HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:37:44 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats

In article <PA146008.601.726336489@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <9301051207.02@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>In article <C0Cox6.Ivt@SSD.intel.com> hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) writes:
>>>Being poor doesn't mean you have no right to defend yourself.
>>>And charity isn't just money, food, or clothing.
>>>
>>>|> >Disarming most people is, at best, complete waste of time.  How many
>>>|> >people who we don't want carrying obey this law?  None?  Then why are
>>>|> >we threatening other people with jail?
>>>|> 
>>>|> The police would like to know who has guns.
>>>
>>>In a police state, this is a valid argument.  In our Republic, it should be
>>>repugnant to anyone who understands that:
>>>
>>>1.  Persons have a guaranteed right of privacy; and
>>>
>>>2.  The government exists at the whim of the governed.
>>
>>When you have state governments that seem to release convicted murderers
>>and armed robbers on a whim, then you have to have some means of keeping
>>them from buying weapons.
>
>       "Have to," is an interesting way to phrase things.  First, if the 
>state governments *are* releasing murderers and robbers on a whim, with no 
>thought as to whether they're a danger (or even completed their sentence, 
>which most don't) explain to me why *I* should be put at an inconvenience 
>and danger for it?

So you're advocating that all people with the money in hand should be 
able to buy guns?

>       Besides, you were talking, as well, about checking peoplfor a 
>subjective psychological readiness for a gun.  Instant checks have been 
>instituted to check someone for a criminal record.  What happens it what 
>always happens when you try to control a commodity that people who don't 
>obey they law want.  They find a way around it.

That's right.  I'm a criminal.  I steal your wallet and use your SS number
and other pertinent information to make myself an identity that will
allow me to pass the spot check.  The spot check is now worthless.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: reduction of availability
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:32:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer/ESD/OSBU/SW Dev/App & Tool Dev

In article <1992Dec24.003958.4019@nas.nasa.gov> proett@tailspin.nas.nasa.gov (Thomas M. Proett) writes:
>...
>This may be explained in a FAQ or something, but I have not seen it so...
>Why is it assumed that making guns less easy to obtain will not "affect
>the right people"?  Someone posted a transcription of a poster that
>gave statistics about the number of murders done in various countries
>where guns are not generally available and then showed the number for
>the US.  The US had a gigantic number in proportion to the rest.
>
>Doesn't this show some correlation to "more guns" ==> "more murder"?
>...

Maybe.  But I guess "more humans ==> more murder" is more accurate.

Let's place 50 guns in a 25' by 25' room with 100 people and compare the
results with 100 guns in the same room with the same number of people.

Then place 50 guns in a 25' by 25' room with 100 people and compare the
results with 200 people in the same room with the same number of guns.

My feeling is that as people are crushed together in ever more increasing
density, they become more aggressive and fights break out more often.  To
me, that's the real problem we have today.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: The NRA will always be right wing.
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 13:37:45 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

As quoted from <1ikgh3INNp26@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> by anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au:

> 
> Don Baldwin laments that the gun lobby is weighed down with the label
> of hard-core conservative.
> 
> Here is some advice:  Give up.  The NRA will always be right wing.
> I doubt that any NRA directors are losing any sleep over Colorado
> Amendment 2.  Maybe one or two of them have some closeted qualms.
> The other 90 or so (or however many there are) think that fags
> deserve no sympathy.  If you don't believe it, ask Wayne LaPierre
> how many homosexuals there are in the NRA.

Just how in the hell would he KNOW?  There's no entry for "sexual preference"
on the application that I remember.  I don't think it lists race either.  If
the latter were a negative criterion, depending upon group, I know *I* wouldn't
be a member.

To MY knowledge the NRA doesn't take a position on adult consensual sexual 
preference.  Why SHOULD it?  It's no more relevant than abortion or school
funding.



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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: AIDS risk/Duesberg
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:05:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.082406.4296@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
)In article <C0II6D.Iwr@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
)}Firstly, this is a *small* set of
)}people.
)
)How is this known?  I've heard that half of all AIDS cases were presumed by
)the CDC to have HIV without testing.  Have I been misinformed?

A serious question, though it may not look serious:  Which half?
Also, where did you get this information?

)It all depends on this, of course.  If non-HIV AIDS is rare, then mutation
)could easily account for the failure to detect HIV in those PWAs.  If it's
)too common, then the mutation rate would have to be too high to square with
)the other info.

Since you don't know if the number of HIV-negative patients with
AIDS-like illness is large enough to cause the statistical effects you
expect, the lack of such effects does not support your argument.

(I don't actually believe that they have a new strain of HIV, by the
way, I'm just disagreeing with your reasoning.)
-- 
David Canzi				"Shut up," he explained. -- John 6:43
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: The future of medicine
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:58:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.021922.3067@cnsvax.uwec.edu> nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes:
>If [lawyers and insurance companies] contribute nothing to the quality 
>of health care, they have no right a slice of the pie.  

You're assuming that they're being paid for health care.  One might
say that the architects who design hospitals contribute nothing to
the quality of health care, and shouldn't be paid, by the same
reasoning, even though such costs are part of the pie of health 
care costs.

Insurance companies are being paid for the diversification of risk.

Lawyers are being paid for their time in helping people injured by
medical malpractice recover.  I suppose we could go back to the days
where the victim's family just took revenge upon the family of the
injurer, but I suspect that this would be even more costly than
having lawyers handle it.  Lawyers, at least, only have the incentive
to bring cases that their clients will win, and all studies indicate
that lawyers are too timid, rather than too aggressive, in pursuing
such claims.

>>>quality control maintained by professional societies, not the
>>>courts.  I won't hold my breath waiting for this to happen, though.
> 
>>For one reason or another, the members are never held to appropriate
>>standards.
> 
>True.  Well, perhaps a panel of experts, physicians employed by the
>state?

A large part of the current problem in legal-medical tensions is that
forty or fifty years ago, (maybe even less), it was "unethical" according
to the AMA to testify that another doctor had committed malpractice.
Given current AMA reticence in making information available on individual
doctors' incidences of malpractice, I am skeptical that a panel of
physicians would ever call the actions of a fellow doctor negligent
ex post.

Such a panel might work ex ante in drawing up a set of regulations, but
it's unclear how much of a real cost savings this will be.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
never shout movie in a crowded firestation
Xref: sparky talk.politics.medicine:504 alt.politics.homosexuality:9090
From: kfl@access.digex.com (Keith F. Lynch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: APA and Homosexuality
Date: 7 Jan 1993 01:03:40 GMT
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

Please note that Steve Grossman does not speak for Ayn Rand or
Objectivism.  Rand always favored equal rights for gays, even in the
1950s, long before it was politically correct.

Keith Lynch, kfl@access.digex.com
From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: Re: AIDS risk/Duesberg
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:06:02 GMT

In article <1701@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:

|> 
|> It is fairly obvious, to one who knows something about how these things work,
|> that the original APA assessment of homosexuality as a disease was based largely
|> on current *social* *norms*, not scientific eviedence.

[...]

|> I seriously doubt there *were* any well-controlled, double-blind studies on
|> this issue until recently, since the matter would not even have been considered
|> a *question*, and thus would not have been felt to *warrent* much research.

For that matter, what kind of studies would constitute such evidence?  Which 
is to say, is "disease" a well-defined scientific concept?

-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: AIDS risk/Duesberg
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:28:38 GMT

In article <103405@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
}
}The ultimate experimental proof--putting people in bubbles and injecting
}them with HIV and waiting for several years--will of course never be done.

Ethically, that is, by conventional medical ethics.  It will never be done
ethically.

}The closest approximations were the unwitting victims of HIV+ blood and
}blood products--for which there have been numerous peer-reviewed studies
}in the medical journals, and research experiments with HIV and SCID-hu mice,
}for which there are also peer-reviewed papers in the research journals.
}
}D's claim is patently ridiculous.

To those of us who aren't familiar with this evidence, this isn't obvious.
I, for one, would like to know more about these studies.

}Yup, definitely creationist mentality.  Look here, stupid: I know and use
}more logic than you do.  I stated a true fact about HIV, AIDS, and the
}researchers.  No amount of brainless innuendo on your part will change
}that or make it go away.

Now, look, ad hominems against Grossman are hardly in line with claims to
logical rigor, are they?  Can't we do without these?

}Of course, HIV by itself _does_ cause illness.  The initial immune response
}is your basic viremia, something like the flu or mono.  Many, but not most,
}are quite serious and need hospitalization.  Moreover, HIV by itself causes
}AIDS dementia complex.

Are we correct to believe that the mechanism for this remains unknown?

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
From: lobaugh@a.chem.upenn.edu (John Lobaugh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: Why care what percentage?  (was: Gay Likelihood)
Date: 10 Jan 93 18:08:39 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <104214@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

>A small amount.  There is unfortunately a time window between initial
>infection and seropositivity that can range from weeks to months to even
>a year in rare cases.  What testing does is eliminate rampant contamination
>of the blood supply, and just by its existence, convince people at risk to
>select themselves out from donating.
>
>How effective is this?  PCR methods can detect viral RNA directly, long
>before antibodies are raised.  In PCR testing of over 40000 seronegative
>blood donors in San Francisco, one donor was identified as HIV+ (Busch
>et al, NEJM 325:1, 1991).

So what does this mean if I get a blood transfusion tomorrow? What are
the statistics of getting the HIV? 

-- 
John  lobaugh@a.chem.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: AIDS risk/Duesberg
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:09:53 GMT

In article <103857@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
}In article <1993Jan6.012838.1325@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie (Tim Starr) writes:
}>}The ultimate experimental proof--putting people in bubbles and injecting
}>}them with HIV and waiting for several years--will of course never be done.
}
}>Ethically, that is, by conventional medical ethics.  It will never be done
}>ethically.
}
}I don't know about the ethics under all circumstances.  What about prisoners
}on death row being offered the chance to volunteer with testing by various
}defective HIV viruses as potential vaccines?

To allow for such exceptions is why I restricted my claim to the "conventional."
I'd have no objection to such criminals being so tested.

}>}Yup, definitely creationist mentality.  Look here, stupid: I know and use
}>}more logic than you do.  I stated a true fact about HIV, AIDS, and the
}>}researchers.  No amount of brainless innuendo on your part will change
}>}that or make it go away.
}
}>Now, look, ad hominems against Grossman are hardly in line with claims to
}>logical rigor, are they?  Can't we do without these?
}
}I did *not* employ argumentum ad hominem, despite the popular confusion
}regarding the rhetorical term.  I made no claim that his argument was
}invalid on the grounds that he is an idiot.  I'm just flaming the idiot.

Strictly speaking, you're correct, you didn't make an argument that contained
that fallacy, but your flames generate more heat than light.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: AIDS risk/Duesberg
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:26:44 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)

In article <1993Jan6.011350.884@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie (Tim Starr) writes:
>Since HIV couldn't even be detected in the 50s, I'm curious to know
>how any patient of that decade was confirmed as having it.  Will you
>please inform me?

Tissue samples were preserved.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: APA and Homosexuality
Date: 4 Jan 93 16:56:26 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.politics.medicine
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)

In article <C0Aww2.M6q@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD (Stephen Grossman) writes:
>Poppers, as the Centers for Disease Control recognized in the
>mid-80s, used for a lengthy time by homosexuals, caused AIDS.

Like most of your statements, this is moronic gibberish.  The CDC never
endorsed a poppers causes AIDS theory.  They investigated it, and realized
very quickly that it was false.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: tyvng@cs.sfu.ca (Vincent Ng)
Subject: Anyone knows about UB89 or UB90 ??
Keywords: Costing software, Hospital System
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:42:26 GMT

Dear netters,
	Sorry if I posted this in the wrong newsgroup. I cannot find any group
more suitable to post my question. My boss asked me this morning about a
software system/package called UB89 or UB90. This software is supposed to
do some cost tracking/accounting in a hospital environment. Can anyone
help and give me pointers ? 

	Thanks in advance and sorry again if I am in the wrong group.

- Vincent Ng

Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: AIDS risk/Duesberg
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:24:06 GMT

In article <C0II6D.Iwr@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
}In article <1993Jan7.080346.5725@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
})In article <lryrz1q@lynx.unm.edu> bhjelle@carina.unm.edu writes:
})}In article <1993Jan6.012008.1059@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
})}>In article <1993Jan5.030659.11086@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> dac@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (David A Cooke) writes:
})}>}are indirect, and given the AIDS virus' obscenely high mutation rate,
})}>}it wouldn't be at all improbable that it will periodically mutate
})}>}sufficiently that it won't show up on the standard tests.
})}>
})}>I'm curious about this mutation rate.  It seems to conflict with the stable
})}>estimates of the US HIV+ population based upon tests of those entering the
})}>military.  Will you please elaborate on this?
})}
})}The mutation rate of a virus has nothing whatsoever to do with
})}the prevalence of HIV in military recruits.
})
})Above, you claimed that HIV mutation might make it undetectable.  If so, it
})would seem that testing of large samplings would vary widely.  Yet, this
})doesn't seem to be the case with what I mentioned, which would tend to
})refute the claim that mutation is having that effect.
}
}This doesn't follow at all.  The idea that HIV might mutate enough to
}escape detection by current tests was suggested as a possible
}explanation for why a few people have been found with an AIDS-like
}illness who test HIV-negative.  Firstly, this is a *small* set of
}people.

How is this known?  I've heard that half of all AIDS cases were presumed by
the CDC to have HIV without testing.  Have I been misinformed?

It all depends on this, of course.  If non-HIV AIDS is rare, then mutation
could easily account for the failure to detect HIV in those PWAs.  If it's
too common, then the mutation rate would have to be too high to square with
the other info.

}>"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
}>oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
}
}Two comments about your signature quote: (1) The psychological rewards
}of knowing oneself to be great are identical to the psychological
}rewards of mistakenly believing oneself to be great, and (2) One should
}*first* acquire the powerful understanding, *then* enlighten people.

I quite agree, of course.  This seems truistic, unless you're implying that
I was pretending to enlighten anyone.  I use the quote because I think that
such true greatness is a scarce good, and hope that it will inspire the
production of it.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine
From: bhjelle@carina.unm.edu ()
Subject: Re: AIDS risk/Duesberg
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 23:19:40 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1993Jan6.012008.1059@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.030659.11086@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> dac@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (David A Cooke) writes:
>}
>}are indirect, and given the AIDS virus' obscenely high mutation rate,
>}it wouldn't be at all improbable that it will periodically mutate
>}sufficiently that it won't show up on the standard tests.
>
>I'm curious about this mutation rate.  It seems to conflict with the stable
>estimates of the US HIV+ population based upon tests of those entering the
>military.  Will you please elaborate on this?

The mutation rate of a virus has nothing whatsoever to do with
the prevalence of HIV in military recruits.

The seroprevalence in military recruits, by the way, should not be
accepted as a surrogate for that of the general population. Military
recruits are subject to all kinds of selection, both overt
(homosexuality) and subtle (they know they will be tested for HIV).

>The problem would seem really to be the relatively high number of HIV+
>people without AIDS, which I've heard is about 1.5 million in the USA.  There
>have been predictions that they'd start contracting AIDS in droves, but
>this hasn't happened, leading Gallo of NIH to extend the "dormancy" period
>to between 12 and 30 years.

Gallo has said no such thing. Furthermore, making estimates like
that would be far removed from Gallo's scientific interests.

Brian
Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine