the basic difference. In general, the British regard guns as
"nasty" (I couldn't find a better word). This is not the case in the
USA, where guns are almost essential.

However - no one has actually commented on the first (and far larger)
part of my article on the death penalty - everyone seems to have jumped
on four lines about gun control.

-- 
Angus G Rae, the Cuddly Vampire Teddy Bear [asr@castle.edinburgh.ac.uk]
CATHY VoiceMail, Computer Science Dept., Edinburgh University
"I'm on the run from the Facist Police with a murderer and
 a mass murderer and a man in a bri-nylon shirt."  Rimmer, Red Dwarf V
From: kji+@SPEECH1.CS.CMU.EDU (Kathi Iannamico)
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime
Subject: Re:things not to do...
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:48:57 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Originator: kji@SPEECH1.CS.CMU.EDU

If you read the "Zodiac" by...Robert Greysmith??...(It's as close
as I can remember), you read the best book treating that killer.

I couldn't sleep after I finished it.  I didn't even turn off the light
until morning.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Friday, 17 Apr 1992 08:14:32 EDT
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Gender Differences (was Re: masonic morals & dogma)
 <92106.163123J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Apr16.011736.23559@acsu.buffalo.edu>
 <1992Apr16.164906.2681@PA.dec.com> <1992Apr16.185843.20953@acsu.buffalo.edu>
 <1992Apr16.210816.16075@PA.dec.com>

In article <1992Apr16.210816.16075@PA.dec.com>, dantonio@magick.tay2.dec.com
(David D'Antonio) says:
>
>In article <1992Apr16.185843.20953@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
>oispeggy@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown) writes:
>

[My original tongue-in-cheek comment:]

>|>>|>>And perhaps to compensate for their inability to bear
>|>>|>>children.
>|>>
>|>>Yea, right...And why do women get together?
>|>
>|>Wait a minute.  *John* posted the "inability to bear children comment," not
>|>me.  Ask him why women get together.
>
>I tried to leave in all the attribution lines to make it clear to whom
>I was responding. Guess it didn't work, though. Yes, I was asking John
>this, not you..

Sorry, I should have pasted a smiley face behind my nonserious comment.
I keep forgetting that saracasm does not come across well on the NET.
My *real* opinion on men's inability to have children is perfectly
expressed below by Peggy:
>
>|>I don't think men (in general) are the least bit concerned about their
>|>inability to bear children.  Of course, you could open the can of worms
>about
>|>bearing children is the ultimate creative act and men can't do it so they
>did
>|>away with matriarchal societies and created patriarchies and then turned
>|>themselves into priest so they could *give birth* at a higher level - the
>|>spiritual not the physical, so they outdid women anyway...and this change is
>|>depicted in the treatment of the females goddesses from as Macha, through
>|>Brigit and Mary....blah blah blah....But I think this is a lot of
>|>oversimplified nonsense (so don't start misquoting me) so you'll have
>|>to beat this dead horse with someone else's help.

And I *am* serious when I say that natural selection goes a long way
in explaining sex differences in a lot of things, including communication
patterns, sexual behavior, and interests.

>|>                Get some National Geographic films on baboons.  They will
>|>                teach you everything you wanted to know about human
>|>                interactions.
>|>                                  - Josh
>
>It would be funnier if it weren't true!

Indeed.  Did you know that male baboons sink their canine teeth into
the neck/shoulder area of females?  And people wonder where Dracula
stories come from.
-----------------------------------
John A. Johnson (J5J@psuvm.psu.edu)
Department of Psychology Penn State DuBois Campus 15801
Penn State is not responsible for my behavior.
"Don't take yourself too seriously/There are precious few things worth
 hating nowadays/And none of them is me." -- Todd Rundgren
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: joshua@coombs.anu.edu.au (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: What is reality?
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 11 Apr 92 15:54:36 GMT

lapena@athena.cs.uga.edu (Chito Lapena) writes:

>In article <1992Apr5.223050.10775@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> rose@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu writes:

>Will is the only reality.

huh? I thought reality was the interaction between the individual point of
view and the perceived universe. wherever do you get this one?

>                          But you must realize that there 
>are several different levels and different kinds of will. 
>Take for instance, the hierarchy from  individual will, to 
>communal will, to societal will, to the will of the species. 

let's see, I know what individual will is. what is communal wil
and societal will? how do you differentiate between them? howtdo
you know what they are (take a poll?) ?this is very sonorous and
rhetorically sound; I don't seem to extract any meaning from it, though.
and the will of the species? come on now. 

>The higher wills set boundaries as to where the lower 
>wills   may freely move about. If a lower will wishes for 
>its boundaries to be somewhat altered, it must negotiate 
>with the higher wills. You can work out an example using 
>a societal model. 

sounds pretty communist to me. are you just making this up as you go
along? what is this, the greatest good of the greatest number? 
subordinate yourself to the greater good of the whole? what total shit.

>                                      Hermetic philosophy 
>organizes substances into the four elements of matter: air, 
>water, earth and fire. These four elements (taken at their 
>less mundane interpretation) may be seen as wills at an 
>equal (or close to equal) level, whose interactions form 
>substances. The Air of the wise is the abstracted form of 
>an object (its concept, its DNA, its crystal lattice structure, 
>blueprint, etc.) the Fire of the Wise is the abstracted 
>energy that holds the object's form together (tendons and 
>ligaments, the rivets in a building, electronic interaction, 
>etc.) the Water of the wise is the medium (the land, the 
>womb, the clay, the metal), and the earth of the wise is 
>the stuff extracted from the medium used to form the 
>substance (the extraction is made as a result of the 
>interaction of the above three wills, forming a new object
>with a new will. eg: the baby, the tree, the mountain, the car).
>The definition of an object as earth, air, fire or water 
>depends on its use. No earthly object is any one of the 
>above but is made up of proportions of them.

15 years of study of various hermetic writings have left me ignorant of
this particular interpretation; perhaps you'd like to share with us all
your sources for it? a justification for it might be nice too.


josh
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Girl with a problem
Date: 9 Apr 92 08:12:10 GMT
Reply-To: Leo Smith <shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Organization: Gated to News by demon.co.uk

890780m@ace.acadiau.ca (DARRELL IAN MANTHORNE) writes


        I am posting about a friend of a friend. She was apparently
        playing with some Tarrot Cards alone in her room in residence
        and since then she has had a few problems. Such as flickering
        lights, curtins opening and closing by themselves, shot
        glasses flying across the room at her, her room being 10
        degrees cooler than the rest of the house (starting at the
        door), and one night she was awoken by something touching her
        and she had some wetness across her neck. Some of these
        incidences have been witnessed by other people. Anyone have
        any ideas about a solution before she has to go through exams
        with her "problems"?


Get drunk or get laid. That should relieve the psychic stress.

Tarot cards got nuffink ter do wiv it.
:-)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: joshua@coombs.anu.edu.au (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Sex Magick
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:45:54 GMT

misha@netlink.cts.com (Michael Glosson) writes:

>tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes:

>> What a disgusting, prudish, anti-Thelemic viewpoint!  [omitted]

>And Thelemic Sex Magick isn't the only Sex Magick game in town.  It is the
>most accessable.  The uses of Sexual energies (not necissarily the sexual
>act) in such rituals as Star Ruby, Star Sapphire, Regulie, The Gnostic
>Mass is about the most I'll ever go down that path, especially since
>my inclinations are no where as "Vanilla" as yours are. 
                     ^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^
                             |-near?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

josh
From: misha@netlink.cts.com (Michael Glosson)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Enochian Magick
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:49:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: netlink.4wuyiB2w164w
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

wrasman@cs.utk.edu ('Walker Of Change') writes:

> 
> Can anyone suggest references on this type of magic. I've only heard about it
> vaguely from people I know. I was wondering if there were any good books on t
> subject.
 
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
 
THE ENOCHIAN WORLD OF ALEISTER CROWLEY (Enochian Sex Magick) by
Lon DuQuette and Chris Hyatt.  New Falcon Press, 1991.
 
Love is the law, love under will.
 
m

--                    
INTERNET:  misha@netlink.cts.com (Michael Glosson)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!misha
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
From: shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Crowley not deliberately misleading
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:53:45 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <1992Apr02.225527.2285@microsoft.com> a-paulc@microsoft.com (Paul CLARK) writes:
>	But think for a moment- it's fairly outrageous even today to be
>saying what I just said in public- can you imagine how it would have been
>viewed in the twenties and thirties?? Crowley's claim to have sacrificed
>children is so outrageous as to be a bit absurd, but if he had said what
>he meant, talked about sexuality, his books would have been banned, as some
>of his explicit books were (Like Snowdrops, which was not only banned but
>every copy destroyed, save a few solitary proofs, from which the modern
>edition was published {Hi MPS!}. 

Here we find the place of pure schlock in art.  I have to believe that the
old man wrote _Snowdrops_ specifically to have written something so bad
and so burlesqued and twisted and parodying the prototype (in this case
bad victorian parlour porn) that it was funny.  Kind of like Plan_9_From_
Outer_Space (or maybe better, Attack_of_the_Killer_Tomatoes, which knew
it was a hack...?).  Unfortunately, I don't think he succeeded very well.

Shrug. Your mileage may vary...  Maybe there is some deep codified qabal-
istic message that I am missing in the book.  *That* might almost be 
funny.

But if I am going to read Crowley for entertainment, I'd rather read 
Aether 10 from Vision_and_the_Voice or the intro to Clouds_w/o_Water.