HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hanlon@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Casey Hanlon (SVER))
Subject: Iran Contra ie Walsh out to influence the Nov. vote
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 27 Jul 1992 09:24 EST  

So on the eve of the Republican convention special prosecutor Walsh
is going to indicte former president Reagan.  The timing smacks of
political dirty tricks, after all Walsh has only been investigating
this thing for 6 years.  

Casey Hanlon
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ))
Subject: Re: Come on, who was it bet me $50???
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:59:41 GMT

gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal) writes:

>Hmmm...  no, even
>unilateral action would be fudged to get UN support, like the Iraq
>thing was...

Funny, I guess I just imagined all those troops from several other
countries.


MD
-- 
--  Dr. Michael P. Deignan (deg.pend.)      /   "Its okay dear,
--  Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net     /     you can show me...
--    UUCP: ..!uunet!anomaly!kd1hz        /      I'm a Doctor..."
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: ho ding <hoding@waffle.sns.com>
Subject: re: Democrats becomign the GOP
Organization: Systems'n'Software, Fremont, CA  94539-6669
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 01:28:36 PDT

Is there any evidence suporting the idea that WAll Street donaited mooney to 
the Democrats?  Hearing about conservative buisness interests donating
money is strange.  Wall street took a 30 point (or more) tumbe the day 
after the convention.  It would seem to me that any C. Buisness interests 
would support Bush.  I don't see why they would support Clinton.
 
my two cents.
9K>ho>ding> || hoding@west.darkside.com || hoding@waffle.sns.com 

----
hoding@waffle.sns.com  (ho ding)
Systems'n'Software Free Public Access BBS --- (510)623-8652
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: dbushong@wang.com (Dave Bushong)
Subject: Posting JFK stuff here? Why?
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 02:19:55 GMT

Why do people post JFK stuff here?  I thought there was a different
place for that.  Don't get me wrong, it's interesting to me, but
one time I posted something into the wron variant of a 'C' newsgroup
and I got so much pipe up the a** for it, I was just a little surprised
that JFK stuff gets posted here.

Well?


-- 
==========================================================================
Dave Bushong, KZ1O@K1UGM.MA         +    No .sig, no tattoo, 
Wang Laboratories, Inc.             +        no bald spot, no nothin!!
Internet: dbushong@wang.com         +-------------------------------------
Project leader, OCR Products        + (reserved for future expansion)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: RUSH LIMBAUGH'S SECRET NON-AGENDA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 03:49:28 -0500

Monday July 20 1992, Jack Schmidling writes to All:

 JS>
 JS>             RUSH LIMBAUGH'S SECRET NON-AGENDA
 JS>
 JS>  In many ways, Rush Limbaugh represents a breath of fresh air

Wow...good to see bARF is back.  Things were getting a bit too stale without his
usual nonsense to keep us entertained.  Right up there with the Stollman
Chronicals.
From: ingria@BBN.COM
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: How many stairwells in the TSDB? (JFK)
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:29:42 GMT
Reply-To: ingria@BBN.COM

In article <schuck.712433662@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

   That makes Oswalds statement that he came up a different staircase
   [the one that only went up to the 2nd floor] and entered the lunchroom
   much more likely.

What's the source for these claims:

(1) that Oswald claimed to have gone up a special staircase as opposed
to just saying that he went up to the second floor lunchroom.

(2) that there was a staircase that just went up to the second floor.
The floor plans of the first and second floors of the TSBD in the
Warren Report show only two staircases: the front stairs and the back
stairs and no other set of stairs linking first and second floors.
If there was a third set of stairs, then either the Warren Commission
was actively lying or was deceived.

-30-
Bob
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles Blair)
Subject: Re: Hey! What about Watergate!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 19:16:25 GMT

   People might want to look at Hougan's SECRET AGENDA for
stuff related to Nixon-as-victim-of-CIA theories
From: bsou@cs.arizona.edu (Brandon S. Ou)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Masonic Designs in D.C. Street Layout!  See for yourself!
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:32:47 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <36511@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> traveler writes:

[stuff deleted]

>same ideas many of the "freethinking" Masons of the Enlightenment
>championed (which is what made them, like the early U.S>, such
>a threat to the old monarchical establishemetn).  So next time
>you hear Pat Robvertson telling you America is a Christian
>nation...you know he's wrong...it's a Masonic one...

Don't forget how the east window in the Washington monument is
bigger than the rest.  And all the symbols concealed in the
Great Seal.


Brandon
--
Brandon S. Ou               Computer Science    
University of Arizona       Tucson, Arizona
Internet:  bsou@caslon.cs.arizona.edu
" It's up to YOU... "  - Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison, "JFK" 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: tprodin@mtu.edu (TIMOTHY R. PRODIN)
Subject: Re: Iran Contra
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:31:04 GMT


Personally, I think that some clever manipulations to get out of military
service makes a canadite even more attractive as a leader.  Shows 
resourcefullness and  some ammount of intelligence to escape fighting an
unjust war.  I would do the same thing, if I had to.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every morning I enjoy a cup of coffee; sometimes so many cups my body develops
an internal hum and my friends have a hard time keeping me in sharp focus.
From: "jp krivas" <jp.krivas@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: u.s. constitution$-$@
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:04:31 EST
Reply-To: "jp krivas" <jp.krivas@canrem.com>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Canada Remote Systems


Lydnon Larouche has come to the conclusion that key portions of the U.S.
Constitution are wrong.  This apparently came about when Freemasons
influenced the translating of the Constitution from its original Latin
into its present Englishe form.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
indict Reagan/impeach Bush/audit Perot/exhume JFK/release Sirhan/reveal
Deep Throat/exorcise Nixon/pardon Manson/clone Kissinger/hang Pollard/
recall Iacocca/abolish the Fed/defreeze Lenin/excommunicate the Pope/
UUCP:  canrem!jp.krivas
Internet:  jp.krivas@canrem.com
CI$:   71150,1754
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:9371 alt.activism:13440 pa.general:246 phl.misc:196 talk.politics.misc:35815
From: techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,pa.general,phl.misc,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Congress and the balaced budget scam
Date: 23 Jul 92 00:34:19 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system


   On June 11th, 1992 280 members of the House of Representatives voted for 
an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requiring a balanced budget. Because an 
amendment must pass the House by a two-thirds (290) votes, the measure was 
declared defeated and the Senate was spared the chore of voting for or 
against it.
    "This whole process is a deceptive scam and a huge affront both to the 
American people and to the Constitution itself," says David Affleck, a local 
leader of the John Birch Society. "Our nation is plunging into horrendous 
debt and all they do in Congress is play games. Our leaders shouldn't be 
amending the Constitution, they should be balancing the budget."
    The Birch Society is quick to point out that Congress can balance the 
budget with a simple majority vote of both Houses of Congress. "They don't 
need 290 votes in the House to balance the budget. They need a simple 
majority of 218 in the House, 51 in the Senate, and the backing of the 
President. Many House members will now return to their districts and tell 
voters that they tried to stop the debt cycle by voting for the amendment 
when they refuse to take the easiest way to stop deficit spending."
    David Affleck says that the other side of this fradulent coin is that 
"the Constitution isn't at fault, the legislators are. Amending the 
Constitution to stop the deficits is like swatting a fly with a hammer. You 
won't get the fly and you'll ruin the house in the process."
     Our leaders have admitted that the deficit for the current fiscal year 
will exceed $400 Billion dolars. The rising interest bill on almost every 
man, woman and child in this nation more than $1,300 per year. This is no way 
to stop a recesion."
    "The main point here is that the 280 votes in favor of the balanced 
budget amendment, if they mean it, shows that there are enough votes in the 
House -- and I believe there are also  enough votes in the Senate -- to 
balance the budget without any need to amend the Constitution," claims 
Affleck. "When push comes to shove, however, we always find that that the 280 
who supported this unnecessary tactic shrinks down to far less than the 
simple majority of 218 needed to stop the deficits."
   "many of our leaders in the House and the Senate are playing games with 
our nation's future. It's time Americans realized  that a dangerous fraud is 
being perpetrated on us. It's time for Congress to balance the budget and 
begin paying off the debt."

------
techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon)
The Cellar BBS - (215) 654-9184
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: ho ding <hoding@waffle.sns.com>
Subject: iran contra
Organization: Systems'n'Software, Fremont, CA  94539-6669
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 02:04:29 PDT

Hanlon@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov writes something to the effec that...
 
"Why were teh sandinistas voted out of office?"
 
2 reasons... CIA and CIA.  The CIA ran it's war agains the sandinistas,
causing major economic problems, and the CIA DID tamper with the eletions.
Whether or not the tampering was a factor, we'll never know, but
S.America has always been the USA's personal sandbox, and we've always
messed around with it. 
 
thanx, l8.
9PR>ho>ding> || hoding@west.darkside.com || hoding@waffle.sns.com 

----
hoding@waffle.sns.com  (ho ding)
Systems'n'Software Free Public Access BBS --- (510)623-8652
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:9257 alt.activism:13205 talk.politics.misc:34906 pa.general:243 phl.misc:189
From: david@penndrls.upenn.edu (R. David Murray)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,pa.general,phl.misc
Subject: Re: Global warming
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:10:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy

mojo@polari.online.com writes:
>I'm not sure if upstate New York in the Adirondack Park is considered to
>be in New England. Anyway, 80% of the lakes in the Adirondack hills are
>dead, as they are located directly in the plume of acidic precipitation
>which wafts off the industrialized sprawl of New York and New Jersey.

I'm sorry, but an EPA study (which was promptly ignored and repudiated
by the EPA but is nevertheless good science from what people I know who
are qualified to know say) showed that acid and 'dead' was the natural
state of the lakes in question, and Man coming in and cutting down all
the trees and stocking the lakes was what made them 'live'.  Now that
the trees have grown back, why the lakes are turning acid again . . .
--
-- R. David Murray, david@penndrls.upenn.edu
         hardcore signature virus: "As a juror in a Trial by Jury, 
         you have the right, power and duty to acquit the defendant 
                 if you judge the law itself to be unjust."
From: bsou@cs.arizona.edu (Brandon S. Ou)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Posting JFK stuff here? Why?
Date: 23 Jul 92 05:28:09 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <brtl58.mrm@wang.com> dbushong@wang.com (Dave Bushong) writes:
>Why do people post JFK stuff here?  I thought there was a different
>place for that.  Don't get me wrong, it's interesting to me, but
>one time I posted something into the wron variant of a 'C' newsgroup
>and I got so much pipe up the a** for it, I was just a little surprised
>that JFK stuff gets posted here.
>
>Well?

Well, CONSPIRACY is a very suggestive term for one thing.  And for
me personally, I don't receive ...jfk, so I have to post it here.  :-)


Brandon
--
Brandon S. Ou               Computer Science    
University of Arizona       Tucson, Arizona
Internet:  bsou@caslon.cs.arizona.edu
" It's up to YOU... "  - Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison, "JFK" 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Come on, who was it bet me $50???
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:47:41 GMT

In article <10897@platypus.uofs.uofs.edu>, bill@prijat.cs.uofs.edu (Bill
Gunshannon) writes:
>In article <JMC.92Jul19170737@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
(John McCarthy) writes:
|>|> 
|>|> I offer to bet $50 even odds that the U.S. will take no military
|>|> action that results in the loss of more than 5 armed U.S. ground
|>|> soldiers or marines in combat.  I don't count a transport plane
|>being
|>|> shot down as such an action, e.g. a relief plane at Sarajevo
|>airport.
|>|> I also don't count pilots, since I air action doesn't count as an
|>|> invasion.  I therefore don't count attacks on bars or on military
|>|> advisers.  In order to avoid dubious cases I don't count countries
|>|> where U.S. troops are currently stationed.  Both Yugoslavia and
|>|> Cuba do count.
|>|> 
|>
|>Gee, it's too bad you excluded pilots.  The US Ambassador to the UN
|>was
|>sabre rattling this morning and mentioned that if IRAQ doesn't stop
|>holding
|>out on the UN inspections, massive air strikes are very likely.  he
|>said
|>these would likely be carried out by US and UK pilots. (There were
|>others,
|>but only US and UK were mentioned in this thread.)  Of course, if we
|>start
|>bombing again, there is always the chance that we'll send ground
|>troops in 
|>again to finish what we should have the last time.

Using an air strike to take out the heavy artillery would seem like a
good move. Problem is the likelyhood of subsequent terrorism. Without
the imbalance in forces the Serbs are likely to take a much more
reasonable line. The problem then is to stop the Croations from anexing
the parts of Bosnia they have taken.


Phill Hallam-Baker
From: Steve.Crocker@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Steve Crocker)
Subject: Re: Hey! What about Watergate!
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 22:18:55 GMT

I have seen it suggested more than once that McCord was a double agent
who fouled up security on the operatiojn in such a way as to virtually
assure the burglars would be caught in the act.

-Steve

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: judson@watnxt2.ucr.edu (Michael Judson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Perot-Bush conspiracy
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:58:20 GMT

Here's a totally off the wall conspiracy theory:  Perot was actually in
a conspiracy with Bush to help him win the election.
Yes, it is true that Bush and Perot hate each other, but is this actually
true?  And even if they do hate each other, that would be irrelevant if
you're trying to win an election.  Because, Bush did say that he would do
anything to win the election.
But here are the reasons why the conspiracy has some validity:
The two are from Texas.
Perot never announced his candidacy, even when experts said that he might
announce on his birthday.  And why was this so?  Because he never was going
to announce his candidacy.
He announced his "withdrawal" during the heigth of the Democratic 
Convention so as to take away some of the Democrats' limelight.
Since Perot was taking the "outsider" approach, this would take some votes
away from Clinton.
Perot had quite a bit of support from Texas and California, and so too did
Bush.  It would be quite apparent that either Bush or Perot would win
those key states.  And if Perot dropped out, then Bush would probably
get them.  And because Clinton would have virtually no chance with those
two states, he would have to focus his campaign elsewhere, like in the
South.  Obviously he did.  Since he is from the South, why would he need
to pick a Southern running mate?  This was done only to assure his
victory in the South, where he could potentially win 61% of the votes.  And
realize that he announced his withdrawal after the Democratic Party
selected Gore as the V.P., so that Clionton wouldn't be able to change
his strategy to try to get California and Texas, where he might now have
a chance.
Well, those are just a few ideas for this completely (or perhaps not so
completely) ridiculous theory.  This was not my theory, but just 
something I noticed does actually have some validity, regarding the above
facts.  Any comments?
From: Steve.Rose@f134.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Steve Rose)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Corporate buyout of the Democratic Party
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 12:04:06 -0500

Hello Jim!

 JB> Everything you have highlighted makes me more comfortable about my
 JB> decision as a lifetime Republican to vote for Clinton in November.

Juuuust watch those 'polls' start swinging the other way when Bush steps up his
threats to Stomp Saddam just before the CON-vention in Texas.

Perfect timing as usual, Georgie.
From: reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux)
Subject: Re: the crepes of wrath
Reply-To: reb@Ingres.COM (Phydeaux)
Organization: E 4th St Home For The Overeducated Underemployed - Chicago Div.
Date: 30 Jul 92 00:56:45 GMT

In article <072992105858dude@losers.hacktic.nl> dude@losers.hacktic.nl writes:
>Could someone please re-post the simpsons episode of 'the crepes of wrath' ?
...
>I know that this might not be totally appropriate for this newsgroup, but
>at my site, we don't get alt.tv.simpsons anymore....  

You are right, alt.conspiracy is not an acceptable substitute.  Buy a clue.

					reb

Newsgroups: talk.politics,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Spiro Agnew, Nixon & Scandals.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:55:59 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott):
>[JFK discussion]

Please do NOT crosspost JFK discussion to alt.conspiracy.  Thank you.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
   "Do Rush place weird subliminal backmasked messages in their songs to
 compel unwilling geeks to commit evil .sig atrocities?"  -- Dean Engelhardt
From: kraizman@bullwinkle.tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Money grubbing, scheming banks
Date: 22 Jul 1992 14:02:14 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

A certain nationwide bank, I won't mention names in
order to avoid legal complications, is making a fortune
off of homeowners. I got this story from a former employee
of the bank so I am reasonably sure that it is true.

The scam goes like this. Homeowners go in for refinancing.
The bank charges them a $250 dollar fee. At the end of a
few months and some more fees later, the bank finds something
legally wrong with the mortgage/property and turns down the
application. Or they find something wrong and then tell the 
homeowners that they are going to have to spend thousands of
dollars to fix the problem. The homeowner gets discouraged and 
drops the refinancing application. In either case, the bank 
keeps the fees and the homeowner gets the shaft.


Michael Kraizman

=--------=---------=---------=-----------=-----------=-------=
"Ever notice how you always find what you're looking for in
the last place you looked."
					--Anonymous
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: garys@bluemoon.rn.com (Gary Stollman)
Subject: Re: INVASION!!!
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 19:29:33 EDT

Steve.Rose@f134.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Steve Rose) writes:

>  GS> such...However, SOMEONE did forge those letters that I supposedly wrote
>  GS> from here, and other places as well...In a little while, I will be
>  GS> filing my lawsuit in federal court, and I WILL be voicing my experiences
>  GS> in a court of law...If you want to think I a nut, fine.
> 
> Does this now mean your girlfriend is NOT a clone?
> 
> 

*****
I am unsure what is taking place at this time...However, like I said, I am 
going to be taking steps to put the clones in the limelight again, so...

        Gary

 This is from
     garys@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have his (or her) own obnoxious signature yet
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,pa.general,phl.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Congress and the balaced budget scam
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:19:34 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
 


In article <w40BoB4w164w@cellar.org> techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) writes: 
  ( In reference to the recently defeated balanced budget amendment) 

>"the Constitution isn't at fault, the legislators are.

  Oh, Bush-it!   The *real* culprits are the voters.  They're the ones who
  reward legislators who "bring home the bacon" in the form of federal
  contracts, aid programs, keeping military bases open, etc, with 
  re-election.  They're also the ones who demand the the government "do
  something" about every problem that comes along.  If the Birchers,
  Mr. Affleck, or their mouthpiece here on the net Mr. Bacon think I'm
  wrong then they should try running for election somewhere on a platform
  of promising to *slash* federal spending programs going to your constituency.

>    "The main point here is that the 280 votes in favor of the balanced 
>budget amendment, if they mean it, shows that there are enough votes in the 
>House -- and I believe there are also  enough votes in the Senate -- to 
>balance the budget without any need to amend the Constitution," claims 
>Affleck.

   More ca-ca.   It's apples and oranges.   A vote for a balanced budget
   amendment is a vote for something abstract.   A vote for a cutting a 
   spending program is a vote for something quite real and concrete.  
   Only a moron would think these are comparable.  


---peter




Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Posting JFK stuff here? Why?
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:51:40 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to bsou@cs.arizona.edu (Brandon S. Ou):
>Yes, if there is some topic of CONSPIRACY involved with abortion.

Does the concept of "most appropriate" mean anything to you?  If you
were to follow your reasoning to its reasonable conclusion, ALL
articles on EVERY subject would be cross-posted to misc.misc!

>We get mostly more technical and academic related groups,
>I don't see why that would include alt.conspiracy though...

Some obvious jokes are better left unmade.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
   "Do Rush place weird subliminal backmasked messages in their songs to
 compel unwilling geeks to commit evil .sig atrocities?"  -- Dean Engelhardt
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy