HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:17:57 GMT

In article <EGGERTJ.92Sep1095349@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

# In article <1992Sep1.034152.23793@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >   In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug31230217@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

# >   # Indeed, a stupid stain would not withstand a sufficiently broad
# >   # battery of scientific tests.  Has one been performed?  (your turn)

# >	   Has anyone (except perhaps yourself) shown a need for one?  Silly
# >   possibilities (such as yours) do not count.
 
# Of course if you assume that "mezuza" holes are genuine, you needn't
# test them.  A real need for such a test would exist if the holes are
# used in the determination of property rights.

	Not "of course", since you are the first person (and this includes
the current Arab residents of those homes) to claim they may not be
genuine.  Since when does unchallenged proof need to be backed up?

	There is a good reason why this claim has not been challenged.  It
has to do with the crdibility of those making the challenge and how
they would look.  Again the word "silly" comes to mind.

# >	   If I did not understand it, it is because it is not there.
 
# Mr Makowsky obviously understands everything.
 
	Funny.  Not everything.  If I understood the stock market ...

# >   # I wouldn't accept either a hole or
# >   # a mere verbal claim, myself, as proof of ownership of any property.

# >	   We are not just talking about a mere "hole".  And if you refuse to
# >   accept valid evidence, I hope you never serve on a jury.
 
# What about the holes makes them other than holes?  Are they a special
# shape that only a rabbi's drill could make?  Are they lined with
# rare materials?

	This is part of the point.  There is something special about them,
including (but definitely not limited to) the fact that they are a
rather common occurence in certain neighborhoods.

# Not that I know of.  I did not say that the holes are
# not valid evidence, I merely said that they were not proof of
# ownership.  This for two reasons:  They can be faked, and they are not
# easily removed in case of legal transfer of ownership.

	They cannot easily be faked (you make yourself look silly
everytime you try to claim otherwise).  You might have a valid point of
transfer of ownership but only under three conditions.  Proof of
transfer of ownership from those living there at the time the holes
were made, proof that those who lived there at the time the holes were
made were not the owners (and have no rights of receivership), or
proof that those living there at the time the holes were made somehow
lost their rights (or gave them up) legitimately.  None of these
conditions apply.

	Case closed.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
From: dsims@leo.ece.uc.edu (David Lyle Sims)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Polls: are Americans fickle?
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:58:04 GMT
Organization: University of Cincinnati

A human named adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) wrote:
>drm@esl.com (Don McGregor) writes:
>
>>In article 19765@toontown.uucp, ucda@toontown.uucp (Chris Andersen) writes:
>> >
>>>Are these polls inherently flawed, or are the American people
>>>really that fickle?
>
>Not to mention that national popular vote polls tell nothing about how the
>electoral college will turn out.  Individual polls in each state need to be
>conducted, and electoral projections made.  Why?  Because it's likely Bush
>could get slaughtered popularly, but still scrape by and win electorally...
>
>Can you say 'Revolution'?  (or at least 'GoodBye' Electoral College?)

The other day on C-SPAN I saw four political science types testifying
before some Senate committee (Sen. Bow Tie (from Illinois?) presiding --
his name escapes me).  This coverage actually took place the week after
Perot dropped out over the thought of his presence throwing the election
in the House of Representatives.  It seemed to be the consensus of the
testifiers that Perot's presence would *not* put the election into the
House due to the Electoral College's makeup.

One testifier wanted to change the presidential election to a strictly
popular vote.  Two others wanted to keep the Electoral College.  About the
only change they proposed was to force a human electoral voter to actually
vote the way the people in his district wanted him to vote.

There have been a few isolated cases were the majority of the people in
electoral district D voted for candidate C but the human electoral voter
rebelled and voted for candidate D anyway.
-- 
D. Sims
dsims@thor.ece.uc.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42134 ca.politics:7080 ba.politics:4798
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:46:47 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>I'm amazed how many of the female homosexuals in soc.motss have
>told of being molested or raped as children.

I'm not.	)-:

>Among the women I've known who were molested as children, I've
>seen one of the two patterns: hypersexuality, to a level where
>they are unable to maintain marriages, because of a compulsion
>to go find other sexual partners; and a completely asexual
>response.  Neither response is too surprising -- people who have
>been severely traumatized by an event have either internalized
>the assumptions of the molester, or have rejected all aspects
>of sexuality because of the unpleasant associations.
>
>A woman who, as a result of being molested as a child, has a
>difficult time relating sexually to a man, doesn't amaze me at
>all.  I've known a couple of women who, in response to continual
>molestation by fathers or stepfathers, have chosen to make them-
>selves as ugly as possible.  One pulled out most of her hair,
>and stopped bathing -- completely.  She hoped that this would
>drive him away.  It didn't.

This agrees with my own knowledge and experience ...

-- richard

-- 
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration

			Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: Correction
Keywords: Jean White Women Senate
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:19:19 GMT

In article <galluzjj.714849982@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>,
 galluzjj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Darkwing Duck) writes:
>To those people who have been writing to me.  There is a correction to be
>made.  Part of my article got lost in the tranmission.  When I said one of
>two women -- two was in reference to the Republican ticket.  There are only
>two Republican women running.  Charlene Haar from South Dakota and Jean
>White from New Hampshire.
>
>My appologies to all the dems in the house.  
>

But no apologies to the many Libertarian, Peace&Freedom, and other
candidates whom you also slighted?  Fascinating......

--
        Robert Bickford                       rab@well.sf.ca.us
 Vice-Chair, Libertarian Party    /-------------------------------------\
      of Marin County (CA)        | Don't Blame Me: I Voted Libertarian |
                                  \-------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: Using misinformation
Summary: cross-posted
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:40:51 GMT

In article <guido.714937170@sparc-3>,
 guido@blink.att.com (Guido Bertocci) writes:
}I wouldn't normally bother posting, however, there seems to be an
}insistence on using statistical data about inflation and unemployment 
}to make political points that is simply not true.
}
}Since the data is easily available I have posted it below.
}
}Data is from the 1990 Statistical Abstract of the US
}published by the govt. printing office.  Feel free to order your own 
}copy for about $30 at 202-783-3238.
}
}CPI is consumer price index. 
}Energy is increase in energy costs (primarily oil)  which is one of
}   elements of CPI. Data is from chart 757
}
}Unemployment is from chart 624 and is defined as percentage of labor
}force including Armed Forces.
}
}	 (% increase)  (% of workforce)
}year	 CPI	energy	Unemployment
}70	 5.7	 2.8	4.8	Nixon
}71	 4.4	 3.9	Not available
}72	 3.2	 2.6	Not available
}73	 6.2	 8.1	Not available
}74	11.0	29.6	Not available
}75	 9.1	10.5	8.3	Ford
}76	 5.8  	 7.1	7.6
}77	 6.5	 9.5	6.9	Carter
}78	 7.6	 6.3	6.0
}79	11.3	25.1	5.8
}80	13.5	30.9	7.0
}81	10.3	13.6	7.5	Reagan
}82	 6.2	 1.5	9.5
}83	 3.2	  .7	9.5
}84	 4.3	 1.0	7.4
}85	 3.6	  .7	7.1
}86	 1.9   -13.2	6.9
}87	 3.6	  .5	6.1
}88	 4.1	  .8	5.4
}
}The data clearly shows that unemployment was higher under Ford
}and Reagan than under Carter.  (One is certainly free to argue 
}how long a particular administrations responsibilities carry over into the
}next).
}
}The data also clearly shows the direct correlation between inflation (CPI) and
}energy prices.   Again this is not surprising since energy is one of the most
}significant components of CPI.  Other elements in the in the "basket of goods
}and services" include food, shelter, transportation, apparel and upkeep.
}Oil has an impact over several areas since it is used to make fuel,
}fertilizer, power factories, synthetic, etc.
}
}For those of you who want to argue about how awful Carter's administration
}was and what horrible economic policies he had, at least have the courtesy
}to use valid data.  (If you have different numbers feel free to post them
}along with their source).
}
}My own interpretation of the data is that inflation was drastically 
}reduced in the 80s due to falling oil prices and was on its way down
}before Carter left office.  If you think that Carter or Reagan were
}primarily responsible for driving oil prices up or down feel free to
}argue that as well, but try to be specific on why or how they did it.
}Don't forget to consider the big jump in energy prices in 74 and 75.
}

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk (JHenderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:45:58 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Sep2.144615.8627@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
=>In article <1992Aug31.200824.9011@colorado.edu>, perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric
=>S. Perlman) writes:
=>
=>|> Point of fact, Phill - with the
=>|>possible exception of actions in Lebanon, all of Israel's wars have been
=>|>defensive only.  

As long as you subscribe to the view that the best form of defence is attack.
It's been thrashed out dozens of times how Israel instigated the '67 war, to
mention just one example, but you just don't seem to get it, do you. I
wonder if there's anything that *has* penetrated your skull. Why do you
bother debating when you've already made up your mind?

=>... and in any
=>case the US army has only won one war in history without foreign assistance 
=>and that was against Mexico.

Hold on there, Phill, you're forgetting the glorious conquest of Grenada.



-- 
==================================================================
-Jeremy Henderson            |  Une souris verte
 egpv29@castle.ed.ac.uk	     |  Qui courrait dans l'herbe
==================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
From: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:52:56 GMT

In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug26135433@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

# In article <1992Aug25.220742.23291@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:

# >  [about Israeli confiscation of "Arab" land]
# >   I've read about it, too.  One problem among Arabs is that land
# >   ownership is often not documented on paper.  Claims are often based 
# >   on cries of "But we've ALWAYS owned it!".  There are plenty of 
# >   "Arab" houses in Jerusalem and Hebron that still have Jewish Mezuza
# >   slots carved into the stone doorposts, attesting to their Jewish 
# >   ownership before the Jews were driven out and slaughtered in 1948.
# >   And the Arabs there still cry "But it's ALWAYS been our home.  You are
# >   stealing our homes!".  And the media just laps it up.
 
# Indeed, the Palestinian Arabs often do not have enough paperwork to
# prove to the present Israeli authorities that they legally own the
# land that they farm.  The Israelis then deduce that the Palestinians
# don't own the land, and that it belongs to Israel.  Tell me, Jake, can
# you prove that the money in your pocket is yours?  If not, then hand
# it over.

	You could probably at least prove the likelyhood of the money
belonging to Jake with a paper trail (i.e. pay check stubs) to some
partial extent. 

# As for the mezuzas, yes, they seem to indicate that the houses were
# once occupied by Jews, and that the Arab claim that they "always"
# lived there is wrong.  Yet mezuzas do not constitute legal claim to
# the property.  It is hypocritical to demand full legal paperwork from
# the Arabs, and accept a hole in the wall from the Jews.

	At least the mezuza holes prove a prior residence and are in
fact some form of proof greater than just a verbal claim.  For you to
equate a mezuza hole with a verbal claim is ridiculous Jim.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: My Purpose In Getting NAMBLA Shunned
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:39:15 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

As quoted from <1992Aug27.170643.27908@queernet.org> by rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese):

> In article <11846@optilink.UUCP> manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
> >In it I find only a few individuals (one is Ray
> >Radow, a self admitted member of NAMBLA) ...
> 
> *ROY* Radow is a member of NAMBLA.  *RAY* Radow is a sports reporter.

I consider the two activities moral equivalents.  Read a book dammit!!! :)

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42340 alt.politics.elections:11741 alt.politics.clinton:3241 alt.politics.bush:3178
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:40:33 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Aug26.175807.1727@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson) writes:

>cap losses are written off against gains.

Capital losses are capped at $3000 dollars per year.  But you are allowed
to roll the excess losses into future years.

-- 
--Mark

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: keegan@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:27:07 GMT
Reply-To: james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com>
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Disclaimer: i speak for myself only, unless noted otherwise

ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin) writes:
-> What annoys me is that, although the
-> "anti-choice-to-abort" people seem to think that
-> their arguments are superior, they evidently do not
-> trust women to see this for themselves.

which is why many consider them misogynists.

-> They seem quite unwilling to place their arguments
-> on the anvil of time to see if they are indeed
-> superior, and prefer to assert the superiority of
-> their arguments by government fiat.  Exactly what
-> they complain about when government decides that
-> school prayer is not constitutional.  If they truly
-> believed in Democracy, they would work, not to block
-> abortion clinics, but to change enough people's
-> minds to gain the support they need to change the
-> laws.

but that would allow women the right of choice and
that, in turn, is contrary to the philosophy of those
who would impose their beliefs/opinions on others.

why do you think they're referred to as anti-choicers?


-- 
----
charter member   ...   T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43762 talk.politics.mideast:19615 misc.headlines:6197
From: eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:19:46 GMT
	<1992Sep3.192057.29754@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
	<1992Sep3.210032.29898@colorado.edu>
Reply-To: eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Lincoln Lab - Group 41

In article <1992Sep3.210032.29898@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>   The comparison between Kuwait and E. Jerusalem is inapplicable.  Kuwait
>   was gained in a war of conquest, E. Jerusalem in a war of defense only.
>   Further, let's remember the writings of both Lord Ambassador Caradon and
>   Ambassador Goldberg (GB and US respectively), who have written that
>   border changes are quite legal under 242, and Goldberg has in fact
>   written that 242 was never meant to apply to Jerusalem.  What we're
>   seeing is that Muhanna only admits as facts those interpretations which
>   happen to agree with his view of the world.  Quite illuminating really.

Of course the public opinions of two ambassadors do not carry the
weight of international law that UNSC resolutions do.  If the UNSC
doesn't want their resolution to apply to Jerusalem, then they'd
better write it as such.  Until then, it sure does apply to Jerusalem,
despite public posturing by some individuals.

>...
>   Fact:  to call Jerusalem "Arab territory" ignores history. Let us
>   remember that between 1948 and 1967 it was occupied by Jordan, shall we,
>   and that no Jew was permitted to approach the holiest sites to Judaism.
>   Let us also remember that those portions referred to as "Arab territory"
>   were in fact *majority Jewish* before 1948 and were in fact gained in a
>   war of conquest by Jordan.  If the UN is such an honest broker, where
>   was the UN outcry then?  ...

Careful with this argument!  Pursued to its logical conclusion, it
would mandate that all pre-1948 majority Arab lands be taken from
Israel.  I don't think that you want that.

--
=Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth)
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Organization: Morristown Research and Engineering
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 18:52:14 GMT

In article <mjfmc!f.crisp@netcom.com>, crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp) writes:
|> In article <1992Jul21.032844.824@news.Hawaii.Edu> blais@milo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Kristin Blais) writes:
|> >I can tell you another thing about him- Mr. Crisp is NOT from the 
|> >South otherwise he would know how *unusual* it is in the South to 
|> >elect a governer for more than 4 years. In the history of the 
|> >state of Arkansas there have only been two other governers
|> >elected for more than 4 years and one of them was basically
|> >post Civil War demogogue who fought against the carpetbaggers.
|> >Bill Clinton has severed 11 years as Governer, that alone
|> >should tell you what the people of Arkansas think about Bill 
|> >Clinton. (Until his last term they were two year terms
|> >they changed them to four year terms for him)
|> >Kristin
|> 
|> Sorry baby, I be from Texas originally (slang intended). When you
|> assume, you make an ass of you and me.
|> 
|> -- 
|> Richard Crisp         Cupertino, Ca.         crisp@netcom.com
|> (415) 903-3832 wk    "what, me worry?"    (408) 253 4541 fax
|> 
|> "The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed
|> public can't fight back" -Adolf Hitler

So she was right, you're not from the South.

A displaced Tennesseean
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 15:28:47 GMT
Organization: The Fighting Thundercats

The reform of health care in this country shouldn't be limited to the
ways of paying for the care which doctors and hospitals provide. A
more democratic, lower cost way of providing for decent care could be
achieved by opening up the process of providing care to permit more
care givers. Nurse practitioners, for example. 

Case in point: there have been studies done of patients screened
by a "smart" computer program. The resulting untouched by human
hands diagnosis was correct more often than that of the harried
GPs also in the study. Would I want to go to a machine for my health
care? Probably not. But a nurse practioner, a decent AI diagnostic
computer program, and low cost blood and urinalysis exams could 
probably handle 3/4 of the cases which now have to go through
doctors. Would even the most squeemish balk at this for, say, an
ear ache, a sore throat, a case of the flu? I know I wouldn't.

None of this will help people who simply can't afford any care at all,
but it could help persuade those currently reluctant to take on the
enormous financial burden of bringing fairness to our national
health problems. Would it mean 2 tier health care? Probably, but
currently there are 2 tiers anyway: expensive and none.
-- 
Jeff Davis <davis@keats.ca.uky.edu> Write when you get the chance. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,bit.listserv.politics
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Bush Interviewed On Atheism
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:52:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.204222.1179@midway.uchicago.edu> hau4@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <92234.003723U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> Brady Woodward <U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>From Free Inquiry v. 8 #4 (1988) (page 16)

	[Bush: atheists can't be patriots or citizens]

>Is this a joke? I would hope so, but I am afraid it might be true. Khomeini
>for President???

	He's been mailed lots of requests for clarification, but he's
never responded.

>Apart from being concerned for my civil rights, I also wonder if George has
>ever read the New Testament - one of the few consistent thoughts there is that
>patriotism is irreconcilable with Christianity.

	I'd like to find out how that comes about, although I'm sure
that this conclusion is correct.
From: markr@seqp4.sequoia.com (Mark Roddy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:40:49 GMT
Organization: Sequoia Systems Inc., Marlboro, Mass.

In <1992Aug23.022332.775@brownfield.glv.com> jbrow@brownfield.glv.com writes:

[stuff deleted]
>[stuff deleted]
> Most of the U.S. problems in health care  
>exist because of *TOO MUCH* government interference in the medical, and  
>insurance industries, not because of too little.

>Jim Brownfield

Say what? I don't suppose you'd care to back that statement up?

-- 
-Mark Roddy
Sequoia Systems, Inc.          (508) 480-0800 x1284
markr@seqp4.sequoia.com        m2c!seqp4!markr
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43058 ca.politics:7292