HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Oct12.191732.24793@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<1bcqbbINNhim@gap.caltech.edu>,<1992Oct13.001319.5556@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<1bdf7vINNnk2@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:46:08

Is "heavy metal" a definite term?  What atomic weight do the banners
of heavy metals have in mind. 100, 200?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Debate 2:  "Please state your position on Term Limits..."
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:48:00 GMT

Moderator:  We have a question up here.

Questioner: Please state your position on Term Limits and if you are
            in favor of them, how you will get them enacted?

Clinton:    I know they're popular, but I'm against them. I'll tell 
            you why. I believe number 1 it would pose a real problem
            for a lot of smaller states in the congress, who have 
            enough trouble now making sure their interests are heard.
            Number 2, I think it would increase the influence of unpaid
            an unelected staff members in the congress who have too much
            influence already. I want to cut the size of the congres-
            sional staffs, but I think you are going to have too much
            influence there by people who were never elected who have
            lots of expertise. Number 3, if the people really have a
            mind to change they can. You're going to have a hundred
            twenty to a hundred fifty new members of congress. Now let
            me tell you what I favor instead. I favor strict controls
            on how much you can spend money for congress, strict limits
            on political action committees, requirements that people
            running for congress appear in open public debates like  
            we're doing now. If you did that you could take away the
            incumbents advantage, because challengers like me would
            have a chance to run against incumbents like HIM for House
            races and Senate races. And then the voters could make up
            their own minds without being subject to an unfair fight.
            So that's how I feel about it, and I think if we had the
            right kind of campaign reform we'd get the changes you want.


I think we ought to limit terms, and do all that other stuff afterwards.

The problem is how to get those laws passed since it's the incumbents
who make them. Even if they do feel "picked-on" by their own overbearing
staffs and need someone to protect them -- like long time incumbent
Governor Bill Clinton. 

/                 \
  Stephen D. Tice       One term is enough. Then a person can run 
  Arlington Texas       for a different office -- after a year off.  
\                 /     No reason to campaign on Public Time.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:10:38 GMT

From article <1bho5aINNcai@fido.asd.sgi.com>, by aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer):
> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) said..
>>
>>According to USA Today page 304 discusses an "Environmental Marshall
>>Plan" that would direct $100 billion to a global environmental plan.
>>Gore never endorses a specific level of money to be paid by the US
>>(the man is, after all, a career politician) but he does say that "the
>>maximum that is politically feasible still falls short of the minimum
>>that is truly effective."
> 
> I have read the book; it is very clear that Dan Quayle was incorrect --
> Gore does NOT propose "spending $100 billion of taxpayer money" and
> sending it overseas.  

Why are you deleting part of my text and then arguing against me as
though I said that Quayle was correct?  What I said was:

| While Quayle was not entirely accurate, it was completely unfair of CNN
| to claim that there was nothing at all on that page about what Quayle
| was talking about.  There is absolutely no question that Gore's book
| supports spending large sums of US money to support environmental
| programs in other countries.  The real issue is whether that is good
| or bad.

> His "reference" from Gore's book is dealing with
> the original Marshall Plan of the 40's:
> 
> 	[...] Charles Maier points out that the annual U.S. expenditures 
> 	for the Marshall Plan between 1948 and 1951 were close to 2 percent 
> 	of our GNP.  A similar percentage today would be almost $100 billion 
> 	a year.  [...]
> 
> Here is the entire paragraph, so you can have it in context:

What is your point?  There's no question that Gore can't be nailed
down to that $100 billion figure, I've already said that.  On the 
other hand there's still no question that it was unfair for CNN to 
claim that there was "nothing at all on that page about what Quayle 
was talking about."  

Are you suggesting that this portion of Gore's book is not advocating
that US funds be spent to support an environmental programs in other
countries?  Everything I have read, including the text you have sited,
suggests that is exactly what Gore is talking about.  

Accepting that Gore is not proposing 100 Billion dollars, just how much 
would be "politically feasible" to send overseas?  Is that money accounted 
for in the Clinton budget proposals?


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Perot Wins First Debate
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:30:23 GMT
Reply-To: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rice University

In article <1bcqknINN2k2@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>, dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike) writes:
>While I still don't think Perot can win the election outright,


When people start believing (again) that Perot can win,
watch his numbers take a huge leap in the polls.
Don't vote for who you think can win.  Vote for the
best person for the job.

-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu        
Rice University                    
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr          
XUV Holographic Microscope Project 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Burning the flag is OK
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 06:55:43 GMT

kevin_mcentee@taligent.com (Kevin McEntee) writes...
>Summary of today's supreme court decision:
>-------------------------------------------
>Laws that ban the burning of the American Flag are unconstitutional.

What decision?  The impression I got from the news reports was that they
decided not to hear the case.  There's a big difference between a decision
upholding a lower court decision, and the Court deciding not to hear the
case.  This distinction seems to be lost on the press, however.

--Tim Smith
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I'm surprised!
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:41:38 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Paul Smith) writes:
|> Mike Polen) writes:
|> >|> |> >|> :Melanie Wertz) writes:
|> >|> :>Your parents are physically abusive.
|> >|> :>Your father IS the father of your child.
|> >|> :
|> >|> :I DON'T CARE WHAT EXCEPTION SITUATIONS YOU COME WITH, YOU (and the STATE) 
|> >|> :DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO UNDERMINE *MY* PARENTAL AUTHORITY. *PERIOD*.
|> >
|> >Are you saying that if you beat and rape your daughter, the
|> >community has no right to step in and protect her?  That
|> >is wrong. *PERIOD*.
|> 
|> This is a joke, right?
|> 
|> I said nothing of the kind.  Beating and raping my daughter is breaking the
|> law - and has nothing to do with exercising parental authority.

Melanie's exception is that you were the father of your child, and you
said exceptions don't count.  Now you may feel that you could father
your daughter's child and not have it be rape, but I have a hard
time accepting that.
|> 
|> Actually, I think the *community* has an obligation to step in and protect
|> children.  Unfortunately we've let the State take over that task and they've
|> done only a so-so (at best) job of it, and may soon overstep their bounds
|> when it comes to this abortion-on-demand-even-for-minors garbage.

So actually the *community* does have the right unless excercised
with respect to abortion.  I don't know about you, but I was a
pretty good kid, yet there were some things I did that I could not
tell my parents for fear they would stop loving me.  Stupid, but
I allowed myself to get in pretty deep.  There are well documented
stories of girls who died of illegal abortions in a time when they
were legal because they were afraid to tell their parents.  You
may blame the parents for not creating an environment without
fear, but the kid is dead just the same.  That, of course, is the
reason that most parental notification bills (including the one
clinton signed in Arkansas) have judicial override clauses.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Russians Release '69 KGB Blackmail Film of Clinton in Drug Orgy...
From: berg@logan.cass.usu.edu (Glenn Berg)
Date: 12 Oct 92 13:28:37
Distribution: world
Organization: The Center for Atmospheric and Space Science, Logan, UT
In-reply-to: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU's message of 9 Oct 1992 23:36:58 -0500Lines: 7

What I would like to know is how Clinton got into Moscow in the first place.
It wasn't exactly an easy place to get into during the 60's.  The fact that the
Soviets let him in "on a vacation" doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
--
----------------------------------------
Glenn Berg (berg@logan.cass.usu.edu)
CASS, Utah State University, Logan, Utah
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Perot and Mortgage deduction
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:05:01 GMT

From article <ld6luvINN1cl@spim.mti.sgi.com>, by mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen):
> Typical simplistic bull shit.  In Dallas or Houston or San Antonio, you can
> buy a nice house in the suburbs for less than $100,000.  That same house
> in Silicon Valley is over $500,000.  Do you become rich because you work
> in Silicon Valley?   Actually, it works the other way around.  More of 
> your income goes to housing and you have less to spend/invest in the
> economy.

The government, and more specifcally the taxpayers across the country,
should not be subsidizing outrageously inflated housing costs any more 
than they should be subsidizing million dollar homes.  


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:01:11 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct13.181501.7840@ncsu.edu>, dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu
(Doug Holtsinger) wrote:
> 
> I said nothing about operations to remove human tissue, I was talking 
> about the tissue itself.  There's nothing upsetting about viewing 
> a heart, a limb, or a piece of cancerous tissue.  If the pro-aborts
> can say that a fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells" just like
> any other human tissue, then they shouldn't have any objections to 
> letting children look at this "clump of cells". 

So, if there's "nothing upsetting about viewing  a heart, a limb, or a
piece of cancerous tissue", you wouldn't see any problem with putting
pictures of the various remains of, say, Jeffrey Dahmer's victims on
Saturday morning television.  Am I tracking you correctly here, Dougie?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:56:30 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <7OCT199217052351@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>While other young men were fighting and dying 
>in Viet Nam -- Bill Clinton took a "vacation" around the Soviet Union. 
>
>While others such as Sam Johnson and Jim Stockdale were rotting in POW
>camps -- BRAVE BILL CLINTON was (at least) on a merry Christmas tour in 
>the heart of communism. At most, BRAVE BILL was planning out his presi-
>dential career 20 years later as a fellow-traveler in the communist 
>enlightenment, and the ultimate mole.
>
>And you Mr. Brewster -- lets step back just to the known and "admitted"
>facts. BRAVE BILL was on VACATION in the Soviet Union while others of
>his generation DIED.
>
>I guess the war protest was hard work, huh?? 
>And I wonder what "excellent vacation" BRAVE Bill has in mind for US.
>
>-- Stephen Tice  

Get a brain and use it sometime!  Are you telling me that every college
student of the 1960's and early 70's was a draft dodger.  This is by far
the stupidest post I've seen on the net.  You just made my kill file.
You are the first!

-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.perot
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:28:00 GMT

In article <BvpzrI.7nF@well.sf.ca.us>, rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford) writes...
>In article <5OCT199218410225@utarlg.uta.edu>,
> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.200227.16334@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
> smcguire@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott McGuire) writes...
>>>As to Perot doing so much better than the LP as a reason to cover him
>>>and not the LP: Perot is doing this well because he has been covered.
>>>How well would he be doing without media attention?  
>>
>>Perot has been in the media longer than the LP's been around.
>>
> 
>The earliest mention I can quickly find of Perot has a 1973 date on
>it.  That's two years *after* the founding of the Libertarian Party.
>Perhaps you can show us some evidence for your claim, such as dates of
>other Perot media appearances before 1971.
> 
>However, even if you can dredge one (or two or....) up, unless they
>have to do with politics, campaigning for office, and related matters
>then they kind of miss the point.  If you see what I mean.

I take it you saw the post I made on Perot's bio being in 
Current Biography from 1971? If not, then the biblio they
give is:

	Fortune 78:168+ N '68 
	Look 34:28+ Mr 24 '70
	NY Sunday News p136+ F 22 '70 
	NY Times p41+ N 28 '69
	NY Times Mag p16+ F 28 '71
	Nat Observer p22 S 14 '70
	Newsweek 75:68+ Ap 13 '70
	Who's Who in America, 1970-71

By '70 his fortune had grown to a billion from $200,00 due to
stock splits, he'd already been involved in the POW aid effort,
and his philanthorpies were getting a lot of press.

>  Robert Bickford        /-------------------------------------\

-- Stephen Tice              Think about it -- HARDER, HARDER!
From: gt6367c@prism.gatech.EDU (DEAL, DOUGLAS WAYNE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Reagan/Clinton a tale of two govenors
Keywords: Readan<>Clinton
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:57:39 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

in this newsgroup the last few days, I have read many posts regarding
Bill Clinton being just like Reagan in regards to foreign policy
experience.  That may be true, but Reagans best asset was not 
foreign policy.  Whether or not you agree with whatever economic policies
that he pushed for, the most important thing Reagan did was make this country
feel good again.  In the post vietnam era, going into the early '80s,
being an American was something one was not so happy to admit.  
Our national pride and self confidence were non-existent.  Reagan changed
that with the way he constantly talked to the American people to reasure
them that everything was going to be O.K. and that we were the greatest
nation in the world.  At the time, that was really what our country needed
at that time.
Clinton on the other hand is not one to inspire trust.  After listening
to a Clinton speach, one is not reassured; instead one gets an impression that
the man is hiding something.  He cannot inspire our nation like the great
B-rate movie star could.  Without foreign policy experience, or even
national gov't experience, what does Clinton have?
   


-- 
Douglas Wayne Deal
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt6367c
Internet: gt6367c@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.rush-limbaugh,or.politics
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Transcript of Sunday's Presidential Debate
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:43:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: transcript, obfuscation, confusion

In article <rdavis.719005878@connie.de.convex.com> rdavis@convex.com (Ray Davis) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>   All I'm attacking is his claim
>>   that his campaign is somehow free of "special interest money".
>>   I.e., he is clearly especially interested in getting elected.
>>   He is spending vast amounts of money in this quest.   It's not
>>   clear to me how his campaign is any less a special interest
>>   than any other well-financed organization trying to promote
>>   some cause, platform, or agenda.
>
>What Perot means by "special interest money" is money provided by
>organizations and/or mega-corps to back a candidate who will support
>whatever their cause is.

  This is a distinction without a difference.  Presumably Ross Perot
  the politician will do the bidding or Ross Perot the underwriter.
  The bottom line in either event is that the concentration of vast
  amounts of money in the aid of a particular political cause can 
  buy a lot of success for that cause.

  I'm not criticizing buying political power, success, or influence
  per se, I'm just saying that Perot is no different in this respect
  than, say, the League of Conservation Voters, the Moral Majority
  or the NRA.   And so it's hypocritical of him to criticize PACs
  like that.  Presumably they and their supporters sincerely believe
  in the justice of their cause just as he does.   It's like groups
  in the Mideast calling themselves "freedom fighters" and their
  foes "terrorists".   


---peter
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton will clarify
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:13:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26


In article <1992Oct9.152414.15518@linus.mitre.org>, jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
> 
> Just like the drug-use question of the same period...
> 
> "I was in protests against the United States, but I didn't inhale^h^h^h^h^h^h
> organize."
> 
> 
> And for those with "that far in the past doesn't matter":  Care to vote for
> Nixon?

What?  Nixon was in Moscow in 1972.  He's disqualified!   :-) :-) :-)

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: The "Education President" gets an F
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:29:11 GMT

harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>========================================================
>Average science test scores among fourteen-year-olds in
>            seventeen countries, 1983-86:
>========================================================
>
>             SCIENCE                    SCIENCE
>COUNTRY       SCORE   COUNTRY            SCORE
>
>Hungary       21.7    Australia          17.8
>Japan         20.2    Italy              16.7
>Netherlands   19.8    United Kingdom(40) 16.7
>Canada(39)    18.6    Singapore          16.5
>Finland       18.5    Thailand           16.5
>Sweden        18.4    United States      16.5
>Poland        18.1    Hong Kong          16.4
>South Korea   18.1    Philippines        11.5
>Norway        17.9

Japan has a longer school year than does the United States.  One would thus
expect their students at a given age to do better.  It would be interesting
to compare students at the same number of school days, rather than at the
same age.

What would also be interesting would be to compare the scores in the United
States from school districts that are on a year-around plan with those that
are on the traditional summer-off plan.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 10:13:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.182411.24227@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Guess it must be a conspiracy by all those Dead White Male Historians,
>huh?
>
>FemHistory -- like the doggie pooper scooper, an idea whose time
>has come. May it go as quickly.
>
>Not that women scientists haven't gotten the shitty end of the stick
>a lot -- look at Barbara McClintock. But sometimes they do get
>honors -- look at Madame Curie.

Let me see if I follow the way you're thinking.  You don't think there
is a conspiracy or a way of thinking that discounts (perhaps even
hides) the work women do, yet you do think that women scientists have
"gotten the shitty end of the stick a lot"?  So, when women scientists
get the shitty end of the stick a lot, it isn't because of sexism or
misogyny, it's just that shit happens?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Stan Major -- Prez Debate 2 -- 1-900 poll  "Who won?"
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 06:44:00 GMT

National (After Midnite) Talk Radio Host Stan Major has a call-in poll
going if you don't mind the charge... 

	Bush    1-900-407-2200
        Clinton 1-900-407-2300
        Perot   1-900-407-2400

I think it's a buck a call. Totals to be announced tomorrow night.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc