HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Ask not what your country can do for you ...
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:00:28 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <-wln+#a.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Context: I have stated that John F. Kennedy was a prototype of the
>American fascist


Fascism in America existed long before Kennedy. Cultural fascism, that is.

It still does. "Family Values" taking priority over individuality is
a prime example.

Another example is Phil Ronzone's defense of businessmen's sartorial ethics.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: What crimes would Denovo be charged with?
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:44:57 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <181qh6INN17i@agate.berkeley.edu>, martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> Had Denovo been alive today, what would be the charges?
> 1. Breaking and entering private property
> 2. Possession of deadly weapons (an 18inch machete and a 6inch hunting knife)

What crime is involved?  As long as neither weapon was concealed,
it wasn't a violation of California law.

-- 
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 ba.politics:4949 ca.politics:7321 talk.politics.misc:43127
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:35:57 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

Just for the record Clayton, my opinion on this subject is that Rosebud
is/was a wacko, and she would have known, if her brain hadn't been
diseased, that threatening people--especially authorities--with heavy,
sharp blades will get you dead real quick. 

The People's Park "advocates" who celebrate the sunrise with beer and bud
are just sad, that's all, and should indeed not be afforded the attention
they seem to attract. But then, the liberal/middleroad/conservative media
love BerkeleyWacko stories--it sells, pure and simple--so I suppose we
just tolerate it and find something important to talk about...

...like Governor Wilson's attempt to destroy the executive-legislative 
decision making process in our state.
								   MPA
From: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:36:38 GMT
Reply-To: gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab

In article <11843@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> 
|> Only the "faggot" part matters to me.  And as long as you insist
|> on offending me and others like me with your parades, I will
|> insist on my right to not be around you.
|> 
|> 

Insist all you like.  Don't go to the parades.  Nobody invited you.

-- 
To fathom hell, or soar angelic, take a pinch of psychedelic.
				Dr. Osmond
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:35:54 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Sep1.150708.22648@queernet.org> rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
    >In article <1992Aug31.221606.20561@pbhya.PacBell.COM>
    >whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
    >>Let me know when you figure out a way to get all the crazies
    >>and drug dealers off the streets and keep 'em off--with or
    >>without weapons.
    >>
    >Why? I feel far safer in my neighborhood when the "crazies
    >and drug dealers" are on the streets than when the cops
    >are... -- ROGER B.A. KLORESE +1 415 ALL-ARFF


Ah, Roger, if you did not exist, we would have to invent you. But even
then, they'd accuse of malicious fiction. Sigh ...



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4763 alt.activism:15399 talk.politics.misc:41812
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Political Correctness (was Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective))
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:32:56 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In this post, Greg Parkinson takes my statements out of context by his
own definition.  Why?  Because he did not include all prior post on
this thread and all of our private correspondence.

Personally, I think his definition is stupid, but hey, see below,
that's what he says.

In article <1992Aug21.162452.13442@fig.citib.com> glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.194740.5488@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>|> In article <1992Aug18.152420.14853@fig.citib.com> glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:

>|> >In article <1992Aug15.221404.8652@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>|> >|> In article <ohcqfhc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>|> >|> >In article <1992Aug13.163538.10464@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>|> >|> >>2.  As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among straight males
>|> >|> >>is that the ugly ones are welcome to do whatever the heck they want,
>|> >|> >>but the pretty ones are such a waste.

>|> >|> >Sexist asshole.

>|> >|> I'm giving this a slightly wider dissemination because I think it's a
>|> >|> beautiful example of poltical correctness.

>|> >It's actually a beautiful example of a Usenet discussion, and of
>|> >taking something out of context.  

>|> You are lying.  I did  not take this out of context and I challenge
>|> you to prove otherwise.

>As I pointed out to you in E-mail, the fact that the first line 
>in your included section starts with "2." indicates that you
>left out *at least* the section that starts with "1."  

True, but point 1 was irrelevant.

>I also pointed out that almost all Usenet discussions 
>have some history - the thread itself, previous encounters
>of the participants, previous discussions.  To take one 
>statement and one response and pretend that it means 
>*anything* outside of its context shows both blistering 
>stupidity and the assumption that others are equally stupid.

In that case, isn't everyone guilty of taking quotes out of context?
If so then why do you bother to accuse me?

>|> >|> Look at it.  I state a fact that Dauber doesn't like.  He responded
>|> >|> with a personal attack.  I said something that attacks his view of the
>|> >|> world, therefore I am evil.

>|> >Maybe you *are* evil.

>|> Define evil.

>Wow.

Why 'wow'?  Dauber seems to define evil as anyone who points out facts
he doesn't like.  I certainly meet that definition.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4986 ca.politics:7360
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:37:28 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <p94pang@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
> In article <9vhn=dh.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> 
> >Come come, Michael. She was SMALLER than the cop. And while she may have been
> >armed, she was armed with an inferior weapon. You know, the copy should
> >have just "disarmed" her. Why, it's so easy, next time we'll send Jeff!
> 
> I will ask you again... What would they have done with this woman in
> England where they do not carry guns?  They would have disarmed her.
> 
> FWA

I asked a friend here who served for three years with the Luten
Special Constabulary.  First of all, he indicated that while
the rule in England is to meet force with equivalent force,
and therefore a knife doesn't justify use of a gun, but also,
machetes are very rare in England.

He went on to assert that the rule might be fuzzy in a case like
this, "for example a 6'4" cop and a 5'3" woman [the cop] might not be
justified using a gun."
-- 
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.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: My Purpose In Getting NAMBLA Shunned
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:28:12 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <92238.47866.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
> In <p15onh0@fido.asd.sgi.com>, Jeff Dauber writes:
> 
> >In article <11846@optilink.UUCP> manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
# ##Question: If these statements do in fact represent the beliefs of the
# ##people, both hetero- and homosexual alike, how can anyone who opposes
# ##child molestation find a way to support NAMBLA - when they refuse to
# ##moderate their position to at least exclude prepubescent children?
# 
# 
# #Answer:  I can support someone's right to exist without supporting their
# #goals.  I think that the OCA has every right to exist.  I think that the
# #KKK has every right to exist.  I think that if any member of any of the
# #above organizations breaks the law they should be prosecuted.  However,
# #until they break the law, they can take part in any group advocating anything
# #that they would like.
# 
# Bingo.  I think someone *finally* has successfully distinguished between
# approving of a group and acknowledging their right to exist.  NAMBLA makes me
# sick, but unless they are actually *caught* molesting a young boy, then there
# is no punishable crime and there is no right to deny NAMBLA's First Amendment
# rights.  Now, if NAMBLA leaders were caught in a group meeting with a little
# boy, then we have a different story.  That's the only way I can see any way we
# should deny NAMBLA's right to exist as a legitimate group.
# 
# Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com

Let me repeat -- no one has suggested that NAMBLA's First Amendment
rights should be removed.  But if the gay community is concerned
about stereotypes of homosexuals as child molesters, it would be
a very wise decision to shun NAMBLA from its activities.  Instead,
we get a lot of nonsense about their right to exist, because the
gay community doesn't want to shun NAMBLA.
-- 
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: ba.politics
From: weaver@kuttner.sfc.sony.com (Eric Weaver)
Subject: Re: "Ecofascists" In Action
Organization: SONY Advanced Video Technology Center San Jose, CA USA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:56:11 GMT


I would be quite happy to sign a petition to recall Willie Brown, but
I'm afraid I don't live in his district...
-- 
Eric Weaver  Sony AVTC  677 River Oaks Pkwy, MS 35  SJ CA 95134  408 944-4904
-- 
Eric Weaver  Sony AVTC  677 River Oaks Pkwy, MS 35  SJ CA 95134  408 944-4904
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: QueerNet
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 06:10:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.182216.11327@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.150708.22648@queernet.org>, rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
>> I feel far safer in my neighborhood when the "crazies and drug dealers"
>> are on the streets than when the cops are...
>
>You must live in a much wilder neighborhood than I do.

I live in the Haight... I assume you live somewhere near San Remote?
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 19:02:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake curtis@berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin): 

>Christ, this thread.  Such a lot of babbling I've never seen.  Look:
>
>1) There _are_ situations in which you're being attacked with a machete
>   and have no option but to shoot.
>

	True.

>2) There _are_ situations in which you're being attacked with a machete
>   and can disarm the attacker without risking your own life.
>
	True.

>3) We have _no way of knowing_ which sort of situation it was.  The
>   only people who know are the police, and they say it's the former;
>   but they'd say that anyway.
>
	Almost true. We CAN extrapolate from the available evidence.

>So clamp it, folks.  You don't know what you're talking about,
>and you probably never will.  If you have to cling to your half-
>baked opinions, keep your mouths shut and leave your foolishness
>a matter of ambiguity.
>
	Gee, if people did that there wouldn't be ANY discussions here,
would there?

	You seem to be laboring under the impression that the cops have the
absolute right to handle a situation in whatever manner they choose without
public comment since "we don't know what happened." Get your head out of the
sand.

	FACT: The woman was known to be armed with a machete.

	FACT: There was no one in the house except her at the time the
police entered the house - and this WAS known to the police, who had
evacuated the family via a window.

	FACT: NO attempt was made to negotiate or to "talk" the woman out of
the house. Nor was any attempt made to use tear gas or other non-lethal
methods to resolve the issue.

	FACT: The officer who shot her had been discharged from the Berkeley
PD for excessive use of force and therefore should NEVER have been permitted
to be a part of a law enforcement agency. Since it was proven when he was
discharged (check the papers at the time if you wish confirmation) that he
had lied to department investigators concerning his justification for the
use of force, there is no reason to believe that he is telling the truth
this time.

	FACT: Methods exist by which an armed mentally distrubed  individual
(which she was known to be) can be disarmed w/o lethal force. They were not
tried.

	Had any risk existed that she might have harmed innocent people, it
would be one thing. None did. She was known to be alone in the house, and
there was no reason for the police to storm the building rather than take
the time to handle the situation in a less violent manner.

	Sorry you don't like the facts, but they exist. Frankly, I don't
like them either!

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan) 
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4985 ca.politics:7359
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:23:47 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <p94l0k8@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
> In article <5vhnyzg.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> >In article <t7fnqb+.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
> >    >I repeat - ANYONE who would shoot down an UNARMED 100 lb
> >    >mentally ill woman needs therapy, not firearms!
> >
> >Nice, easy, archair statement. Made by somebody who has never ever seen a
> >violent ward in an insane asylum.
> 
> Easy for you to say... My lover works at SF general in psychiatric
> emergency (where they get their fair share of psychotic people).  They
> have yet to have to kill someone to subdue them.

I know people who work at Napa State Hospital.  One of them spent
several months recovering from injuries received while attempting
to subdue a patient.

> This argument is frustrating to me, because people seem perfectly willing
> to defend the use of deadly force by the police.  Tell me, what would

I certainly don't feel that the police should be using deadly force
against an unarmed person, unless the escalation of force has already
been tried (tear gas, baton, stun gun, Taser), but against someone
armed with a machete?  No question.  There's no reason for the 
policeman to risk his life or limbs or even serious injury just
so that a liberal can engage in her little fantasies.

> the police have done in England, where the cops do not use guns?  They

The cops do use guns in England.  Not quite as readily as here, but
more often than you realize.  I work with a guy who spent three
years as an English cop -- and he carried a pistol on duty.  He
tells me that more English policemen are reguarly armed (though
discreetly) than the public over there realizes.

> would have subdued the woman. 

Very likely.  Then again, English policemen get killed on duty
over there, in spite of a generally peaceful population -- unlike
California.

> As long as people keep defending the use of deadly force by the police,
> the longer they will keep using it.
> 
> FWA

As long as liberals consider what happened to Denovo "cold-blooded
murder" as they screeched in the streets of Berkeley, I will continue
to defend it.  I refuse to make a cop put himself in risk of death
or permanent disablement just so that liberals can make political
statements with machetes in someone else's home.

-- 
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.
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:07:31 GMT
Organization: Memes-R-Us
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

bickford@Apple.COM (Pete Bickford) writes:

>Or, what might be more interesting, get yourself trained as a policeman,
>and try to calmly take down the next machete wielding psycho in the manner
>you so arrogantly suggest from the comfort of your computer chair.

Having dealt with both psychotic people and sharpened waepons, I can assure
you that a gun is not a prerequisite for controlling the situation ... and
your average machete is a piss-poor weapon, rarely capable of holding any
sort of serious edge, and lacking a point capable of penetrating cloth w/o
a lot of weight behind it. In fact, it is a given in unarmed fighting that
if your opponent has a weapon, you have an edge, since you aren't in any
danger of getting over-confident. I wonder if perhaps this officer became
overconfident, with all his weaponry, and forgot the basics.

If the cop in question was a normal officer, among other things he had - or
should have been wearing - steel-toed patrol shoes, which support your feet
when carrying a load and are great for kicking, as you can imagine. One kick
and she'd have a broken wrist or elbow and the machete would be over there.
( Note ; this _can_ be done lying one one's back in a bathtub. )

>Get a clue, dude.

I grew up next door and across the street from people whom are now police
and fire officers, and have gone diving with a few plainclothes police ...
whom participate in far more dangerous tasks regularly, against far more
dangerous people, without needing to kill. That's one of their jobs, you
see, is to _stop_ the killing ... not perpetuate it.

-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4973 ca.politics:7344
From: rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:01:57 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <paev054@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>In article <394@vega.iii.com> rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins) writes:
>>In article <12052@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>>PR24.  It's plastic, not metal.
>>It's Kevlar, not plastic.
>
>
>Regardless of the material, it is a dangerous weapon.
>
So is a piece of wood, if used in a dangerous way, take a toothpick for example,
you might not be able to hit someone with it, but if you stick it in their eye,
or shove it in their ear.... but that is not its intended use is it?

Neither is the intended use of a machete that of one on a person.

It is not so much a matter of what the weapon was, but one of *how* it was
used and on *who* ( whom ?)  :-)


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Russell Hockins             |  This civilization is recyclable             |
| Innovative Interfaces, Inc. |                ( well most of it anyway )    |
|                           packet : ka6foy @ ki6yk.#nocal.ca.na.usa         |
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,talk.bizarre
From: chris@ponder.csci.unt.edu (chris gleaves)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:22:01 GMT

In article <yvjndkn.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:

  [other stuff deleted for bandwidth]

>	You are perfectly correct in saying it would be stupid to permit
>someone to take your gun and shoot you with it - which is an excellent
>reason NOT to have a gun in the first place. You say you have a gun because

  I have always loved this type of reasoning, since it fails to take into
account the reality of the situation.  I can just see someone saying, 
"Pardon me sir, but you must have crawled into the wrong window since
this is my house."  At which point the intruder will probably do one of two
things: 

          1) jump back out the window and run his ass off.

          2) whip out a gun/knife and wound/kill you.

 Would you really take the chance that the intruder chooses #2?
 (Oh, and think about your wife and kids if you have any...I do) 

>	I have no doubt that you would have shot that woman without
>hesitation, exactly as Chew did.  I also have no doubt that a more rational,
>less violent solution may have resulted in the woman receiving therapy
>instead of a funeral.
>
  I think that you should read the news article concerning the situation.  
SHE took the violent initiative and attempted to hack a policeman with a
machete.  

>	I'm sure you would prefer her to have the funeral - not all of us
>agree with that perspective.
>

  I would not prefer to to see any person die, but the reality of the 
situation is that SHE broke into the house, SHE was repeatedly told to
drop the weapons she was carrying (the machete and a hunting knife --
she did drop the knife), SHE attempted to kill another person and was
killed while attacking that person.  



chris
chris@unt.edu