HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: AIDS and all that jazz
Date: 15 Nov 92 12:35:56
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
	<1992Nov15.060110.26173@oracle.us.oracle.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panther.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: mfriedma@uucp's message of 15 Nov 92 06:01:10 GMT

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
|>possibility that somebody decided to do a trial on SIV in humans to see the
|>effect, without understanding retroviruses; used Africans as guinea pigs, and
|>started a chain reaction they never intended?

|Yes.

|You see, we know AIDS was arorund back in the fifties.

|At that time SIV was not a known disease.  It almost certainly
|existed, but we didn't know about it.  In addition, the entire class
|of viruses it belongs to were unknown.

|It is possible that someone decided to inject monkey blood into people
|for kicks, or that someone was trying to infect someone with another
|monkey disease and got AIDS as an unexpected bonus, but it seems very
|unlikely.

|If you are going to make this hypothesis you have to ask "Why?"  For
|example, why would anyone want to try SIV in humans even if they knew
|what it was?  It's pretty pathetic as a bio-warfare agent and it is
|easier to experiment with it in monkeys than in humans.  So why
|bother? 

While I doubt that any of this happened this way, I'm sure that all of
us with just a few minutes thought--and taking into account the
history of human beings whether in Tuskeegee or Germany--could easily
come up with reasons why someone would do this accidently or with
intent and forethought.

--
Peace.
           "Love is like a snowmobile rushing across the tundra and then
            suddenly it flips over pinning you underneath.  At night, 
            the Ice Weasels come."
                                    -Matt Groening, "Love is Hell"
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-
From: sbhimji@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Sam Bhimji)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: New Malcolm X biography
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 02:47:48 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #3, Edmonton, AB, Canada

peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer) writes:

- This coming from the camel-humping Ay-Rab who denies that the Holocaust
- even took place.  Wrap your towel up tighter Sam, your brains are sagging.
- 
- You haven't learned anything in 1200 years, since the beginning of Muhammad, 
- the false prophet.  I urinate on Nasser's grave.
- 
- --Phisrael

That's ok, since your holocaust did occur, but it seems like Hitler 
missed you on his killin' trip...


Sam Bhimji              sbhimji@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
From: peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 13:20:09 PST
Distribution: world
Organization: Richard Cranium  :)

        >About your username: are you referring to Paul "Peewee Herman" 
        >Rubens, the homosexual comedian?  
        
Hey, wait a minute, he's not gay, is he?!?!  I know he jacked off in        
an X-rated theatre in Florida, but that doesn't make him a rootslurper.

Is there more to him than I know about?  I might have to change my
moniker.
        
        >Why on earth do you adopt the name of someone who belongs to a 
        >group you so cleary despise?

Because I didn't know (still don't) that he's gay.  I've never read
anything of the sort.

Many good ol' lecherous boys go to X-rated movies and buff their
football helmets.
From: HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Styling, profiling and pretending
Date: 17 Nov 1992 14:38:26 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1992Nov17.210117.6639@osf.org>,
kenny@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup) writes:
>
>If I read you right, on day one, you want me to come out and say "I don't
>think I'll be falling in love with you. I'll treat you right, but don't
>get any ideas, OK? I'm not ready for a real c*mm*tm*nt. If something happens
>to happen, well that will be our lucky day."
>
>Why I should be lucky to get a firm handshake after that confession, much
>less spend some time with someone I obviously would like to is left as an
>exercise for the reader. Sistahs (and I would assume other races of women)
>just don't go for that.
.
.
Sorry, but there are some women (right here), black or otherwise,
who would be grateful for such a pronouncement.  I don't think I'm
alone on this.
.
This happened, for example, to moi with a guy who had just separated
from his wife.  He fronted and that took some pressure offa me to
see if this was "the one." Sure had a good time, too.

But consider this- who's got the better grasp on >reality- the one
who comes into something expecting it to be great, and >will
probably be eventually disappointed, or the one who's just "there"
and >it turns out to be great.
.
.
Why waste anybody's time, brother man.  Time's a wastin for women
wanting commitment.

>
>Please share some of what you're on if you expect me to be alone just
>because I'm not in love with someone....I know there's more to your
>statement than what I'm reading- please expound.
.
.
Simple, brother.  Find a sister you simply want to have fun
with, but who is NOT looking for commitment.  And I am not talking
about hos. There are some level-headed young women, educated, who
like adventure. They are there.

>
>
>Is it me, or has someone been hurt either (a) a lot, or (b) lately? But hell,
>this is just my silly wild-assed guess. Besides, we all know that women NEVER
>scheme or control relationships. We, men, the strong-shouldered wielders of
>the great evil of our manhoods, never, ever get hurt.
>
.
.
Man, there's gotta be something about me you've gotta flame.  Both
men and women scheme and dream. I admitted as much in all my
previous posts.
.
Furthermore, it's how much power you give over to a person which
indicates the tenor of the relationship. If you want to hand the
sister a whip, mental or physical, go right ahead. Unequal
relationships don't make it at all for anyone.
.
Lastly, brother, dicks aren't evil, they're neutral.  It's the
quality of the mind controlling one that has my attention or my
approbation.
From: kevinc@sequent.com (Kevin Closson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Light-skinned, Dark-skinned, the conflict continues...
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:44:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Nov18.164458.12457
Organization: .

In article <1992Nov15.005157.18696@uts.cc.wayne.edu> delledg@uts.cc.wayne.edu (DeVaughn Elledge) writes:

>Its not a prejudice, or a peer-presured choice, but a feeling when I'm with
>them. Its like there skin-tone adds to their beauty and I love it. I love 
>my lighter-skinned sisters but I just don't get the same feeling. I don't
>know how to describe the feeling...
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Certain white people need that feeling too.  This is why blacks sat
 in the back on public busses,  and couldn't find a water fountain to drink 
 from down south.

  The feeling remains the same in a lot of white people today.  Guess it isn't
 prejudice.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.african.american:11405 talk.politics.misc:61220
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More gun control.
Date: 21 Nov 92 13:06:08 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>In article <1e7diuINNelm@news.aero.org> helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) writes:
>
>>I don't see any difference between keeping handguns OFF the streets and
>>making it illegal to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre. They are both
>>a reasonable limitation that balances the absolute Constitutional
>>right with a citizen's need to feel safe and secure in his person and
>>property.
>
>You might be able to argu this if the government was able to keep
>citizens safe and secure in their person and property.  As we all
>know, that is not the case.

You couldn't argue it (successfully) even then.  Part of the intent
of the Second Amendment is to keep us safe not only from each
other, but from the government as well.

-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:30:22 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: New Malcolm X biography
Distribution: usa

In article <1ee3i4INN30u@morrow.stanford.edu>, HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu
(Gabrielle Daniels) says:
>
>In article <1992Nov17.225600.14742@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
>Jeff.Strabone@dartmouth.edu (Jeff Strabone) writes:
>>
>>BTW, I read in Newsweek today that among the notables with roles in the
>>film are Bobby Seale and William Kunstler.  I won't give away the
>>identity of the figure who reads an X speech at the movie's end.
>>
>.
>.
>The Honorable Nelson Mandela, President of the African National
>Congress of South Africa.
>.
>Amandla!

Who refused to speak the last line of Malcolm's speech, namely
"By any means necessary" -- source, Globe and Mail film review.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: rburns@StarConn.com (Randall J. Burns)
Subject: Malcolm X(What was left out)
Organization: Starnet-Public Access UNIX--Los Altos, CA  415-949-3133
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:57:23 GMT


I saw Malcolm X this weekend. I thought it was an interesting 
snapshot on the man's life. And the most important political
film of the year. One thing that bothered me,
that it seemed like the movies was edited to downplay some of
the controversial and paradoxical aspects of Malcolm X's life.
   Things that were left out included:
      The issue of the Nation of Islam's fundamental theological
      differences with Orthodox Islam(i.e. Elijah Muhammed's claim
      to a separate revelation).

      Some of the aspects of this alleged revelation including the
      claim that whites were the result of genetic engineering or 
      selective breeding on the part of a black  scientist.

      The great importance of the black Muslims in the black community
      as a whole(as an inspiring example of entrepreneurship).

      The importance of the negotiations between the KKK and the
      intelligence establishment and NOI.  Lee touched on the
      relationship between NOI and the intelligence community,
      but by ignoring the negotiations between the KKK and NOI
      (which were conducted by Malcolm X) he fails to show how
      this connection might have evolved(i.e. the FBI had strong
      contacts within the KKK which may have been how MLK was killed).

      The issue of the ambiguous legacy of Malcolm X-and the
      relationship between elements of the NOI that have moved closer
      towards orthodox Islam and those who remained black separatists-
      (including Farrakahn's rather strange association with Tom
      Metzger-the Southern California Nazi).

I could enjoy the movie because I already knew much of the story
fairly well. I can believe that quite a bit needed to be left out for
budgetary reasons or(in the case of Louis Farrakahn to avoid a lawsuit
or worse). The way the split between Elijah Muhammed and Malcolm X was
covered was also pretty puzzling(i.e. everyone knows that orthodox Islam
is a polygamous faith. Why would the leader having children with
multiple women be such a big deal? You would think he could have simply
announced that he had several wives and denonce those that didn't tow
the line)(Although the child support issue is another question-I don't
think this was really about child support). 



.
l
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: John Birch Society - need references
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:45:14 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH


There was a guy on a local talk show last weekend who was
the local head of the John Birch Society.

He and the host were laughing about all the trumped up charges 
against the Society in the 60's and 70's, and were saying that 
in fact the John Birch Society was not and never had been 
racist or anti-Semitic.

I'm too young to remember any of the factual stuff about the John Birch
Society, - all I have is the memory that they were both racist and
anti-Semitic.  Does anyone have any references to papers/books about
the JBS so I can write to the host with actual facts about the Society
and give him hell for giving a forum to hate-mongers?

The host is *very* conservative so I need to chose sources that
he might find credible - Mother Jones, The Progressive,  or the 
Nation probably won't cut it.

Thanks.
-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Homosexuality
Date: 20 Nov 92 12:10:53 GMT
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Followup-To: soc.culture.african.american
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH

As quoted from <ie19TB1w163w@peewee> by peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer):

> Please name me ONE single famous person that has AIDS who is not also
> a rootslurper.

Arthur Ashe.  I'm not here to defend homosexuality, any more than I'm here to
defend professional (or college) sports.  However when I see somebody make such
an obviously ERRONEOUS statement, I HAVE to say something.

If you have some sort of moral or aesthetic objection to homosexuality, that's
fine.  Just don't cloak it in half-truths and foolishness.


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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: slib1123@altair.selu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Taking care of our business
Date: 20 Nov 92 11:35:13 -0600
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University

I heard someone on a news show say that we(AA's) must be ruthless with
ourselves.  By this he meant that we should bemoan the killing but also look to
the fact that there are children with guns, who should still be under the
control of their parents.  I agree that the family is not as strong as it used
to be.  Parents, at one point relied too heavily on the school system to do
everything.  Unfortunately, the majority of teachers do not have a vested
interest in children other than as Exhibit A for career ladder movement.  

I have a problem with the teenage pregnancy rates because it means that the
fools are having unprotected sex.  Which means that diseases may be spread.  It
doesn't look good but we may be losing a generation.  

Another thing that worries me is the homophobia which has crept into the black
community.  We have always been able to deal with our own and they were black
first, then gay.  Many of the crusades for equal treatment of blacks were
piggy-backed on gay issues.  In World War II, when soldiers were being expelled
for homosexuality, a large percentage of these persons were black.  We know
that the largest closet in the world is the
charismatic/fundamentalist/pentacostal church.  We would have no great music
in church without this group.  We have no room for divisions which deter us
from a common goal of equality.

Lastly, I refer you to Vol. 22, nos. 1-2, of the Black Scholar.  The entire
issue is devoted to the Hill-Thomas question.  Many noted persons of all areas 
of expertise.  Some are for and some are against one or both parties.  It is
well worth reading.  

I just think that we,as a people have to do more for ourselves and we must
realize that we need to become more involved in the education of our children
and gain more control over those children.  If we don't all of the young people
of our race may be tracked as learning disabled.

Anita
Xref: sparky soc.culture.african.american:11458 talk.politics.misc:61364
From: smith@ctron.com (Lawrence C Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More gun control.
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:34:39 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Followup-To: soc.culture.african.american
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In <1e7diuINNelm@news.aero.org> helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman) writes:

>Yes, I am as familiar as you are with the Constitution and the Bill of
>Rights. I've been an ACLU member for at least 20 years. We specialize in
>that stuff, as you're probably aware.

Excuse me, the ACLU "specialty" has historically ignored the 2nd Amendment.
It has not, to my knowledge, ever advocated the widest possible intrepretation
of that amendment, as it has the others, nor has it helped to defend that
amendment in court.  When it comes to the Constitution, the ACLU is pretty
picky about which parts it likes.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
From: HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Styling, profiling and pretending
Date: 16 Nov 1992 16:59:27 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

Keith, (and to a lesser extent, Greg) says:

a) he enjoyed her company
b) they were good together in bed
c) he thought that she was happy with the relationship as it
stood (I mean, she _did_ say so, didn't she?)
.
.
Well, here is where my statement about female machista comes in.  I
mean, she may say she likes the situation as is, and she may for a
time just hold on for that sake, but if she really, really wants
something like the C word, there ya go.  Problems in the great by
and by.

d) he was happy with the situation such as it was and saw no
reason to be alone/go through "the chase" again unnecessarily
.
.
Lazy!  Of course, HE'D feel comfy (and any (wo)man would) with
the hot stuff right there and AVAILABLE.  I mean, why not find
the right woman who would accept the situation with no (unseen)
strings like love attached.  Spare me.

(I mean, there is always the possibility that he might get mixed up
with a sequence of women that might either piss him off or drive him
crazy, before he comes across another that he can feel as
comfortable with as the one that he might be leaving now)
.
.
Well, hell.  That's his journey, as the New Agers call it.

e) all of the above
.
.
Well, whatever.  These women must be extremely strong or they've
never experienced the gag reflex. As for moi, I've never been that
lucky hanging on. If they don't feel the same way, tuff titty, as
Richard Wright used to say.
From: stefan@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stefan Michalowski)
Subject: Re: New Malcolm X biography
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 01:23:31 GMT


Sam Bhimji writes:
>>...
>>How can we be sure what this author has to say about Malcolm X is true?
>>The stories about the homosexual prostitute, Malcolm burning his house,
>>etc...sound like lies to me. If you are refering to when his house was
>>fire bombed after trying to evict him did not work, I highly doubt
>>Malcolm would have bombed his own house and risked his families life...

The Nation of Islam WAS successful in getting Malcolm evicted. The court
ordered him to leave the house in five months. A few days before the final
deadline, the house caught fire...


Gabrielle Daniels writes:

>...
>I disagreed with Perry's claims that Malcolm may have bombed his own
>house, among others.  But the sex stuff is documented, so I have
>reason to believe.

It seems to me that we have already reached the point where people simply
believe what they want to believe about Malcolm X. You, Gabrielle, are a 
champion of sexual openness and gay rights, so you believe the story of 
homosexual prostitution even though, at least in Perry's book, it is based
on an interview with a fairly dubious person. The case for Malcolm committing
arson is much stronger, being based on a considerable amount of physical 
evidence at the scene, not to mention an obvious motive. But it makes him
look bad, so...

>.
>Take care and read.

Indeed. If you want to borrow a copy of Perry's book, let me know. I, too,
earn my bread at the PAVAMC, so the handoff would be easy.

Stefan
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: New Malcolm X biography
From: feluna@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Feluna Dube)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 06:08:52 GMT
Organization: Department of Electronic Engineering, La Trobe University
From: ronaldd@cbnewse.cb.att.com (ronald.h.davis)
Subject: Re: African women and Education(TODAY IN AFRICA)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:16:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.133133.13498@cs.wayne.edu> faa@athena.cs.wayne.edu (Felicitas A. Atabong) writes:
>Once again I watched part of TODAY IN AFRICA this morning, and here
>comes more disgust. The reporters have once again made the mistake so
>
i'm sort of starting to get the impression that you were disgusted with
this series even before it began.  after reading your post about
yesterday's show i was expecting to see a modern day version of martin
and ossa johnson's "adventures" in africa films of the 1930's.  but
instead [keep in mind i'm an american here], i thought yesterday's
show was pretty interesting.  based upon what you were saying i thought
i'd see a lot of white people being asked to talk about black africa.
but instead i saw a piece about economic reforms in zimbabwe which
featured a black guy who became a sort of horatio alger success story
and now owns a factory and is worth $20 million.

when they talked about the role of missionaries in africa one of the
interviewees was a black minister who spoke of the fact that some of
the missionaries to the continent were not respectful of native african
cultures.

you had also mentioned that you hoped that nbc would not focus exclusively
on the zulu ethnic group.  but i heard them explicitly say that while
nbc was doing the series in africa *three* ethnic groups would be
spotlighted.

granted, some white people were interviewed, but if they are doing a
piece about wildlife in hwange national park, then i would think that
the park veterinarian would be a good person to interview - even if
he is white.

i personally, speaking as an american mind you, think that nbc should
be commended for putting the spotlight on africa for an entire week.
after all, since "today" is supposedly the top rated morning show it
would have been easy for them to conclude that it wasn't worth risking
audience share to carry programs that might put them at any "perceived"
ratings risk [i.e. with respect to white viewers] and stick to the
usual remote cites: europe, asia, austrialia, or anywhere else *other*
than africa.

-- 
  __  ______  __  / __/ |       at&t bell laboratories, naperville il, usa
_/ (_(_) / (_(_/_/_(_/  .       ronald@iexist.att.com / att!iexist!ronald
"if you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes" -- edmund wilson
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african