HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:26:58 GMT

In article <C01x89.MC1@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>Do you get the feeling that I disapprove of homosexual sex?  
>Does that make me a bigot?  I don't think so. It is my
>contention that anal intercouse is WRONG, men butt fucking other men is
>not a cute idiosyncrasy. It is a serious pervertion of the human body, 

So?  Some think male/female oral intercourse is a perversion, hell,
I'd bet better than even odds you could find _somebody_ who thinks
that male/female intercourse missionary style is a perversion if
done outside of marriage.  My point is that different things are
perversion to different people.  As long as you're not the object of
that perversion, what are you complaining about?

>and the human soul, both in form and function. I cann't believe that 
>society is even debating this issue. If homosexual sex is simply abnormal
>when how come we don't see our dogs (male) and cats (male) giving one 
>another head? 

Well, it might be because oral sex is an endeavor limited to humans?
(Anybody know?)  Does this mean that you think a woman giving head to a
man is a perversion?  Also, have you ever been around a pen of bulls
for any extended amount of time?  They're not too picky about one of
their own when the urge hits.

>alot worse. Prove to me that butt fucking is a legitimate expression of 
>love between two men. Prove to me that society will not be harmed by the

What if it is when done between a man and woman?  If it's wrong
shouldn't we be busting into people's homes and stopping them from
doing it also?

>further erosion of our J/C moral The issue here is not tolerance, 

"Our" J/C morals?  When did J/C become the official religion of the
U.S.?  When was the 1st repealed?  You'd think that something this big
would've been in the papers.

Jim, I think you're missing the distinction between thinking something
is wrong and none of your business, and thinking something is wrong and
it IS your business.  You're the latter and I'm the former.  Actually,
I don't attribute "wrongness" to gay behaviour, I just don't think that
it's something I want to be doing, but that's ok because there are a
lot of things I wouldn't want to be doing which I'm happy to leave
alone.  No skin off my back.  Why does it bother you so if other people
are doing "wrong" things?  How are you harmed?

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner    Phone: 512/346-8380    MHS: bboerner@novell
Internet: bboerner@novell.com     \  Please use either if replying
   or  Brendan_Boerner@novell.com /  by mail exterior to Novell.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 08:17:07 GMT

Take this crap out of motss. It doesn't belong here.

--
thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu * John Dorrance * Disco Diva y Flamenco Chico

      You would be surprised at what resides in your insides.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:37:46 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.132524.19915@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.214426.20076@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>}>}>
>}>}>Out of curiosity, do you think there was a gun mounted on top of the
>}>}>bomb with wheels that took out the barracks in Beruit?
>}>}
>}>}Er, the thread so far seems to be one in which we're discussion
>}>}Pentagon weaseling about the truth ("disinformation" and "later
>}>}admitted" are clues to this), NOT whether the troops should have
>}>}fired.
>}>
>}>That's nice.  And?
>}
>}...and your remark was, well, irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
>
>But if you have watched the follow-ups, you will find that it wasn't.  It was
>very relevant.  And directly applicable.  A shame that you didn't understand.

Apologies.  I hadn't been following the thread, and came across it
when you seemed to be changing the subject.  My impression was that
the thread at that point concerned the media and the military.  The
included quote from way-back-when seemed to indicate this.

>
>As another question, how much military history and combat-related experience
>have you had?

Some military history (though I've forgotten a bit).  No
combat-related experience (thankfully).

I certainly don't object to troops firing on a suspicious vehicle.  In
a war zone, they should be able to take measures to defend themselves
(including pre-emptive action, if the political context warrents it).
That the Pentagon decided to fudge the press-release, however, doesn't
sit well with me.


--
"What does not kill me only makes me stronger, right?"
	"Ooooh, no. You're weak as a kitten!"
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65200 soc.motss:53567 alt.sex:40155
From: comrade@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Peter Cooper)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 23 Dec 1992 10:18:02 +0800
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: uniwa.uwa.edu.au

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:

>"...the disproportionate involvement of homosexuals in child molestation..."
>Well, Clayton, this, as I mentioned to you before, is patently UNTRUE.  
>Percentage wise, gays do not molest children as frequently as hetero-
>sexuals do.  And, while I might be wrong, I've _never_ heard of a lesbian
>molesting a child.  I am _very_ curious what mythology you believe in
>that makes you say this.

Hmmm.  I *have* heard of cases of lesbian sexual assault of a child.
There was some debate in Australia earlier this year whether it was only
men who committed crimes of sexual assault.  A police officer in the ACT
who was responsible for victim support in this area said that such cases
had been reported from several women's refuges in Canberra, of her
knowledge.  This is, of course, only from hazy memory, and I can't give
references other than that the article was in the "West Australian"
Saturday supplement, which isn't the world's best quality paper.

>As for my being a liar - or for gays somehow being more likely to lie than
>anyone else - again, what mythology makes you believe this?

Obviously his own.  From seeing some of his postings, I'd suggest it not
worth bothering to argue with him.  His mind (?) is set.

Peter

-- 
email:  comrade@uniwa.uwa.edu.au   snail:  Peter Cooper
fax:    +61 9 380 1041                     Guild of Undergraduates
phone:  +61 9 380 3929                     University of Western Australia
"It was the banana that did it!" - Julia Marley
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: Botany Department - U of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:36:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.155646.25034@panix.com> patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger) writes:
>
>	Gee, how did George miss him in the pardon blanket(s)?
>	He also forgot Secord and Poindexter although I hear
>	tell that an appeal will be made for executive clemenecy
> 	with respect to Secord ** mega sigh **
>
  Didn't Secord write a rather bitter book about being an
  Iran-Contra sacrificial lamb?  Bush has been characterized
  as a vindictive man.  I suspect there will be no pardon
  for Secord.  (Which should tell you something.)


  Wayne

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: test. Do Not Read                                            
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 08:13:57 GMT


This is a test, Sorry if you had to read this. Trying out a new news server.

jim shirreffs
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:30:17 GMT

In article <13721@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#Because they won't exclude child molestation advocacy groups from
#their parades.

So spake the great libertarian. Ever hear of free speach? Or do you
only beleive in free speach for those you agree with?

#There are a number of surveys that show that only a tiny percentage
#of people EVER have sex with a member of the same sex. 

Well, that raises the issue of what tiny is, and if it makes a
difference if it is tiny or half, but the basic claim of your sentence
is wrong. The surveys simply give the number who ADMIT to having sex
with a member of the same sex, which is certainly LOWER than the
number who do have sex with members of the same sex. Or is that
concept too hard for you to grasp?

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 20:48:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.173219.5018@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

>In article <ATAYLOR.92Dec24173327@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>><In article <1992Dec22.211751.4626@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>><   In article <1992Dec18.235046.3988@brtph560.bnr.ca> woodstock!chris@mcnc.org writes:
>><   >
>><   >  The Solid Liberals, on the other hand, are unfamiliar to most
>><   >Americans.  Gay rights, Funding of Obscene Art, Support of Flag
>><   >Burning, etc..., are all things which are fairly new, and as a
>><   >result are kinda scary.  
>><   >
>><   >Chris Fulmer                    Bell-Northern Research
>>
>><   Sounds like those "Solid Liberals" (tm) want to enforce the Bill of
>><   Rights, those scoundrels.
>> 
>>	Can Viveiros show where in the Bill of Rights the "right"
>>	to receive taxpayers money for "art" is located?
>>
>>	HINT: The 9th doesn't count.
>
>
>Hint: the Bill of Rights has nothing to say about how the government
>spends its money.

          The Bill of Rights lists things the government may not spend it's
money on.  The government may not spend money to infringe upon protected 
rights.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: HERE IT IS! (from ..YOU ARE CLUELESS...) 1 OF 3
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:38:11 GMT

In <1992Dec21.043015.16291@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:

>In article <merlyn.724871258@digibd>, merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) wr
>ites:
>>pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>>>Well I was wrong. I made 3 posts. The first dates 10/27/92...
>>...
>>>1. How many parents of 17+yr old children will welcome a man, who not only
>>>dodged the draft, but demonstrated against his own country on COMMUNIST SOIL?
>>
>>England was COMMUNIST in the last Sixties!?  Boy, is my education lacking!
>>I would have sworn that England was a constitutional monarchy at the time...
>>
>>Could it be that Clueless Boy is confusing Clinton's demonstrations against
>>US involvement in Viet Nam while in college in England with Clinton's tourist
>>trip to the USSR around the same time?  Naaa...
>>

>   Aw, come off it. He was demonstrating in the U.S.S.R. and it's DOCUMENTED.

Sure, documented in some Republican campaign 'literature'. And if you
believe that, there's this bridge I've been trying to unload.

>>---
>>Merlyn LeRoy
REB
From: bill@bcserv.wustl.edu (Eldridge (Bill))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 28 Dec 92 23:34:46 GMT
Organization: Washington University in Saint Louis, MO USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bcserv.wustl.edu

kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:

>If Weinberger's only supposed "crime" is withholding information from
>that bunch of scumbags we call Congress, then I commend him for it --
>and I applaud George Bush for rightfully pardoning him.

I'm assuming you include all the scumbags you agree with.  For
someone to quote the Constitution as a valuable authority, and
then turn around and dismiss Congress as not deserving any authority
at all is hypocrisy.  Say what you mean: "Fuck Congress, disband
it, take them out of the Constitution, and let's live by an
elected executive branch and its judicial appointees only."
Though I would doubt if you're very happy to have the in-coming
administration in the picture either.

>What proof?  It is my own personal conviction that something that is
>printed in The Washington Post must necessarily be considered suspect
>until it can be verified by other more reliable sources.  Even so,
>even if we are to take Post accounts at face value, what do they
>prove?  Nothing.  They are only Walsh's allegations, and the final
>determination upon them was to be made in court, which is a moot point
>now.

Weinberger's notes show clearly that the illegal ramifications of
the arms for hostages trade were discussed, with Reagan and Bush
both concurring.  This is not simply Walsh's allegations, so take
your moot point and shove it.

>But the deeper issue here -- one which you have utterly neglected --
>is why is it a crime to lie to Congress?  Because Congress has made it
>so!  As if Congress has never lied to the American public.  But until
>Cogress imposes the same kind of penalties for lying upon each of its
>individual members, I will heartily applaud anyone who lies to

The crimes were 1) counter-acting several legally enacted laws through
surreptitious means, and 2) obstructing a criminal investigation.  Since
the Justice Department cannot fairly investigate itself or its close
partners, another branch of government must then do it.  Congress has
the same penalties for lying to the Justice Department.  Of course
when Reagan or Bush or Clinton just lie to the people, I think of
this as politics.

If Weinberger hid Noriega in his basement for 7 years, Bush and you
would probably be furious.  Why do you think the opposition should
feel any differently?  It's true that Weinberger only broke one
law, where he could have joined Bush and Reagan in conspiring to
break many more.  But he still broke the law.  Being pardoned does
not change this, it just means he won't be prosecuted.  
-- 
William M. Eldridge			bill@bcserv.wustl.edu
Biochemistry Department Box 8231	(314) 362-3436
Washington Univ. School of Medicine	(314) 362-7183 (fax)
660 S. Euclid, St. Louis, MO 63110
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:31:05 GMT

James Meritt writes:

>Reality check: The data was given as to the scheduled destination of
>the aircraft. 

Yes. The airport was in a town that is also the resort. The new media
are often sloppy about this. The airport is NOT the same as a resort.


>Hence, I said "going
>to", which was what they were doing in the plane.

You said "going to a resort" which is not the same as "going to an
airport in a town that is also a resort".

> And since the data was not
>available, I chose the one that corresponded to reality, as opposed to
>ones wishes. 

No, you chose to assume that they were going to a resort, an
assumption with no basis in reality.

>It would be nice if you learned to differentiate between documented,
>verifiable reality and your opinions, wishes, and dreams.

And it would be nice if you learn to read what I wrote, stop
misinterpreting my words, and stop making insults.


--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: Bo Gritz
Date: 19 Dec 92 02:20:08 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <92350.071740KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.050842.6183@microsoft.com>, leecr@microsoft.com (Lee
>Crocker) says:
>
>>>Bo Gritz is a true American patriot who is being denounced as a fascist by
>>>the Free Shit Brigades (tm) before his message of personal responsibility
>>>and self reliance can catch on.  I sincerely hopes he weathers the storm.
>
>>Bo Gritz is an idiot who uses a 2000-year-old work of fiction as a
>>[Rest of anti-Christianity ranting and raving deleted]
>
>You are too kind.  Really.  Do you realize that most of the Bible is FAR
>MORE than 2000 years old?  Really.  Come on, if you're going to slander the
>Word of God, you can do better than that!

Yes, I probably could have done better, but I was in a good mood.  BTW, I
was not ranting against Christianity per se, just against the religious
intolerance of fundamentalists like Gritz.  Also, "slander" implies
falsehood.  Calling the Bible a work of fiction is not slanderous because
it cannot be proven that it is not.  It is also not slanderous to express
an opinion, such as "Christian fundamentalism is a mental disorder."

-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Mandatory Organ Donation
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:27:14 GMT

In article <92358.114511DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
<DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <1992Dec22.015659.1989@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu says:
>>
>>CNN reports this day that the 'Communitarian Party/coalition' wishes
>>to make into law the requirement to donate organs upon death.
>
>The actual law would make organ donation the default option, which
>individuals and families could reject.  In fact, they would have
>to be informed of their right to reject the organ donation.  It seems
>to me that this retains the individual right to dispose of their
>affairs.

        The decision should be the individual's.  What this group is
proposing is making a decision and then "allowing" the people involved
to reject it.  I'd just as soon make my own decisions, thank you.

>>As with many so-called 'communitarian' initiatives, this proposal
>>sounds good on the surface. However, it does raise significant
>>questions about the traditional rights of persons or their
>>relatives to control the disposition of their affairs after death.
>>
>>Suppose the 'communitarians' insist that it is reasonable for all
>>assets of the deceased to be transferred into the care of charity
>>organizations or a general government-controlled distribution
>
>Why use such scare tactics?  The group hasn't proposed any such thing.

          What the group has proposed in a system which makes such a thing
much more possible and likely.  One "default" change isn't a who lot.
But this sort of precedent can be a problem.  How *many* decisions are
you prepared to allow them to change the default on?  And how many
government offices are you prepared to set up in order for it to
be easy to let the government know of your decision?  And why *should*
I be required to let the government know of my decision, anyway?  If my
organs belong to anybody, it certainly isn't the government.
         Ben Franklin said (though he probably stole it) that the
two sure things in life were death and taxes.  Looks like he was more right
than he knew.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Secret Honor? Re: Bush WANTED to Lose
Date: 23 Dec 1992 00:25:28 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <1992Dec19.073007.8628@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:

>            Suppose, having made this
>deal with the devil, Bush suddenly woke up [...and]
>                                           HE WASN'T, IN
>THE END, WILLING TO PLAY FUEHRER? What could he do to save
>himself and the country? 
>
>Lose the election.

There was a movie that came out a few years ago, called "Secret Honor"
which had as its premise that NIXON had done the same thing with 
Watergate; that is, that Nixon engineered his own destruction to keep
the country out of the hands of his crypto-fascist military-industrialist
puppet masters.  A rather amusing fantasy... 

- db



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Term for blacks has changed
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:21:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.142254.28877@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:

>Hello,
>
>Has anyone noticed references in the media (paper, radio, TV) to blacks
>as "people of color"?  I started noticing this about 6-8 weeks ago and
>now I hear it all the time.  I've got four questions regarding this:
>
>1) What's wrong with "black"?
>
>2) How was this change affected?
>
>3) What's the distinction between "people of color" and "colored
>person" such that the latter is racist and the former isn't?
>
>4) Who decided that this should happen?

       All groups that are either scelf-concious about themselves, or 
worried about some form of dislike or discrimination go through these 
cycles.  Whatever the current name for them gets bad connotations, because 
some other group starts to use it that way.  They then insist they be called 
something else which doesn't have that unpleasant baggage.  At which point, 
over time, the new words gain the same problems that the old ones did.  
(Also see cripple to handicapped to specially abled)
       I'm waiting for the next move, where the response to "African-
American" will be "What, are you implying I'm not a real American?"


------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65832 misc.legal:21873
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 31 Dec 92 10:11:26 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <bhayden.725782587@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
 
>I don't think you understand then what a reversal and/or a remand means.
>It means that his guilty verdict was overturned. In American jurisprudence
>you are innocent until proven guilty. He is technically innocent. Period.

Your use of the word "technically" seems to imply that you actually do
accept that the jury's fact finding in the North case was not disputed.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost