HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 06:42:29 GMT


I never said to prohibit sex, and based on what I have read, it is
an enjoyable experience for some people, but what's wrong with a little
responsibility???

And let me assure you: I most definitely practice the solution I propose.

Simon
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Hospital Study Suggests Gays Are Very Unlikely To Be Molesters
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:03:28 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <97681@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <Bvny46.1Go@apollo.hp.com>
>goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>
>>In article <97381@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>
>>>The doctors said boys and girls alike overwhelmingly said they were abused
>>>by heterosexual men ...
>
>>    Boys abused by _heterosexual_ men?
>
>Yes. The gender preference of child molesters has little to do with any
>adult-oriented sexual preference they may possess.

    A man who sexually abuses boys can not be HETEROsexual.  He is definitely
    a pedophile, either homosexual or bi-sexual.


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48514 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6043 alt.politics.bush:7107
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:07:53 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In <1992Sep28.063349.28776@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>Getting an abortion if you don't want to have a child *is* a responsible
>reaction to an unwanted pregnancy.

	Hogwash. It is no more a responsible reaction to pregnancy than
killing a one-year-old child is to parenthood.

			Bruce
From: jlohrmann@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: CLINTON TXT: Endorsed By Former Per
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:16:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1483600026:000:1322
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!jlohrmann    Oct  6 07:16:00 1992


From: <jlohrmann>
Subject: CLINTON TXT: Endorsed By Former Perot Official


SEND COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS INFORMATION TO THE
CLINTON/GORE CAMPAIGN AT 75300.3115@COMPUSERVE.COM
(This information is posted for public education/information purposes.
It does not necessarily represent the views of The College.)
========================================================================

 For Immediate Release:
 October 5, 1992



 Statement by John P. White,
 former Issues Director, Perot Petition Committee

 Today, I am announcing my support for Governor Bill Clinton for
 President of the United States.

 Over the past few months, I have been deeply involved in the
 Presidential campaign.  As a result, I have had a special opportunity
 to observe the candidates in the context of personal capabilities,
 positions on issues, and leadership characteristics.

 I believe that a Clinton presidency will achieve for the country the
 essential combination of economic growth, good jobs, and long- term
 fiscal strength.

 I believe Clinton has an excellent economic plan and will provide the
 long-term deficit reduction that will be necessary to return America
 to a sound footing.


                            -30-30-30-

 John White can be reached for comments at:

 (617)-495-9479   or   (617)- 864-1200.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 06 Oct 92 21:58:17 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.




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

(phil)
/Please keep the full context. You stated that businesses had no right
/to refuse to sell to people if, in essence, they had the cash.


You are a liar, and a bad one at that.  I did not say that.  I said that 
people do not have the right to discriminate if it conflicts with the
protected categories. 

If historically they had failed to buy from Uganda, for example, based 
entirely on the fact that Ugandans are black, then that would be morally
and legally wrong. 





    >(phil) /And, and why not sell stuff to Iraq. Just because you
    >and all the officers of the company /dislike ole' Saddam,
    >well, hell, nows not the time to let personal /prejudices get
    >in the way of business, nosirrreeee ...
    >
    >Which side are you arguing, Phil? Do you even know?

(phil)
/Bluntly -- you've swallowed hook, line, and sinker the whole PC(tm)
/bullshit, and what you are seeing are the logical contradictions
/of your accepted position.

Bluntly--you don't know what you are talking about.  I have a BA in 
Middle East Affairs and a second BA in Arabic Language.  Are you quite
sure you want to argue about Iraq?

I asked you for a restatement of your position, and your response is
to accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about.  I smell a panicked
individual struggling to find an argument that doesn't dissolve in his
hands.  






(me)
    >A person's belief of conscience can be exercised only where
    >such exercise does not conflict with another person's rights.
    >What your "conscience" tells you does not matter if those
    >actions will result in the breach of another person's
    >liberties.

(phil)
/Oh? What a muddled piece of shit -- you don't even believe in this.

Oh?

So now Phil the Wonder Boy is telling me what I do and don't believe.
Do you also do card tricks in addition to mind reading?



(phil)
/What rights? Are you claiming that I must sell a hamburger in
/my restaurant to anyone that has the money?

/Yes or no?

You may not fail to sell to him based upon sex, race, marital status,
ethnic or national origin, Vietnam veteran status, or sexual orientation.





Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48722 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6107 alt.politics.bush:7267 alt.politics.clinton:7905 alt.politics.elections:14715 talk.abortion:39566 alt.sex:31406
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:37:04 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <Bv9LIx.qt@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu
(Bruce Varney) wrote:
> 
> In <1992Sep25.215003.9493@crd.ge.com> cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook) writes:
> 
> >Do please tell us Bruce, how inconvenient you found it to be when you
> >were pregnant.
> 
> 	Hmm. Tell me about the time you killed your best friend cause
> he slept with your wife. You say that has never happened to you? Ah, so
> then you cannotpossibly have an opinion on the subject right?
> Bullshit. Just because I have not been pregnant before (nor will I be)
> does not mean that I cannot hold an opinion on abortion.

Mr. Varney, you are certainly entitled to hold any opinion you like, no
matter how cruel, misguided, senseless, wrong-headed or ill-informed it may
be.  You are _not_, however, entitled to require others to hold that
opinion as well.

Please feel free not to have any abortions.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Oct 15th, 1932
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:09:45 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>        In the current FORBES (60 years ago today...), there is a passage
>commenting on the errors of the pro-protectionist movement, and how
>Smoot-Hawley had reduced trade to foreign nations dramatically.
>
>	Let's all fax that to Clinton and Gore.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Clinton supports free trade.  What
would be the point of faxing the above to him?

Are you confusing free trade with NAFTA, by any chance? 

--Tim Smith
From: falknemj@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot Again?
Date: 25 Sep 92 00:22:29 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <Bv3EMp.6Fv@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>    Wrong.  What I'm saying is that "the pain" is ALREADY
>    falling on me in form of 31% (federal) + 12% (state)
>    taxes!    Get it?    
> 
>    As I was explaing to someone in email, I'm a conservative
>    investor and I'm trying to save up for retirement.  I can
>    get 4% in various conservative investments and since the
>    12-month CPI is 3.2% that should be enough to get ahead.
>    But after *taxes* my 5% turns into about 2.5% so I LOSE!
>    That's not pain?   

  Peter, Perot had nothing to do with putting in this multi-trillion dollar
debt, or the current tax structure.  The pain you feel is from the perpetuation
of the two-party glop that has deadened our government for the past so many
years.

  A Bush victory = DOOM.

  A Clinton victory = A clouded future

  A good showing by Perot = A chance, maybe...

  It will hurt us all, be the American people need the biggest wake-up call in
world history to get this country on track.

						Mike Falkner

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Another biblical brilliance from Teddy
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:05:36 GMT


In a previous article, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) says:

>In article <1992Oct6.191104.9332@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>> trivia question here teddy dearest....
>
>> but does this not also mean that giving
>> up one's virgin duaghters is also to be
>> construed as morally correct in your weltanschaung...
>
>No.  The fact that Lot offerred his daughters is only reported, not
>condoned.  (And this also applies to the later episode when his
>daughters caused him to get drunk and then had sex with him.)

Not condoned?!?  The bible cites this scumball as a "rightous" person!
If the bible can call a man who was willing to give up his virgin daughters
to a mob, and then take them himself,  "rightous", and then not
condemn the action, it is CERTIANLY condoning it.
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Assembly of God???  Strange.. *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // I was not aware that the diety  *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // was available in source form..." *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49215 talk.abortion:40146 alt.activism.d:3486
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
Subject: Choice for life (was Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:54:17 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> I just wonder how rational some people are when they make that decision.
|> What about making a choice for life??
|> 
Apparently millions do, or the race would have died out years ago.
On a more serious note, the number of unmarried mothers in their 
teens suggest that abortions are not the only answer.  Pro-choices
want to keep all options available.  That's why it is called choice.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Love or Sex
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 09:18:03 GMT

In article <1aarg4INNfo3@golem.wcc.govt.nz> pallesen@med.wcc.govt.nz writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.201600.5463@ncsu.edu>, bkdavis@eos.ncsu.edu (B K DAVIS) writes:
>>
>>Which would you rather have ? Would you rather be in love with a person and 
>>spend time together, or would you rather have sex with people (safe people ie
>>no diease)? Are there any lovers out there ? I mean people who take their time
>>plot and plan a seduction, not a get drunk wham bam. 
>

*PLEASE*
*PLEASE*
*PLEASE*

Take this out of the political newsgroups on all future posts! It has
nothing to do with us!!!

eyes

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48618 ca.politics:8293 ba.politics:5729
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: From CDC Summary 9/25/92
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:44:08 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

It has become an article of faith that homosexuals have changed the
behaviors that caused AIDS to first break out in a big way in that
community.  The following item, summarized in the Centers for Disease
Control AIDS Daily Summary of 9/25/92, suggests otherwise:

In article <1992Sep26.165037.10351@cs.ucla.edu>, bigoldberg@igc.apc.org (Billi Goldberg) writes:
# "AIDS Infection Rate for Gays Unchanged" United Press International (09/24/92)
#    Pittsburgh--The University of Pittsburgh's Men's Study has found that 
# although there is increased AIDS awareness and safer sex among young gay men, 
# they are still contracting HIV at the same rate as gay men were eight years 
# ago. The study involved more than 1,000 gay and bisexual men, whose health was 
# tracked since the early 1980s. Approximately 7 percent of the 121 men aged 18-
# 22 enrolled in the study in 1984 and 1985 were HIV-positive.  About 7 percent 
# of the 62 men in the same age group enrolled since 1988 also were infected 
# with HIV. Pitt research specialist Anthony Silvestre said, "The problem is not 
# going away. I anticipate a steady and continuing number of gay men being 
# diagnosed with AIDS in the next 10 years." Silvestre conceded that AIDS 
# awareness has risen among gay men, causing them to change their behaviors, but 
# focus group discussions indicated many men still engage in risky behaviors. He 
# said many limit their number of partners but are reluctant to use condoms 
# during sex. In addition, Silvestre said the increased number of HIV-positive 
# people means a person's risk of becoming infected can remain the same even if 
# he has fewer sex partners than may have been the case 10 years ago. Homosexual 
# men account for a decreasing population of all newly diagnosed AIDS cases in 
# recent years, with IV-drug users comprising a growing number. However, 
# Silvestre said that does not imply the epidemic is under control among gays. 
# "It's not that gay men are doing that much better, but that IV-drug users are 
# doing much, much worse," he added.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Bush: War on Drugs, tax cut->bigger deficit.  Clinton: War on Drugs, spending
increase->bigger deficit.  What a great choice.
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot treating us like idiots
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:29:39 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 7304@dscomsf.desy.de, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>Perot has at all times strenuously attempted to align himself with the Democrats
>platform. This is so that he takes voters from Clinton who will return to Bush
>when he quits a second time endorsing Bush just before polling day.

I think that Perot really wants Clinton to win, but he is extremely inept.  He
jumps in just when the Iran-Contra scandal was coming back to bite Bush.  Anyone
see what happened to that news story?  He almost never says anything bad about
Clinton.  So he pretty much siphons off a chunk of the anti-Bush vote.  His only
real benefit to Clinton is that he raises Bush's negatives in a way that Clinton
seems incapable of doing, and he mixes things up in Texas, a critical state for
Bush.  

Watching Perot squirm around in his seat on the Larry King Show, I had the
impression that he really didn't want to get back into it.  A Presidential
candidate without even a running mate for Vice President.  Yet he sets up
conditions where he is going to have an extremely difficult time pulling out
again.  Whoever he ends up endorsing will probably lose as many votes as he
gains.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Is This a Valid Class Identifier? A Need?
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:48:04 GMT

cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
] ---
] Remember, people-- if you don't WANT to take responsibility for
] an orgasm, don't have sex.  Orgasms are far & away the #1 most 
] likely consequence of sex-- so if you can't handle it, don't
] do it!
] ---


Could we deduce from this that if there is no Orgasm,
that there is Therefore NO SEX?????

Would this be a Better Standard for Analysis?

I say we Form a Committee, under the Auspices of ANSI
to work on correctly implementing a Class Identifier....


ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Freedom of Association (was: The Harrassing Phone Calls...)
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:38:21 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <g79n7xp.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>Specifically, it means that 10 homosexuals can get together in a bathhouse
>and have all the fun they want, that a black landlord can refuse to rent
>to a Jewish tenant, that you can "marry" anyone you want (in any amount),
>that you have the right to commit suicide, and that all coercive taxation
>is immoral, as well as what is known as "voting". And so on.
^^^^^^^^^^
Ronzone...not only are you completely ignorant about your
Constitution but you are also: rude, uncivilized, crude,
harrassing, and insulting. In short....a flying world-class
jerk!
>
Morality has nothing to do with law.  Have you seen
physically, God? Has He/She/It come down and told you
personally what is and isn't moral?

Listen up you fascist wanna-be. Morality is defined by the cultural
background of the beholder. If anything in this world was a
moral absolute, then why do we have so many divergent
theologies? And why do they fight against each other?

Get a grip...and get lost!
>
>-- 
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
>
>"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
>"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone
>
>These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)

Your opinions concerning morality are worthless....but you 
haven't gotten it yet have you?

Len

DISCLAIMER: My opinions not my employer's.

--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Another biblical brilliance from Teddy
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:18:19 GMT

In article <Oct.6.22.02.37.1992.19470@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.191104.9332@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

@ trivia question here teddy dearest....

@ but does this not also mean that giving
@ up one's virgin duaghters is also to be
@ construed as morally correct in your weltanschaung...

>No.  The fact that Lot offerred his daughters is only reported, not
>condoned.  (And this also applies to the later episode when his
>daughters caused him to get drunk and then had sex with him.)

	That, and a lot of other Biblical mischief, is not criticized
_anywhere_.

	How is one to tell what is presented as exemplary conduct and
what is just reported?

	Well, my favorite part of the Bible is Psalm 137.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
From: ronf@panther3.panther.mot.com (Ron Feigen)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Organization: Motorola Panther Project, Chandler, AZ
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:13:14 GMT

In article <bdm.718010822@cs.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) writes:
>ronf@panther3.panther.mot.com (Ron Feigen) writes:
>>In article <BvGDJr.6xn@ddsw1.mcs.com> arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>[..stuff..]
>>We know you think the KKK,White Aryans,White Supremists and Neo-nazis 
>>are really an enlighten bunch of guys, who are way ahead of their time.  
>>But most of us find them revolting. 
>
>Including me.
>
>> The activities and beliefs that they promote are 
>>either ILLEGAL or unconstitutional (or both).  
>
>I wasn't aware that any beliefs are illegal or unconstitutional.
>Am I wrong?

Poorly worded I guess.  The enactments of thier beliefs are illegal.  The believe
in segregating blacks, and other minorities from whites.  Reserving the USA for 
WHITES only.  Of course Jews or other non KKK type Christains do not qualify as 
white.  I suspect those minorities that are allowed to live in the US will of 
course not be allowed to vote, own land, ect....
>
>>*side note*  In AZ this week a 16 year old high-school student was 
>>given a 5 day
>>suspension for passing out KKK literature/membership cards.  The KKK 
>>asked THE ACLU!!!!! for assistance.  They felt the boys civil rights where
>>violated.  Don't you love it when the KKK asks the ACLU to make sure they
>>have the civil right to promote the denial of the civil rights of non- whites!
>
>What law was the boy charged under? 

He was "suspended for 5 days" not charged (charged implying a crimal act).
I believe the grounds for suspension had to do with promting racism.  In the US
schools have (or are attempting to have) latitude in thier displinary rules.
for example another current "issue" is the ban on wearing gang colors to school.
The courts upheld the schools right to ban gang colors, recently a girl wore a
gang colors mixed but added a  political message and claimed freedom of speach.  She was suspended and the issue is in courst (again).  When asked why she replied
"I want to wear the shirt"

>
>>Ron Feigen
>
>Brendan.


-- 

>
Ron Feigen
ronf@panther.mot.com