HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ludwig@cm.deakin.oz.au (Ludwig Omachen)
Newsgroups: alt.surfing
Subject: Weekend Surf Summary for Bell's
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:11:18 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computing & Mathematics, Deakin University, Australia

G'day all,
	   The surf here in the Bell's area has been pretty good for
the last three day's (Friday-Sunday), with good straight
lines from head to double overhead, depending on the break,
tide etc.
This morning (Monday), swell has dropped to waist/chest high.

The bad memories of our non-existent summer are fading fast :-).

Wind hasn't been ideal, pretty clean in the mornings but onshore's
chopping things up later in the day's, but pretty good
condition's none the less.

Paul Whiting came down for a surf on saturday arvo, thing's had
chopped up a little by then, but plenty of reasonable waves around
head high, plus a little, were had by all.

Had a funny thing happen on my last wave of the day, took off on a nice
wave a little over head high, just right to finish of the session,
when my younger brother, George dropped in (I guess he figured that
blood being thicker than water, I wouldn't mind :-) ).
I yelled out a few suitable expletive's, which seemed to shock him
enough that he fell off, the only trouble was that I was in the middle
of my bottom turn, and his board came straight down the face, running
over the the top of mine with an almighty bang. (Needless to say, 
a few more choice word's were uttered by myself).
I straightened out to avoid getting tangled in his leggie, then went
back to my rudely interrupted bottom turn. Still surfing the wave,
I had a quick glance down to see what sort of damage had occured, and
just caught a glimse of a dark area on top of my board, I thought,
F...., he's put a bloody big hole in the deck, but a second longer
look showed it wasn't a hole in the deck, it was one of his FINS
laying on the deck of my board !.

One of his fins had snapped clean off, and just stayed there, laying
flat on the deck, while I kept on surfing !
It wasn't embedded in the board or anything like that, later inspection
showed no damage at all to my board !.

I picked it up, and flicked off the wave.
By now George was already paddling back out, oblivious to the fact
that his thruster had now become an asymetric fin position twin fin.
I yelled out, Hey, George, I think you've forgotten something, waving
his fin in the air.
It took him a while to realize what I was on about, but he eventually
flipped his board over and got the message.
As I was going in anyhow, we exchanged boards, on his solemn vow that
he would not drop in on anybody while using my board :-), and I caught
some whitewater in. Didn't try surfing it with only two fin's, but as
Paul pointed out when I got back to the beach, I should have just
come in quietly with his fin, and watched his attempt's of surfing
with only two fin's :-). 
It would have been justice done for dropping in :-), but alas, my mind
was not devious or quick enough to think of it.

As it was his ouside fin that snapped off, I guess the bottom turn's
would still be close to normal ?, but the cutback's would have been
interesting to watch :-).

Keep Surfing,
Lud.
From: jlinder@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU (Darrow Linder)
Subject: Re: Surfboard info.
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 06 Apr 92 17:56:29 -0700.
             <1992Apr6.175629.20195@src.dec.com>
Newsgroups: alt.surfing
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:47:47 GMT


repl: bad addresses:
	srcguard@src.dec.com THE PUNISHER -- junk after local@domain (THE)
>



>		Greetings and Salutations dudes and dudettes,

>			I just wanted to know, what type of board is good for m
e:

>		Height: ?
>		Brand:  ?
>		Type of Wax: Bubble Gum or Sex?

>		I weigh 150lbs. and I'm 6' feet tall.

>
>
>		Headed down southern Cal. for a swell that's on the way(HEH HEH
!)


>
>								THE PUNISHER


9'6" is good if you like a longboard.  Personally, a 6'0" (or a couple of
inches less) if you are experienced.  Ol' Souherm California hasn't been
very good the past...month.  Not sure how worth your while it will be to come
down here.....

-Darrow
Newsgroups: alt.surfing
From: mattw@picasso.cssc-syd.tansu.oz.au (Matthew Watson)
Subject: Re: Surfboard info.
Organization: Telecom Australia
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 23:55:46 GMT

g9024557@cc.uow.edu.au (nobody) writes:

>jlinder@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU (Darrow Linder) writes:


>>9'6" is good if you like a longboard.  Personally, a 6'0" (or a couple of
>>inches less) if you are experienced.  Ol' Souherm California hasn't been
>>very good the past...month.  Not sure how worth your while it will be to come
>>down here.....

>>-Darrow

>Is that the typical board length (6'0" or less) for small waves in Southern 
>California ? In Wollongong and I imagine most of NSW, typically small 
>punchy wave territory, the 
>shortest boards that are normally used are about 6'2". (I hope Nigel and
>the NSW crew agree with me!). I bought a new 6'3"
>and certainly wouldn't want anything shorter - it goes best in 
>small waves as it is. 

>What about it - what board size is typical in other locations ?

>Jim
>Wollongong
>NSW
As I said, I use a 8' mal but most people round here(Sydney AUS) use
typically 6'2" or longer boards.
Cheers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     -  Matthew Watson -  	   | MHSnet: mattw@cssc-syd.tansu.oz.au
     Australian and Overseas	   |
  Telecommunications Corporation   | Snail : 9th Floor, 320 Pitt Street
         Network Services	   |        Sydney, Australia 2000.
  Customised Software Solutions    |  or 115 Mitchell Rd Alexandria 2015.
From: ludwig@cm.deakin.oz.au (Ludwig Omachen)
Newsgroups: alt.surfing
Subject: Re:Surfing Pipe
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:07:21 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computing & Mathematics, Deakin University, Australia

G'Day all,

In article <1992Mar31.222141.206@news.Hawaii.Edu> peter@ahi.pbrc.hawaii.edu (Peter Ruben) writes:
>In article <34817@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, x9999bsv@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU writes:

>> 
>> Can anyone tell me what it is like to ride the pipeline in Hawaii?
>> 
>It's either too big or too small or too crowded. It's too steep and too shallow.

>It's a place of extremes.
>If you live on the north shore and can wait for that occasional morning before
>the crowd gets there and the wind picks up and the swell gets huge, then...
>It's THE place to surf.
>
>p.s. I'll _never_ surf Pipeline.
>-- 
>Peter Ruben	
>peter@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu


I agree with Peter, "It's too steep and too shallow" and would also add,
everything happens pretty fast, for me anyhow :-).

Iv'e only surfed it once, at around head high, which obviously is nowhere
near a true reflection of the waves real character, but that was enough to
convince me that at any sort of size, it's strictly a wave for Hell-men
or the foolhardy.

All the guy's (and girl's ?, do any girl's surf there ?)
that  surf Pipe at a decent size, have my admiration, they must have
ball's as big as soccer ball's.

My only session there was cut short, when after catching about half a 
dozen waves, I was just starting to entertain the thought,
"this isn't too bad", I got up too high on the face, got sucked over
with the lip, and dived headfirst on to the bottom of my board, which
had somehow beaten me to the bottom, and was laying flat on the water.
A few seconds of blackness, a lot of stars, and a very sore head and
neck convinced me to call it quit's for the day.

As a momento of the occassion, the board received a nice deep impression of
the top of my head, my son Sean, was not impressed, as it was his new
board I was riding, but then again, what are son's for :-).

Cheer's all, keep surfing,
Lud.
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:47:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.051443.3843@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>But if you take a more inclusive view of what counts as a libertarian,
>then there are plenty of libertarian Republicans.  Governor William Weld of
>Massachusetts is very libertarian, as are Pierre Du Pont (former Deleware
>governor and presidential candidate), and Congressman Tom Campbell.

Well, Campbell may end up being my opponent in the U.S. Senate and
I don't happen to think he's all that libertarian.  While he is
reasonably good on most fiscal issues he's done his share of lcoal
pork-barreling too.  On social issues he's even worse.  He is
actively anti-RKBA and although he has made noises in the past about
reforming drug policy he backed off of that very quickly to return
to the more typical drug war stance.

Any other contributions to my Campbell hooror file are welcomed
:-)

/June
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:2349 talk.politics.guns:11406 talk.politics.misc:17457
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot for President
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:47:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In <DAVIDB.92Apr6104232@inmet.inmet> davidb@inmet.inmet (David Barton) writes:
>In <1992Mar27.000545.12764@craycos.com> jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) writes:

>   OK, so you're the militia (I'm assuming that you're male and
>   between 18 and 45 years of age, of course).  How do you reconcile
>   this with the following from Article I, Section 8 of the original
>   Constitution?

[text deleted]

>   Are you under the control of Congress?

>Oh, for Pete's sake.  Of course I am, as is every other male that fits
>that description: it's called the draft.  Individual citizen's

Are not.  It's been superceded by the 13th amendment to the Constitution.

"Neither slavery NOR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
(emphasis added)

>militias may be called forth as described above (to the extent that
>they exist): the process is called "nationalization", and has not
>occured for quite some time (since we now have a standing army).
>(Note: The "nationalization" of the National Guard is not a part of
>this process, but is an internal transfer of authority).  The Congress
>has provided for the arming and disciplining of civilian shooters in
>the form of the Division (Department?) of Civilian Marksmanship, which
>provides surplus weapons to civilians at reduced rates (reduced less
>now than formerly) to those who meet a minimum level of marksmanship.
>All of these activities come under this clause of the Constitution.

>Next time think, just a bit, before you post.

>					Dave Barton
>					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com

-- 
David M. Nieporent              |ALEast 92: 1.Baltimore 2.Boston 3.Toronto
niepornt@phoenix.princeton.edu  |4. Detroit 5.Milwaukee 6.NY 8.Cleveland
"Baseball stathead, and card-carrying member of the ACLU.  And proud of it."
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:46:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.084808.10698@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker) writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.085611.8063@eskimo.celestial.com> Corner.Core.Cafe writes:
>>
>>     The Libertarian Party is America's third largest and fastest growing
>>political party.
>
>Is it really the fastest growing?  Is it growing at all?  By what measure:
>votes, money raised, TV and newspaper coverage, or what?  Please post the
>relevant statistics or retract this claim.

One statistic that I can provide is that the dues-paying membership
in California has about doubled in the last year.  Registration has
not significantly increased but we really don't care about our
registration since all it affects is who can vote in the primary and
our primaries are almost always uncontested.  With the Green Party
making a lot of noise about how they are #3 because of their
registration, we may have to place more emphasis on registration
than we have in the past, but we care a lot more about votes and
our '90 vote tallies were up significantly over '88.  In many area
candidates received double the previous high percentage in those
contests in the past.

>Personally, I think the Libertarian Party is a joke.  If they were serious
>about getting anything done, they would (1) work within the Republican
>Party, and (2) give up their extremist rhetoric.  Some medium amount of
>money (say a million dollars) would yield far more publicity if it were used
>to back a candidate in the Republican primaries than it would if it were
>used to back a third-party candidate in the general election; the
>Libertarians could either run their own candidate or support one of the
>usual ones (say, a Du Pont or a Weld in '96).  Same goes for other offices
>besides the Presidency.  As someone once said, the Republican Party is
>a big tent, so another sideshow or a few more clowns wouldn't hurt.

I submit that a libertarian has virtually no chance of getting past
the primary (if that far) running in either major party unless
there is an unassailable incumbent running for reelection on the
other side.  Just look how the Democrats have treated Larry Agran.
At least this way we can campaign all the way to November.  And just
how many libertarians do you know who've been elected as
Republicans?

/June
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
From: wayne john warf <wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Drug Legalization. Was: College Was: Perot
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 03:25:59 -0500

In article <1992Apr8.004925.2924@math.ucla.edu> oliver@oak.math.ucla.edu (Mike Oliver) writes:
>In article <92098.181724IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Nicholas C. Hester) writes:
>
>	"The hottest places in hell are  
>	 reserved for those who, in times
>	 of great crisis, maintain their
>	 neutrality"  -Dante           
>
>Can you supply a reference for this quotation?  It certainly does not appear
>to be from the _Inferno_ of _The_Divine_Comedy_.  There I believe the lowest
>circle of hell was reserved for the Sowers of Religious Discord, or perhaps
>it was for the Traitors to Their Lord (such as Judas).  These may not have
>been the *hottest* places; the only actual fire I remember was for the
>heretics in the City of Dis.  I could have some things mixed up here, but
>I know that the Indecisive or whatever they were called were in the *highest*
>circle of hell (though it actually sounded worse to me than the second
>circle, which was for those driven by their passions).
>
Those who followed neither right nor wrong were in the vestibule of
Hell. They were displeasing to both God and His enemies. The deeper
regions of Hell refused them lest the guilty derive some comfort
from their presence. 

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
-- 
 *  WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu**I speak for me,OK?**sic semper tyrannis    *
 *   NRA LIFE* *NRA Certified Instructor* *Penna. R&PA* *Ind. SR&PA   *
 * Department of Decision & Information Systems, Indiana University   *
 * Bloomington, IN 47405 USA* *Pennsylvania CCW Lic.*Indiana CCW Lic. *
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Perot for President
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:05:04 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.032249.13205@count0.uucp>,
cgb@count0.uucp  (Chuck Bennett) writes:
>> >On "60 Minutes" he stated he was in favor of gun control.
>
>When I saw him on the Donahue show he was asked about gun control.
> His reply was (words to the effect)
>
>I'm an old Texan, we had all had guns, the difference is we didn't shoot each
>other.
>
>"I" took it to mean that he was not for gun control,  but I suppose that the
>answer is slippery enough for each person to hear what they wanted.
>
>I like to find out the answer myself, since I could not vote for someone
>who supports gun control.   I know it's a one issue thing, but to ME it's a
>biggie.

I believet hat the most specific things he has said on this subject
are:

1) The Brady bill doesn't go far enough

2) the remarks about hous to house searches for "guns and drugs" in
minority neighborhoods

/June
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
From: baker@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Andrew Baker)
Subject: Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 05:14:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.154631.7425@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>I submit that a libertarian has virtually no chance of getting past
>the primary (if that far) running in either major party unless
>there is an unassailable incumbent running for reelection on the
>other side.  Just look how the Democrats have treated Larry Agran.
>At least this way we can campaign all the way to November.  And just
>how many libertarians do you know who've been elected as
>Republicans?

Depends what you mean by a libertarian.  If you mean someone who tows
the extremist Libertarian Party line, then this person has little chance
of winning or of being noticed regardless of what he does.  Even in this
case, however, the Republican route offers benefits: a massive advertising
campaign in New Hampshire *might* yield results, after which the person
would have to be taken seriously; of course, if he didn't disguise his
views, his campaign would probably implode shortly thereafter.

But if you take a more inclusive view of what counts as a libertarian,
then there are plenty of libertarian Republicans.  Governor William Weld of
Massachusetts is very libertarian, as are Pierre Du Pont (former Deleware
governor and presidential candidate), and Congressman Tom Campbell.



Newsgroups: su.events,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
From: harris@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joe Harris)
Subject: "The Morality of Capitalism," a talk by Dr. John Ridpath.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 06:40:28 GMT

                             The Ayn Rand Society of 


                          Stanford University presents:



                                      The 

                                    MORALITY

                                       of

                                   CAPITALISM

                                   



                                   A talk by:


                               DR. JOHN RIDPATH

                Professor of Economics & Intellectual History
                           York University, Toronto


                         WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 7:30 PM

                             History Corner, Rm 2

                             Stanford University


    Free Admission for Stanford Faculty/Students--$10 Suggested Donation for
                               General Public

             For Information: Call Jon Marek (415) 497-3794

   Special Thanks to the ASSU Speakers Bureau & the Ayn Rand Institute
                            for their assistance.


Xref: sparky alt.individualism:2278 sci.econ:3549
From: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Lecture:  Refutation of Environmentalism
Date: 8 Apr 1992 19:10:30 GMT
Organization: lbl
Distribution: austin
Reply-To: b_nbca@icarus.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.154

It is such a relief to know that infinitely expanding production regardless
of consequences or benefits and pre-industrial/stone-age 'green' villages are
our only options.  Life is so much more difficult when you have to
deal with anything more complicated.

Bruce Nordman
b_nordman@lbl.gov
Newsgroups: alt.individualism,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc
From: davidb@inmet.inmet (David Barton)
Subject: Re: Perot for President
Organization: Intermetrics, Inc.
	<cline.701518675@walnut.cs.scarolina.edu>
	<1992Mar25.230242.1054@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
	<1992Mar27.000545.12764@craycos.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:42:41 GMT

In article <1992Mar27.000545.12764@craycos.com> jrbd@craycos.com
(James Davies) writes:

   OK, so you're the militia (I'm assuming that you're male and
   between 18 and 45 years of age, of course).  How do you reconcile
   this with the following from Article I, Section 8 of the original
   Constitution?

      Sect. 8. The Congress shall have power

      {several paragraphs omitted}

      To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of
      the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.;

      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
      militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed
      in the service of the United States, reserving to the States
      respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority
      of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed
      by Congress;

   Are you under the control of Congress?

Oh, for Pete's sake.  Of course I am, as is every other male that fits
that description: it's called the draft.  Individual citizen's
militias may be called forth as described above (to the extent that
they exist): the process is called "nationalization", and has not
occured for quite some time (since we now have a standing army).
(Note: The "nationalization" of the National Guard is not a part of
this process, but is an internal transfer of authority).  The Congress
has provided for the arming and disciplining of civilian shooters in
the form of the Division (Department?) of Civilian Marksmanship, which
provides surplus weapons to civilians at reduced rates (reduced less
now than formerly) to those who meet a minimum level of marksmanship.
All of these activities come under this clause of the Constitution.

Next time think, just a bit, before you post.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Xref: sparky alt.individualism:2279 alt.society.civil-liberty:3245