HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: latarra@buhub.bradley.edu (Lisa Ehren)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Is This a Valid Class Identifier? A Need?
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:28:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: bradley.1992Oct4.152836.25249
Organization: Bradley University

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
> ] ---
> ] Remember, people-- if you don't WANT to take responsibility for
> ] an orgasm, don't have sex.  Orgasms are far & away the #1 most 
> ] likely consequence of sex-- so if you can't handle it, don't
> ] do it!
> ] ---
> Could we deduce from this that if there is no Orgasm,
> that there is Therefore NO SEX?????

No, s/he <I dont know, so I'm playing it safe> means that if you have sex
<the act here, not the gender>, then there's a good chance that you'll
have an orgasm.  
Although, what if you don't have sex, and have an orgasm anyway?
Do you still have to take responsibility for it?

Oh, :):):):):) why not  :)
--
"Is you in, or is you ain't?"
"You cannot just grab a penis and make it erect." 

Fuzzies to everybody who wants them...New shipments every Thursday.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: HERE'S BUSH'S/SLICK'S TAX LIST(S)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:19:27 GMT

mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:
>?It shows that Bush raised taxes 178 times in 3-1/2 years, as opposed to
>
>Make that 189 for Bush. His 1993 budget contains 11 new tax increases 
>despite his I'll-never-raise-your-taxes-again-Ever-EVER! penitence.

BUT, according to noted former-economist Sen. Phil Gramm, the Bush budget
was submitted BEFORE the president's "no more new taxes ever ever" pledge.

Gotcha!

(He really said this in Dallas yesterday.)

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49200 talk.environment:4034
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.environment
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Energy Policy (II)
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:20:45 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In article <CINDY.92Sep27152546@solan10.solan.unit.no> cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:

>There's still another issue, however, and that issue is space.
>Say an average bus or light rail car holds 40 people.  That bus
>takes up much less space on the road than 40 cars each holding one 
>person.

It seems to me that you are assuming that all buses will be filled to
capacity all of the time.
Does anybody know of any study where they caluculate actual average capacity
utilization for mas transit systems.

It seems to me that the only time I see buses and trains full, is at or near
rush hour.  At other times of the day it is not unusual to see buses with 
only one or two people in them, or even empty.

It seems to me that the buses that are full are the ones that are traveling
along corridors that are heavily used.  That is going between places where
a lot of people live to places where a lot of people work.

As you expand the mass transit system, you will have to start serving areas
where not as many people live or work.  As the people density starts to
drop, you will start to have difficulty keeping the buses full.  This will
cut into the efficiency of the mass transit system.

Here in Atlanta, there are a number of areas that are not served by buses.
The reason being that the buses cannot manuever down the smaller streets.
But the cars have no difficulty.  In order to serve these areas the amount
or road surface would have to be increased.


-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bush veto STANDS
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:40:19 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	One more victory for free choice :).

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48420 alt.politics.elections:14556 talk.abortion:39122 alt.sex:31223 alt.politics.homosexuality:6277 soc.singles:26650
From: gude@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (David J W Emrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is Wrong with this Picture....
Date: 29 Sep 1992 19:22:37 +0800
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: uniwa.uwa.edu.au

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>THERE IS A DISTINCTION 

>between going to bed with someone
>and Having SEX....

>ciao
>drieux



>-- 
>Modern Day Problems

>Does that 'answer' your question,
>or should I be a little more vague.

Not to put too fine a point on it, there is one further ditinction...
1. Going to bed with someone,
2. Having sex with someone,
3. Making love with someone!

There!  That ought to throw a spanner in the works!


[dav]    aka
David Emrich
gude@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:47:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.042055.122300@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct6.014712.26704@cs.yale.edu>  rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>> The study you cite here does not control for the women's emotional
>> states before the pregnancy, as far as I can tell.
>
>I gave you everything I've got; you'd have to contact Johns Hopkins
>for more details.
Hmm...I tend to suspect it would not be worth it.

>> To conclude that abortions are likely to be beneficial
>> (i.e. a good choice) would be post hoc in the extreme.
>
>I don't think that anyone's suggesting that teenagers go out, get pregnant,
>and get an abortion in order to do well in school.  I do think that it
>helps repudiate the (unsupported) claims regarding emotional trauma.
Yes, I think it does. But it does nothing to support the claim that
getting an abortion is better than not.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:25:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.174123.24496@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>Personally, its not clear to me how the combination of bicycle, bus,
>train, plane and occasional car rental can be described as "cramped".

If I limit myself to Barton-Davis' transportation methods, I can go
where/when they go and at the prices they charge.  It really isn't
reasonable to rely on rental cars for anything except special
occasions, and there's a huge gap between those occasions and the
options provided by the other means.

I've hung around with "no car" people.  We ended up using my car much
of the time because their options were cramped.  They got to be
morally pure while I got us to the places we wanted to go.  Someone
who didn't want to go those places, at those times, wouldn't have
noticed.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48820 ca.politics:8311 ba.politics:5747 soc.motss:41275
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:11:02 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep29.171241.28098@microsoft.com>, bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
# (phil)
# /Oh, so then all those nasty old stupid businesses that refused to do
# /business with South Africa -- they were wrong. 
# 
# No; they made a choice based upon varying forces.  What does this 
# have to do with what we are talking about?

What is has to do with is the freedom to make moral decisions.
Do you want to do business with South Africa, or the Dept. of
Defense, or the Traditional Values Coalition?  You have that right.
But now, for a particular group, this rule goes away.  People
like you would prohibit a business from disinvesting in South
Africa.  Why should they be allowed to discriminate?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Bush: War on Drugs, tax cut->bigger deficit.  Clinton: War on Drugs, spending
increase->bigger deficit.  What a great choice.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Another Dehumanizer Steps Forward....
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:15:53 GMT

In article <mlbruce.718043689@husc8> mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:
> (Hypothetical question all you woman-controls-her-body-at-all-costs
> advocates: Suppose the baby has just been delivered, but the umbilical
> cord not yet cut. This baby still derives its nutrition from, and is
> indeed attached to its mother. As such, until the cord is cut, the baby is
> no less a part of the mother's body than it was during pregnancy. Would
> not your arguments make it perfectly acceptable to kill the baby then and
> there, on the grounds that a woman should have the right to control her
> own body?

I find this argument to be disingenuous and absurd.  It assumes that
the purpose of abortion is to kill the fetus, not to terminate
the pregnancy.  While in most cases the one cannot be achieved
without the other, in the absurd hypothetical above, termination
requires the simple cutting of the umbilical.

Why play games with such questions?  It is on the order of
"Can god make a rock so heavy he can't pick it up" questions.

Dean Kaflowitz
From: burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com (Spike Burkhardt)
Subject: Re: Another Dehumanizer Steps Forward....
Reply-To: burkhardt@nebula.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 15:05:49 GMT

>mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes ...
>[...]
>>and/or Biology classes, I'll cut quick to the punch-line: I, as I would assume
>>a pretty fair majority of people do, believe that life begins at conception.
>
>Wrong.  Best guess: life began 3.5 billion years ago (3.5 thousand million
>for the Brits).

  Real cute answer.  Is this supposed to be a joke?
>

>What makes conception the big doo-dah?
>
  You really don't get it do you?  Conception is the starting point of 
  human life.  It's the only absolute point of developement short of birth
  that you can point to as a definitive stage.  To discuss whether a fetus
  is capable of independant life is irrelevant since medical technology
  will eventually make anything possible.

>> What is NOT beyond our control is
>>what happens when we perform surgery on a pregnant woman to snuff out the
>>life inside of her.
>
>And wrap it all up with some standard pro-life emotional rhetoric.

  Same thing can be said about pro-abortionists.
>
>-- 
>Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
>ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Spike Burkhardt
Systems Management VMS/Unix programming
Internet address - spike@lmsc.lockheed.com
408-756-4790(w)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49648 talk.politics.drugs:6614 alt.politics.elections:15228
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:35:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <Bvns4C.HJz@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> In article <GOLDM.92Oct5125456@sage4a.rpi.edu> goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold) writes:
> 
>>Maybe we should start mentioning the LP not just to the media, but also to
>>the pollsters. Gallup might take more interest, having more of a reputation
>>for good polls, though I doubt any Republican/Democrat Party sponsored polls
>>would care, except to "normalize" the poll and add it to the "error."
> 
>    The flaw in this has already been explained:  The typical margin of
>    error in a major poll is 3-5%, which is way over the % of the voters
>    who have voted for the L.P. in any presidential campaign, so there's
>    simply no rational reason for any polling company to include them.
> 
> 
	Oh? And polls always indicate the same thing as the final vote? 
Because of people not wanting to "waste" their vote, and voting for the 
"lesser of two evils" rather than something better, voting results are 
unlikely to show the true level of support.
	-Allen
From: gl1@cec2.wustl.edu (Greg Lyon)
Subject: Re: If you don't want Perot:  Bend over to the Republocrats.
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:19:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.094011.1440@cnsvax.uwec.edu> falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>		FOR ALL THOSE WHO WANT PEROT TO SHUT UP...
>
>    You want $500bn deficits??
>    You want an $8-10tr debt??
>    How far do you want this to go before someone has to step in??
>
>    Perot, by his "ill thought-out" plans, is the only realistic choice to get
>the economy on track.  Although Clinton's plans are good, he'll deficit this
>country into oblivion with his infrastructures.  And we all know about Bush.
>
>    You may not like him, but when you get right down to it, he may be the only
>true choice for change you have.  With a Dem. total win in November imminent,
>just remember what Clinton is asking for, because he'll get it with no problem. 
>
>						Mike Falkner
>

   I will admit that many of Perot's economic ideas make sense and are
needed to solve the problems that we have with the deficits and debt.

   The problem I have with Ross Perot is not with his ideas, it is with him
the man.  This country cannot afford to have as a President :

	- a person who dropped out of the Presidential race because he
		didn't think he could win.
	- a person who has an ego the size of the state he is from.
	- a person who as a business man got rich from government contracts,
		individualized tax breaks and the like.
	- a person who cannot identify with people unlike himself 
		(eg. his "you people" comments in July).

   I'm sure there are more points which could be added to this list, and I
invite others to contribute.

Greg

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.singles
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Is this a Chemistry Exam or What?????
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:57:03 GMT

gude@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (David J W Emrich) writes:
] 
] 3. Making love with someone!

Ok, I byte, is there a formula for this in the text?

There!  That ought to throw a spanner in the works!


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: No on 9
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:41:18 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1a80s3INN6ie@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU writes:
> In article <090n2m-.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
# #99% of all anti-semitism derives from totally false images of Jews
# #and their behaviour.
# #
# #I'd say 50-99% of all "anti-homosexual feelings" result from accurate
# #images of homosexual behaviour.
# #
# I would say that you need to prove this statistical range: it is in my
# opinion that the "anti-homosexual feelings" come from a number of sources:
# religion being the largest.
# 
# The images that people hold of gay people cannot be accurate since most gays
# are 'invisible' to the majority of society.  What is projected to society
# via TV and printed matter is a small part and as is nature of post 
# journalism tends to be the 'sensationalised' parts.

And even that makes homosexuals look good compared to soc.motss postings.
The major news and entertainment media in this country go out of their
way to present homosexuals in a positive light -- reading soc.motss
made me realize how different real homosexuals are from the image
presented on TV.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Bush: War on Drugs, tax cut->bigger deficit.  Clinton: War on Drugs, spending
increase->bigger deficit.  What a great choice.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Cable Regulation [Was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!]
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 14:49:35 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <ld3gdiINN2i0@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
|> ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK) writes:
|> > Ron Buckmire) writes:
|> > >
|> > >I just saw on CNN that Bush's 36th veto was just over-ridden. So the Cable
|> > >Regulation Bill becomes law despite Bush. Of course it is unclear whether
|> > >cable rates will go up or down, but Bush losing a veto fight seems like a
|> > >progressive result.
|> > 
|> > PROGRESSIVE RESULT?  This has got to be one of the most disgusting examples
|> > of government interference.  [...]
|>
|> What planet are you on Sean.  The cable industry was a government
|> supported monopoly that could make whatever rules it wanted.  Who was
|> pandering?  Bush.  If he wanted the cable industry de-regulated, take
|> away their monopoly and let them compete on the open market.  But
|> you can't have it both ways, goverment protection and a free rein.
|> 

Of course this bill does nothing to really encourage competition.
The bill is structured so the incentive is for local governments
to keep local cable companies a monopoly.  The bill included
an interesting section on rebroadcast but then ruined the notion
by requiring cable companies to carry local stations (an idea
which has been ruled unconstitutional).  Local cable companies
are now presented with the need to negotiate an appropriate fee
from local broadcasters without the ability to not carry the
local broadcast if they don't agree to the fee.  What idiocy!
Of course, nothing Congress does surprises me.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 18:57:30 GMT

In article <oem7ddi00WB51DRh8G@andrew.cmu.edu> ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.sex: 29-Sep-92 Re: rights and responsibili..
>by rocker@aix.rpi.edu 
>> To whit, it is incredibly arrogant, as well as wrong, for you to dismiss
>> the very real physical and emotional risks of pregnancy as merely incon-
>> venient.
>
> This is a common argument. Why is it that often people forget the 'very
> real physical and emotional risks of' abortion?
>
> Having one or more abortions has the possibility of causing women (especial-
> ly young women) to become infertile and have multiple miscarriages in later
> life. Why is it that many pro-choicers argue for sex education, but educa-
> tion about abortions risks isn't considered as important?

That's a simple one.  The reason is that childbirth is more dangerous than
abortion, given equal environmental, medical, and technological surroundings.
E.g., a medically supervised abortion in a sterile environment is safer than
a medically supervised childbirth in a sterile environment; a back-room abor-
tion with a clothes hanger in non-sterile surroundings is safer than a child-
birth using equivalent "tools" in non-sterile surroundings.  One consequence
of childbirth (especially for young women (I assume you mean 12- and 13-year-
olds)) is the death of the mother.  You can't get much riskier than that.

By the way, a woman can't become infertile AND have multiple miscarriages un-
less all the fetuses are surgically implanted.  An infertile woman fails to
produce ova and can't get pregnant at all, let alone miscarry.  Subsequent
infertility OR multiple miscarriages is a risk of Ceasarian sections, a com-
mon method of childbirth, and are risks not by any means limited to abortions.

When I was in the process of being born, my mother's doctors told my father
that the childbirth was dangerous (my mother had an infected kidney at the
time) and he might have to decide whether the doctors should save my mother
and let me die, or vice versa.  Fortunately for all 3 of us (and my 3 younger
siblings), the doctors were able to keep both of us alive.  The Republican
platform's supporters want to take that choice away not only from the mothers
of this country, but also from the fathers AND the doctors, and give it to
the police departments.  Warms your heart, eh?


Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|		"Life is uncertain.  Eat dessert first."  - Anon. 	   |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48252 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5986 alt.politics.bush:6942 alt.politics.clinton:7521 alt.politics.elections:14453 talk.abortion:38916 alt.sex:31073
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:24:15 GMT
Distribution: na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

In article <1992Sep28.044530.26944@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.024902.23519@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>I stand up for life too.   That's why when I look at the picture 
>>on page 310 of The New Our Bodies, Ourselves and see the picture with 
>>the caption:  "Woman dead on motel room floor.  Her death was due to
>>an air embolism suffered during an illegal abortion," I want to cry.
>>
>	Stupid lady.

Yeah, she should have been bright enough to be a rich republican so
she could fly to Sweden or Britain to get a legal and safe abortion.

From my Thesaurus:  
wag5 - Callous, Contemptable, Uncaring, Reprehensible, Execrable
see also "Right to Life", "Rush Limbaugh", "New Right"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.constitution