HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:48:25 GMT


In article <1992Oct12.163244.749@novell.com>, 
chey@novell.com (Cindy Hey) said:

> > Also, CBS "lost" IMO by deciding that a baseball game was more
> > important than the joint appearance.  I really thought they'd be
> > more responsible than that.  [StarOwl@uiuc.edu]
>
> So did I!  I even counted on it.  I wasn't able to watch the debate
> live, so I set my VCR to record it.  I can't tell you how
> dissappointed I was to discover 90 minutes of baseball on my tape
> rather than the debate :-( Luckily for me, C-SPAN repeated the
> debate, in its entirety, several times throughout the night.  Thank
> you, C-SPAN!

I'm sorry that you made the wrong three-chances-out-of-four guess
(four-out-of-five if there's a FOX network station in your area) and
picked CBS rather than PBS, NBC or ABC, but I have to disagree with
all the CBS-bashing.  Frankly, if I was faced with a choice of
broadcasting two live events and I knew that (1) for each event there
existed a significant audience which wanted to see it live and (2) one
of the events was going to be available to all viewers whether I
showed it or not, but the other event would be blacked out if I didn't
show it, I think I'd go with the exclusive event too.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:18:32 GMT
X-Posted-From: eng-nxt10.cso.uiuc.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
: In article <Bw2CJG.LM1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
: >Excuse me, but it is EXTREMELY improbable that North Dakota has a 
: >_significantly_ lower rate of homosexuality than any other place in
: >the world.  The trait of homosexuality and bisexuality is scattered
: >throughout the population without regard to geography.  Being born
: >in Minot does not give a baby "better" chance to be het than it would
: >have if it were born in San Fransisco.
: But people move.  It's only natural for a minority like homosexuals to
: gravitate to urban areas where they would be likely to find other
: homosexuals.  And North Dakota is extremely lacking in urban areas.
: Even if a baby born in Fargo has the same chance as being homosexual
: as one in San Francisco, once that baby becomes an adult, other factors
: come into play.

However, _people_ in general, in the US have had a tendency to gravitate
towards urban areas.  While your statements would explain why fewer
people in North Dakota are gay or bisexual, I suggest that it wouldn't make
a very _big_ difference.  That's the reason I emphasized "significantly"
above.

If it seems like there are fewer homosexuals or bisexuals in North Dakota
relative to the rest of the U.S., I suggest it is because those categories
of people are more "closeted" or more quiet about the nature of their
sexuality, not because they aren't there.

If Mr. Green would like to post reliable statistics to the contrary, I 
would be willing to retract my argument.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: AIDS and Legislation of morality
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:06:50 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

[sci.skeptic dropped from Newsgroups: line and local dropped from 
 Distribution: line]

green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
:lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
:>You are almost exactly right.  The total number of AIDS cases in North Dakota
:>reported to the CDC is 25.  It has the lowest AIDS rate of any state in the
:>U.S.  There were only 5 new cases from July 1990 to June 1991 and only 1
:>new case from July 1991 to June 1992 (0.2 cases per 100,000 population).
:I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but it's somewhere in the 200-300 range.
:The figure of 25 isn't currently correct.
: But the bigger question is why?  Probably because North Dakota has one of
: the lowest rates of drug abuse and homosexuality.  

Excuse me, but it is EXTREMELY improbable that North Dakota has a 
_significantly_ lower rate of homosexuality than any other place in
the world.  The trait of homosexuality and bisexuality is scattered
throughout the population without regard to geography.  Being born
in Minot does not give a baby "better" chance to be het than it would
have if it were born in San Fransisco.

I agree that North Dakota probably has a lower percentage of _militant_
or _uncloseted_ homosexuals and bisexuals than other parts of the country.
But that doesn't mean that North Dakota has a significantly lower rate
of homosexuality and bisexuality in the population.

: And as far as the failure rate of condoms goes, I stand by my original
: figures of 15-30%.  Maybe all the talk about lower rates is just trying
: to justify placing your life in a piece of rubber.

From what I've heard, the 15-30% failure rate is an accurate figure,
when you consider how many people do not follow the instructions for
condom care and condom wear.  When worn correctly, a fresh condom has,
on average, a 98-99% chance of doing its job.  Unfortunately many people
will never be taught how to correctly put on a condom, because some
puritanical folks don't want such things to be included in sex ed
curriculums around the country.

Of course, abstinence and strict mutual monogomy are the most effective
ways of preventing transmission of STD's.  :-)   Play hard, but play
safe.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92



Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:27:57 GMT

In article <1bhsilINNous@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>The IRS reported today that Ross (Mr. Im not part of the system) Perot
>due to the stashing of his money payed federal taxes only on 30,000.00
>of his billions last year. 
>
>Not a "insider" Pleeeeeeeease !!!!

Obviously, the IRS found no irregularities in what Perot has done.
How does intelligent investment make him a government insider?

Ever hear of tax-exempt bonds?

>Timothy B. Reynolds
>CLINTON/GORE
>Election Campaign '92
>Houston, Tx 

Oh never mind, since you support Clinton, it is unlikely that you
could believe there is ANYTHING which isn't excessively, inevitably
taxed!
  1/2 :^)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Bill, Moscow and the KGB
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:51:12 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Oct13.205057.5247@seas.gwu.edu> korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman) writes:
]Who cares what he did in Moscow 20 some odd  years ago. Let's drop this 
]issue. It has nothing to do with our present problem. I don't care 
]much for Clinton but I care even less on diverting the discussion 
]away from real issues that effects us all.

I detect a whiff of hypocrisy here. In 1988, all we ever heard about
was how Dan Quayle "dodged the draft", even though he actually served
his country. Now, the same people are telling us that Clinton's dodging
the draft, demonstrating against the war, and lying about it are
not issues. Which is it?


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
       - - Gun Control Means Hitting What You are Aiming At! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Clinton's BS economic plan
X-Xxdate: Thu, 15 Oct 92 10:59:28 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:02:34 GMT

In article <Bw51Dy.5qq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> P. Ialamanna,
pa56680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>I'm getting really irritated at these Clinton supporters who claim that
>his tax increase won't affect the middle class. If I understand it
corectly,
>Clinton wants to raise tax on the top 2% of wage earners and not to the
>middle class. Okay fine, but what gets me is that middle class people
beleive....

I suggest you read the WHOLE plan (which has been posted on several
occasions)
before you spout off. 500 leading economists have endorsed this plan
because it
nurtures LONG-TERM growth and stability instead of pandering to the
quarterly
report mentality.

Did you really believe that fixing a problem as large as the economy was
going
to be easy and painless? Get real.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Gee, why don't we default on the US debt!!!?
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:07:50 GMT

In article <21713@rpp386.lonestar.org>, jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> a rise in interest rates to Carter levels will make the interest
> payments so large that the deficit will skyrocket out of control.  We
> can't afford Bill Clinton pretending he is Jimmy Carter and Lyndon
> Johnson all at the same time.
 
Frankly, I don't believe there is that large a difference between Clinton
and Bush when it comes to debt reduction.  It's not clear at all that
Bush's tax cut (which he could never get passed anyway) would have a
stimulative effect in this current economy.  It could very well just
increase the growth of the deficit.  Until long term interest rates start
falling I don't believe we will see any increase in growth.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:35:54 GMT

In article <9587@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>
>The scarry thing is, this lady will probably vote this year.

No, the scary thing is that there are people scared by the thought that people
with differing opinions can vote too.  Well, it's not really scary, it's
pitiful.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:09:56 GMT

In article <1bho65INN2ec@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.144919.13588@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>Okay, the facts:
>>His [Clinton]proposal won't raise the amount of money he claims, and will
>>further dampen the economy. This will leave him with two choices:
>>raise taxes on lower income taxpayers, or increase the deficit.
>>	Neither is acceptable.
>
>I have some problems with the Clinton plan, myself. But let's look at
>the Bush plan. Across the board tax cut. Capital gains tax cut.
>Indexing. Export subsidies. Hurricane relief, including rebuilding
>Homestead AFB. Claimed deficit reduction. Health care plan. Job
>training.
>
>Is there something missing?

Yes. Read the "Agenda for American Renewal" to get the rest of it.
Education reform, legal reform, incentives to revitalize entrepreneurial
capitalism, increasing trade through agreements like NAFTA,
spending controls, and "keep the streets safe" crime proposals.

>Yes. Not one clue anywhere about how to pay for it. Not one!

He is way ahead of Clinton on this score. He has actually proposed
real caps on entitlements, something which Clinton hasn't done.
He has other proposals to cut and control spending, line item
veto, etc., but curbing entitlements is what really matters.
He also support the Balanced Budget Amendment, which we need
(but Clinton opposes).  He also has *not* proposed a plethora of
expensive new programs that will make matters worse.

IMHO, of the three plans out there, and I've read all three, Bush's plan
is the best one in terms of growing the economy.  It won't cut the
deficit like Perot's plan probably will, but I have already said
that it's mistaken "Hoovernomics" to put the deficit ahead of the
economy in priorities. 

Clinton's plan is bad for both the economy *and* the deficit.
He is counting on higher revenues from his tax increases to pay
for his spending programs. It ain't gonna happen.

Pat
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10091 talk.politics.misc:51393 alt.politics.bush:8910
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:40:44 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct13.003125.16298@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

>Right on. As Bush said, it's the old "soak the rich" bait and switch.
>"rich" will be redefined as $60,000. 

Just a barely related side note.  I saw a leter to the editor in our local
rag (Atlanta Urinal and Constipation).
This lady was writing in to complain about the definitions of middle class.
She had heard (and believed) that middle class ran from $15K to $75K.
(If anybody has the correct figures, could you supply them.  I did a short
search and couldn't find anything.)

She then went on to rant about how $15K is not middle class, it is poverty.
(I think but I am not sure that $15K is the poverty line for a family of
four.)

In conclusion she stated that she felt that middle class needs to be
redifined as $50K to $200K and that anybody who makes less than $50K
is entitled to government assistence because they are poor.

The scarry thing is, this lady will probably vote this year.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Where will Bush want to have his library ? Maine or Texas
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:08:58 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct13.150035.26288@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
> 
>    Next year, the Bush Presidential Library will need to be built. My 
> question is, where will Bush want the library be built ?  Texas or Maine  

	Texas.  Not enough people in Maine.

Brett
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: TIME sues Bush/Quayle campaign
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:38:43 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <Bw52s5.6H6@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> : StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
> : > I just saw the article come across the clarinews feed here.  Time
> : > magazine is suing the Bush campaign for copyright infringement (I
> : > think) because of the overuse of Time's cover story on Clinton.
> : 
> : 	TIME will lose this one.  (In the ad I saw) TIME is clearly shown, thus
> : no conflict over where the picture came from.
> 
> However, the ad may be misinterpreted as an endorsement for the Bushwacker
> and Co. by Time.  I believe that Time has made no endorsement.   Does
> this constitute "fair use" under copyright laws.  Last I heard, you
> couldn't reproduce someone else's work without their consent, except
> within the limits of "fair use."

	It can arguably be said that they are using the TIME cover as a source
notation.  Of course if someone has pictures, you can't use them without
permission *if you are trying to make money*.  However, it is allowed for
educational purposes.  I don't think Bush/Quayle92 will go down as a
money-making operation :).

> Of course, considering how conservative some courts have become, it
> wouldn't surprise me if Time lost.  After all, so many rights have
> vanished or have been eroded in the past twelve years, why should
> we expect the courts to honor copyright rights?

        I don't really see it as a copyright issue.  If I take their cover and
plaster it on a Marrou/Lord campaign sign, is this illegal?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: We will not back down
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:42:44 GMT

In article <5916@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>-vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>->Make that two Simon. No, we are not alone, but these "free speech" liberals
>->will try and beat you down and make you feel as if your ideas and beliefs are
>->worthless. Don't back down Simon. _We_ will win in the end. After all,
>->Conservatives are in the *Right*! :)
>->Disclaimers. Disclaimers
>->
>->"The Wise man's heart inclines him towards the Right but,
>-> a Fools heart to the Left."
>-
>-Bush, being left-handed, must be just as much a fool :-)
>-
>-Are British and Japanese drivers foolish?
>-
>-Dick Schofield is a wiser hitter than Ted Williams?
>
>Hey, does that mean that ambidextrous people are just plain confused? :)

They may have found the Tao.  Wise fools, and all that.


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:11138 talk.politics.misc:52623 alt.politics.bush:9605
From: ric@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (Ric Miller  ACNS)
Subject: Re: Make WAR not LOVE
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 17:04:39 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <IeovThC00iV348e=Q3@andrew.cmu.edu> Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>That should solve the overpopulation y'all seem to be so worried about. 
>What's Clinton's e-mail address?  I think I'll send this to him.  Maybe
>he can discuss in light of Vietnam and Gennifer Flowers

   What are you babbling about?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sbtaves@icaen.uiowa.edu (Steven Bradley Taves)
Subject: Bush's Motivations
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:10:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Iowa Computer Aided Engineering Network, University of Iowa

Hello,
   I was thinking
yesterday of my conviction to vote for Clinton, Gore in November.  And 
I thought, why is it that I have trouble understanding why people would
vote for anyone else?  Well I decided that there was at least one primary
reason.  Being that Clinton is the one that truly is in line with what
I think the next president needs to do.

I think there are fundamental things wrong in the way we do things
now.  And the first criteria of choosing between two viable candidates,
is, for me, the question of whether they really believe what I do, and
are able to look at the problems and give solutions.  Bush does not even
pass my first criteria.  He first of all does not believe there is really
all that much wrong with our country, and that we are basically, 
fundamentally on the right track.  So I have trouble comparing his plans
and Clinton's
plans, because the plans that Bush has out is just to merely get votes.
Why would he have plans to change our country, like health care reform,
when he really believes that we are doing fine.  

I see health care alone
as being enough to say that our country is screwed up.  It affects our
economy, our well being,and so much more.  So on the healh care issue alone,
Bush should be saying, "hey, we are doing some fundamentally wrong things
in this country."  But Bush has a plan anyways.  How am I to even compare
his plan to Clinton's, when he truly has very little motivation for seeing
it through. It is the same with most of his 'plans'.

Again, my point is, how can Bush look at problems and give solutions,
when he does'nt believe in the problems?  People voting for Bush are
people do not think our country is on the wrong track.  And that may
be why he's behind in the polls.

Steve 
-- 
____________________________________________________________________
"A boy he was tangled in his fight forever, a girl was missing
 two fingers","Why do they kill children, and why do I wanna die"
-Throwing Muses 
Got any news on The Breeders? Email me sbtaves@icaen.uiowa.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------