HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: agoyo1@athena.mit.edu (Acee Agoyo)
Subject: Re: Collected Info
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:05:48 GMT

dwarner@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (David J.) writes:
>Is this the same Sun Dubious who appeared on Paris' LP on the track
>"Conspiracy of Silence"? (which, BTW, is the phattest track on that phat
>album) He didn't happen to sound like B-Real, did he?
Yes, its the same Sun Dubious.  And I agree that "Conspiracy of Silence" is
the dopest track.  I like "Funky Lil' Party," "The Enema," and "Sleeping with
the Enemy" also.

>I dunno, T.  I'm still buggin' off that bassline for "Sally Got a One-Track
>Mind."  Diamond D.'s album is one of the best of the year, though.
What about "Freesyle (Yo That's That Shit)?"  Nice guitar.

"ahhh. . I got your head boppin"
Acee Agoyo
agoyo1@athena.mit.edu
From: kgatlin@zeus.calpoly.edu (Kang Su Gatlin)
Newsgroups: alt.rap
Subject: Re: Diggable Planets
Date: 6 Jan 93 04:10:40 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

In article <1993Jan5.125256.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cllave01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>	Did anyone see In Living Color on 1/3/93 featuring Digable Planets?
>Their rappin' style and sound sucks. They come off as britons trying
>(wanna be) to be gangsters with a stupid british sounding accent. 
>I saw their video and really thought it was stupid too.  I think they don't
>fit the image either because they dress like nerds.  What are your
>comments, agree/disagree what?
>
I have to totally disagree.  They lyrically dropped one the best cuts of
late 1992 and I think it the "BEST" example of a jazz sample I have heard to
date.  They make no claims to be gangsta's or even imply it.  And they dress
the way they want.  Sometimes I step out the house lookin' a little like
them.  I do agree on the video though it isn't the best, but their delivery
is unique and they don't move like the stereotypical rap group.  Thats not
good or bad, but I liked  that aspect of it.

Overall I  think the song the dope is the group shows much potential.

On another note how about Common Sense, they droppin funky lyrical style, too
bad they don't have nothin' to say.  

Dre's album is phat, and I think Snoop Dog could be the best new lyricist
since Special Ed.  The only prob with Dre's album is it sort of seems like
one long song because of the repetitive high pitched whistle throughout the
CD.

Lastly CMW's album.  Sort of old news but the more I hear this album the
more I begin to believe it may be up on "Straight Out of Compton" as far
as gangsta rap goes, it's flawless.  ---> Does anyone know why EIHT has a
prob with DJ Quik (besides the fact that DJ Quik can't rap and uses tired
beats).

Peace
KSG



>
>
>	Curt "C L" Lavender
>	U of L '93
>	BA Political Science
>
>	If you don't dream about it, it will never be possible!
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:44:24 CST
From: Tyrone Ellison <U14864@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rap
Subject: Re: Does anyone have INSANE POETRY?

What up, Jeff?

I bought INSANE POETRY when it first came out, and the entire album is a tour
through the mind of a serial killer... all of the tracks, in one way or another
deal with homicide, death, madness, etc.  One of the tracks deals with Psycho
having a bad day and takes it out on the fast-food restaraunt where he was
fired.  Another track deals with the fatalities of unsafe sex.  At some points,
the album is truly disturbing, like when he hits his girlfriend, and the track
"Chopping Up a Body", and when he goes into graphic detail about a rape and a
homicide (the song "Bring Your Daughter To The Slaughter").

If you like that kind of stuff, the album comes highly recommended.  I know
I wasn't disappointed.
Newsgroups: alt.rap
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:17:50 -0500 
From: Michael Jackson <mj1h+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Cube as Producer
Distribution: world


>Hi,
>recently I read that Cube produced 5 albums in 1992. I'm only aware of
>4 albums (Del's, Yoyo's, Da Lench Mob's & his own). Which one is the >fifth?

It might be W.C. and the Maad Circle.................

					Mike
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: u906789@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Julian Turner)
Subject: Re: Avoidance of Civilan Casualties (Re: SAM ultimatum )
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:31:03 GMT

In article <726747659.19268@minster.york.ac.uk>, aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
> 
> Don McGregor (mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU) wrote:
> : >If history is any guide, they won't be particularly shy about civilian
> : >casualties either.
> : >
> :  Direct civilian casualties in the Gulf War were one of the lower totals
> :  in recent wars.  The USAF was quite careful to avoid bombing civilian
> :  targets, and the army did not fight in any built-up civilian areas.
> 
> But they did deliberately bomb civillian infrastructure (water
> distribution, sewage works, power supply) with a view to making conditions
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Could you give one example of a sewage works being bombed. 

> for civilians intolerable knowing full well that it would be likely 
> to indirectly cause hundreds to thousands of deaths.
What possible possible benefit could this have?

> 
> A quote from a friend of mine who works for a defence analysis company
> which supplies much information to the UK press
> 
> "There is a notable assessment which was done by the US census just
> after the war which tried to estimate how many Iraqi civilians died
> due to the US destruction of Iraq's economic infrastructure (through
> precision bombing of bridges, power stations, and water supplies, etc).
And sanctions don't forget.
> This report was squashed and the author fired. I think the figure was
> in the order of hundreds of thousands dead.  I think a more recent
> report by an international agency said on the order of 50,000 may
> have died (oops thats 50 000 children) as a result of Iraq ( a food
> importer) being knocked from the twentieth century into the Middle
> Ages.

Mark.
From: bhoward@waikiki.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Howard SE - Cincinnati Office)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: SAM ultimatum
Date: 8 Jan 1993 16:04:28 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: waikiki.central.sun.com

Full moon is tonight.  US recon has been hampered.  I don't think they'll
go in soon.

I (like the Pentagon) will be glued to CNN this weekend!

Brian Howard

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

        /\
       \\ \     Brian K. Howard, SE
      \ \\ /    Sun Microsystems		      "Success is a journey,
     / \/ / /   Suite 625, Towers of Kenwood	       not a destination."
    / /   \//\  8044 Montgomery Road		     	      - Ben Sweetland
    \//\   / /  Cincinnati, Ohio  45236-2925
     / / /\ /  	
      / \\ \    Phone:  (513) 793-1400
       \ \\     EMail: brian.howard@Central.Sun.Com
        \/
From: py1djf@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk (D J Ford)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: London during the Blitz
Date: 13 Jan 93 00:46:17 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Bath, UK

In the referenced article, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <726830907.27640@minster.york.ac.uk> aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>>   As a historical note apparently the blitz more or less destroyed civilian
>>   morale in London and this required that many troops been evacuated lest
>>   they become affected by the same malaise. Don't believe the wartime
>>   'Cheery Cockney' propaganda.
>
>  You may wish to mention this down in sci.military.  The effectiveness of such
>bombing on the war efforts of Britain and Germany has been considered mixed at
>best.  Note that German production actually grew during much of the strategic
>bombing campaigns!  The noted effect on morale has generally been one of 
>anger, not maliase (I could be wrong, of course).
>
>
>semper fi,
>
>Jammer Jim Miller 
>Texas A&M University '89 and '91

	
	True, anger has been the traditional response to terror bombing,
	but maliase as well. During the Blitz in London the morale of the 
	British kept remarkably high, but in the later stages of the
	war when London suffered a second blitz, ie. the V2 attacks
	morale was very, very severely hit, much more than in the 
	early 40's. This probably was partially due to discontentment
	with the war which was obviously going to be won by the allies,
	but which was dragging on slowly and that there was no warning
	whatso ever of an impending rocket hit. 

	Dave Ford.


-- 
	 _________________________________________________
	|  // /||\/| | / ` /| ||       Dave Ford.	  |
	|\X/ /^||  | | \_7/^| ||py1djf@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk |
	 -------------------------------------------------
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: London during the Blitz
Date: 12 Jan 1993 13:45:00 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: uhad2.admin.uh.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <726830907.27640@minster.york.ac.uk> aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:

> 
> jac54@cas.org wrote:
>   do so and was discovered to have done so.
> 
> : The theory of terror bombing [...] was largely discredited by bombing
> : campaigns in Britain and Germany and it is generally considered
> : a waste of ammunition. 
> 
>   As a historical note apparently the blitz more or less destroyed civilian
>   morale in London and this required that many troops been evacuated lest
>   they become affected by the same malaise. Don't believe the wartime
>   'Cheery Cockney' propaganda.

  You may wish to mention this down in sci.military.  The effectiveness of such
bombing on the war efforts of Britain and Germany has been considered mixed at
best.  Note that German production actually grew during much of the strategic
bombing campaigns!  The noted effect on morale has generally been one of 
anger, not maliase (I could be wrong, of course).


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: Iraqi "incursion into Kuwait"
Organization: The Three Packeteers
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:28:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.080116.13213@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>Evidently a group of
>about 200 civilians (or "people dressed in civilian clothes" with no
>obvious weapons) went to a warehouse and removed Iraqi goods which
>were stored there, including 2 Silkworm missiles along with other 
>military supplies.

At this point, you have to ask yourself "how many civilians would know what
a Silkworm missile looks like, let alone how to move one?"  Time to go
shaving with Occam's Razor again...

--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | "My boy, we are pilgrims in an unholy land."
->paulf@Stanford.EDU   |                                -- Dr. Henry Jones Sr.
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Iraqi "incursion into Kuwait"
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:03:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.080116.13213@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>Monday's news was filled with criticism of Iraqis going twice into
>Kuwait to remove Iraqi goods.  CNN cleared up some misimpressions that
>BBC left (! It usually is the other way round.)  Evidently a group of
>about 200 civilians (or "people dressed in civilian clothes" with no
>obvious weapons) went to a warehouse and removed Iraqi goods which
>were stored there, including 2 Silkworm missiles along with other
>military supplies.

	I take it therefore, that the gun held to the head of
	the Canadian member of the U.N. forces who tried to block
	their way was also non-obvious?

>
>The territory where this warehouse was located was part of Iraq until
>after the war against Iraq, at which point it was given to Kuwait as
>spoils of war.  Iraq claimed that it was given a deadline of January
>15 to remove all of its property from the zone that was taken from it
>(and CNN did not challenge the statement, so i presume it is correct),
>and merely hired a civilian contractor to do the work.

	The Iraqis were required to remove all non-military
	equipment from the area and they were required to
	go through a notification/permision procedure to obtain
	access.  As this is central to problem-free access, why was
	it overlooked by the eternally warm and cuddly ABSP?
>
>So it seems to me that the claims that this is an Iraqi incursion are
>specious.  None of the reports claims that this was a military mission
>or that any weapons were fired or used as threats.  It is just the same
>as someone who has been evicted from their home going back to pick up
>their property that remained.

	Weapons were used, and as you well know, attempting to
	recover property, even if it is your own, from a property
	from which you have been evicted is treated as burglary at state
	and federal levels in the U.S.

>The US and Security Council seem to be trying to make a big deal about
>this.  I suppose the problem is that they crossed the newly defined
>border without authorization from the new owner, Kuwait.

	Doug, I wouldn't object to your disingenuousness if it
	showed some intellectual effort, as it is, you're just
	playing the same silly word games that have prompted
	Quakers of my acquaintance to write kill files for you.

	[deletions for the sake of economy, nothing worthwhile said]

	Alec Chambers
From: shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: SAM ultimatum
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:13:56 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1ik6ftINN4e9@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>  Anyway, it's looking like Saddam may leave his SAM's in place this time.  The
>deadline is about 7-8 hours from the time I post this, or about 5pm CST in

... 

>  IMO, if Saddam doesn't give in like he has on other issues since the War 
>ended, he's got to be certifiable.  Crazy like a fox?  To a certain extent, 
>yes.  But the fox gets caught pretty often too.

While certainly a villain, Saddam is hardly crazy. In fact, his "play" is
quite consistant with his present objectives - to expand the boundries of the
box he is in. (The invasion of Kuwait was not crazy either, had the US not
massively intervened he would have won big - and US intervention, let alone
a massive one, was far from certain. Taking a *BIG* gamble and losing is not
the same as being crazy).

Well, the bottom line right now is that Saddam & Co are effectively air-bombing
proof. Sure, an air-strike would take out some hardware, but it is hard for me
to imagine that there are many "air-accessible" high valued targets that
180,000 sorties have missed. So long that no ground troops are there to
actually create a threat to the regime, Saddam may be more than happy to see
some air strikes.

The axiomatic belief in the West that it is idiotic to just let hardware
be destroyed is quite false. Saddam paid petro-dollars for hardware not
because he wanted to see it gracefully retired one day but because he wanted
to convert it to some political currency one day. The "preffered" way to
convert hardware to political currency (from his viewpoint), is to intimidate
or occupy rich neighbors. When extra-territorial use is impossible, baiting
the US into attacking some of it may also have political value (hey, use your
hardware any way you can). 
After a US airstrike, Saddam might attempt to make credible the claim that the
Gulf War ain't over yet (and remind everybody how he predicted that it would
last for 3-5 years and end with a total Iraqi victory). Saddam may also 
attempt to position himself as the leader of that part of the world which is
still anti-western.
If he gets lucky and downs an American plane (it happened before) it would
boost moral and be defined as a "victory" (no matter what hardware on the
ground was destroyed). If he nets a POW, the possibilities must make him
salivate allready.


Dan Shoham               shoham@ll.mit.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The view presented are not necessarily those of my employer, etc.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood Street
Lexington Massachusetts, 02173-9108
Office B-373
617-981-3515
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: SAM ultimatum
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:21:28 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.
NNTP-Posting-Host: prism.cs.orst.edu

In article <1ik8mcINN2mo@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> bhoward@waikiki.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Howard SE - Cincinnati Office) writes:
>Full moon is tonight.  US recon has been hampered.  I don't think they'll
>go in soon.
>
I think they'd do it as soon as practicable.  A few HARMs, some cluster
bombs, probably some attacks on air bases.

I suspect the US government views this as a test, and is determined to
pass it. They won't be particularly shy about ammunition expeditures if
given the opportunity.

-- 
Don McGregor             | "Adventure without risk is Disneyland."
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu|       --Douglas Coupland
From: mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Re: Iraqi "incursion into Kuwait"
Date: 12 Jan 1993 22:55:09 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.
NNTP-Posting-Host: prism.cs.orst.edu


The discussion of whether the Iraqis who moved the missiles were
military or not is somewhat academic.  Obviously, the people who
moved them did so at the orders of the Iraqi government, and they
did so contrary to the cease-fire agreement, which prohibits the
possession of Silkworm missiles.

Heard on the news that Fitzwater is saying "no more warnings."

-- 
Don McGregor             | "Adventure without risk is Disneyland."
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu|       --Douglas Coupland
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: Avoidance of Civilan Casualties (Re: SAM ultimatum )
Date: 11 Jan 93 10:21:00 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

Don McGregor (mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU) wrote:
: >If history is any guide, they won't be particularly shy about civilian
: >casualties either.
: >
:  Direct civilian casualties in the Gulf War were one of the lower totals
:  in recent wars.  The USAF was quite careful to avoid bombing civilian
:  targets, and the army did not fight in any built-up civilian areas.

But they did deliberately bomb civillian infrastructure (water
distribution, sewage works, power supply) with a view to making conditions
for civilians intolerable knowing full well that it would be likely 
to indirectly cause hundreds to thousands of deaths.

A quote from a friend of mine who works for a defence analysis company
which supplies much information to the UK press

"There is a notable assessment which was done by the US census just
after the war which tried to estimate how many Iraqi civilians died
due to the US destruction of Iraq's economic infrastructure (through
precision bombing of bridges, power stations, and water supplies, etc).
This report was squashed and the author fired. I think the figure was
in the order of hundreds of thousands dead.  I think a more recent
report by an international agency said on the order of 50,000 may
have died (oops thats 50 000 children) as a result of Iraq ( a food
importer) being knocked from the twentieth century into the Middle
Ages. "

		Aaron Turner		aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: sdr57@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Iraqi "incursion into Kuwait"
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:07:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.212841.29136@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.080116.13213@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>>Evidently a group of
>>about 200 civilians (or "people dressed in civilian clothes" with no
>>obvious weapons) went to a warehouse and removed Iraqi goods which
>>were stored there, including 2 Silkworm missiles along with other
>>military supplies.
>
>At this point, you have to ask yourself "how many civilians would know what
>a Silkworm missile looks like, let alone how to move one?"  Time to go
>shaving with Occam's Razor again...
>
>--
>-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | "My boy, we are pilgrims in an unholy land."
>->paulf@Stanford.EDU   |                                -- Dr. Henry Jones Sr.

  For that matter, how many people could tell an Iraqi soldier in
  civilian clothing from an Iraqi civilian?

  Occam's razor shaves all.

  They might have been civilians (Mr. Hussein sees no reason to conserve
  the lives of civilians):

  You don't need to know what the missile looks like - you just need to
  be told "move the boxes with these letters on them" - I suspect the
  missiles were still in shipping canisters, although I have no hard
  information on this - if they were unpacked, you just say "move the
  big pointy things that look like this." Civilians can accomplish
  amazing things if they are given the proper directions, and you don't
  have to risk your trained missileers.

******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley Roberts

Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: u906789@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Mark Julian Turner)
Subject: Re: Iraqi "incursion into Kuwait"
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 05:21:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.080116.13213@ousrvr.oulu.fi>, dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>
> The territory where this warehouse was located was part of Iraq until
> after the war against Iraq, at which point it was given to Kuwait as
> spoils of war.  

The territory is not a "spoil of war"  but was given to Kuwait by a UN 
demarcation committee set up after the war to determine the exact
Kuwait/Iraq border which has been disputed many years.

Mark.
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Organization: Central Michigan University
Date: Monday, 11 Jan 1993 20:51:18 EST
From: Christopher Khoury <34I2NYW@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
Subject: What is cost of war for U.S./Tax Payers?

Hi, I'm doing a project and I need some statistics (with sources)
on the cost of desert storm to th egovernment, and how
much tax payers will hav to pay for it. Any info
woul be greatfully appreciated. (I need it ASAP).

thanks

--chris
---------------------------
    CHRISTOPHER KHOURY
34I2NYW@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU
---------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm
From: vpcsc11@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (student)
Subject: Re: SAM ultimatum
Organization: San Francisco State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:49:44 GMT

In article <1ikgn8INN8tp@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU 
(Don McGregor) writes:

>I suspect the US government views this as a test, and is determined to
>pass it. They won't be particularly shy about ammunition expeditures if
>given the opportunity.

If history is any guide, they won't be particularly shy about civilian
casualties either.

--
aaron
vpcsc11@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu