HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Racism invented by who?
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:06:29 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <3546@unisql.UUCP>, wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.145527.2582@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
# # racism, which whites invented.
# 
# 	Nilges, you pathetic buffoon, are you aware of the way
# foriegners have historically been treated in Japan?  Are you aware
# that the Apache conducted a succesful genocidal war against the
# Tonkgawa around the time of the European invasion?  To claim that
# whatever race you yourself happen to revile the most invented bigotry
# is (guess what!) *racist* *delusion*.
# 
# 	If people like you spent as much time working on the problems of
# this world as they do inventing self-comfortaing fantasies the Earth would 
# be a better place.

Hey, don't get so upset.  I was assigned a textbook a few semesters 
back that made roughly the same claim -- that whites invented racism.
Remember that Andrew Young, our U.N. Ambassador under Jimmy Carter
claimed that the British invented racism?

Don't get upset with Ed Nilges -- he's just spouting the liberal
line.  I get it at Sonoma State University pretty regularly.

Nilges' other claim -- that racism can't be racism unless done
by whites -- was also in that pathetic textbook.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16652 alt.censorship:7252
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Date: 29 Aug 92 07:57:33 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Aug28.232550.15547@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.221117.10458@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>Because it was
>>insulting to the two men, whatever their race, and not specially funny,
>>I ignored it.  I'm a bit older than many of the TV brains on the net,
>>which regard knowledge of bad comedy routines and Gilligan's Island as
>>on par with knowledge of the history of their own country, and as such I
>>regard Trivia as, well, Trivial.  Not remembering the forgettable
>>routine, I did see it, initially, as insulting to Irishmen, since
>>"Shean" could have been the original poster's corruption of "Shaheen."
>
>I'd be curious where and when you saw it (and how much older than the
>TV brains on the net you are), given that the routine was from the turn
>of the century, before World War I.

See what I mean, Ed? You have *got* to do the hard work it takes
to stay on top of the facts and to know when to *hold* your tongue.
Instead, you wag it entirely too much as you try to imitate an
intellectual, and you end up flat on your face. You have *got* to
stop being an intellectual lazeabout.

>
>>Then we were
>>informed that Shean was Jewish, and of course this shows anyone who
>>finds the routine amusing to be an anti-Semite.  Jews were "funny" at
>>roughly the same time Irish and Germans were "funny".
>
>Is a Woody Allen fan an anti-Semite?  A Spike Lee fan a racist?
>
>Who is it appropriate to laugh at, Ed?  Besides you, that is.

This is why you must change your ways, Ed. You are making a clown
of yourself.


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.  - Charles Perez
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.motorcycles
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: ++ADVICE ON POTENTIAL LAWSUIT(on a motorcycle)++
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 01:06:20 GMT

jcn@rice.edu (Jeff C. Nichols) writes:

>There is a local lawyer who gives tips on one of 
>the news stations and according to him, that if a seller of a car cites 
>in the advertisement "Like new" or "no damage" etc. the car better be 
>like new or with no damage or the buyer can sue for 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 the 
>amount of the car (or any purchase for that matter).

"Like new" is a relative term. My concept of "like new" may differ from
yours. 

"No damage", on the other hand, is a measurable term.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: double jeopardy (facist LA police)
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:13:54 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <11960@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# Well, at least the courts have recognized it as a revenue measure.
# Keep in mind that the various controlled substance tax measures were
# the model for the machine gun registration law.  In U.S. v. Rock
# Island Armory, 773 F. Supp. 117 (1991), the machine gun registration
# law was found to ONLY be valid as part of collecting the machine
# gun tax.  When Congress stopped production of new privately owned
# machine guns in 1986, the authority of the federal government to
# prohibit new manufacture of machine guns was destroyed, because it
# was only in support of the revenue aspects that the machine gun
# law was valid.
# 
# That guy in Idaho who was indicted for possession of a shotgun
# 1/4" too short should probably have gone to trial.  The same
# law applied to him, and he could have used Rock Island Armory
# to beat the charge.
# -- 
# Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!

Correction.  The guy in Idaho could NOT have used U.S. v. Rock
Island Armory -- the government didn't stop registration of newly
manufactured short-barrelled shotguns or rifles -- only machine
guns.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:26:13 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <BtpEHC.LBI@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>As quoted from <1992Aug27.183148.27573@Princeton.EDU> by egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges):
>
>
>There was no need to marginalize Sherheryar, since his argument was self-
>marginalized by its being comprised solely of untruths and half truths.  Of
>course the presences of HALF truths trumps you....

Sherheryar presented no arguments, merely his reasoned perception of a
bias in the developed world towards Israel and away from the Arabs.  His
perception is argued cogently by Noam Chomsky and Edward Said.  Before
Sherheryar was able to present arguments, he was nearly reduced to
dignified silence by Ted Frank's wild charges of anti-Semitism.  This
happens all too often to marginal views on the net.  And, as I've said,
even Israel itself is getting away from Frank's ridiculous
intransigeance, which perceives ANY view not of the Zionist right to be
anti-Semitism.  

Anyway, got some more Bad C Code for us?  I need a laff.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Question for Charles Perez and Ted Frank
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:27:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.145731.5839@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug29.180929.27116@Princeton.EDU>
>>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>>Anyway, guys, why is it okay for jackanapes like Henry Schaffer and
>>>Chris "Knucklehead" Morton to parade their inability to write C code but
>>>not okay for yours truly to  lack quite the depth of knowledge of racist
>>>trivia on tap in Ted Frank?

And then proceeds to "test" us on racist trivia.  What kind of doublethink
is this, Ed?  Because I knew Shean was Jewish and not Irish, I'm a racist,
but because you knew about Samuel Johnson's anti-black statements, you're
a Politically Correct Maverick Dude.  Why is some racist trivia better than
others?  

Still waiting for you to define a hate speech law that would exclude 
Amos 'n' Andy, but somehow avoid censoring the "high quality" (Ed's
words) work of the Marx Brothers of making fun of Italian dialect, stern
Germans, and village idiots, all at least as marginalized as the French
you express such nobel concern for.


>When it became clear that Ted was wrong in charging Sherheryar with
>anti-Semitism, he owed Sherheryar an apology.  

I am wrong neither in charging you nor Sherheryar with anti-Semitic
statements.  Furthermore, your efforts to redefine the word
anti-Semitic is obviously a ploy to further disempower Jews.  Racist.

>>racist?  The fact that those comedians were of specific races?  The
>>knowledge of those races?  Is a similar knowledge of, say, turn-of-
>>the-century politicians equally racist?
>
>Thanks for this word game: it is a display of your historical illiteracy.
>It is also racist because much vaudeville at the turn of the century 
>poked fun at immigrants.  You don't need to memorize its content 
>to know this; would you force African-American Studies students to 
>watch Amos 'n Andy?

So the fact that I read a book about vaudeville at the age of 14, and still
remember it several years later makes me a racist?  A bit elitist of you,
no?  Tell me Ed, what cultural studies should I send into the memory hole
so that I dasn't dare offend your sensibilities?
-- 
           .........................................................
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
         here i sit looking for a warming smile in a house of cold wit
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Graffiti Ordinance Ex Post Facto
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:59:53 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Aug26.180038.12562@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

>In article <1992Aug26.043228.18452@panix.com> lkk@panix.com
>(Larry Kolodney) writes:

>>
>>	[concerning an ordinance which allows the city to remove
>>	graffitti from a building if the owner refuses]

>>I think this is more analogous to zoning cases where the state
>>destroys a building which was built in violation of a zoning
>>ordinance, after the owner refuses to modify to bring the structure
>>within the ordinance.

>Except that the building was built _before_ the zoning law was passed.

Doesn't really matter (from a legal point of view).  So long as the
regulation isn't a constitutional taking (by destroying the value of
the property) it will withstand judicial scrutiny.  

If you don't like my analogy, think of it more like a regulation which
requires the installation of smoke detectors.


-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:34:00 GMT

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>But it's perfectly ok with you, isn't it, if the Supreme Court makes
>that decision (as long as they agree with you.)  And it is astonishing
>that the statement above is in the same post as the preceding extract.
>If you have a blanket rule protecting all speech then your calling Doug
>anything you choose is protected.

Of course it's protected, there's no law preventing him from calling
his boss anything he wants to.  Nor should there be.  He will, however,
be on his own if doing so harms his working relationship with his boss,
even up to the point that his boss feels it necessary to fire him.

Can you not distinguish the difference, Ed?  The freedom to say anything
you wish to does not preclude people from finding you to be an idiot, an
asshole, hating you, ignoring you, etc.  I'm free to call my boss a
dickhead, but I choose not to because I value both my job and my working
relationship (he wouldn't fire me, but it could prove unbearable over
time).  I'm free to call my wife names and treat her like an idiot, but
she'd then be justified in divorcing me.  

Freedom of speech hardly is cause for others to enjoy what you have to
say.  It does prevent the government from punishing you (but not from
others punishing you in their own ways) for what you say.

Of course, none of this will make any sense to Ed, since he sees the
world as a conspricay of white men systematically oppressing minorities
for the purpose of self-gratification and monopolistic business entities
profits.  And that most people on the net have some deep-rooted
pshycological problem which only Ed can determine from miles away by
reading what we type.
 
Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,rec.travel,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.british
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: US dual citizenship info -- updated version available via FTP
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 10:47:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.224920.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>>
>> I think you mean that US citizens are required to file income tax
>> forms -- not necessarily pay income tax on all income.
>
>Another poster stated that U.S. citizens living abroad are only taxed
>on income made past the first $70,000.  As for Suadi Arabia, I don't
>know.  Do they get tax free status?  And does that have anything to do
>with Desert Storm?  I know that during the Vietnam Conflict, U.S.
>service personnel serving there were exempt from all income tax.  Or
>maybe this tax exempt status only applies to the first $70,000.
>
>Does this exemption apply to U.S. military personnel living in, say,
>Europe?  === Al Sparks


	The IRS published a useful and mildly entertaining leaflet for
	those whose lives were affected by Desert Shield/Storm.  You
	were able to claim losses as a result of military action or
	temporarily being held by the Iraqis.  I don't have a copy
	available and the person I know who does is on his hols.  I
	might be able to give more detail next week.

	Taxation by your native country depends a lot on residence.
	If you are not normally resident in your home country for
	tax purposes, they can't tax you.

	U.S. Forces in Europe and their civilian support and their
	dependants are considered resident in the U.S. for taxation
	purposes (Our postal address in Berlin was actually in New York.).
	In Vietnam, you were probably in a combat zone where even the
	IRS may concede that there are higher priorities than W-2's and
	1040 forms.

	Alec.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:42:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.141845.17608@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.234736.26872@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug22.220211.25630@Princeton.EDU>
>>
>>No, there is a key difference between them.  Contracts are voluntary.
>
>The employment contract is a good example of a contract which runs the
>gamut from voluntary (John Reed of Citicorp volunteers to contract his
>services as CEO for a princely sum) to involuntary (with five children
>to support, the farm worker is forced to sell his labor at sub-mininum
>wages.)

It's still voluntary, unless the farmer is physically preventing him
from working for someone else.

>  And in a true democracy, laws represent the fairest and most
>voluntary summation possible of a collective will.

When did you last see a true democracy?  And would you accept one, if
the majority will included things you believe are evil and immoral
(e.g. slavery)?

>>  If there is a law, I have no choice but to obey it or
>>risk loss of property or liberty to government coercion.
>
>You have in reality at least three choices.  Obey it, change it or
>disobey it in a spirit of civil disobedience.  

I don't have the power to change a law.  I can _lobby_ for its change,
with no guarantee as to what will happen.  If I disobey it, I will be
punished, no matter that my disobedience is prompted by "a spirit of
civil disobedience" or an evil sociopathic disregard.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: uiuc.civil-liberty,misc.legal
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: [misc.legal] Maryland Law Brief
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:58:36 GMT

gsbg9079@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (G. Scott Braley) writes:

>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>>and two more will take its place.  Let the law enforcement authorities
>>ask arrested dealers not just who their suppliers are, but who their
>>customers are.  Then let undercover officers pose as pushers, and 

I didn't write this; I just reposted it. Matt Rosenblat, matt@amsaa.brl.mil,
is the author.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:38:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.175848.26952@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@dante.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>>Local government is one form of community; and an Outward Bound patrol
>>in the wilderness is a form of government.  The statement that the one
>>is "voluntary" and the other is not "voluntary" is bogus; it is in point
>>of fact necessary for even the most discontented member of an Outward
>>Bound patrol to stick with the patrol in the wilderness, given the fact
>>that such a member cannot survive on his own.
>[...]
>
>You make a good point; I now agree they are about the same.
>
>Because of the isolated conditions of the patrol, continued
>participation was not voluntary. In this, the Outward Bound patrol was
>more like a government than like most nongovernmental groups.

Sounds like you DEFINE government as coercion, which is a denial, is it
not, of the possibility of democracy, as well as a question-begger.

>
>So now the question is how far would the patrol have gone to enforce
>its speech restrictions? (Maybe I should re-read _Lord of the Flies_.)
>
And your definition of government as its coercive (rather than its
eleemosynary, say, or teaching) functions makes you focus unduly on this
area, much in the way that cop shows on TV cause viewers to both
overrate the frequency of crime and confuse law enforcement with law in
general.  I propose to you that a law is much more than the question of
what punishment shall be meted out to violators, that a law has in some
significant ways failed when it has violators.  The members of the
patrol who were most resistant to Keith's charges of subtle racism went
along enthusiastically with the speech restrictions, so the question of
enforcement never arose.  Less than one percent of Outward Bound's
students are so resistant as to fail to go along with the patrol's
decisions, and the "punishment" (if you must have a "punishment") meted
out to these offenders is just removal from the patrol.

Your selection of William Goldman's book is interesting for it is a
uniquely dark and pessimistic view of what happens to a group of English
schoolboys in the absence of supervision, a view that is rather
conservative and that is denied on a daily basis by successful
self-management of those Outward Bound patrols that consist of
adolescents.  If Goldman is right, then we need an Iron Heel to keep a
lid on things.  I'm a little more optimistic about human nature.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: help on citizenship law
From: woonk@dhvx20.csudh.edu
Date: 1 Sep 92 09:58:02 PST
Organization: CSU, DOMINGUEZ HILLS

Can anyone tell me if there is a law in the United Nations saying that
if you are born in that country, you are given automatic citizenship in
that country? Thanks In Advance.

Gavin
woonk@dhvx20.csudh.edu or woonk@filly.calstate.edu

Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.activism,va.general,misc.education,k12.chat.teacher
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Virginia School Milk Case
Organization: Echo Beach
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 04:08:35 GMT

Here is a press release from the Attorney General of Virginia.
 
 Virginia Reaches Settlement With Pet Inc. in Milk Contract Case
 Contact: Deborah Love-Bryant of the Office of the Attorney General,
          804-786-2435

   RICHMOND, Aug. 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Attorney General Mary Sue
Terry today announced that her office has reached a settlement with
Pet Inc. for $300,000 for its alleged participation in a conspiracy
to rig milk contracts in 35 school systems in Central and Tidewater
Virginia.
   This brings to over $1.6 million in damages the Attorney General
has collected for those school districts.
   Terry, commenting on the settlement, said: "I am pleased that we
were able to reach this settlement with Pet without having to file a
lawsuit.  Pet has acted responsibly in agreeing to compensate the 35
school systems for the damages they suffered as a result of the
bid-rigging scheme."
   In August 1991, Terry, on behalf of 35 school districts in
Tidewater and Central Virginia, filed a civil suit against:
  * Land-O-Sun Dairies Inc. t/a Pet Dairy
   * Embassy Dairy Inc.
   * Maola Milk & Ice Cream Co. Inc.
   * Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative
       Association Inc.
   * The Southland Corp.
   The suit sought damages against those companies for allegedly
conspiring to fix prices for school milk contracts since at least as
early as 1983 and charged that the companies violated federal and
state law by:
   * divvying up school districts among themselves and agreeing among
     themselves who would submit the lowest bid;
   * deciding among themselves what the lowest bid price would be;
     and,
   * submitting noncompetitive bids in districts assigned other
     companies in order to create the illusion of competition.
   Terry's office previously reached settlement with The Southland
Corp., Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association
Inc., t/a Marva Maid Dairy, and Maola Milk & Ice Cream Co.  The
settlements with those companies totaled $1,369,021 in damages and
$217,500 in attorneys' fees and costs.
   Pet Inc. sold its dairy division in December 1985 to the company
that became Land-O-Sun Dairies Inc.  The commonwealth's claims
against Land-O-Sun for activities after the sale remain pending in
bankruptcy proceedings in Florida.
 -30-

--
   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
Newsgroups: misc.legal