FAGGOTS SPREAD AIDS-WHY PROTECT THEM?
William Grosvenor
Dr.Grant Hill,MP, is completely correct in stating that faggots spread
disease.
He is far too polite,since I am sure he also has read the acclaimed
documentary book "AND THE BAND PLAYED ON",which also became a movie,
which details how AIDS was spread worldwide,deliberately,by the faggot
with Air Canada.This was even supported by the government of Canada.
Now,normal people all over the world must pay for these perverts and the
astronomic costs for their medical care until they get cremated.
I feel that they should NOT GET SPECIAL RIGHTS,even if the faggot loving
Canadian government wants to give them.
Is there any real use for disease spreading faggots?
In the old days faggots were burned,so is this practical now?
Mary Ortch
In article <3198F7...@compusmart.ab.ca>, William Grosvenor
<acu...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
> Dr.Grant Hill,MP, is completely correct in stating that faggots spread
> disease.
But he is misleading because he ignores the fact that drug users spread
aids, heterosexuals spread aids, transfusions spread aids....... He is
only telling part of the truth. Remember "A little knowledge is a
dangerous thing" means that if you only know a small part of the truth
then it is dangerous. And you know a very very little bit of the whole
picture. Instead of whining on the internet why not read a few books
first.
>
> In the old days faggots were burned,so is this practical now?
No. No more practical than burning you for the hatred you are spreading.
You really do seem like a closet homosexual.
Chris Pierson
>Canadian government wants to give them.
Ah, I knew _this_ would happen: petulance. Well, guess what, Sparky: they
have no special rights. They're just working their way up to equal
footing with the rest of us. But point-missing chuckleheads like yourself
never quite understand that, do you?
>Is there any real use for disease spreading faggots?
>In the old days faggots were burned,so is this practical now?
I hope to God you never catch tuberculosis, or influenza, or some other
disease that's more infectious than HIV. If you do, by your "reasoning,"
you'll have to do the old Self-Immolation Special.
Hm. Maybe I _do_ hope you catch TB or the flu, after all.
You're entitled to your opinion, Mr. Grosvenor. Now shut the fuck up.
--
****************************************************************************
Chris Pierson ** "No one hands me my gun and says, 'run.' _No one_."
Freelance Editor ** --Britt (James Coburn), The Magnificent Seven
****************************************************************************
John Morris
On Wed, 15 May 1996 04:12:32 +0700, William Grosvenor
<acu...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>In the old days faggots were burned,so is this practical now?
Mr. Grosvenor, are you advocating that homosexuals should be killed
for being homosexual?
--
John Morris <jmo...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
at University of Alberta <Scripture veteris capiunt exempla futuri>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nizkor Project: An Electronic Holocaust Resource
File archives - ftp://ftp.almanac.bc.ca
Web page - http://nizkor.almanac.bc.ca
Jason Silverman
In article <MOrtch-1505...@purgatorio.chem.ualberta.ca>,
MOr...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Mary Ortch) wrote:
> In article <3198F7...@compusmart.ab.ca>, William Grosvenor
> <acu...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > Dr.Grant Hill,MP, is completely correct in stating that faggots spread
> > disease.
Grant Hill is in fact not a doctor, but a player with the Detroit
Pistons. Get it straight, troll.
> But he is misleading because he ignores the fact that drug users spread
> aids, heterosexuals spread aids, transfusions spread aids....... He is
> only telling part of the truth. Remember "A little knowledge is a
> dangerous thing" means that if you only know a small part of the truth
> then it is dangerous. And you know a very very little bit of the whole
> picture. Instead of whining on the internet why not read a few books
> first.
In fact, he is negligently misleading in a way that ought to be criminal.
In fact, I think all homosexuals should bring a class actions suit against
this quack for slander. It has long been documented that the groups other
than homosexuals -- intravenous drug users and *heterosexual women* (who
are being infected by heterosexual men) -- have the highest rate of
infection. This has been a known fact for years now. The homoseual
community has been extremely responsible in AIDS education and prevention
measures. In fact, were it not for efforts by gays and lesbians, the AIDS
situation would be far worse.
> > In the old days faggots were burned,so is this practical now?
>
> No. No more practical than burning you for the hatred you are spreading.
> You really do seem like a closet homosexual.
In fact Mary, not only might billy be a closet homosexual, I think maybe
he just might be a little (ahem) resentful about (ahem) a certain disease
that one might catch from (ahem) junkie prostitutes whose services one
might engage after realizing that one is too much of a loser to get it for
free (AHEM). Or perhaps he is in denial about intravenous drug users
because, after all, many people's (ahem) fathers came back from the War as
(ahem) junkies themselves. But of course I am not implying anything about
billy.
I do think, however, billy is a little confused that "faggot" is both a
derogatory term for homosexuals, which do not burn well, as well as a term
used "in the old days" for a bundle of kindling, which does burn well.
billy should learn english.
Anyway, William Grosvenor is a troll who is too cowardly to respond to
followups and is only interested in getting e-mail, regardless of the
content. So I'll oblige him.
--Jason
posted/emailed
John Bartol
[a bunch of nonsense. Some points of which could spark reasoned debate except
for the inflammatory, nonsensical, paranoid, ravings of an apparently
deranged, pitifully insecure, madman :-) ]
Having watched the movie Toy Story, one phrase comes to mind which is
applicable, I think, to 'Mr. Grosvenor':
You, sir, are a sad, strange, little man.
--
"There is a huge difference between disliking somebody - maybe even disliking
them a lot - and actually shooting them, strangling them, dragging them
____________ through the fields and setting their house on fire. It was a
John Bartol \___ difference which kept the vast majority of the population
jb...@zadall.com\ alive from day to day." [DGHDA by Douglas Adams]
Darin McBride
Mary Ortch (MOr...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
> In article <3198F7...@compusmart.ab.ca>, William Grosvenor
> <acu...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
> > Dr.Grant Hill,MP, is completely correct in stating that faggots spread
> > disease.
> But he is misleading because he ignores the fact that drug users spread
> aids, heterosexuals spread aids, transfusions spread aids....... He is
> only telling part of the truth. Remember "A little knowledge is a
> dangerous thing" means that if you only know a small part of the truth
> then it is dangerous. And you know a very very little bit of the whole
> picture. Instead of whining on the internet why not read a few books
> first.
Remember: over 80% of AIDS cases were gained through homosexual means.
Only 8% of AIDS cases were caused by heterosexual sex. Assuming the
outrageous ratio of 1:9 homosexual to heterosexuals (estimates range
from 2% to 10% of the population, so 5% would be a more likely estimate
than the 10 we're going to use), that means that a hundred times more
homosexuals have AIDS from their sex than heterosexuals do from theirs.
> >
> > In the old days faggots were burned,so is this practical now?
For the same reason I am against capital punishment, no - you could be
wrong.
> No. No more practical than burning you for the hatred you are spreading.
> You really do seem like a closet homosexual.
You seem like a bigot. I have yet to see a non-bigot claim that a
homophobe is a 'closet homosexual'.
--
Darin McBride:mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca/mcb...@tower.bohica.net
Enjoy each day as if it were your last, care about each moment as if
it were your last for one day, one moment, you *will* be right!
Tips & Tricks for IBM Hardware, MSDOS, OS2, Windows (including Win'95):
http://www.ee.ualberta.ca/~mcbride/tiptrick.html
low...@smartt.com
William Grosvenor <acu...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
>Dr.Grant Hill,MP, is completely correct in stating that faggots spread
The best way to deal with folks like this is to not debate or argue
with them. Don't even waste your time composing a rebuttle to flame
bait like this...
David Reilley
In article <DrGIn...@zadall.com> jb...@zadall.com (John Bartol) writes:
>From: jb...@zadall.com (John Bartol)
>Subject: Re: FAGGOTS SPREAD AIDS-WHY PROTECT THEM?
>Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 17:16:25 GMT
>In article <3198F7...@compusmart.ab.ca>,
>William Grosvenor <acu...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
>[a bunch of nonsense. Some points of which could spark reasoned debate except
> for the inflammatory, nonsensical, paranoid, ravings of an apparently
> deranged, pitifully insecure, madman :-) ]
>Having watched the movie Toy Story, one phrase comes to mind which is
>applicable, I think, to 'Mr. Grosvenor':
> You, sir, are a sad, strange, little man.
Defective chip.
Larry Myles
William Grosvenor <acu...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
>Dr.Grant Hill,MP, is completely correct in stating that faggots spread
>disease.
Hey Willy...
I want you to spend a few bucks and get Laurie Garrett's "THE COMING
PLAGUE".. In it, I think that you might be surprised to learn..that we
are ALL capable of spreading disease. But..rats, mosquitoes, etc are
*way* better at it than any human.
>He is far too polite,since I am sure he also has read the acclaimed
>documentary book "AND THE BAND PLAYED ON",which also became a movie,
>which details how AIDS was spread worldwide,deliberately,by the faggot
>with Air Canada.This was even supported by the government of Canada.
Ahhhh...I watched that special. And do you really think that the
faggot in question even knew what he had in the first place. And even
the doctors hadn't figured out what was going on in the first year or
more. I know that meanwhile the gay blade was out there porking any
male that bent over....but as to him knowing he had a vicious
disease..and then passing it along willingly...nah.
>Now,normal people all over the world must pay for these perverts and the
>astronomic costs for their medical care until they get cremated.
I hate to break this to you...but the faggots have their group pretty
much under control. It's us normal guys who are now spreading the
disease around....I know that this doesn't sit well with your
pitch...but it happens to be the truth.
>I feel that they should NOT GET SPECIAL RIGHTS,even if the faggot loving
>Canadian government wants to give them.
I couldn't agree with you more on that point. But at the same time, I
would want the faggots to get equal rights. Judging from your
tirades, I would think that the government might not have any choice
though...if only because your hatred of faggots if multiplyed by other
homophobics could be read as a real threat to the deviants. So..
>Is there any real use for disease spreading faggots?
Yes, actually. As a lot of the homo's are quite the talented bunch. I
find their contribution in society very healthy. I am not too much
into their sexual deviancy, but as long as it doesn't become a
mandatory practice, I'm willing to be on their side when it comes to
fighting abuse and bias.
>In the old days faggots were burned,so is this practical now?
Hell, they used to burn witches too. And during the Grand
Inquisition...anyone with a brain that wanted to explore science was
burnt as well. You see, in that case...the religionist morons were
becoming afraid that the plebs were hipping up to the fact that a
belief in goD was a believe in superstitious mythology.
larry
cjo...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
[Newsgroups removed: tor.general, alt.revisionism, van.general]
Several points, Mr. Grosvenor:
William Grosvenor (acu...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote:
: Dr.Grant Hill,MP, is completely correct in stating that faggots spread
: disease.
No more than the rest of the general population. One could make
the point that heterosexuals are contributing more to the decline of the
globe, by virtue of the fact that heterosexuals tend to have children,
while homosexuals don't. However, I won't make that point.
: He is far too polite,since I am sure he also has read the acclaimed
: documentary book "AND THE BAND PLAYED ON",which also became a movie,
: which details how AIDS was spread worldwide,deliberately,by the faggot
: with Air Canada.This was even supported by the government of Canada.
Yet another point: the US government (and I have read the book as
well), did not give funding for AIDS research until the late-early (read:
late in the early) 80s. This was several years after there was evidence
that a disease was out there. This was several years after there was
evidence that people were dying. This was with the *willful* connivance
of the Reagan governement and its right-wing hangers-on (Mr. Grosvenor, I
take it you support them). They are responsible for the loss of lives,
the spread of AIDS, and the contamination of the blood system (which is a
whole other topic in and of itself). In short: Reagan commited murder.
No - he committed mass murder.
: Now,normal people all over the world must pay for these perverts and the
: astronomic costs for their medical care until they get cremated.
I could say, but I won't, that you appear to be either a) an
extreme masochist, who enjoys recieving messages which explain in great
detail where you are incorrect, and lambasting you for what appear to be
willful factual errors, or b) someone, along the lines of Mr. Bumble in
Oliver Twist, who is self-important, arrogant, and believes that they are
so important to the world that it simply could not have gone on, and
simply won't go on, when they are no longer around.
Further, do you happen to know what the costs are to perform
heart surgery? to perform surgery and treat cancer? No? I'm not
surprised. The costs (presumably overwealming caused by heterosexuals)
are staggering, and dwarve those associated with the treatment of AIDS.
At least, with AIDS, there's a fair chance that you won't live long.
(This may sound cruel, but I think the worst possible life is one in
which you are completely incapable of doing anything, enjoying anything,
etc...) With heart attacks, stroke, Alzheimer's, etc... (which,
according to your hypothesis are *heterosexual* diseases), modern
medicine allows the victims to remain alive for a comparatively longer
time, thus raising costs to society. This leads logically to the result
that we should kill anyone who puts a strain on our health-care
resources. Mr. Grosvenor, would you like to be the first to volunteer?
: I feel that they should NOT GET SPECIAL RIGHTS,even if the faggot loving
: Canadian government wants to give them.
Who said anything about special rights? *EVERYONE* is entitled
to be treated with dignity, respect, and with at least a modicum of
compassion. You, sir, do not appear to treat anyone ecept yourself in
that manner. You, sir, (and I'm using "sir" extremely loosely) appear to
be an old-fashioned bigot, with a phobia of everything and anyone who
does not dress, eat, look, act, nor think like you do. Actually, I think
that may be slightly harsh - to bigots. You are not on their level. At
least they do not try to support their theories with pseudo-scientific
"facts", but say plain out, "this is what I think".
I am not in favour of special rights for anyone, but I think
anyone with brains that are not constituted of pablum or rocks can see
that homosexuals have been discriminated against in our society, and
deserve protection for people like you. Just like anyone else.
: Is there any real use for disease spreading faggots?
Perhaps one should ask the question: "Is there any real use for
hate-mongering people like you, Mr. Grosvenor?"
: In the old days faggots were burned,so is this practical now?
Fill this one in yourself. Step right up, we've reserved a spot
for you, William.
--
/---- Chris Jones ----v- PGP Fingerprint --------------------------------\
|42 -It's the answer! | 95 2F 8F 26 F9 CA 4B 1A D1 CA C1 5E F9 76 59 AB |
\---------------------^--------------------------------------------------/
Mary Ortch
In article <jsilver-1505...@lsdiala07.it.luc.edu>,
jsi...@orion.it.luc.edu (Jason Silverman) wrote:
> In article <MOrtch-1505...@purgatorio.chem.ualberta.ca>,
> MOr...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Mary Ortch) wrote:
>
> > In article <3198F7...@compusmart.ab.ca>, William Grosvenor
> > <acu...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > Dr.Grant Hill,MP, is completely correct in stating that faggots spread
> > > disease.
>
> Grant Hill is in fact not a doctor, but a player with the Detroit
> Pistons. Get it straight, troll.
>
> > But he is misleading because he ignores the fact that drug users spread
> > aids, heterosexuals spread aids, transfusions spread aids....... He is
> > only telling part of the truth.
> In fact, he is negligently misleading in a way that ought to be criminal.
> In fact, I think all homosexuals should bring a class actions suit against
> this quack for slander.
It ought to be criminal. But I doubt it is. I think the best that can be
hoped for is to have his license removed by the Board of Doctors dumb
enough to have given him his license in the first place (I think that some
action has been taken on that front already, though extra pressure would
always be helpful).
> > > In the old days faggots were burned,so is this practical now?
> >
> > No. No more practical than burning you for the hatred you are spreading.
> > You really do seem like a closet homosexual.
> I do think, however, billy is a little confused that "faggot" is both a
> derogatory term for homosexuals, which do not burn well, as well as a term
> used "in the old days" for a bundle of kindling, which does burn well.
> billy should learn english.
Yep. On second reading I guess it was his attempt at a (very) sick and
twisted play on words. However given the virulence of his earlier posts I
had assumed he was not clever enough to think of it on his own. Is it
possible that Grosvenor is just a 'bot' of some sort which cross-posts
rehashes of press releases from the Reform and Republican parties. I have
yet to see any real attempt at discourse, always a good sign of a bot (or
an intellectually deficient troll)
>
> --Jason
> posted/emailed
Larry Myles
>But he is misleading because he ignores the fact that drug users spread
>aids, heterosexuals spread aids, transfusions spread aids....... He is
>only telling part of the truth. Remember "A little knowledge is a
>dangerous thing" means that if you only know a small part of the truth
>then it is dangerous. And you know a very very little bit of the whole
>picture. Instead of whining on the internet why not read a few books
>first.
Actually...a lot to comment on here. First of all, I know how you all
hate anecdotal evidence....but two friends of mine who are heroin
addicts are dying. One with Aids, and the other with
Hepatitis...whatever the one is that is deadly. Neither guy is a
crease-shooter...but they did use dirty needles.
As well, homo's seem to have it under control..the spread of aids, I
mean. Hetro's don't.
As well...there are homepages galore on Aids and how to learn about
it, etc. all over the Internet. There is no excuse for venting
anti-faggot messages dressed up as concern about disease. The
knowledge is here, and Yahoo can find it for you.
>No. No more practical than burning you for the hatred you are spreading.
>You really do seem like a closet homosexual.
I don't think that there is any doubt about it. So..with that in
mind, try being kinder to poor old William. For, he's either toying
with us...or he's a man in anguish. I can picture him not doing well
with women...and jacking off at night..just before he comes, the butch
like babe he was jacking to places a cock in his mouth\anus, etc.
This is one hell of a way to live your one life on this earth...so
when it comes to homophobic guys, I've got time for them...because
they are just sick folks who are afraid to confront their own
sexuality.
larry
Larry Myles
>Grant Hill is in fact not a doctor, but a player with the Detroit
>Pistons. Get it straight, troll.
ROTFL....didn't know that..how funny!
>In fact, he is negligently misleading in a way that ought to be criminal.
>In fact, I think all homosexuals should bring a class actions suit against
>this quack for slander. It has long been documented that the groups other
No. No way!! The InterNet is a perfect place for these isolated
closet queens. Willy is one sick and bitter puppy. He is more than
likely a homo who hasn't admitted it to himself. I find that a sad,
sad place to be. Only through discourse can Willy find that we don't
hate him because of his illness. And, we won't hate him for being a
faggot either.
But sue him, or taunt him...and you will wind up lighting a fuse on
what appears to be a very tightly wrapped individual. Bear with
him...
>than homosexuals -- intravenous drug users and *heterosexual women* (who
>are being infected by heterosexual men) -- have the highest rate of
>infection. This has been a known fact for years now. The homoseual
>community has been extremely responsible in AIDS education and prevention
>measures. In fact, were it not for efforts by gays and lesbians, the AIDS
>situation would be far worse.
Bravo!! Of course, most of us know this...but it was nice to have it
on screen so well put.
>In fact Mary, not only might billy be a closet homosexual, I think maybe
>he just might be a little (ahem) resentful about (ahem) a certain disease
>that one might catch from (ahem) junkie prostitutes whose services one
>might engage after realizing that one is too much of a loser to get it for
>free (AHEM). Or perhaps he is in denial about intravenous drug users
>because, after all, many people's (ahem) fathers came back from the War as
>(ahem) junkies themselves. But of course I am not implying anything about
>billy.
Nah...a guy like him would be too confused to even get a whore. He's a
(closet) faggot..and I'm sure that one good look at a split beaver
would cause his little penis to shrivel up into his gut. Again..allow
the guy some room to discover his own sexuality. Nothing wrong with
him being a homo...
larry
Mary Ortch
In article <4ndee6$14...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca
(Darin McBride) wrote:
> Mary Ortch (MOr...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
> > In article <3198F7...@compusmart.ab.ca>, William Grosvenor
> > <acu...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
> > > Dr.Grant Hill,MP, is completely correct in stating that faggots spread
> > > disease.
> > But he is misleading because he ignores the fact that drug users spread
> > aids, heterosexuals spread aids, transfusions spread aids....... He is
> > only telling part of the truth
>
> Remember: over 80% of AIDS cases were gained through homosexual means.
> Only 8% of AIDS cases were caused by heterosexual sex. Assuming the
> outrageous ratio of 1:9 homosexual to heterosexuals (estimates range
> from 2% to 10% of the population, so 5% would be a more likely estimate
> than the 10 we're going to use), that means that a hundred times more
> homosexuals have AIDS from their sex than heterosexuals do from theirs.
What are you saying??????
You really must clarify your points better. Are you saying that at this
point in time 80% of AIDS cases are Homosexual? Because this is vastly
different than saying 80% of new cases of AIDS are Homosexual in origin.
Where does the 80% figure come from? I really find it extremely hard to
believe that 80% of NEW cases of AIDS are Homosexual in nature. I think
the fastest rising cases are among IV drug users. The fact that at this
point in time 100x more Homosexuals have aids (a figure I would really
want a better source on before I believed) has absolutely nothing to do
with transmission rates. One is a static average and the other is a time
weighted rate. Have you ever read the Mismeasure of Man by J. Gould. Its
usually found in the Science section of bookstores. I think you might get
good use from it.
>
>
> > >
> > > In the old days faggots were burned,so is this practical now?
> > No. No more practical than burning you for the hatred you are spreading.
> > You really do seem like a closet homosexual.
>
> You seem like a bigot. I have yet to see a non-bigot claim that a
> homophobe is a 'closet homosexual'.
I'm biggoted for wondering where his hatred of homosexuals comes from? If
you were well read you would know that there are cases of virulent
(sometimes murderous) homophobes who were closet homosexuals.
You seem poorly educated. I have yet to see you properly quote and
reference statistics or show a broader understanding than what might be
garnered from CNN. Get an education, your money has been wasted so far.
Darin McBride
Mary Ortch (MOr...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
> In article <4ndee6$14...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca
> (Darin McBride) wrote:
> > Remember: over 80% of AIDS cases were gained through homosexual means.
> > Only 8% of AIDS cases were caused by heterosexual sex. Assuming the
> > outrageous ratio of 1:9 homosexual to heterosexuals (estimates range
> > from 2% to 10% of the population, so 5% would be a more likely estimate
> > than the 10 we're going to use), that means that a hundred times more
> > homosexuals have AIDS from their sex than heterosexuals do from theirs.
> What are you saying??????
I'm saying that to catch the AIDS virus, you practically have to be a
homosexual (male is also the better gender to catch it as well, assuming
homosexual methods...)
> You really must clarify your points better. Are you saying that at this
> point in time 80% of AIDS cases are Homosexual? Because this is vastly
> different than saying 80% of new cases of AIDS are Homosexual in origin.
> Where does the 80% figure come from? I really find it extremely hard to
> believe that 80% of NEW cases of AIDS are Homosexual in nature. I think
> the fastest rising cases are among IV drug users. The fact that at this
> point in time 100x more Homosexuals have aids (a figure I would really
> want a better source on before I believed) has absolutely nothing to do
> with transmission rates. One is a static average and the other is a time
> weighted rate. Have you ever read the Mismeasure of Man by J. Gould. Its
> usually found in the Science section of bookstores. I think you might get
> good use from it.
<sigh> You want clarification, and then you go assuming something
wrong. And THEN you have the gall to say "I really find it extremely
hard to believe..." - in other words, you've made up your mind, end of
story?
> > > No. No more practical than burning you for the hatred you are spreading.
> > > You really do seem like a closet homosexual.
> >
> > You seem like a bigot. I have yet to see a non-bigot claim that a
> > homophobe is a 'closet homosexual'.
> I'm biggoted for wondering where his hatred of homosexuals comes from? If
No, you're biggoted for calling him a 'closet homosexual.'
> you were well read you would know that there are cases of virulent
> (sometimes murderous) homophobes who were closet homosexuals.
And, from your post, I'm to assume this is a COMMON occurance - common
enough that most, if not all, anti-homosexuals are really closet
homosexuals?
> You seem poorly educated. I have yet to see you properly quote and
> reference statistics or show a broader understanding than what might be
> garnered from CNN. Get an education, your money has been wasted so far.
Congrats - you've insulted almost every part of me. I'm waiting for the
final two insults so I know I've been fully insulted: something about my
mother, and me being a Nazi.
In a story appearing in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), May 1, 1996, it
seems the efforts to shout a warning about the AIDs epidemic have
backfired on the homosexual community. In 1987 the Center for
Disease Control (CDC) began issuing warnings how anyone could
catch AIDs. As such, funds to help fight the epidemic (as well as find
a cure) have been used to address the general population, rather
than being concentrated where they can do the most good.
The problem lies with what the odds are of catching AIDs. For the
typical heterosexual American, the odds of catching AIDs from an
extra-marital sexual encounter are 1 in 5 million w/o a condom, and 1
in 50 million w/ one, per one study. But for homosexual, bisexual,
and intravenous drug users, the odds are 1 in 50. Over 83% of all
AIDs victims fall into these latter categories. Because of this, money
has basically been wasted warning a population about something that
has less likely hood of killing them than a lightning bolt, while the real
victims are not receiving adequate information or assistance.
In a story about HIV and AIDs that appeared in the April, 1996 edition
of the Concerned Women for America's monthly newsletter, CWA
tells how homosexual advocacy groups and the CDC combined to
expand the scope of the definition of what AIDs was. By doing so,
they had planned to make most Americans think the problem was
universal so that more resources would be thrown at it than would be
if Americans continued to perceive AIDs as a homosexual only
problem. The story cited examples of HIV infected people - including
newborn infants - who either shrug off the disease or continue to lead
normal lives in spite of it. Combine this with what the WSJ said and it
appears that the effort to politicize AIDs backfired on the homosexual
community.
The CWA story further went to say that HIV may not be the sole
source of AIDs. The article went into some of the details about the
behavior of homosexuals, and how the consequences of their
behavior, not HIV or not HIV alone, is short circuiting and
destroying their immune system. Some of the behavior includes
multiple sex partners, with the associated risk of contracting any of
the now more than 60 different sexually communicated diseases as
well as other socially communicable diseases, the use of 'nitrates'
and other dangerous mind altering substances to enhance the
euphoria of sex, and the consumption of each other's semen, feces
and urine. Also, the anti-AIDs drug AZT may actually be contributing
to the problem as well.
While not a main subject of the report, the CWA article briefly
touched on the affects of AIDs to cognitive capacity. In response to
concerns about whether people with AIDs should continue to serve in
the military, the story contained a side note how even in the early
stages AIDs affected the mental capacity of it's victims. The thorny
issue facing the homosexual community is this: Military life is a
tough, disciplined life where the lives of many people frequently rests
in the hands of a few. This is especially true in today's high tech
world. If HIV causes AIDs, then people with HIV must be removed
from the military immediately before their reduced mental capacity
injures or kills someone. On the otherhand, if HIV does not lead to
AIDs, then it becomes obvious that behavior does, which will almost
certainly eliminate public sympathy for their cause.
--
Darin McBride:mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca/mcb...@tower.bohica.net
Plan for your future - you'll live the rest of your life there!
jc maillet
> Now, normal people all over the world must pay for these perverts and the
> astronomic costs for their medical care until they get cremated.
well what's wrong with you paying ?! you don't seem to be the type with
half a fucking brain to know how to enjoy life, so you may as well work to
pay the bills ... and you're gonna keep on doing it until I say it's time
to play real ball.
> I feel that they should NOT GET SPECIAL RIGHTS, even if the faggot loving
> Canadian government wants to give them.
actually, the government is there to help the meek, really. Fags,
Niggers, Artsies, we all fall outside the boundary established by your
type of normalyte. In fact, survival of the fittest is right around the
corner bro, the entangled web you and your whitey cowards have set up to
defend your limp position is crumbling cause you can't even love
yourselves enough to keep it together.
> Is there any real use for disease spreading faggots?
>
> In the old days faggots were burned,so is this practical now?
bill, can I call you bill asshole ? thanks for making your position clear
- now climb into the jar and go back to sniffing your toes.
--
s'tie d'maudit calice de tabarnaque d'enfant d'chienne de siboire ...
old quebecois saying
John Maloney
Darin McBride (mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: I'm saying that to catch the AIDS virus, you practically have to be a
: homosexual (male is also the better gender to catch it as well, assuming
: homosexual methods...)
: No, you're biggoted for calling him a 'closet homosexual.'
Nah...the truth must needs be in the light. People who are so
obsessive about homosexuals and virulently hostile towards them must be
denying whatever homosexuality that they themselves must possess.
Jason Silverman
In article <4nen34$m...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca
(Darin McBride) wrote:
> In a story appearing in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), May 1, 1996, it
> seems the efforts to shout a warning about the AIDs epidemic have
> backfired on the homosexual community. In 1987 the Center for
> Disease Control (CDC) began issuing warnings how anyone could
> catch AIDs. As such, funds to help fight the epidemic (as well as find
> a cure) have been used to address the general population, rather
> than being concentrated where they can do the most good.
>
> The problem lies with what the odds are of catching AIDs. For the
> typical heterosexual American, the odds of catching AIDs from an
> extra-marital sexual encounter are 1 in 5 million w/o a condom, and 1
> in 50 million w/ one, per one study. But for homosexual, bisexual,
> and intravenous drug users, the odds are 1 in 50. Over 83% of all
> AIDs victims fall into these latter categories. Because of this, money
> has basically been wasted warning a population about something that
> has less likely hood of killing them than a lightning bolt, while the real
> victims are not receiving adequate information or assistance.
I find it curious that such a blatantly ridiculous story was published in
the Wall Street Journal, but then again, they do have to cater to stupid
business types. In terms of AIDS education, it is well enough distributed
so that it reaches all groups, even the ones that might not need it at all
(I'm sure plenty of nuns are exposed to AIDS educational ads -- so
what?). So to say that AIDS education for the highesdt risk groups has
somehow been compromised is utterly implausible. I also find your
statistics implausible, and I doubt that the study cited was both recent
and respectable.
YAWN! CWA is a slanted, reactionary rag. I won't even waste my time
debating those points raised therein, as the newsletter is utterly
irresponsible and not worthy of intelligent discussion.
Larry Myles
>actually, the government is there to help the meek, really. Fags,
>Niggers, Artsies, we all fall outside the boundary established by your
>type of normalyte. In fact, survival of the fittest is right around the
>corner bro, the entangled web you and your whitey cowards have set up to
>defend your limp position is crumbling cause you can't even love
>yourselves enough to keep it together.
I may have couched it differently...but I must agree. As far as the
fittest surviving, I'm happy that others think this is the way it
will....and (relatively) soon as well. I'm not sure of my
chances...but that's ok. As far as lads like Willy go...they'll be
tits up after the first wave.
I can easily picture a scenario not unlike old China...power groups
controlling both urban and rural areas. Could be interesting.
larry
colin newell
William Grosvenor (acu...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote:
: In the old days faggots were burned,so is this practical now?
I never liked derogatory terms like "faggot".
Although heterosexual and married, I accept alternate
life styles and assume only an angry little man
like grosvenor would spread hatred like he does
because of serious personal or emotional problems.
William has offered to meet with me in Victoria or anywhere
for that matter to discuss his opinions in person over java .
If, that is, he still has the courage..
--
Robert Colin Newell
http://espresso.ts.uvic.ca
The Coffee Expert's Web Page
colin newell
: <acu...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
the following was snipped off grosvenors web page.....
DEATH PENALTY to be provided for serious crimes, whether by males or
females, such
as for drug trafficking, multiple murder, repeat drunk driving, sexual
perverts, serious
sexual attacks, armed robbery, as well as criminal negligence resulting
in serious injury or
death.
I urge all USENET readers to send their opinions on this hate
material to the webm...@compusmart.ab.ca
colin newell
William xxxxxxx (acu...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote:
: Dr.xxxxx ,MP, is completely correct in stating that xxxxx spread
: disease.
A case in point : The above users account WILL not be renewed at the
end of this month. All sys-admins take note. You and your ISP can
be taken to court for distribution of hate related material.
ISP's are 3rd party publishers and are accountable to a degree
for the material that they propagate.
There is a real line where free speech crosses into the realm
of hatred. Heed the wake-up call.
--
Robert Colin Newell
http://www.octonet.com/~coffee/
cap...@cuug.ab.ca
In article <4nfj3q$j...@milo.vcn.bc.ca>, colin newell <rne...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
>William Grosvenor (acu...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote:
>
>: In the old days faggots were burned,so is this practical now?
>
>
>I never liked derogatory terms like "faggot".
>Although heterosexual and married, I accept alternate
>life styles and assume only an angry little man
>like grosvenor would spread hatred like he does
>because of serious personal or emotional problems.
Agreed.
>
>William has offered to meet with me in Victoria or anywhere
>for that matter to discuss his opinions in person over java .
>If, that is, he still has the courage..
>
>
>
>--
>Robert Colin Newell
>http://espresso.ts.uvic.ca
>The Coffee Expert's Web Page
I have some iidea of his personal problems, another netter showed me an
article in some other newsgroup posted by Grosvenor. Looking at this
article, please rethink the idea of meeting him in person. he may have
deviant sex on his mind, especially if you're a women, and I don't think
it would matter to him if you are married. The following article that was
sent to me via e-mail was from another netter who agrees that Grosvenor
does have some very serious problems. The articles may give you some
insite as to what those problems are.
- start.
This is out of pen.pals ,I thought It's funny.ha ha
It's a few snippets Bill wrote
:56 year old, mature professional presently living in frozen northern
:Am not interested in marriage, but will consider alternatives,even in
:other countries.
(Snippola)
:I can also correspond in German. Man kann mir sogar auf Deutsch schreiben.
:Looking forward to replies from interested,mature ladies.
:William Grosvenor, 9208 - 137 Avenue, REDMONTON - Alberta, CANADA T5E 1Y5
He went and did his habitual misspelling of Edmonton.
(snippage)
1. This is were he subjests killing feminists.
Subject: Re: Question for Anti-Choicers
From: william grosvenor <acu...@compusmart.ab.ca>
Date: 1996/03/03
Message-Id: <4hc957$p...@bert.compusmart.ab.ca>
References: <4h63qq$1...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com> <4habq3$5...@nntp.texas.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-Ascii
Organization: International Institute of Management Inc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:
alt.feminism,soc.men,talk.abortion,alt.religion.christian,talk.philosophy.mi
sc,alt.abortion.inequity,tor.general
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1 (Windows; U; 16bit)
Looks like the feminazis accuse anyone opposing their murder of unborn
children of being nazis,when they are the real killers.
They then try to obfuscate issues by accusing men of gender bias,as
though men have no compassion for infants!!!
Personally,I feel that if the fembos are so strongly in favour of killing
babies,perhaps we should exterminate them,plus all thier butcher friends
making millions off the murders of the babies.
After all, a dead abortionist will never re-offend.
end
Grosvenor has some gall if he can condemn other people for the very
things he represents.
Caprina
--
"Look down,
And show
Some mercy if you can!
"Look down!
Look down
Upon your fellow man!" - "Les Miserables" Musical.
Darin McBride
Jason Silverman (jsi...@orion.it.luc.edu) wrote:
> In article <4nen34$m...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca
> (Darin McBride) wrote:
>
> > In a story appearing in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), May 1, 1996, it
> > seems the efforts to shout a warning about the AIDs epidemic have
> > backfired on the homosexual community. In 1987 the Center for
> > Disease Control (CDC) began issuing warnings how anyone could
> > catch AIDs. As such, funds to help fight the epidemic (as well as find
> > a cure) have been used to address the general population, rather
> > than being concentrated where they can do the most good.
> >
> > The problem lies with what the odds are of catching AIDs. For the
> > typical heterosexual American, the odds of catching AIDs from an
> > extra-marital sexual encounter are 1 in 5 million w/o a condom, and 1
> > in 50 million w/ one, per one study. But for homosexual, bisexual,
> > and intravenous drug users, the odds are 1 in 50. Over 83% of all
> > AIDs victims fall into these latter categories. Because of this, money
> > has basically been wasted warning a population about something that
> > has less likely hood of killing them than a lightning bolt, while the real
> > victims are not receiving adequate information or assistance.
> I find it curious that such a blatantly ridiculous story was published in
> the Wall Street Journal, but then again, they do have to cater to stupid
Perhaps it's just you who are blatantly ridiculous.
> business types. In terms of AIDS education, it is well enough distributed
> so that it reaches all groups, even the ones that might not need it at all
So the ones who don't need it... isn't that a waste of educational
funding? Shouldn't we have spread the funding in a proportional method
to target those at higher risk with more persuasive education?
> (I'm sure plenty of nuns are exposed to AIDS educational ads -- so
> what?). So to say that AIDS education for the highesdt risk groups has
> somehow been compromised is utterly implausible. I also find your
Compromised? No, only insufficiently funded proportionally speaking.
> statistics implausible, and I doubt that the study cited was both recent
> and respectable.
Doubt all you want. You seem to be reactionary and narrow-minded enough
to throw out anything that doesn't fall into your belief structure.
> YAWN! CWA is a slanted, reactionary rag. I won't even waste my time
> debating those points raised therein, as the newsletter is utterly
> irresponsible and not worthy of intelligent discussion.
And, sir, neither are you.
Rich Graves
rne...@vcn.bc.ca (colin newell) writes:
>There is a real line where free speech crosses into the realm
>of hatred. Heed the wake-up call.
You mean like, wake up and smell the coffee?
Oh, I think assholes like "Mr. Grosvenor" should be able to talk about
"faggots" in public. It shows their true character.
>Robert Colin Newell
>http://www.octonet.com/~coffee/
>The Coffee Expert's Web Page
I prefer http://www.math.columbia.edu/~bayer/coffee.html, which is linked
from your page. It's got a pretty blue ribbon on it.
-rich
http://www.c2.org/~rich/Not_By_Me_Not_My_Views/rebuttal.html
cjo...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
04.it.luc.edu> <4ng0fi$13...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>
Organization: Edmonton FreeNet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Distribution:
Darin, I respect your right to have your opinions, no matter how
outlandish, moronic, or idiotic I may find them. Please note: I'm going
to try to stay on a strictly rational basis, and avoid personally
attacking you. On occasion, though, I must confess to wondering whether
or not you are another account for our good friend, Mr. Grosvenor. But, at
least you give (some) (supposed) supporting evidence.
Darin McBride (mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: Jason Silverman (jsi...@orion.it.luc.edu) wrote:
: > In article <4nen34$m...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca
: > (Darin McBride) wrote:
: >
: > > In a story appearing in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), May 1, 1996, it
: > > seems the efforts to shout a warning about the AIDs epidemic have
: > > backfired on the homosexual community. In 1987 the Center for
: > > Disease Control (CDC) began issuing warnings how anyone could
: > > catch AIDs. As such, funds to help fight the epidemic (as well as find
: > > a cure) have been used to address the general population, rather
: > > than being concentrated where they can do the most good.
Note: Heterosexuals are *NOT* immune to AIDS. If examples are
needed, the Krever inquiry should be able to provide adequate numbers.
: > > The problem lies with what the odds are of catching AIDs. For the
: > > typical heterosexual American, the odds of catching AIDs from an
: > > extra-marital sexual encounter are 1 in 5 million w/o a condom, and 1
: > > in 50 million w/ one, per one study. But for homosexual, bisexual,
: > > and intravenous drug users, the odds are 1 in 50. Over 83% of all
: > > AIDs victims fall into these latter categories. Because of this, money
: > > has basically been wasted warning a population about something that
: > > has less likely hood of killing them than a lightning bolt, while the
: > > real
: > > victims are not receiving adequate information or assistance.
I would have to seriously doubt these statistics, as they do not
have any source, nor have you told us their age. However, one could
point out that of course it's more likely that homosexuals, bisexual, and
intravenous drug users will have a higher rate, simply because there are
fewer people in those groups. If there are equivalent numbers in both
the aforementioned and the heterosexual groups, the chances will be
correspondingly higher in the homosexual, bisexual, and drug user groups.
: > I find it curious that such a blatantly ridiculous story was published in
: > the Wall Street Journal, but then again, they do have to cater to stupid
: Perhaps it's just you who are blatantly ridiculous.
Let's try to keep this rational and objective. Flaming will
*not* help anyone.
: > business types. In terms of AIDS education, it is well enough distributed
: > so that it reaches all groups, even the ones that might not need it at all
Mr. Silverman has a point here: is it not better to warn
everyone, in the event that the disease entered the general population,
instead of remaining relatively confined to the homosexual, bisexual, and
intravenous drug user communities, as it did? If the education is
restricted to those groups which are believed to be at risk, but the
disease actually infects other groups, would that not be the waste of
funding, as noted in your next paragraph?
: So the ones who don't need it... isn't that a waste of educational
: funding? Shouldn't we have spread the funding in a proportional method
: to target those at higher risk with more persuasive education?
See previous paragraph.
: > (I'm sure plenty of nuns are exposed to AIDS educational ads -- so
: > what?). So to say that AIDS education for the highesdt risk groups has
: > somehow been compromised is utterly implausible. I also find your
: Compromised? No, only insufficiently funded proportionally speaking.
: > statistics implausible, and I doubt that the study cited was both recent
: > and respectable.
: Doubt all you want. You seem to be reactionary and narrow-minded enough
: to throw out anything that doesn't fall into your belief structure.
One could make the same point about you, Darin. Without the
citation to *respectably conducted* research, published in a respected
scientific journal, the statistics are worthless, and invalid.
: > YAWN! CWA is a slanted, reactionary rag. I won't even waste my time
: > debating those points raised therein, as the newsletter is utterly
: > irresponsible and not worthy of intelligent discussion.
: And, sir, neither are you.
Mr. Silverman has yet another point here, although he (perhaps)
did not present it in a coherent manner. If I understand him correctly,
he is stating that CWA has a particular viewpoint which it tends to
stress, and which may colour the statistics, opinions, etc that you have
quoted.
cap...@cuug.ab.ca
In article <4nfsk5$k...@milo.vcn.bc.ca>, colin newell <rne...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
>William xxxxxxx (acu...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote:
>: Dr.xxxxx ,MP, is completely correct in stating that xxxxx spread
>: disease.
>
>
>A case in point : The above users account WILL not be renewed at the
>end of this month. All sys-admins take note. You and your ISP can
>be taken to court for distribution of hate related material.
>ISP's are 3rd party publishers and are accountable to a degree
>for the material that they propagate.
>
>of hatred. Heed the wake-up call.
>
Here here!!
Thanks for helping in the fight against hate! Let's make sure the next
isp he joins is well aware of his agenda, let's do what we can to prevent
more of this sort of thing from happening in future!!
Jason Kodish
In article <4ncqar$m...@gold.interlog.com> cpie...@interlog.com writes:
>
>
>You're entitled to your opinion, Mr. Grosvenor. Now shut the fuck up.
>
He's already done the self-immolation special. He's being banned from
every ISP in the city....(though the specifics behind it, I have yet to
learn)
>
>--
>****************************************************************************
>Chris Pierson ** "No one hands me my gun and says, 'run.' _No one_."
>Freelance Editor ** --Britt (James Coburn), The Magnificent Seven
>****************************************************************************
>
--
Jason Kodish
Thirring Institute for Applied Gravitational Research
-----------------------------------------------------
Time is awake when all things sleep
Time stands straight when all things fall
Time shuts in all and will not be shut.
Is, was, and shall be are Time's children
O Reasoning,be witness, be stable--VYASA,the Mahabarata (AD 400)
Scott Marsden
mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca (Darin McBride) wrote:
>> > In the old days faggots were burned,so is this practical now?
>For the same reason I am against capital punishment, no - you could be
>wrong.
Just what are you saying!? That all homosexuals are worthy of death,
but seeing as how there is no way to prove someone is a homosexual,
then genocide is not right?
A sane person would answer, "no -- the entire idea is wrong."
Larry Myles
>I never liked derogatory terms like "faggot".
Tough. Who appointed you my censor?
>Although heterosexual and married, I accept alternate
>life styles and assume only an angry little man
>like grosvenor would spread hatred like he does
>because of serious personal or emotional problems.
Wee Willy is more than likely a closet case. Once out..he might just
be a little more tolerant of his fellow faggot. I've come across your
type before...all too ready to call confused folks like Willy a
hate-monger.
Even if he is..are you not in the least bit curious as to why Wee
Willy is the way he is? I sure as hell am...and as there are
thousands of newsgroups, I am happy that Willy is here pitching his
tirade.
>William has offered to meet with me in Victoria or anywhere
>for that matter to discuss his opinions in person over java .
>If, that is, he still has the courage..
Yes, well don't bend over...
larry
>--
>Robert Colin Newell
>http://espresso.ts.uvic.ca
TheNutHouse
In article <3198F7...@compusmart.ab.ca>, acu...@compusmart.ab.ca says...
>
>Dr.Grant Hill,MP, is completely correct in stating that faggots spread
>disease.
>
Funny he didn't mention anything about the Red Cross.
tom moran
rne...@vcn.bc.ca (colin newell) wrote:
>William xxxxxxx (acu...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote:
>: Dr.xxxxx ,MP, is completely correct in stating that xxxxx spread
>: disease.
>
>
>A case in point : The above users account WILL not be renewed at the
>end of this month. All sys-admins take note. You and your ISP can
>be taken to court for distribution of hate related material.
>ISP's are 3rd party publishers and are accountable to a degree
>for the material that they propagate.
>
>There is a real line where free speech crosses into the realm
>of hatred. Heed the wake-up call.
>
>--
>Robert Colin Newell
>http://www.octonet.com/~coffee/
>The Coffee Expert's Web Page
Who determines what constitutes "hate"? On this group you are
charged with "hate" crimes if you post something with lots of support
or just make negative inference on spoken words.
You say "There is a real line where free speech crosses the realm
of hatred". Do you have some sort of formula that can prove it?
Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric
cap...@cuug.ab.ca wrote:
>I have some iidea of his personal problems, another netter showed me an
>article in some other newsgroup posted by Grosvenor. Looking at this
>article, please rethink the idea of meeting him in person. he may have
>deviant sex on his mind, especially if you're a women, and I don't think
>it would matter to him if you are married. The following article that was
>sent to me via e-mail was from another netter who agrees that Grosvenor
>does have some very serious problems. The articles may give you some
>insite as to what those problems are.
Is it ethical to post e-mail which was sent to you in confidence?
If people keep everyones e-mail and then post it publically when they
feel the need then why should I send anyone any e-mail at all?
I highly disapprove of this practice.
I think it is rather rude.
Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric
"Illegitimi non carborundum est."
(Don't let the bastards grind you down.)
John Bartol
In article <4ngi8q$5...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric <zel...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>Is it ethical to post e-mail which was sent to you in confidence?
>If people keep everyones e-mail and then post it publically when they
>feel the need then why should I send anyone any e-mail at all?
From what I read of Caprina's post, it was *not* e-mail. It was a *post*
from a news group or board (pen.pals).
I tried to keep my answer to small words for you :-)
>
>I highly disapprove of this practice.
>I think it is rather rude.
Sigh.
--
"There is a huge difference between disliking somebody - maybe even disliking
them a lot - and actually shooting them, strangling them, dragging them
____________ through the fields and setting their house on fire. It was a
John Bartol \___ difference which kept the vast majority of the population
jb...@zadall.com\ alive from day to day." [DGHDA by Douglas Adams]
ca...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
colin newell (rne...@vcn.bc.ca) wrote:
: : <acu...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
: the following was snipped off grosvenors web page.....
: DEATH PENALTY to be provided for serious crimes, whether by males or
: females, such <clipped>
: death.
: I urge all USENET readers to send their opinions on this hate
: material to the <clipped>
: --
: Robert Colin Newell
: http://espresso.ts.uvic.ca
: The Coffee Expert's Web Page
Hmmm! I wonder how much publicity you've just given them?
They may have freedom of speech, but let's not help them promote.
Now as for the coffee... That's a whole other thing. Make mine Columbian;
black with 1/2 tsp of sugar please.
|-) mmmmm; good!
Darin McBride
[by request of someone from alt.revisionism, that ng has been removed]
cjo...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
> 04.it.luc.edu> <4ng0fi$13...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>
> Organization: Edmonton FreeNet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
> Distribution:
> Darin, I respect your right to have your opinions, no matter how
> outlandish, moronic, or idiotic I may find them. Please note: I'm going
And, quite honestly, it applies equally, both with the positive and the
(not very well) vieled negative.
> to try to stay on a strictly rational basis, and avoid personally
> attacking you. On occasion, though, I must confess to wondering whether
> or not you are another account for our good friend, Mr. Grosvenor. But, at
> least you give (some) (supposed) supporting evidence.
In an attempt to prove otherwise from the outset of this hugely
controversial topic, I have attempted to keep what little flaming I do
quite pointed rather than broad-stroked and filled with hatred that
Grosvenor seems to use. I fully realized that just because I support
some of the ideals behind the AFL (but not the means!), some people who
are, um, lacking in logical training would try to make such a
connection, so I've been actively avoiding it.
> Darin McBride (mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca) wrote:
> : Jason Silverman (jsi...@orion.it.luc.edu) wrote:
> : > In article <4nen34$m...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca
> : > (Darin McBride) wrote:
> : >
> : > > In a story appearing in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), May 1, 1996, it
> : > > seems the efforts to shout a warning about the AIDs epidemic have
> : > > backfired on the homosexual community. In 1987 the Center for
> : > > Disease Control (CDC) began issuing warnings how anyone could
> : > > catch AIDs. As such, funds to help fight the epidemic (as well as find
> : > > a cure) have been used to address the general population, rather
> : > > than being concentrated where they can do the most good.
>
> Note: Heterosexuals are *NOT* immune to AIDS. If examples are
> needed, the Krever inquiry should be able to provide adequate numbers.
I have not seen any implication that heterosexuals *are* immune to AIDS.
I will, however, make the bold claim that *I* am immune since I avoid
*all* risk groups... (I remain virgin, don't do drugs, and have no blood
requirements so I avoid tainted blood in the blood bank... and I don't
get in physical fights so I won't receive blood that way either.)
Admittedly, there is that rare chance I catch it - but that will be
forced upon me. :-/
> : > > The problem lies with what the odds are of catching AIDs. For the
> : > > typical heterosexual American, the odds of catching AIDs from an
> : > > extra-marital sexual encounter are 1 in 5 million w/o a condom, and 1
> : > > in 50 million w/ one, per one study. But for homosexual, bisexual,
> : > > and intravenous drug users, the odds are 1 in 50. Over 83% of all
> : > > AIDs victims fall into these latter categories. Because of this, money
> : > > has basically been wasted warning a population about something that
> : > > has less likely hood of killing them than a lightning bolt, while the
> : > > real
> : > > victims are not receiving adequate information or assistance.
> I would have to seriously doubt these statistics, as they do not
> have any source, nor have you told us their age. However, one could
I took it from the article listed above, second hand. I don't have
further information, but you *are* free to contact the WSJ for more
information as the date of the publication was given.
> point out that of course it's more likely that homosexuals, bisexual, and
> intravenous drug users will have a higher rate, simply because there are
> fewer people in those groups. If there are equivalent numbers in both
I don't follow the logic - if 15% of my potential mates are infected, it
shouldn't matter whether the potential is 100 people or 100,000 people.
When playing russion roullette, it shouldn't matter if 1 of 6 chambers
are loaded, or 100 in 600, if they're approximately equally distributed
or, better, approximately randomly distributed. [If your 'random number
generation' background is insufficient to follow 'approximately random',
just ignore the 'approximately']
> the aforementioned and the heterosexual groups, the chances will be
> correspondingly higher in the homosexual, bisexual, and drug user groups.
The only way that a 15% is *more* than 15% is if you take more than one
pull on that trigger (i.e., have more partners) which, as an average, I
would guess homosexuals do. However, given proper evidence to the
contrary, I would accept that homosexuals have just as many partners as
heterosexuals as an average.
> : > I find it curious that such a blatantly ridiculous story was published in
> : > the Wall Street Journal, but then again, they do have to cater to stupid
> : Perhaps it's just you who are blatantly ridiculous.
> Let's try to keep this rational and objective. Flaming will
> *not* help anyone.
Well, not *quite* true. It *does* help calm the flamer down, until the
flamee responds in kind. :-)
> : > business types. In terms of AIDS education, it is well enough distributed
> : > so that it reaches all groups, even the ones that might not need it at all
> Mr. Silverman has a point here: is it not better to warn
> everyone, in the event that the disease entered the general population,
> instead of remaining relatively confined to the homosexual, bisexual, and
> intravenous drug user communities, as it did? If the education is
> restricted to those groups which are believed to be at risk, but the
> disease actually infects other groups, would that not be the waste of
> funding, as noted in your next paragraph?
> : So the ones who don't need it... isn't that a waste of educational
^^^^^
> : funding? Shouldn't we have spread the funding in a proportional method
> : to target those at higher risk with more persuasive education?
> See previous paragraph.
Not quite - those who *don't* need it (I was referring to the nuns that
Mr. Silverman refers to in the next paragraph) will *never* need it.
However, I did propose, as did the article I had posted, a
*proportional* method where those at high risk would get more education,
where those with less risk would get less (i.e., telling them what
causes risk, even at their risk level), but not spending a lot of time
on it. You wouldn't go around teaching men (other than doctors) about
how to detect and prevent breast cancer (and self-examinations) because
men so rarely get breast cancer - you spend your time teaching women
about it. I only propose similar for AIDS prevention.
> : > (I'm sure plenty of nuns are exposed to AIDS educational ads -- so
> : > what?). So to say that AIDS education for the highesdt risk groups has
> : > somehow been compromised is utterly implausible. I also find your
> : Compromised? No, only insufficiently funded proportionally speaking.
> : > statistics implausible, and I doubt that the study cited was both recent
> : > and respectable.
> : Doubt all you want. You seem to be reactionary and narrow-minded enough
> : to throw out anything that doesn't fall into your belief structure.
> One could make the same point about you, Darin. Without the
> citation to *respectably conducted* research, published in a respected
> scientific journal, the statistics are worthless, and invalid.
I would assume that WSJ didn't make up the numbers (although I could be
wrong about that...), so where did they get the numbers from?
> : > YAWN! CWA is a slanted, reactionary rag. I won't even waste my time
> : > debating those points raised therein, as the newsletter is utterly
> : > irresponsible and not worthy of intelligent discussion.
> : And, sir, neither are you.
> Mr. Silverman has yet another point here, although he (perhaps)
> did not present it in a coherent manner. If I understand him correctly,
> he is stating that CWA has a particular viewpoint which it tends to
> stress, and which may colour the statistics, opinions, etc that you have
> quoted.
I didn't disagree with that. If you are so willing to look 'beneath the
covers' on what Mr. Silverman said, I would implore you to do similarily
in my benefit simultaneously. My counter was simply that Mr. Silverman
is no less biased than the CWA might be. Perhaps the CWA is *less*
biased, and Mr. Silverman is simply propogating conspiracy theory.
Perhaps they *are* biased, but that does not absolve Mr. Silverman of
his own bias. I said this all just as 'coherently' as Mr. Silverman
did. (Further, the CWA may be biased, but not necessarily as biased as
Mr. Silverman implies.)
--
Darin McBride:mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca/mcb...@tower.bohica.net
Plan for your future - you'll live | I'm not a cynic - I just don't
the rest of your life there! | believe anything anyone tells me.
colin newell
tom moran (t...@pacificnet.net) wrote:
: Who determines what constitutes "hate"? On this group you are
: charged with "hate" crimes if you post something with lots of support
: or just make negative inference on spoken words.
: You say "There is a real line where free speech crosses the realm
: of hatred". Do you have some sort of formula that can prove it?
That rule is called Common Sense.
Perhaps you should purchase Common Sense for Dummies...
You "know" where the line is..
colin newell
Darin McBride (mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: That's pure shit. (It may be true, but it's still reeks of shit.) My
: ISP has *no* control over what I post here or anywhere else - they
: should not bear responsibility for my posts. I, alone, should bear that
: responsibility.
Think again. An ISP is a publisher like a newspaper.
No Newspaper would carry the hateful trash that you
see on the internet, without worry of lawsuits.
Take a good look around Bubba. What you see here will
most certainly change. The internet should not be
a home for posting cowards afraid to express themselves
in the light of day.
cap...@cuug.ab.ca
>
>>I have some iidea of his personal problems, another netter showed me an
>>article in some other newsgroup posted by Grosvenor. Looking at this
>>article, please rethink the idea of meeting him in person. he may have
>>deviant sex on his mind, especially if you're a women, and I don't think
>>it would matter to him if you are married. The following article that was
>>sent to me via e-mail was from another netter who agrees that Grosvenor
>>does have some very serious problems. The articles may give you some
>>insite as to what those problems are.
>
>If people keep everyones e-mail and then post it publically when they
>feel the need then why should I send anyone any e-mail at all?
>
>I think it is rather rude.
>
>
>
>
>"Illegitimi non carborundum est."
>(Don't let the bastards grind you down.)
>
hate mongers, and this friend sent me the posting from Acumen in order to
help out. I'm sure he wouldn't mind my reposting of this Acumen article,
which is what this is. Besides, I took everything else out of
the e-mail which wasn't relevant to this subject, so unless you have a
*real* issue to discuss, unless you want to help to get rid of hate,
kindly shut up. Beef about minor usenet botching some other time when the
thread isn't quite so serious.
Caprina
--
"Look down,
And show
Some mercy if you can!
"Look down!
Darin McBride
> >> > In the old days faggots were burned,so is this practical now?
> >For the same reason I am against capital punishment, no - you could be
> >wrong.
> Just what are you saying!? That all homosexuals are worthy of death,
> but seeing as how there is no way to prove someone is a homosexual,
> then genocide is not right?
> A sane person would answer, "no -- the entire idea is wrong."
I was operating under an assumption no one else would be willing to:
that there was a point 'in the old days' of doing so.
--
Darin McBride:mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca/mcb...@tower.bohica.net
Plan for your future - you'll live the rest of your life there!
Darin McBride
Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric (zel...@netcom.ca) wrote:
> Is it ethical to post e-mail which was sent to you in confidence?
> If people keep everyones e-mail and then post it publically when they
> feel the need then why should I send anyone any e-mail at all?
> I highly disapprove of this practice.
> I think it is rather rude.
I have a simple policy: if it is inflamatory (sp), it gets posted.
Darin McBride
colin newell (rne...@vcn.bc.ca) wrote:
> William xxxxxxx (acu...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote:
> : Dr.xxxxx ,MP, is completely correct in stating that xxxxx spread
> : disease.
> A case in point : The above users account WILL not be renewed at the
> end of this month. All sys-admins take note. You and your ISP can
> be taken to court for distribution of hate related material.
> ISP's are 3rd party publishers and are accountable to a degree
> for the material that they propagate.
That's pure shit. (It may be true, but it's still reeks of shit.) My
ISP has *no* control over what I post here or anywhere else - they
should not bear responsibility for my posts. I, alone, should bear that
responsibility.
> There is a real line where free speech crosses into the realm
> of hatred. Heed the wake-up call.
And there is a real line where we cross over to censorship. Grosvenor
has actually had real points to bring up from time to time, sometimes
not even so controversial.
Jwpax
In article <4nfjtb$j...@milo.vcn.bc.ca>, rne...@vcn.bc.ca (colin newell)
writes:
>DEATH PENALTY to be provided for serious crimes, whether by males or
>females, such
>as for drug trafficking, multiple murder, repeat drunk driving, sexual
>perverts, serious
>sexual attacks, armed robbery, as well as criminal negligence resulting
>in serious injury or
>death.
Wonder why weapons offences aren't on this list?
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: end of this month. All sys-admins take note. You and your ISP can
: be taken to court for distribution of hate related material.
ISps are common carriers, or should be, like the phone company. I hate
hate material, but I hate censorship more.
Grossvenor was terminated for e-mail harrassment, not hate posts.
: --
: Robert Colin Newell
: http://www.octonet.com/~coffee/
: The Coffee Expert's Web Page
--
-Jason Kodish
It is a sad day when one who opposes the ever looming power of the State
is called an anarchist. When it becomes politically incorrect to believe
in such basic precepts such as freedom of choice. It is my belief that
those who do not defend their rights deserve to lose them...-Me.
ron
mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca (Darin McBride) wrote:
>colin newell (rne...@vcn.bc.ca) wrote:
>> William xxxxxxx (acu...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote:
>> A case in point : The above users account WILL not be renewed at the
>> end of this month. All sys-admins take note. You and your ISP can
>> be taken to court for distribution of hate related material.
>> ISP's are 3rd party publishers and are accountable to a degree
>> for the material that they propagate.
>That's pure shit. (It may be true, but it's still reeks of shit.) My
>ISP has *no* control over what I post here or anywhere else - they
>should not bear responsibility for my posts. I, alone, should bear that
>responsibility.
I'd first like to state that I abhor censorship except in the case
where violence and/or bodily harm is threatened or encouraged.
ISP's may or may not be responsible for what their user's post on
Usenet but they *are* businesses and, as such, are keenly aware of
publicity, positive or negative. I know that if I were an ISP owner,
I'd hate to see my domain name displayed on every one of Willie's
posts (or similar ones) or be constantly having to deal with
complaints sent from other Usenet participants.
He should try to find an ISP owned by someone who shares his views.
I'm sure there's got to be at least one neo-Nazi extremist who runs an
ISP.
>And there is a real line where we cross over to censorship. Grosvenor
>has actually had real points to bring up from time to time, sometimes
>not even so controversial.
It's not really censorship unless he has no alternative. Compusmart
has basically told him that he has a right ot his views but they don't
want their name associated with him in any way. He just has to move
on. I'm certain we haven't heard the last of him.
--
Ron Ingelevics In spring, at the end of the day,
Toronto, Ontario You should smell like dirt.
love...@io.org - Margaret Atwood
cap...@cuug.ab.ca
In article <319c8c41...@news.pacificnet.net>,
tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>>: disease.
>>
>>
>>end of this month. All sys-admins take note. You and your ISP can
>>be taken to court for distribution of hate related material.
>>ISP's are 3rd party publishers and are accountable to a degree
>>for the material that they propagate.
>>
>>of hatred. Heed the wake-up call.
>>
>charged with "hate" crimes if you post something with lots of support
>or just make negative inference on spoken words.
> You say "There is a real line where free speech crosses the realm
>of hatred". Do you have some sort of formula that can prove it?
Hatred is the promotion of abuse toward people. If you read any of
Grosvenor's posts, you'd know what hatred is. Abuse is harrassment or
cruelty, or both together. If you don't consider Grosvenor's continual
abusive posts to be hatred, then you must not think that Hitler was a
hate monger either. Grosvenor promotes violence against people just like
Hitler did. The only difference is, Hitler was in power, and this enabled
him to actually carry out his unspeakable agenda. This should never
*never* be allowed to repeat, not even start. Hitler started out first
with words, and the actions came later. Grosvenor is at the first stage
of his hate campaign, and there is no reason we should let it go any
farther or continue.
Jack McLellan
>>>>>>> You really do seem like a closet homosexual<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This old reverse label stunt has been done to death. Why can't you accept
that the Queer lifestyle is repugnant to most of us in this society?
Regards,
... sigh.
Christopher Greenan
William Grosvenor (acu...@compusmart.ab.ca) writes:
> Dr.Grant Hill,MP, is completely correct in stating that faggots spread
> disease.
>
> He is far too polite,since I am sure he also has read the acclaimed
> documentary book "AND THE BAND PLAYED ON",which also became a movie,
> which details how AIDS was spread worldwide,deliberately,by the faggot
> with Air Canada.This was even supported by the government of Canada.
>
> Now,normal people all over the world must pay for these perverts and the
> astronomic costs for their medical care until they get cremated.
>
> I feel that they should NOT GET SPECIAL RIGHTS,even if the faggot loving
> Canadian government wants to give them.
Neither should you!!
>
> Is there any real use for disease spreading faggots?
Is there any 'real use' for someone like yourself???
> In the old days faggots were burned,so is this practical now?
Can we burn you then??
colin newell
ron (love...@io.org) wrote:
: I'd first like to state that I abhor censorship except in the case
: where violence and/or bodily harm is threatened or encouraged.
So it is OK to say that XXXX-people are this and YYYYY-people
are that ?? Pick a group and trash them..IS that what your advocating ??
: ISP's may or may not be responsible for what their user's post on
: Usenet but they *are* businesses and, as such, are keenly aware of
: publicity, positive or negative. I know that if I were an ISP owner,
: I'd hate to see my domain name displayed on every one of Willie's
: posts (or similar ones) or be constantly having to deal with
: complaints sent from other Usenet participants.
ISP's are third party publishers like any other medium.
If a NEWSPAPER published a letter to an editor that
espoused hatred to persons or groups, they would be in
deep s*it..
: He should try to find an ISP owned by someone who shares his views.
: I'm sure there's got to be at least one neo-Nazi extremist who runs an
: ISP.
That is one too many...
: >And there is a real line where we cross over to censorship. Grosvenor
: >has actually had real points to bring up from time to time, sometimes
: >not even so controversial.
Well, if he would discipline himself and get off his anti-semite,
anti-african-american, anti-gay kick, someone might even find him
a likeable human being..
I doubt it though..
: It's not really censorship unless he has no alternative. Compusmart
: has basically told him that he has a right ot his views but they don't
: want their name associated with him in any way. He just has to move
: on. I'm certain we haven't heard the last of him.
I know that we have not.
--
Robert Colin Newell
http://espresso.ts.uvic.ca
william c anderson
tom moran (t...@pacificnet.net) wrote:
: Who determines what constitutes "hate"? On this group you are
: charged with "hate" crimes if you post something with lots of support
: or just make negative inference on spoken words.
How would you know, Tom? When have you ever posted "something with
lots of support"?
That said, I have to <choke> agree with Moran's main point. In
order to outlaw hate, you have to give somebody the power to decide
what is and isn't hate. And that scares me.
Bill
tom moran
love...@io.org (ron) wrote:
>mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca (Darin McBride) wrote:
>>colin newell (rne...@vcn.bc.ca) wrote:
>>> William xxxxxxx (acu...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote:
>
>>> A case in point : The above users account WILL not be renewed at the
>>> end of this month. All sys-admins take note. You and your ISP can
>>> be taken to court for distribution of hate related material.
>>> ISP's are 3rd party publishers and are accountable to a degree
>>> for the material that they propagate.
>
>>That's pure shit. (It may be true, but it's still reeks of shit.) My
>>ISP has *no* control over what I post here or anywhere else - they
>>should not bear responsibility for my posts. I, alone, should bear that
>>responsibility.
>
>I'd first like to state that I abhor censorship except in the case
>where violence and/or bodily harm is threatened or encouraged.
>
>ISP's may or may not be responsible for what their user's post on
>Usenet but they *are* businesses and, as such, are keenly aware of
>publicity, positive or negative.
The immediate above is the same line used by the ADL and Simon
Wiesenthal Center in their calls for censorship.
> I know that if I were an ISP owner,
>I'd hate to see my domain name displayed on every one of Willie's
>posts (or similar ones) or be constantly having to deal with
>complaints sent from other Usenet participants.
>
>He should try to find an ISP owned by someone who shares his views.
>I'm sure there's got to be at least one neo-Nazi extremist who runs an
>ISP.
>
>>And there is a real line where we cross over to censorship. Grosvenor
>>has actually had real points to bring up from time to time, sometimes
>>not even so controversial.
>
>It's not really censorship unless he has no alternative. Compusmart
>has basically told him that he has a right ot his views but they don't
>want their name associated with him in any way. He just has to move
>on. I'm certain we haven't heard the last of him.
>
>
ve...@compusmart.ab.ca
In article <4nfjtb$j...@milo.vcn.bc.ca>,
rne...@vcn.bc.ca (colin newell) wrote:
>: <acu...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>the following was snipped off grosvenors web page.....
>
>
>
How interesting that you forgot to also snip off Compusmart's "SmartNet" entry
page into their user home pages (affectionately called "Club Web"):
"SmartNet provides space to its users for creating home pages."
"SmartNet in no way maintains responsiblity for the content of these pages."
"Some pages may contain material which may be considered objectionable to some
viewers. "
"VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED"
<On to Club Web>
<Return to SmartNet Home Page>
Now you may like Grosvenor or hate the guy (I think he's a crackpot, but
that's only my opinion based on very limited information) but keep these few
salient points in mind:
The ISP expended a reasonable effort to give you fair warning. And if you
were only presented with the direct hot-link to the stuff you found repulsive,
so what. It does NOT change the fact that the ISP made the effort to warn
you. Ignorance is not a defense.
All that notwithstanding, remember, YOU made the choice to read that stuff,
and YOU chose to be offended. Grosvenor can't make you choose or feel
anything without your consent.
If he (or anyone else for that matter) spouts off anything that's not your cup
of tea, just wave, say "Have a Nice Day," and walk away. That's it. You
can't control what Grosvenor thinks or says, and he can't control what you
feel.
There are laws in existence (and believe me, NONE of ANY recent legislation
has been responsible for any of this) that will let you move, without let or
hinderance, to remove yourself from Grosvenor's rants, and there are laws in
place to deal with any of his thoughts, should they ever be converted into
ACTIONS. So you see, we're covered. We've always been covered.
Yours and everybody elses efforts are best expended by stopping this
bullshitting and screwing around and STOP conducting your lives by the rule of
your feelings and focus on the character and nobility of doing the right
thing.
Shit! If all of us went on feeling, nobody would ever rush back into a
burning house to save a baby because we'd be afraid of the pain of getting
burned in the process........
rmil...@rci.rogers.com
In article <4ngi8q$5...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> zel...@netcom.ca (Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric) writes:
>From: zel...@netcom.ca (Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric)
>Subject: Re: FAGGOTS SPREAD AIDS-WHY PROTECT THEM?
>Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 03:42:58 GMT
>cap...@cuug.ab.ca wrote:
>>I have some iidea of his personal problems, another netter showed me an
>>article in some other newsgroup posted by Grosvenor. Looking at this
>>article, please rethink the idea of meeting him in person. he may have
>>deviant sex on his mind, especially if you're a women, and I don't think
>>it would matter to him if you are married. The following article that was
>>sent to me via e-mail was from another netter who agrees that Grosvenor
>>does have some very serious problems. The articles may give you some
>>insite as to what those problems are.
>Is it ethical to post e-mail which was sent to you in confidence?
>If people keep everyones e-mail and then post it publically when they
>feel the need then why should I send anyone any e-mail at all?
>I highly disapprove of this practice.
>I think it is rather rude.
>Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric
>"Illegitimi non carborundum est."
>(Don't let the bastards grind you down.)
And who are you to disapprove? How self-righteous!
You could do us all a favour by not sending any more e-mail.
Robert Milkovich
tom moran
rne...@vcn.bc.ca (colin newell) wrote:
>tom moran (t...@pacificnet.net) wrote:
>
>
>: Who determines what constitutes "hate"? On this group you are
>: charged with "hate" crimes if you post something with lots of support
>: or just make negative inference on spoken words.
>: You say "There is a real line where free speech crosses the realm
>: of hatred". Do you have some sort of formula that can prove it?
>Newell:
>That rule is called Common Sense.
"Common sense". Now there is a term I have thought about many times.
Maybe you could give your definition of it before we go on.
>Perhaps you should purchase Common Sense for Dummies...
Here you post support for cencorship and then your follow up is
"Perhaps you should purchase Common Sense for Dummies... "
>You "know" where the line is..
No. I don't know where the "line" is. Where did you get the
"know" in quote marks? Why don't you tell us where the "line" is.
Heres a question for you; Can a true statement be hateful?
Darin McBride
Jason Kodish (jko...@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca) wrote:
> In article <4ncqar$m...@gold.interlog.com> cpie...@interlog.com writes:
> >
> >
> >You're entitled to your opinion, Mr. Grosvenor. Now shut the fuck up.
> >
> He's already done the self-immolation special. He's being banned from
> every ISP in the city....(though the specifics behind it, I have yet to
> learn)
All the more reason for me to start my UUCP feed back up full time and
offer him an account. Remember your moments of being practically
banned, and the rightoids gave you a feed?
sh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: : disease.
: A case in point : The above users account WILL not be renewed at the
: end of this month. All sys-admins take note. You and your ISP can
: be taken to court for distribution of hate related material.
: ISP's are 3rd party publishers and are accountable to a degree
: for the material that they propagate.
: There is a real line where free speech crosses into the realm
: of hatred. Heed the wake-up call.
: --
: Robert Colin Newell
: http://www.octonet.com/~coffee/
: The Coffee Expert's Web Page
--
R. Newell, you are a gutless wonder of an asshole. Even though I disagree
with W. Grosvenor, acumen, whomever, 90% of the time..so what? and PLEASE
can your self righteous, sanctimonious bull shit about "hate". I,
frankly, dont give a rats ass what our current legislation says about
hate. Personally, I believe that hate does far more harm to the person
habouring the hate, most of the time. WHAT is the difference if someone
assaults me because I am purple skinned, or if someone assaults me
because I have a money laden wallet? Bottom line: I have black eyes and
empty wallet, NO MATTER WHAT amount of hate they may harbour. But the
forces of political correctness are strong here! If I threw a rock at you
what should it matter as to my motivation? But If you are a minority
member, than, voila, I get the book thrown at me. Justice? I think not.
So, bottom line, let ME be the judge of what I read. If I dont like it,
Ican use my kill file, etc. Get oout of my face, please.
tom moran
t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
Heres one I got e-mail.
X-UIDL: 832425465.000
From: Jw...@aol.com
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 22:49:39 -0400
To: t...@pacificnet.net
Subject: Re: Hate Material will NOT BE Tolerated!
Content-Length: 356
"Ever heard of the Criminal Code?"
Now that is a heavy statement. Perhaps the person, Jwpax, will expand
on it.
ve...@compusmart.ab.ca
In article <4ni43a$t...@news1.io.org>, love...@io.org (ron) wrote:
>I'd first like to state that I abhor censorship except in the case
>where violence and/or bodily harm is threatened or encouraged.
Typing 'but' or 'except' behind your statement completely unravels your point.
Either you abhor it or you don't. You have to understand that you have to
have absolutes and LIVE by them, or you get chaos.
Hell, I might as well believe in "Thou Shalt Not Kill" .... and add "unless
they were *really* bad". The above is one of the Ten COMMANDMENTS, not one of
the ten "suggestions"....
So if you abhor censorship, you have to accept the right to freedom of speech
in all its good AND bad forms...
Daniel Swan
colin newell (rne...@vcn.bc.ca) wrote:
: William xxxxxxx (acu...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote:
: : Dr.xxxxx ,MP, is completely correct in stating that xxxxx spread
: : disease.
: A case in point : The above users account WILL not be renewed at the
: end of this month. All sys-admins take note. You and your ISP can
: be taken to court for distribution of hate related material.
Grosvenors material was more opinionated than hateful. It
singled out no identifyable cultural group (unless you consider
murderers to be a subculture).
I commend you, Mr Newell, on your solid victory not only over
Mr. Grosvenor, but over freedom of expression.
Scott
It looks to me, like most people are opting for "Chaos".
From my point of view there is little black and white and
lots of shades of grey. Go ahead say any thing you want tho
it doesn't matter if I agree or not, you should have the right
to say it.
Scott
J. Chapman
In message <4nfsk5$k...@milo.vcn.bc.ca> - rne...@vcn.bc.ca (colin newell) write
s:
>
>William xxxxxxx (acu...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote:
>: Dr.xxxxx ,MP, is completely correct in stating that xxxxx spread
>: disease.
>
>
>A case in point : The above users account WILL not be renewed at the
>end of this month. All sys-admins take note. You and your ISP can
>be taken to court for distribution of hate related material.
>for the material that they propagate.
>
>There is a real line where free speech crosses into the realm
>of hatred. Heed the wake-up call.
>
Ahhh, the call of the censor. What we need are some laws against
people attempting to punish others for having views that they
don't like.
Scott
mod...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
You know Willy Boy, you are really getting out of hand with your Freedom
to say anything you wish attitude. If you feel you can post anything you
like, then I've got as much of a right to post your Address public in
here saying anything I want right????
What is your purpose here anyways, you must spend about 16 hours a day
online posting as much garbage as possible. I can imagine the hate mail
you recieve in your mailbox..
(PS, Do you have a purpose)
William Grosvenor (acu...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote:
: Dr.Grant Hill,MP, is completely correct in stating that faggots spread
: disease.
: He is far too polite,since I am sure he also has read the acclaimed
: documentary book "AND THE BAND PLAYED ON",which also became a movie,
: which details how AIDS was spread worldwide,deliberately,by the faggot
: with Air Canada.This was even supported by the government of Canada.
: Now,normal people all over the world must pay for these perverts and the
: astronomic costs for their medical care until they get cremated.
: I feel that they should NOT GET SPECIAL RIGHTS,even if the faggot loving
: Canadian government wants to give them.
: Is there any real use for disease spreading faggots?
: In the old days faggots were burned,so is this practical now?
--
Bye.. this was brought to you by: modman@freenet
(Cheap sig...)
Darin McBride
colin newell (rne...@vcn.bc.ca) wrote:
> Darin McBride (mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca) wrote:
> : That's pure shit. (It may be true, but it's still reeks of shit.) My
> : ISP has *no* control over what I post here or anywhere else - they
> : should not bear responsibility for my posts. I, alone, should bear that
> : responsibility.
> Think again. An ISP is a publisher like a newspaper.
> No Newspaper would carry the hateful trash that you
> see on the internet, without worry of lawsuits.
Ok, I'm thinking. I'm thinking that an ISP cannot be a publisher
because it exerts no editorial control over that which is broadcast from
its site. I'm thinking that an ISP is the same as a postal service, or
a telephone service where the provider has no control whatsoever over
what is passed through its service.
Are YOU thinking?
> Take a good look around Bubba. What you see here will
> most certainly change. The internet should not be
> a home for posting cowards afraid to express themselves
> in the light of day.
Then get out.
Larry Myles
>But he is misleading because he ignores the fact that drug users spread
>aids, heterosexuals spread aids, transfusions spread aids....... He is
>only telling part of the truth. Remember "A little knowledge is a
>dangerous thing" means that if you only know a small part of the truth
>then it is dangerous. And you know a very very little bit of the whole
>picture. Instead of whining on the internet why not read a few books
>first.
This is *soooo* lame!
Of course the man should read some books. I mean, I wonder if wee
Willy, the closet-case has ever heard of the term GRID.
GRID..was the acronym used in the early days of AIDS, In those days,
the system thought that Aids was strictly a faggot-based disease.
larry
David Reilley
>Ok, I'm thinking. I'm thinking that an ISP cannot be a publisher
>because it exerts no editorial control over that which is broadcast from
>its site. I'm thinking that an ISP is the same as a postal service, or
>a telephone service where the provider has no control whatsoever over
>what is passed through its service.
That's not true. It is agaionst the law to use the postal service to
distribute hate mail or certain types of obscene material. You also cannot
use the phone system to make obscene or threatening phone calls without having
your service cut off.
Edward Alford
Protect them, of course..what would become of our flouwer arranging ,
interior decorating, and hair stylesit industries.
On Tuesday, May 14, 1996, William Grosvenor wrote...
Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
>colin newell (rne...@vcn.bc.ca) wrote:
>: William xxxxxxx (acu...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote:
>: end of this month. All sys-admins take note. You and your ISP can
>: be taken to court for distribution of hate related material.
>ISps are common carriers, or should be, like the phone company. I hate
>hate material, but I hate censorship more.
>Grossvenor was terminated for e-mail harrassment, not hate posts.
Jason,
Am I reading this correctly?
We agree on something... my god!
Well... this is a start!
Censorship is bad... and when everyone starts becoming a censor what
will happen to the freedom of speech we enjoy?
It appears that governments will not be the biggest threat to freedom
of speech, but ordinary caring citizens who will want to silence their
neighbours.
Gerry Stafford
What are you so afraid of that you waste so much valuable time wallowing
in the cesspool of your venemous thoughts. I,m glad I don,t inhabit the
same mental world as you it seems to be a frightful place.
I hope you recover soon
regards
cap...@cuug.ab.ca
In article <4nl4jr$d...@berlin.infomatch.com>,
J. Chapman <jcha...@tnrltd.com> wrote:
>In message <4nfsk5$k...@milo.vcn.bc.ca> - rne...@vcn.bc.ca (colin newell) write
>s:
>>
>>William xxxxxxx (acu...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote:
>>: Dr.xxxxx ,MP, is completely correct in stating that xxxxx spread
>>: disease.
>>
>>
>>A case in point : The above users account WILL not be renewed at the
>>be taken to court for distribution of hate related material.
>>for the material that they propagate.
>>
>>There is a real line where free speech crosses into the realm
>>of hatred. Heed the wake-up call.
>>
>
>Ahhh, the call of the censor. What we need are some laws against
>people attempting to punish others for having views that they
>don't like.
>
fighting against hate monging, (not free speech but the abuse
thereof.) By crying 'censorship' like some little brat, you are actually
promoting it because you want all people who speak out against hate
monging to shut up. Do you know what hipocrisy means?
Walter Petelka
rne...@vcn.bc.ca (colin newell) wrote:
>:]: <acu...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
>:]
>:]the following was snipped off grosvenors web page.....
>:]
>:]DEATH PENALTY to be provided for serious crimes, whether by males or
>:]females, such
>:]as for drug trafficking, multiple murder, repeat drunk driving, sexual
>:]perverts, serious
>:]sexual attacks, armed robbery, as well as criminal negligence resulting
>:]in serious injury or
>:]death.
>:]
>:]
>:]I urge all USENET readers to send their opinions on this hate
>:]material to the webm...@compusmart.ab.ca
Disregard the ownership of the web page......how does the comment
constiture "hate material?"
Walter Petelka
idirect.com
TORONTO, Ont..
Walter Petelka
rne...@vcn.bc.ca (colin newell) wrote:
>:]William xxxxxxx (acu...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote:
>:]: Dr.xxxxx ,MP, is completely correct in stating that xxxxx spread
>:]: disease.
>:]
>:]
>:]A case in point : The above users account WILL not be renewed at the
>:]end of this month. All sys-admins take note. You and your ISP can
>:]be taken to court for distribution of hate related material.
>:]ISP's are 3rd party publishers and are accountable to a degree
>:]for the material that they propagate.
>:]
>:]There is a real line where free speech crosses into the realm
>:]of hatred. Heed the wake-up call.
>:]
>:]--
>:]Robert Colin Newell
>:]http://www.octonet.com/~coffee/
>:]The Coffee Expert's Web Page
Grab yourself a cup of tea or hot chocolate....maybe warm milk would be
better, wrap your shawl around your shoulders and chill out for goodness
sake......people are going to start thinking you taking shock
treatments.
sh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Caprina, YOU are the clueless one here.
cap...@cuug.ab.ca wrote:
: In article <4nl4jr$d...@berlin.infomatch.com>,
: J. Chapman <jcha...@tnrltd.com> wrote:
: >In message <4nfsk5$k...@milo.vcn.bc.ca> - rne...@vcn.bc.ca (colin newell) write
: >s:
: >>
: >>William xxxxxxx (acu...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote:
: >>: Dr.xxxxx ,MP, is completely correct in stating that xxxxx spread
: >>: disease.
: >>
: >>
: >>A case in point : The above users account WILL not be renewed at the
: >>end of this month. All sys-admins take note. You and your ISP can
: >>be taken to court for distribution of hate related material.
: >>ISP's are 3rd party publishers and are accountable to a degree
: >>for the material that they propagate.
: >>
: >>There is a real line where free speech crosses into the realm
: >>of hatred. Heed the wake-up call.
: >>
: >
: >Ahhh, the call of the censor. What we need are some laws against
: >people attempting to punish others for having views that they
: >don't like.
: >
: Get a clue. censorship is stopping harmless free speech. it is not
: fighting against hate monging, (not free speech but the abuse
: thereof.) By crying 'censorship' like some little brat, you are actually
: promoting it because you want all people who speak out against hate
: monging to shut up. Do you know what hipocrisy means?
--
ron
ve...@compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
>In article <4ni43a$t...@news1.io.org>, love...@io.org (ron) wrote:
>>I'd first like to state that I abhor censorship except in the case
>>where violence and/or bodily harm is threatened or encouraged.
>Typing 'but' or 'except' behind your statement completely unravels your point.
> Either you abhor it or you don't. You have to understand that you have to
>have absolutes and LIVE by them, or you get chaos.
No, I'm sorry, there's too many deranged people out there to allow
people to announce that X group or Y person deserves to be beaten up
or annihilated. Do you agree with what is happening to Salman
Rushdie?
>Hell, I might as well believe in "Thou Shalt Not Kill" .... and add "unless
>they were *really* bad". The above is one of the Ten COMMANDMENTS, not one of
>the ten "suggestions"....
Well, the threat of violence isn't one of the Ten Commandments but it
is certainly not acceptable.
>So if you abhor censorship, you have to accept the right to freedom of speech
>in all its good AND bad forms...
I don't believe that threats of, or exhortatons to, violence are
acceptable forms of free speech.
One can express their hatred of anyone or any group of people (subject
to libel laws) but once they've stepped over the line to threaten or
advocate violence, then that's too far.
Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric
cap...@cuug.ab.ca wrote:
You wrote;
>Get a clue. censorship is stopping harmless free speech. it is not
>fighting against hate monging, (not free speech but the abuse
>thereof.) By crying 'censorship' like some little brat, you are actually
>promoting it because you want all people who speak out against hate
>monging to shut up. Do you know what hipocrisy means?
Who defines what hate mongering is?
If Jason defined it, it would be anyone who is rich and wants to lower
social welfare benefits.
If it was a Conservative Jew it would be anyone that says anything
against Judaism.
If it was me it would be anyone who says anything bad about the
Toronto Maple Leafs.
Who are you to determine what is hateful and who should be silenced?
Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric
drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>That's not true. It is agaionst the law to use the postal service to
>distribute hate mail or certain types of obscene material. You also cannot
>use the phone system to make obscene or threatening phone calls without having
>your service cut off.
BUT noone can read your mail. It is against the law.
DvdThomas
>That's not true. It is agaionst the law to use the postal service to
>distribute hate mail
In totalitarian states maybe.
_________________________________________________________
"The kind of person who always insists
on his way of seeing things
can never learn anything from anyone." - Tao Te Ching, 24
ve...@compusmart.ab.ca
In article <319cc585...@news.pacificnet.net>,
t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>>tom moran (t...@pacificnet.net) wrote:
>>
>>
>>: Who determines what constitutes "hate"? On this group you are
>>: charged with "hate" crimes if you post something with lots of support
>>: or just make negative inference on spoken words.
>>: You say "There is a real line where free speech crosses the realm
>>: of hatred". Do you have some sort of formula that can prove it?
>
>
>>Newell:
>>That rule is called Common Sense.
>
>"Common sense". Now there is a term I have thought about many times.
>Maybe you could give your definition of it before we go on.
>
>>Perhaps you should purchase Common Sense for Dummies...
>
> Here you post support for cencorship and then your follow up is
>"Perhaps you should purchase Common Sense for Dummies... "
>
Common sense? It's out the window and is seems it doesn't count for SQUAT!
You want some examples?
It's not even just "commmon sense" that a "marriage" involves a man and a
woman together in a life-long loving and committed relationship, the
definition of "marriage" transcends common sense in that it is rooted in
thousands upon thousands of years of scripture that documented as best as
possible who we are as a species. The recognition of same is reflected in
some modest provisions in the laws we adopted as a society today; benefits,
spousal entitlements, etc.
Don't tell that to a same-sex couple though. Based on nothing other than
"because we want to" or "because we 'feel' we deserve it" they think that they
are on par with the above. Is that common sense?
The best environment a child could ever be in is within the framework of a
loving, two-parent family with a man in the role of father, a woman in the
role of mother, and at least one parent home for all the while the child is of
minor age and in need of the guidance of parents.
Yet, SOME people knowingly, with self-interest aforethought, desire to be a
single parent, or place a minor age child in institutionalized day-care. Same
sex couples have even volleyed for adoption or artificial insemination to
bring a child into a same sex adult environment in the name of "family".
THIS, is common sense?
Geoffrey Welsh
In article <3198F7...@compusmart.ab.ca>,
William Grosvenor <acu...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
>Dr.Grant Hill,MP, is completely correct in stating that faggots spread
>disease.
>
>He is far too polite,since I am sure he also has read the acclaimed
>documentary book "AND THE BAND PLAYED ON",which also became a movie,
>which details how AIDS was spread worldwide,deliberately,by the faggot
>with Air Canada.This was even supported by the government of Canada.
You condemn all gays because of what we believe to be true about one gay man?
Based on your logic, you should be put to death because at least one man in
history was a remorseless mass murderer.
--
Geoffrey Welsh, Developer, InSystems Technologies Inc.
Temporary: crs...@inforamp.net; At work: insy...@pathcom.com
At home: ge...@zswamp.uucp or [xenitec.on.ca|m2xenix.psg.com]!zswamp!geoff
TYPING IN ALL CAPS IS GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE DISMISSAL.
David Reilley
In article <4nn880$a...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> zel...@netcom.ca (Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric) writes:
>From: zel...@netcom.ca (Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric)
>Subject: Re: Hate Material will NOT BE Tolerated!
>drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>>That's not true. It is agaionst the law to use the postal service to
>>distribute hate mail or certain types of obscene material. You also cannot
>>use the phone system to make obscene or threatening phone calls without having
>>your service cut off.
>BUT noone can read your mail. It is against the law.
Unless the crown issues a warrant to do so.
gal...@mailserv.realtime.com
Both of your posts show an unbelievably low level of knowledge about
AIDS, its causes, homosexuals and society in general. Your posts
are also very revealing about your level of inteligence...or should I say
>Protect them, of course..what would become of our flouwer arranging ,
>interior decorating, and hair stylesit industries.
>On Tuesday, May 14, 1996, William Grosvenor wrote...
>> disease.
>>
>> He is far too polite,since I am sure he also has read the acclaimed
>> documentary book "AND THE BAND PLAYED ON",which also became a movie,
>> which details how AIDS was spread worldwide,deliberately,by the faggot
>> with Air Canada.This was even supported by the government of Canada.
>>
>
>> astronomic costs for their medical care until they get cremated.
>>
>> I feel that they should NOT GET SPECIAL RIGHTS,even if the faggot loving
>
>> Canadian government wants to give them.
>>
>> Is there any real use for disease spreading faggots?
>>
>> In the old days faggots were burned,so is this practical now?
>>
>>
>
AIDS (and physical disease in general)is one thing but you both represent
a form of social cancer that even chemo can't kill....and that is a
shame. Why don't you start your own newsgroup...maybe
alt.nobrains.here? .
David Reilley
In article <4noe9n$2...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> mgi...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) writes:
>From: mgi...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer)
>Subject: Re: Hate Material will NOT BE Tolerated!
>dvdt...@aol.com (DvdThomas) wrote:
>>>That's not true. It is agaionst the law to use the postal service to
>>>distribute hate mail
>>In totalitarian states maybe.
> You mean like Canada?
Canada, Germany.
In the USA it is against the law to send "obscene" material.
The original point was that that there were no laws of this sort affecting
telephone calls or letters -- the reality is that there are.
Jason Kodish
In article <4nkm7l$ia4...@compusmart.ab.ca> ve...@compusmart.ab.ca writes:
>
>>I'd first like to state that I abhor censorship except in the case
>>where violence and/or bodily harm is threatened or encouraged.
>
>Typing 'but' or 'except' behind your statement completely unravels your point.
> Either you abhor it or you don't. You have to understand that you have to
>have absolutes and LIVE by them, or you get chaos.
It is a crime to utter threats against a person. So I've heard.
>Hell, I might as well believe in "Thou Shalt Not Kill" .... and add "unless
>they were *really* bad". The above is one of the Ten COMMANDMENTS, not one of
>the ten "suggestions"....
So you wouldn't kill someone who was trying to kill you?
--
Jason Kodish
Thirring Institute for Applied Gravitational Research
-----------------------------------------------------
Time is awake when all things sleep
Time stands straight when all things fall
Time shuts in all and will not be shut.
Is, was, and shall be are Time's children
O Reasoning,be witness, be stable--VYASA,the Mahabarata (AD 400)
Jason Kodish
In article <4nkb93$l...@news.sas.ab.ca> sh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes:
>because I have a money laden wallet? Bottom line: I have black eyes and
>empty wallet, NO MATTER WHAT amount of hate they may harbour. But the
If it's because of hate, you won't have an empty wallet. Just the black eyes.
Matt Giwer
dvdt...@aol.com (DvdThomas) wrote:
>>That's not true. It is agaionst the law to use the postal service to
>>distribute hate mail
>In totalitarian states maybe.
You mean like Canada?
-----
It is not a question of how many died without gassing rather
the miracle that so many survived with gassing.
cap...@cuug.ab.ca
In article <4nn87v$a...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric <zel...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>cap...@cuug.ab.ca wrote:
>You wrote;
>>Get a clue. censorship is stopping harmless free speech. it is not
>>fighting against hate monging, (not free speech but the abuse
>>thereof.) By crying 'censorship' like some little brat, you are actually
>>promoting it because you want all people who speak out against hate
>>monging to shut up. Do you know what hipocrisy means?
>
>Who defines what hate mongering is?
>If Jason defined it, it would be anyone who is rich and wants to lower
>social welfare benefits.
>If it was a Conservative Jew it would be anyone that says anything
>against Judaism.
>If it was me it would be anyone who says anything bad about the
>Toronto Maple Leafs.
>
>Who are you to determine what is hateful and who should be silenced?
>
>
>
>
>Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric
>
>"Illegitimi non carborundum est."
>(Don't let the bastards grind you down.)
>
I am me, and I determine that hate monging is the encouraging of acts
such as murder and all types of cruelty on people. Willy Grosvenor has
done this again and again.
Caprina
--
Ascii silly question,
Get a silly ansi.
Matt Giwer
drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>In article <4noe9n$2...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> mgi...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) writes:
>>From: mgi...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer)
>>Subject: Re: Hate Material will NOT BE Tolerated!
>>Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 00:25:06 GMT
>>dvdt...@aol.com (DvdThomas) wrote:
>>>>That's not true. It is agaionst the law to use the postal service to
>>>>distribute hate mail
>>>In totalitarian states maybe.
>> You mean like Canada?
>Canada, Germany.
>In the USA it is against the law to send "obscene" material.
>The original point was that that there were no laws of this sort affecting
>telephone calls or letters -- the reality is that there are.
Actually in the US it is illegal only to deal in kiddie porn
under the presumption that those under age could not have
consented to the creation of the pornography. Written material
is an unprosecuted gray area. So far we have only photographic
material as precedent that is not under appeal. There has also
been a crack down on what appears to be snuff tapes under the
same presumption of non-consent.
It is a good thing, finally. Something that I have promoted for
decades -- at least the loosening of the law. The only problem
at the moment is that the wannabe censors have so little left to
do that they are imaginging an attack upon morphing to youth even
though there is no evidence of such a tape in existance.
Our censors are desperate. At the moment they are focussing upon
TV violence and the V-chip (still not in production much less do
the standards for it exist.) It is the same children doing their
same juvenile thing that has made them a living for years.
Do not expect drastic changes but steady progress.
Fugi Saito
mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca (Darin McBride) wrote:
>That's pure shit. (It may be true, but it's still reeks of shit.) My
>ISP has *no* control over what I post here or anywhere else - they
>should not bear responsibility for my posts. I, alone, should bear that
>responsibility.
Actually you agreed to a certain "conduct" when you sign on with many
ISPs. It is a contractual agreement that allows you the use of their
equipment and dialups and they in turn can cancel your access if you
do not abide by those agreements. If you do not like their "rules"
you are free to go somewhere else.
-----------------------------------------------
Fugi Saito Saito-San Inc Fax (403) 489-6302
E-mail: fu...@oanet.com Phone (403) 444-FUGI
http://www.oanet.com/homepage/fugi/mainmenu.htm
-----------------------------------------------
Desiree Bradley
wpet...@idirect.com (Walter Petelka) wrote:
>rne...@vcn.bc.ca (colin newell) wrote:
Maybe it's a matter of preparing the comment as a word processor data,
then copying it from clipboard into news reader but copying it into
the wrong posting.
Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric
drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>In article <4nn880$a...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> zel...@netcom.ca (Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric) writes:
>>From: zel...@netcom.ca (Zeljko 'Zed' Zidaric)
>>Subject: Re: Hate Material will NOT BE Tolerated!
>>Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 16:38:54 GMT
>>drei...@pinc.com (David Reilley) wrote:
>>>That's not true. It is agaionst the law to use the postal service to
>>>distribute hate mail or certain types of obscene material. You also cannot
>>>use the phone system to make obscene or threatening phone calls without having
>>>your service cut off.
>>BUT noone can read your mail. It is against the law.
>Unless the crown issues a warrant to do so.
Does anyone have any real legal info in regards to this issue?
Is there anything in Canadian law that makes e-mail equivalent to real
mail? Anything to do with privacy issue?
Darin McBride
sh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
> Caprina, YOU are the clueless one here.
Let's not steep to moronic, unsupported flaming here, eh, guys?
<sigh>
[I don't agree with Caprina on this topic, but at least make sure you
SAY something while disagreeing with her, ere we decide you are a total
moron.]
--
Darin McBride:mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca/mcb...@tower.bohica.net
Plan for your future - you'll live the rest of your life there!
Tips & Tricks for IBM Hardware, MSDOS, OS2, Windows (including Win'95):
http://www.ee.ualberta.ca/~mcbride/tiptrick.html
Fugi Saito
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
>ISps are common carriers, or should be, like the phone company.
Jason, we went through this one before. ISPs are NOT common carriers,
and are therefore not protected AS common carriers. BTW even a
common carrier, like the phone company, can take away your phone for
things like unfair and disproportionate use and for making annoying,
profane, harassing, abusive, obscene or offensive calls.
> I hate hate material, but I hate censorship more.
>Grossvenor was terminated for e-mail harrassment, not hate posts.
And if he was using a common carrier, the "type" of action would have
resulted in exactly the same result.
>
>: --
>: Robert Colin Newell
>: http://www.octonet.com/~coffee/
>: The Coffee Expert's Web Page
>
>--
>-Jason Kodish
>
>It is a sad day when one who opposes the ever looming power of the State
>is called an anarchist. When it becomes politically incorrect to believe
>in such basic precepts such as freedom of choice. It is my belief that
>those who do not defend their rights deserve to lose them...-Me.
Darin McBride
> >That's pure shit. (It may be true, but it's still reeks of shit.) My
> >ISP has *no* control over what I post here or anywhere else - they
> >should not bear responsibility for my posts. I, alone, should bear that
> >responsibility.
> Actually you agreed to a certain "conduct" when you sign on with many
> ISPs. It is a contractual agreement that allows you the use of their
> equipment and dialups and they in turn can cancel your access if you
> do not abide by those agreements. If you do not like their "rules"
> you are free to go somewhere else.
That's different, Fugi. No where in that contract does it make the ISP
responsible for my posting. I have no problem with an ISP cancelling my
account (if I break the contract), or refusing to continue service with
me on basically any little thing they feel like. However *nowhere*
should the ISP be taking responsibility for my posts!
[BTW, if you haven't done so already, Kodish has calmed down lately...
you may wanna take him outta yer killfile. Oh, and hi! How's it goin'?
Haven't seen you around in AGES... since, say, I took over your system's
position in Fido <G>]
Jason Kodish
In article <4nq68f$i...@hermes.oanet.com> fu...@oanet.com writes:
>
>Jason, we went through this one before. ISPs are NOT common carriers,
>and are therefore not protected AS common carriers. BTW even a
What we went through before was wheather an ISP had the right to censor.
Not whether it was a common carrier. How is it possible without enormous
time consumption and difficulty for an ISP to control all the information
that goes through it. You yourself are a businessman, you can imagine how much
time it would suck away to take responsability for everything everyone posts.
>things like unfair and disproportionate use and for making annoying,
>profane, harassing, abusive, obscene or offensive calls.
Yes, but in this case, the individual at the recieving end has no choice.
If you don't want to read this maggot's postings, noone is forcing you to.
>-----------------------------------------------
>Fugi Saito Saito-San Inc Fax (403) 489-6302
>E-mail: fu...@oanet.com Phone (403) 444-FUGI
>http://www.oanet.com/homepage/fugi/mainmenu.htm
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>
--
Jason Kodish
In article <4nqugu$g...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca writes:
>
>
>[BTW, if you haven't done so already, Kodish has calmed down lately...
>you may wanna take him outta yer killfile. Oh, and hi! How's it goin'?
You only wish.
:-)
>--
>Darin McBride:mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca/mcb...@tower.bohica.net
>
>Plan for your future - you'll live the rest of your life there!
>
>Tips & Tricks for IBM Hardware, MSDOS, OS2, Windows (including Win'95):
> http://www.ee.ualberta.ca/~mcbride/tiptrick.html
>
--
Deryk Norton
In article <dreilley.30...@pinc.com>, drei...@pinc.com says...
>
>In article <4nliq0$u...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca
(Darin McBride) writes:
>
>>Ok, I'm thinking. I'm thinking that an ISP cannot be a publisher
>>because it exerts no editorial control over that which is broadcast
from
>>its site. I'm thinking that an ISP is the same as a postal service, or
>>a telephone service where the provider has no control whatsoever over
>>what is passed through its service.
>
>That's not true. It is agaionst the law to use the postal service to
>distribute hate mail or certain types of obscene material. You also
cannot
>use the phone system to make obscene or threatening phone calls without
having
>your service cut off.
of a belief" ? One must be wary of those who would label those in
disagreement as promoters of "hate speech" in order to silence dissent.
One need only watch the antics of some "gay rights" lobbyists in
attempting to silence those who publicly express a concern about what
"gay rights" may mean for religious freedom, public health, protection of
the family etc.. For them all dissent is labelled as hate speech.
ca...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
cap...@cuug.ab.ca wrote:
: In article <4nfsk5$k...@milo.vcn.bc.ca>, colin newell <rne...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:: >Robert Colin Newell
: Here here!!
: Thanks for helping in the fight against hate! Let's make sure the next
: isp he joins is well aware of his agenda, let's do what we can to prevent
: more of this sort of thing from happening in future!!
: Caprina
: --
: "Look down,
: And show
: Some mercy if you can!
: "Look down!
: Look down
: Upon your fellow man!" - "Les Miserables" Musical.
My; My! 45 follow-ups, and every one shows some measure of what it
complains about! If hate is so distasteful; then why do you enjoy it so?
Half the word's problems would be solved if we could teach the hateful to
love, rather than hating them for learning the example we set for them.
Music to you;
Cara
Duncan O'Neal
sh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
>Caprina, YOU are the clueless one here.
Thats an extensive one liner maybe you should go{ C U R t ?! 1 here. }
that would make it shorter.
>: Get a clue. censorship is stopping harmless free speech. it is not
^[not]..--^ could take that a
different way :) but I'm not never going to say no-how.
kind of symantical and you could take it either way.
Here is what is going on here:
There is a conflict between two principles of freedom.
1. Is freedom from hate material in a public form.
2. Is the freedom of speech
Most poeple would not like to be subjected to hate material against
their ; color, race, religion, gender, sexual orientaion, gender,
country of origin, type of work or political afilliations.
But most people would also like to debate about the above groups at
times. ( Unfortunatly for some ) our rights protect freedom of speech
-- not withstanding the insightment of hate. Hate is not up to a judge
, it is left up to a jurry. And the debate is necessary.
Of course every one pays something for the information service so it
is not totaly free, even if it is sweat equity.
read Jasons post and take note:
>|>Grossvenor was terminated for e-mail harrassment, not hate posts.
Anarchy or democracy: is the question
Respect is the answere.
Remember this is a public pond; and such hate can't(shouldn't) be
directed at a groups even if they are just siting on the beach.
However it goes by words alone. And with in words the extremes will
get scrutenized,
Cause we don't really care how big the guy at the other end is.
Hmmmmm thier is probably more freedom of expression on here then you
would think ;-> {assumption , har har}{even flamable}
Of coures freedom of expression is most inportant
and there isn't a conflict for most people. Hmmmmmmmm
(they don't Email hate mail )
And since this group is not moderated. Every one must stick up for
their rights. But I still like the Idea that some one can burry them
selves with their own words,( especially through E-mail)
if they Don't have an intelegent point to make. That is part of the
debate.
Of course now that it is *hind sight (Bill)* we get all these
backnetters, worring about Thier rights -- that are Now starting to
say things about freedom of speech. Well it is good to see you stand
up and be counted. People that warned Bill in the past have actually
got more guts, then the hind sighters. This is almost like poor union
behavior ?:->
When someone does dirty deeds on the side they will get twarted.
And if their is no effort for a group to police it's self
that it when it will get regulated -- the other side of the coin.
Of course both Suck to some extent ,
but look at those boys schools : over privaledged preists.
If some thing bad is going on you should speak out.
BTW, IMHO , the net needs some self control. YMMV
Maybe flaming is more democratic ;->
Duncan