HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:54:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.193958.8128@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.181515.2653@guinness.idbsu.edu>, betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec29.032633.25402@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>|>
>|> >I'd rather Ted Kennedy die a slow agonizing death of liver disease
>|> >[from all that boozing] than let him have my liver when I'm dead.
>|> 
>|> yep.  i agree.
>
>Both of you disgust me.  
>
>Even though I recognize Ted Kennedy for the slime that he is (a murderer,
>no less), I would not wish death upon him.

If Ted Kennedy actually is a murderer, then he deserves the death penalty
in my opinion.  So, I would wish death on him in that case.

>How rightious you must be.

Doesn't bother me in the least.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Judge and be prepared to be judged  -- Ayn Rand
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:29:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.174740.18045@cbfsb.cb.att.com> osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.155304.16757@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>>  The state of North Carolina has taken a very sensible approach 
>>to this - Donor status is put on the Driver's License.  When you 
>> ...
>
>	This is fine Henry, as far as it goes, but what about the question
>	of the default case when the person in question has no "findable"
>	license?  If the default is this "implied consent" crap, then we are
> ...

  This is one of the things I like about the NC approach - even if
the driver's license isn't found, the info is available (I assume - but
haven't checked) via police radio through the normal check-the-license
routine.  I expect that in the majority of accidental deaths leading
to questions - that they are in traffic accidents and police are on
the scene very early.

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: porges@beretta.camb.inmet.com (Don Porges)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Intermetrics Inc.
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 01:08:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.205128.11386@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>I think at the very least you've got to admit this depends on the
>probability.  I've signed my driver's license card as an organ donor;
>if I were to find that there was a 30% chance one of my organs would
>save the life of a mass murderer, I'd change that status, and pretty
>darn quick.  Is that wrong?  When you consider the net benefits and
>losses, it saves lives.
>

Well, if that were really the case, I guess it would be different.  I
don't see the world as having that high a concentration of people whose
deaths should be celebrated.
-- 
					-- Don Porges
					porges@inmet.camb.inmet.com
					..uunet!inmet!porges
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 1 Jan 93 20:47:39 GMT
Organization: Western Washington University

porges@beretta.camb.inmet.com (Don Porges) writes:
>mass murderers; all I've seen here is people wishing death on Sarah 
>Brady and Ted Kennedy, whose relevant crimes against humanity consist 
>of disagreeing with gun-rights activists on whether or not national 
>gun control and/or waiting periods would decrease the murder rate.)

	Senator Snuff also killed Mary Jo Kopeckne, however I'm sure
his fan club would have been just as large if he hadn't.

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: hunter@quake.sylmar.ca.us (James Collins)
Subject: This organ donating thread
Organization: Quake Public Access, Sylmar CA
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 18:56:08 GMT

This organ donating thread reminds me a lot of some of the Larry Niven 
N-Space universe books.  Especially  The Long Arm of Gil <something, I 
don't remember the last part>.  Basically the universe is set up such 
that pretty sophisticated organ transplants are possible.  With this 
possibility, the public votes up new laws every year, with the penalty 
being the loss of your organs.  I believe in one of Nivens short stories, 
it has an ending where a drunk driver gets chopped up for the organ 
banks...  Well, I suppose you really have to read them to understand..



---------------------------------------------------------------------
James Collins                        | Tips to live by from Rodney King
hunter@quake.sylmar.ca.us            | and Reginald Denny...
james.collins%bbs@quake.sylmar.ca.us | STAY... IN... THE... CAR...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Pro-choicers must condone infanticide
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:07:17 GMT

In <sfBIDYy00Uh_02YUhM@andrew.cmu.edu> ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Loomis) writes:

[Lots of realistic talk about infanticide deleted.]

>When "pro-choice" people make too much of this line they risk arguments
>like Mr. Burian's above or Mr. Nyikos claim that topologially a baby is
>not inside in the mother.  Let's try to keep our morality relative.

Much as I applaud Mr. Loomis for facing the issue of infanticide
realistically, I (1) disagree with his conclusion that it is morally
justified, just as I disagree with him on abortion and (2) I do not
applaud the way he keeps imputing things to me that I never gave any
hint of.  Perhaps he is confused by the way someone (was it Keith 
Cochran? or was is Michael Loomis himself?) asked me whether I was going
to come up with this infantile claim, and I said something like:

"What are you talking about?  I am a topologist, true, and the standard
joke about us is that we can't tell the difference between a doughnut
and a coffee cup, but I have yet to try to eat a coffee cup, or pour
coffee into a doughnut."

Not an exact quote, despite my use of quotation marks.  But I stand by
what it says.

Peter Nyikos


Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.conspiracy
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:15:18 GMT

In article <PA146008.580.725561366@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
:        Or do you *really* think all it would take is writing "I'm not an 
:organ donor" on a piece of paper and carrying it around with you?  Given the 
:legislative impulse of our government, *I'm* not all that confident that any 
:group who wants to lay claim to *my* body parts will stop with round one.

Don't any of these people who are advocating carry active donation-refusal
cards worry that if they get in an accident themselves that some doctor
will say 'well, this bastard isn't going to donate his organs, why should
I try too hard to save him?' [Note I'm talking about emergency care in
motorbike accidents etc; separate question from whether people who refuse
to donate organs would be allowed to receive them]

G
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7096 talk.politics.guns:25734
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] The updated U.S. Bill of Rights (from EFFector)
Date: 23 Dec 1992 22:59:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) says:

>Quoted from the EFFector Online 4.03 (comp.org.eff.news&talk, Message-ID
><1992Dec22.212714.15339@eff.org>):
>
>//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>EFFector Online 4.2           12/23/1992               editors@eff.org
>A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation     ISSN 1062-424
>
>IN THIS ISSUE:
>THE NEW, STREAMLINED BILL O' RIGHTS by John Perry Barlow
>CRACKER BREAKS INTO ATHENA @ MIT: The Security Alert
>EFF'S LEGISLATIVE WATCH by Shari Steele
>
>                     -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-
>
>                        The New, Streamlined
>                           BILL O' RIGHTS
>        (As amended by the recent federal & state decisions)
>
>
>Amendment 1
>
[deleted]
>
>Amendment 2
>
>A well-regulated Militia having become irrelevant to the security of 
>the State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms against one 
>another shall nevertheless remain uninfringed.
>
A better wording of this one, as interpreted by the political establishment
today, would be:

A well-regulated militia being a threat to the security of the modern
state, the right to keep and bear arms shall be steadily circumscribed and
restricted, except that the wealthy shall be permitted to hire such
private security specialists and establish such police and investigative
bodies as they deem necessary to keep the poor and disadvantaged in their
place.
>
>Amendment 3
>
[deleted]

The rest of it is a scream, however...and right on target.
>
>                                          Derived by J. P .Barlow
>                                               New York, New York
>                                                December 21, 1992
>
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:15:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.032633.25402@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>>of course, gun rights).  hence, "libertarians only" seems entirely
>>>reasonable to me - in all other cases, destroy them.
>>>
>>I hope and assume that this is a joke...
>
why on earth would you think i'm joking?  do i need to resort to
extreme examples to make my point a little more strongly?  do
you think a jewish family would want to contribute organs to
the leader of the american nazi party?  

>I'm not joking at all.  And I think I know Drew well enough to say
>he isn't joking either.  And I know at least a couple other people
>who feel the same way.
>
larry's not joking.  and neither am i.

>I'd rather Ted Kennedy die a slow agonizing death of liver disease
>[from all that boozing] than let him have my liver when I'm dead.

yep.  i agree.

drew
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
"Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds." - Oppenheimer

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:53:04 GMT

  The state of North Carolina has taken a very sensible approach 
to this - Donor status is put on the Driver's License.  When you 
get a license they ask you what donor status you want, and then the 
license serves as a legal document.  (I have had a Uniform Donor
Card in my wallet for almost 10 years, and I just checked and found
that since my intent is on my driver's license that I no longer need
carry the card.)

--henry schaffer
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:51:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.201511.24935@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
porges@beretta.camb.inmet.com (Don Porges) writes:

>I also feel free to hold, without considering it contradictory,
>that anyone who refuses to allow their organs to be donated, for fear
>that those organs *might* end up in someone that they disapprove of,
>is a jerk.

I think at the very least you've got to admit this depends on the
probability.  I've signed my driver's license card as an organ donor;
if I were to find that there was a 30% chance one of my organs would
save the life of a mass murderer, I'd change that status, and pretty
darn quick.  Is that wrong?  When you consider the net benefits and
losses, it saves lives.

-- 
E. Elizabeth Bartley           |        "This is a world of compensation; and
he who would be no slave must consent to have no slave.  Those who deny freedom
to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, cannot long
retain it."    - Abraham Lincoln
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7093 talk.politics.guns:25732
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: This organ donating thread
Date: 3 Jan 1993 16:00:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, hunter@quake.sylmar.ca.us (James Collins) says:

>This organ donating thread reminds me a lot of some of the Larry Niven 
>N-Space universe books.  Especially  The Long Arm of Gil <something, I 
>don't remember the last part>.  Basically the universe is set up such 
>that pretty sophisticated organ transplants are possible.  With this 
>possibility, the public votes up new laws every year, with the penalty 
>being the loss of your organs.  I believe in one of Nivens short stories, 
>it has an ending where a drunk driver gets chopped up for the organ 
>banks...  Well, I suppose you really have to read them to understand..
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>James Collins                        | Tips to live by from Rodney King
>hunter@quake.sylmar.ca.us            | and Reginald Denny...
>james.collins%bbs@quake.sylmar.ca.us | STAY... IN... THE... CAR...
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Gil Hamilton.  Yeah, I have read these stories, and I liked them...they
were quite well-written and effective.  However, they are also fiction.

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Gordon Burditt
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 15:28:54 GMT

>	Want to make this argument more obscure?  Most motorcyclists
>I know of are organ donors, and most wear helmets.  However, any
>law that says they must wear a helmet is considered an infringement
>of personal rights.  Many have begun carrying cards saying that their
>organs may not be used in any state that has a mandatory helmet law.

What does "organs may not be used in any state ..." mean?
Does this require anything beyond transporting your corpse and
the patient to another state before doing the transplant?

					Gordon L. Burditt
					sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,comp.org.eff.talk
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp] export rules -- a new wrinkle
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:38:31 GMT

A repost from sci.crypt,alt.security.pgp:

From: smb@research.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Subject: export rules -- a new wrinkle
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:22:18 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

I was ftp'ing some stuff from gatekeeper.decwrl.com, and saw an
interesting motd.ftp file:

     EXPORT CONTROL NOTE: Non-U.S. ftp users are required by law to follow U.S.
     export control restrictions, which means that if you see some DES or
     otherwise controlled software here, you should not grab it.  Look at
     00README.export-control (in every directory, more or less) to learn more.
     (If your the treaty between your country and the United States did not
     require you to respect U.S. export control restrictions, then you would
     not have Internet connectivity to this host.  Check with your U.S. embassy
     if you want to verify this.)

Since there's no U.S. embassy in New Jersey, I'll have to let someone else
check it out...
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 20:21:39 EST

In article <1992Dec29.172756.27643@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:

>>I have a foolishly optimistic question here -- if someone has been
>>pardoned for a crime, even prospectively like Weinberger, does this
>>mean that they lose their 5th-Amendment protections and can be
>>compelled to testify about others involved in the crime, under
>>penalty of being held indefinitely on contempt-of-court charges? If
>>they lie, does the pardon cover the perjury as well?

I was under the impression that the legality of a "pardon" *prior* to
a criminal conviction was in serious doubt, and had not been subject to
judicial scrutiny.  (Obviously, the question goes back to Watergate, with
Nixon's "pardon" being the first example of a "pre-emptive pardon," to the
best of my knowledge.)

In any case, a President *certainly* cannot pardon an individual for crimes
they *may* commit in the future! (e.g., perjury)


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns,misc.legal
From: gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Demi-Public System (One of the Eternal Champions); Eagan, MN, 55123-2507, USA
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:56:07 GMT

Somehow, a thread got started in t.p.g about restricting one's organs
for donation after one's death.  Specifically, some writers do not wnat
their organs used in states that have mandatory helmet laws, and have
begun carrying cards to that effect.  Another poster spoke of a change
in the law in some state that would have organ donation as the default
case, leaving you responsible for "just saying no" to organ donation
via some sort of non-donor card you would have to carry.

I added misc.legal and would have added the new medical politics group,
but I don't remember the name. . .

Ok, suppose you have a card saying you do not grant permission to use
your organs in any state with a mandatory helmet law (or oppressive
gun control laws, for that matter).  Suppose you die and you are in a
state with mandatory harvesting laws or in which you are a voluntary
donor except for the restriction on use in offensive states.

What's to prevent the patient from flying from Badstate to where you lie
dying?  How's the surgeon in Goodstate who is parting out your hulk
supposed to know where the kidney he's working on is going?  Even if it 
goes to Badstate eventually, what recourse does the dead guy have? 
Repossession?  (Sounds like an old horror flick plot!  :-)

Seem to me like you might have more luck specifying that the organ cannot
be used in boycotted states without a substantial donation to the advocacy
group of your choice, but may be freely used elsewhere.  The advocacy
group would have clear standing to take action if it were discovered that
your wishes had been violated.  Your family may be too grief-stricken
(or maybe too happy--who knows?) to look into how your leftovers were
employed.  Also, they may not agree with your position on the issue,
especially if you assumed room temperature as a result of riding without
a hardhat.

Maybe an even better strategy would be for bikers to form their own
organ donor network and carry cards showing that their organs were
donated to and property of that network and could only be used according to
that network's policies.  If the corpse is property of the estate and you
have directed that it be used in this manner, then your heirs would have 
no reason to interfere if your wishes were carried out but would have
some standing to sue if your wishes were ignored.

Bill
-- 
gray@hawkmoon.mn.org
This site gets a fair news feed, but e-mail is more reliable. . . :-(
"Veni, vidi, vomiti!"  -- the ghost of Tom Jefferson on reading the Brady Bill
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7071 talk.politics.guns:25705
Date: Friday, 25 Dec 1992 16:00:26 EST
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...

In article <319@ininx.UUCP>, jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar) says:
>
[anti-helmet law, laissez faire diatribe deleted]

STOP CROSSPOSTING THIS DRIVEL TO TALK.POLITICS.GUNS!


Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 06:20:28 GMT

In article <1haqgpINNggm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
:I'm sure this gives the holders of these donor cards a nice warm feeling, but
:think of the actual consequences.  Do you actually hurt the people you want to
:hurt...i.e. the legislators who passed the law you object to?  No.  You hurt
:some individual, whom you will never know, who will die because your organs
:were unavailable, since you got killed in a biking accident in a state with
:laws that offend your ethical sensibilities.  Doesn't make sense to me.

Try to think a little harder then.  They're hurt at one level removed.

It's just like, say, the boycott of the homophobic Colorado.  Certainly,
many of the good burghers of Aspen voted against the discriminatory laws,
and they'll be hurt by a boycott as much as the right-wing god-squad, but
that's the regrettable price that has to be paid to put the point over.

G
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7086 talk.politics.guns:25717