HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gmccammo@nyx.cs.du.edu (Gary "Tog" McCammon)
Subject: Re: Conspiracy to Destroy the Earth?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: oxygen, military, contract, Satan, signed in blood, soul, discount
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 20:46:14 GMT

In article <BxB80p.2Eq@willamette.edu> pdudey@willamette.edu (Peter Dudey) writes:
>
>3.  Remember what happened to H. P. Lovecraft.  Hey, what did happen to him,
>anyway?  I sure don't remember.  THEY'RE STEALING MY MIND!  AIYEEEEEE!

...what you don't realize is that Lovecraft was right. There ARE gods, only
not the loving kind the wimp New-Agers push... these beings are the sort
who'll drop ANVILS on your f*cking HEAD for NO REASON AT ALL.  Oh, sure,
sounds paranoid... but I'm a bit sore from the neck up these days and
I sure as hell ain't no agnostic anymore.

--
Tog = gmccammo@nyx.cs.du.edu     Realspace:trapped on Long Island...
"Where, oh where, are you tonight? Why did you leave me alone?
I searched the world over, and thought I'd found true love...
You met another and *PBBLT* you was gone!"
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,osu.opinion,alt.politics.clinton
From: welch@sacral.cis.ohio-state.edu (Arun Welch)
Subject: Re: Bilderberger Victory
Originator: welch@sacral.cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: OSU-LAIR
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:07:31 GMT


It's all an Illuminati plot anyway...

...arun (fnord)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arun Welch
Lisp Systems Programmer, Lab for AI Research, Ohio State University
welch@cis.ohio-state.edu

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
From: mortense@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Chuck motherfukin' Manson)
Subject: The church universal and triumphant
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:18:09 GMT


	I can't seem to find any information on the Church Universal and 
Triumphant.  I believe they are located in Montana but I've also heard it was 
Wyoming. I have also been told that the churches founder, Sarah Clara Prophet
is now in prison.  Essentially I know only of the churches existence, if anyone has any further information or knowledge on this subject please post about it
or e-mail me......thanks

	mortense@ucsu.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.news-media
From: kasprj@operators.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak)
Subject: Re: France, Japan & 1.7 TONS of Plutonium
Reply-To: kasprj@rpi.edu
Organization: The Big Wedge 
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:59:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.023149.1195@cs.wayne.edu>, solomon@rocdec.roc.wayne.edu (Orson Scott) writes:
|> On FRIDAY 11/6/92 the country of France tried to quietly ship 1.7
|> metric tons of Plutonium on a n Ocean Freighter to the small coutry of
|> Japan. Greenpeace called attention to this shipment because of the risks
|> Plutonium can cause if inhaled.
 
 Yeah, I accidentally inhaled 1.7 metric tons of plutonium once. 
Ruined my whole day.

|> Any way you look at it, Japan is about to get a TON of refined
|> plutonium. WHY?
 
 Those sneaky little yellow bastards are going to kill us all. I say
we stop them before they pull anything sneaky. Can't trust those 
slant-eyed guys to just use it for reactor fuel, nope.
------------------------------------------------------------------
     __  Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
 ___/  | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *| Sam Adams,Spaten# Life is too short #Hudson Lager,Beck's 
     \_| Pilsener Urquell#to drink cheap beer#Pete's Wicked Ale
      ====  e-mail: kasprj@rpi.edu or kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles Blair)
Subject: Re: Slick Willie and conspiracies
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:15:11 GMT

   Any chance the special prosecutor law will be renewed?
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: paul@grafted.UUCP (james caldwell)
Subject: access
Organization: GRAFTED, Central Indiana's Usenet BBS 317-881-4369
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 23:06:20 CST

Whomever owns\controls the machine controls the access.

--
james caldwell
The Grafted Branch BBS
317-881-4369
internet: paul@grafted.UUCP
uucp: ..!uunet!grafted.UUCP!paul
 = = Grafted Branch BBS (317) 889-6997 2 Gig on-line = =
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:12098 alt.news-media:1609 alt.save.the.earth:1346
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:18:53 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <lfgk78INNias@boogie.cs.utexas.edu> swisher@cs.utexas.edu (Janet M. Swisher) writes:
>In article <4NOV199213021375@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT
>I CHASE) writes:
>>I certainly concede that AT&T is within its rights to restrict access to 
>>its hardware.  The Constitution does not guarantee you the right to use
>>other people's property to excersize your right to free speech.
>
>>Somehow, we have becomed accustomed as a society not to hold AT&T responsible
>>for messages sent over its phone lines.  Why should we hold it responsible
>>for messages send over its computer links?  Conversely, should we allow
>>AT&T that excuse?  Might it not be better to extend free speech protections
>>to all people who otherwise would have access to computer networks, absolving
>>the owners of the hardware from responsibility for the message?  
>
>People who send messages over AT&Ts' phone lines are paying customers
>using a common carrier.  People who send messages over AT&T's
>"computer links" are (in this context) AT&T employees.  AT&T has the
>right to set policy for employee behavior in the use of its
>facilities. (It's merely a coincidence that AT&T acts as a common
>carrier in other contexts.)  Now, you and I probably realize that
>Usenet and Internet guidelines all state that posted opinions are to
>be assumed to belong to the poster alone, and not to the poster's
>machine's sponsor.  But AT&T may have decided that it doesn't like to
>have the image of somebody who would employ people with certain
>opinions.  That's their right (however misguided we think that
>decision is).

Actually, this may be dicey. What the policy quoted here earlier
said was that AT&T wanted to make sure that all of its posters
did not sully the professional reputation of the company. Now
given the number of people who post in various newsgroups (some of
whom come to mind) from AT&T, I am just a tad skeptical that John
is the only one posting things that might be considered unprofessional,
and have a sense that his troubles come from complaints about his
particular political views. If people were to complain about _all_
the not-quite-professional postings coming out of AT&T, and the
company were to slap the same sanctions on everyone complained
about, that would be a different matter. It would also probably
cut total net traffic measurably...

paul
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W)
Subject: Gritz nno anti-Semite
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 07:27:00 GMT

I am a Mormon.  I have long noticed that if a Mormon holds up a bank in the
area, the headline reads MORMON HOLDS UP BANK.  If the man who holds up the
bank is Methodist, does anyone mention he is a Methodist?  No, of course not. 
Why do you suppose that is?  Maybe the reporter is an anti-Mormon?  Maybe the
newspaper is an anti-Mormon?  Maybe the reporter and his paper are not
prejudiced.  Maybe they just think Mormons are interesting to their readers and
Methodists aren't.

Is it possible that Gritz is no anti-Semite but merely finds Jews interesting
or thinks his listeners might find them interesting?

I know I've always been fascinated with Jews.  They seem to be special in a lot
of ways.  I don't think anyone would claim they are "just like everyone else." 
Does this curiosity make me an anti-Semite?  I don't think so.  As a Mormon I
think I AM a Jew.  I've never met anti-Semitic Mormon.  That would be like an
anti-Semitic Jew.

Because Bo Gritz is a practicing Mormon, I think it is very unlikely he is 
anti-Semitic.  I've never met an anti-Semitic Mormon. 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: hypes@boi.hp.com (Gary Hypes)
Subject: Re: Bo Gritz
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:34:01 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Since Bo is no longer an election issue, this may be moot, but...

C'mon, folks... John R. is just making the point that he hasn't seen any
anti-semitism on the part of Mormons he's known, and that anti-semitism
is contrary to the doctrines of the church.

Like John, I'm a practicing Mormon, and I haven't encountered any
observable cases of anti-semitism.  Blatant racism and sexism, yes, but
no more or less than what I see in society at large.  In short, the
makeup of the church is probably a representative cross-section of
(politically and socially conservative) Americans, for better and worse.

I can't speak authoritatively about Gritz; what little I know about him
comes from his POW excursions and his involvement in negotiating an end
to an FBI shootout in northern Idaho a couple of months back. (I don't
hold much truck with the skinheads & other Aryan loonies up in that
area, but in this particular case in really looks like the FBI went out
of their way to provoke an incident that resulted in at least 2 innocent
parties getting killed). Gritz did an impressive job of getting the suspect(s) 
to surrender and negotiate an end to a volatile and deadly confrontation.

I suspect the truth about Gritz lies somewhere in the middle.  No doubt
about it, politically you would have to place Gritz somewhere to the
right of Herod Antipas.  On the other hand, I haven't seen anything to
indicate that he's the raving looney his detractors make him out to be.
I personally find his honesty and credibility to be the biggest issue; a
lot of money disappeard into the jungles of SE Asia with Bo, and he kept
coming back empty-handed....

- Gary Hypes -
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
From: Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:11:41 GMT

I'll chip in with a short note. I also access Usenet through a bbs which
does provide access to all newsgroups, including those which are
obviously "offensive" in the usual sense. To be able to post from here,
I had to sign a statement on hard paper basically stating that I would
commit no crimes and would not "abuse network resources". The latter
means things like those for which DiNardo lost his access: repetition
of very large posts in several newsgroups under different headers, etc,
things that cause other news nodes unacceptable problems with resources,
ie, bandwidth, storage, ie, MONEY. Perhaps ATT cut DiNardo off for his
views. But had he posted like that from this bbs he would have been cut
for his obvious misuse of the Net.

In short: it's not what you post, but how you post it. Now if someone
would just straighten out that "Serdar Argic" fellow on soc.(*)...

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

--
   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:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.ind
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 07:10:10 GMT

John M. Owen writes:
>I should add that should this posting be transmitted by the equipment 
>of AT&T, they are providing *ME* a venue I didn't pay for, and I'm not
>even an employee! Why should they deny DiNardo a venue? Do they own him?

If DiNardo gets an account somewhere (trivial to do) and posts his
stuff, will AT&T install a filter to make sure their machines don't
carry his posts?  I doubt it.  How are they deny him a venue?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Blur Analysis -- Not Alvarez
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:28:47 GMT

Thumbing through vol 2 of the HSCA report, I came across
another blur analysis done independently of Alvarez.

Alvarez measured the difference in blurring in the Zapruder film in
order to plot the gunshots -- he assumed if Zapruder jiggled the
camera it may have been in response to noise.

Dr William Hartmann also did an independent analysis of the Zapruder
films.

Hartmann has a Ph D. in astronomy and also worked as a photo analyst
for the Us Air Force [ on it's UFO project -- no laughing ]

Hartmann only committed himself to two definite shots:

1) Blur starting at frame 310 peaking at 319, with his conclusion that
   a shot took place at 310 when reaction time is figured in.

2) A blur episode lasting from 190 to 200, with the conclusion being
   that there was a definite shot at or around frame 190.


Hartmann completely ruled out a shot at 210, which is when the Warren
Commission claimed the 'magic bullet` wounded JFK and Connally.

It is interesting to speculate from Hartmanns analysis that Zapruder
heard these two shots because they were closest to Zapruder, ie both
from the Stockade fence area. [ My speculation -- not Hartmann's]

-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3749 alt.conspiracy:11956 alt.activism:18464 alt.society.civil-liberty:6477
From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)
Subject: Thank You to All the Kind and Supportive Friends Out There
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:44:21 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Keywords: Thank you to all the kind and supportive friends out there


I want to express my deep gratitude to all the kind people who,
through e-mail and posted commentary, have been supporting the work
that I have been pursuing. If I haven't replied to your posts or
your e-mail yet, it's because the deluge has been heavy as well as
warm and heartening. I want to reply to everyone, though it may take
a couple of weeks.

It looks like everything is going to work out alright.
One gracious person has given me an account with Internet access. 
I want to repay him and all of you too by being especially respectful
of your trust, which forms the foundation of your support. I know
that your trust derives, in turn, from our shared desire for the truth.
And so, truth, and not me, deserves all the attention. 

This incident has caused the timeless issue of freedom of speech to
surface from the depths of public consciousness. Whenever it surfaces,
it's profound connections to our individual and collective well-being
makes it deserving of all the contemplative discussion that we can
give to it.

In addition to the new account that has been so kindly donated to me,
I am waiting for processing to be completed on my application for
a non-AT&T account which will provide me with Usenet access.

I will always be grateful for the goodness that has radiated from
so many good people.

    John DiNardo


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
From: gfv@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (gregory.f.valvo)
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:13:20 GMT

From article <1df1b1INN2h5@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, by ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea):
> 
> No, but private corps don't have to pay for your or mine use of said 
> method. The only way out I see is something like a NATIONAL toll free
> number to call and be connected to the Internet for free (via taxpayers
> money).

NO WAY!! I don't think I could come up with a bigger waste of the taxpayers
money (well, I could, but this is pretty bad). If you want Internet access
I suggest you do one of the following:

     1) Find an employer willing to sponser it and live by their rules.

                        or

     2) Pay for it yourself.

Greg

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3783 alt.conspiracy:12078 alt.activism:18553 alt.society.civil-liberty:6509
From: bigbro@netlink.cts.com (Kenneth Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.ind
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:36:19 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Hmm your mention of posting anything(well so long as its legal) reminded 
me of a question I had for anyone on what excatly can I not say.  Are the 
Alien and Sedation acts still in effect.  Can I foment a rebellion 
against the U.S. by posting, and encouraging people to?  just what is and 
is not legal?

--                    
INTERNET:  bigbro@netlink.cts.com (Kenneth Sullivan)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!bigbro
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: ccasm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: Re: PART 21 - Pacifica Radio Investigates JFK Assassination
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:03:51 GMT

In article <1dl3uhINNoob@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
> 
>         The following transcript was made from a tape recording 
>         of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station
>                WBAI-FM (99.5)
>                505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.
>                New York, NY 10018       (212) 279-0707
> 
Why is there never a date published with these articles!!

> In fact, they used motorcycle officers, who were to flank Kennedy's
> car, who were given orders by the Secret Service not to proceed
> past the rear bumper. That left him hanging out there, unprotected.

If they were flanking JFK even a shot from the Grassy Knoll would not have been
avoided. They needed to be flanking the driver.
No matter where they were no shots from above would have been avoided.

> Dallas police Captain Fritz had requested of the Secret Service
> that he be allowed to ride a car or two back from the President
> with some of his sharpshooters and to watch the windows and watch
> for problems on the rooftops. He was told: No, you can ride at
> the rear of the motorcade. So, in disgust, he just went on to the
> trademart.
> 
Who in the SS had the right to do this. Fritz should have taken precautions
anyway, perhaps even more so, rather than opt out.

> They were drinking Everclear.

Excuse my ignorance but what is this?


The trail of decisions surrounding the (lack of) security is a significant one.
But the most important lapse was not having someone on the REAR of JFKs car.
There were the usual large handles on each side of the rear of the car, so why
weren't they used? Yes I know this would not have stopped the Grassy knoll
shots either. But whoever stopped this protection facilitated implicating LHO.
Anyone know who had the authority to do this?

Big Al...

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3794 alt.conspiracy:12106 alt.activism:18594 alt.society.civil-liberty:6515 alt.individualism:5983 alt.censorship:8746 talk.politics.misc:59471 misc.headlines:6996 soc.culture.usa:8427
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:43:51 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <wb9omc.721326610@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu> wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes:
>Once more into the fray, but *briefly* :
>gfv@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (gregory.f.valvo) writes:

>>Since when is free access to a computer with considerable online storage and
>>networking capabilities for the purpose of expressing personal opinions
>>one of the BASIC RIGHTS of a corporation's employees??? I look at access
>>to these news groups as a perk. If AT&T were to discontinue access it
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>OK, even if you assume this to be 100% accurate, I still don't see anything
>in the US constitution or Bill of Rights that says you have a right to
>free speech UNLESS YOUR EMPLOYER SAYS OTHERWISE.

That's because the Bill of Rights doesn't give you a "right to free
speech."  It says: CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW...

(And before we get any nit-pickers in here, the 14th amendment extends
this to the states.)

It contains no restrictions on what corporations or individuals can do.

>If any corporation or entity does NOT want its employees posting certain
>types of information, they need to be crystal clear about it so that there
>is NO more confusion about it than is absolutely necessary.  IMHO, the
>easiest way to do this would simply be to say "NO personal postings"
>and leave it at that.

I agree with this, about it being the easiest way.  But not about it
being the only legal way.  Corporations should have explicit,
straightforward policies written in English, not legalese.  It prevents
a lot of confusion and problems later on.

>I would NOT be in favor of this, mind you.  Again, IMHO, as long as that
>employee does not

>a) fail to accomplish primary goals set forth as condition of employment
>	due to time spent posting
>b) cause undue strain to the companies facilities that prevents REAL
>	work from getting done

Yes, and as long as they include the disclaimer.

>...there should be no problems.  All of this IMHO, of course.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3750 alt.conspiracy:11957 alt.activism:18466 alt.society.civil-liberty:6478 alt.individualism:5951 alt.censorship:8648 talk.politics.misc:58716 misc.headlines:6950 soc.culture.usa:8322
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Date: 7 Nov 92 04:58:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1dfidhINNdbd
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Does this newgroup have any purpose other than this thread?

Just thought I'd ask....
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3756 alt.conspiracy:11982 alt.activism:18481 alt.society.civil-liberty:6483 alt.individualism:5957 alt.censorship:8662 talk.politics.misc:58788 misc.headlines:6956 soc.culture.usa:8336