HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Department of Energy nominee
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:31:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec27.040600.13587@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}James Meritt writes:
}#Next pop test:  Since you acknowledge that
}
}Oh, excuse me. I thought you were interested in trying to have a
}discussion. I now see that you want to puff your ego up by trying to
}get people to jump through hoops.

Incorrect.  I have, through discussion, managed to get you to state my initial
viewpoint.  And I have done so through you exercising your own reason.  I
reason that you are much more convinced by something that YOU say than 
anything that I say.

}I don't play that game.

Nor do I.

}#How about cleaning up after nuclear weapons production?
}
}That requires the person in charge of the cleanup, perhaps a deputy
}director, not necessarily the head. I'd prefer the head to think of
}what the DoE is going to become in the future, not simply be mired in
}the past.

Check budgetary line items, as to what they think is important.  Neither your,
nor my, opinion counts.

}#Am I to interpret this to mean that you believe that the production of, as
}#well as use of, nuclear weapons should be a Department of Defense responsibility
}#and removed from civilian control?
}
}Production of? Yes. Just like they are in charge of making the specs
}for the battleships, and tanks, and ICBM's. 

I suggest that you check again.  I believe that you are incorrect.  
Like since it started being done...

}Use of? I think that civilian control of the US military is a Good
}Thing.
Naturally.  Should be.  Wish that folks, not unlike you, would quit
blaming the tool when it is put to the wrong use.

}I'd like to have the DoE be something besides an accounting trick to
}hide the true size of the US military budget.

Is this suppose to be a demonstration of your understnding of the Department
of Energy and Department of Defense?
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:57:04 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <72546@cup.portal.com> L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Bueno) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>> You must have neglected to consider Article III, Section 3 of the U.S.
>> Constitution.

> The following is the *exact* content of said Article:

> 	"Treason against the United States, shall consist 
> only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their 
> enemies, giving them aid and comfort.  [...]
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^--[What about this?]

What "enemies" did Weinberger give aid and comfort to?  And how is
"enemies" to be defined, and who is to do the defining?  (Keep in mind
that the allegations against Weinberger concern notes he supposedly
concealed, not that he somehow helped some supposed enemy of ours.)

> I will agree that it has yet to be proven that Weinberger is directly
> responsible for the Arms-For-Hostages deals that former president
> Reagan secretly approved (this would make Reagan a "traitor," by the
> very definition in the above section).

Again, how is "enemies" defined?

> But certainly Weinberger's deliberate lies concerning the extent of
> his knowledge on the hidden negotiations with Iran prove that his
> anything he has said, or will say, is subject to extreme prejudice,
> and bespeaks a certain complicity overall.

You speak of "deliberate lies" as if this were already a matter of
fact.  But it is not -- it is only a highly dubious allegation put
forth by the office of a failed prosecutor who has nothing to show for
the squandering of at least $40 million in tax dollars.

> Aiding and abetting a traitor would make you a traitor as well, would
> it not?

No it would not.  Levying war against the United States or adhering to
and giving aid and comfort to its enemies would.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush sends Walsh packing (practically)
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:07:30 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

In article <MATT.92Dec24150459@physics.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
|> In article <1hcufiINNrel@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
|> 
|> > Bush has officially pardoned all the Iran-Contra defendants and prospective
|> > defendants for any crimes that they may have committed in that affair.
|> 
|> Ah, those damn Republicans, being soft on crime again.  When are they
|> ever going to learn that the only way to deter crime is to get tough
|> with the criminals?

Republicans, of course, are only soft on crimes a) committed in the course
of carrying forth the party's agenda, and b) crimes committed by business
against individuals.  They are hard on crimes committed by individuals against
businesses, however.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:56:17 GMT
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

d40937@pascal (Jean Yves Desbiens) writes:

>With the demise of communism and the now non-existent support
>of Russia to its former ally, what is the reason, if any,
>behind the continuing embargo of Cuba. The Cuban's
>should be flourishing if not for this uncalled for economic 
>drain on their country. The cuban missile crisis is not relevent
>here : 30 years have passed and germany was forgiven for its
>actions in lot less time than that.

Germany surrendered completely, allowing the US to take
control of its government and Constitution, so that they look
more like us, and can therefore be trusted.

 The US's overpowering
>urge to rid the world of every communist country like a plague
>that must be eradicated smacks of hipocrisy after its support
>of an uncounted number of dictators and despots. For the US, if
>someone is not an ally, he must be an ennemi.

We still seem to like China a whole lot, despite their communist
system, but we do also like quite a few non-communist dictators
as well.

>This might be flame baiting but I truly 
>think that the USA's heavy handed actions everywhere must stop.
>It cannot do something claiming it is for a countries good when in
>fact it is for its very narrow and short sighted objectives.

I have a variety of conflicting feelings on this.  One is that
accepting horrible governments and treating them as equals is
harmful to their citizens and dangerous strategically.  Another
is that increased trade and communication seems to undermine
totalitarian control.  Lastly, many countries still are using
heavy-handed actions, and it's a real question whether the U.S.
should stand back and see if any new order will evolve, or whether
we should be heavily involved, but try to balance our strategic
concerns with something like the good of the people involved.

It does seem like we have kept the leadership role in the world,
and if we can learn how to handle it more and more responsibly,
I'm not against it.  But mouthing 30-year-old platitudes against
Cuba doesn't seem to be a new approach.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: dward@scf.nmsu.edu (Dan Ward)
Subject: Re: Bush CAN pardon himself
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Organization: New Mexico State University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 02:15:48 GMT

William M. Eldridge (bill@cognet.ucla.edu) wrote:
: New York Times today notes that Bush CAN legally pardon himself,
: he just can't exempt himself from impeachment.

: Similarly, it appears that Walsh never made any LEGALLY BINDING
: requests for information from Bush, which would mean that Bush
: has probably won the battle (though he lost the election, and
: his name is significantly tarnished, and will probably be moreso
: after Walsh writes his final report).

: -- 
: {{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
: {{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
: {{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
: {{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
      To continue the thread - I have a question.  If Bush pardons
      himself, does he have to make it public to make it binding?
      or can he just write himself a little note (dated while he
      is still president) which he can produce at a later date -
      if he needs to?   Does anyone know?    Dan
From: d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:29:59 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Gary L Dare (gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
: d40937@info.polymtl.ca (Jean Yves Desbiens) writes:
: 
: >With the demise of communism and the now non-existent support
: >of Russia to its former ally, what is the reason, if any,
: >behind the continuing embargo of Cuba.
: 
: It's all right with me if the Cubans overthrow Castro & Co. if that's
: what they want to do ... but in general, we don't have a grudge with
: Cuba, per se, up in Canada.
: 

I meant the US embargo of course, I can buy cuban cigars 10 minutes 
from where I live.

On another note, I was absolutely appaled by the treatment of the 
story of the cuban who got his familly out of Cuba. A few day's 
after he is taken in by Bush; and what does he say, that his
family could now begin to live , that cuban children couldn't 
celebrate Christmas (GOSH they must be evil then :-)). And Bush
to add that Castro had destroyed family values in Cuba when everybody
knows that the traditionnal family unit is still triving there. Such a
sickening display of crass politics obviously directed towards the 
cuban diaspora ( that hate Castro with a vengeance : see Bay of Pigs) 
truly underlines the fact that it is to please the american cubans 
that the embargo is still going on. That also prooves that it is
not for the good of the *poor* cubans that such a policy exists
but purely for internal political reasons.  Turkey which is 
in NATO does probably a lot more reprehensible things to its 
people than Cuba whose biggest sin is to be a communist country.
The embargo is a very cruel punishment, to smutter a countries 
economy for no apparent reasons could be considered a crime,
feedbacks and flames are welcomed of course.

BTW : My sister is going to Cuba, land of all evils, for the holiday 
and she will be able to tell me more about the desperate plight of
its inhabitants, imagine... No Mc Donalds :-).

--
SEIZE THE DAY, MAKE YOUR LIFE EXTRAORDINARY .  "Dead Poets Society"

Jean-Yves Desbiens                  | d40937@info.polymtl.ca
Etudiant en genie informatique      | 
Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal Can | To indeed be a god ...,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HERE IT IS! (from ..YOU ARE CLUELESS.
Date: 24 Dec 92 11:12:51 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <bill.725138038@castor>, bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) w
rites:
>>In article 16291@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu, pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) wr
ites:
>>> In article <merlyn.724871258@digibd>, merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy
) wr
>>> ites:
>>> >pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>>> >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 touri
st
>>> >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
.
>>>
>
>Bullshit.  You're a liar.
>

   I take this as intelligence at its best....

>
>--
>{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
>{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
>{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
>{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:25:31 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <13710@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <BzMEHL.46t@exnet.co.uk>, s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
># Come on, be fair!  97% of reported child molestation is done by hetro
># men.  The rest is made up of gay men and women.  Given these statitics
>
>FALSE.  Depending on which study you read, at least 21% of molestation
>is by exclusive homosexuals, or about 30% is done by homosexuals or
>bisexuals.
>


And that is correct- according to which study you believe supports
your own position and view.  There are no reliable hard numbers of
the percentages, and you need to still understand what the difference
is between an adjective and a noun, and how 'homosexual' is used
in these context.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 03:18:18 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Dec24173327@gauss.nmsu.edu>
ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

><In article <1992Dec22.211751.4626@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.hevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
><   In article <1992Dec18.235046.3988@brtph560.bnr.ca> woodstock!chris@mcnc.orgwrites:
><   >
><   >  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.

        The Bill of Rights is pretty unfamiliar to most Americans.

>	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.

        A "right" does not also give the government the power to
protect the "right."  Even if you *do* have a right to funding for
art, all that means is that the government can't stop you from taking
money and use it for art.  A protection does not create a power.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Iraq (Was: Re: Somalia)
Date: 21 Dec 1992 15:24:46 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec21.082514.28813@Princeton.EDU>  
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> In <1h29tiINN69d@CATHY.NA.CS.YALE.EDU> yarvin@cs.yale.edu (Norman  
Yarvin) says:
> >The Kurds were killed because we did not care to make Iraq into a  
colony.
> >Would you rather we had?
> 
> Whether or not it was a good idea to help the Kurds, this isn't
> accurate.  They were killed because for the US to protect them, as  
they
> set up their autonomous area, would have made Turkey, as well as  
Syria,
> extremely upset; they were afraid it would give inspiration to  
their own
> Kurdish minorities.  
> 
> The other reason was that we were afraid it would lead to the
> partitioning of Iraq by Turkey, and more importantly, by Iran.  And  
we
> were extremely worried about Iran and the spread of Iranian Shiite
> fundamentalism to the "moderate" Gulf states.

I think there was another big reason for it. Early in the war
(or even before the war itself, and during Desert Shield), a lot
of different things (public opinion, the Congress, the
alliance) pushed George Bush into saying that we were in
Kuwait to destroy Iraq, but simply to liberate Kuwait. Several
times, the Congress and others accused him of wanting to do more,
of wanting to go after Sadam, etc.  Bush repeatedly denied
this, saying that he only wanted us to free Kuwait.

Now, whether Bush really wanted to do more is open to question.
However, whatever he may have wanted, the reality is that
he was painted into a corner.  This is probably the main reason
that he ended the war a couple of days too soon (as evaluated
after the fact): he had promised to stop once the threat to
Kuwait was gone, and he did.  This is probably also one
reason why he didn't help the Kurds more.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 06:17:14 GMT

Al Thompson (art@world.std.com) wrote:
: In article <C00z4x.8Ln@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: 
:    Jay Denebeim P025 (denebeim@brtph254.bnr.ca) wrote:
: [...]
: 
:    NOT quite as rosey as you make it out to be...
: 
:    : 1) The space program has always paid for itself by the worth of the
:    :    technologies developed for it.  A very few are:
:    :    a) Microelectronics without which we wouldn't even be talking.
: 
:    AT&T, the PHONE company (as opposed to a space technology company)
:    invented the transistor.  Microelectronics would have happened without
:    the space program.  DEFENSE technology had much more to do with all
:    of the stuff you talk about here and even the space program itself.
: 
: Not so.  It was the space program's need for low weight, low power
: electronics and NASA's willingness to pay any price for it that fueled
: the development of the technology.  This activity drove the price down to
: the point where it was economically feasible to offer solid state devices
: in consumer electronics.
: 

The need for lightweight electronics in fighter aircraft and cruise missles
had MORE drive than the space program.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65019 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10555 alt.rush-limbaugh:12065 alt.politics.bush:14828
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:32:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1992Dec21.164657.9526@ryn.mro4.dec.com> shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:

 > One of the things that most people don't think about are the spinoffs
 > produced by the space program as things which were produced in getting
 > us there in the first place.
 >
 > There are tens of thousands of items which have been produced to improve our
 > standard of living over the past 30 years which were direct results from the
 > space program.


Ah, the spinoff myth!

The way this game is played is to take any technology the space
program has used or incrementally modified, then claim that without
the space program, said technology wouldn't be around.

For example:

  >Freeze drying.

Right.  No one noticed that water sublimates from frozen food, until
NASA discovered this fact.

  >Teflon.

Invented in the 1930s.  Has NASA also invented time travel?

  >Many, many, many variations of plastics.

Private chemical companies have researched plastics into the ground.
The vast majority of plastics used today, in both weight and dollar
volume, are rather low tech materials, and owe nothing to space
spending.

  >Manufacturing methods for purer elements.

As if this would not be possible, or would not have been thought of,
without moon rockets.  Sheesh.

(I liked that previous message that claimed the microwave oven as a
space spinoff.  The enabling technology, the cavity magnetron, was a
WW2 development.)

A recent German study of patent citations shows that space R&D is very
inefficient at generating spinoffs, compared to commercial R&D.
This is not surprising, as commercial R&D is closer to things that
customers are actually willing to pay for, so it ends up being more
useful.

Of course, space bureaucrats and their tax-fattened contractors will
continue to hype their accomplishments.  And the suckers will continue
to swallow it.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh