HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dylan@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu (Dylan)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: FDR and Pearl Harbor
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:53:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: OGRE Institute

In article <TRIF.92Oct14185043@bike.rad.washington.edu>, 
trif@bike.rad.washington.edu (To Run In Fear) writes:
> In article <1bhddhINNnsk@network.ucsd.edu> spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu 
> (Steve Lamont) writes:
>  In article <adams.719073448@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
   >I guess FDR asked the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor?  And of course, Truman
>  >asked the North Koreans to invade South Korea...
> 
>    Actually, there is some controversy amongst historians regarding FDR
>    and Pearl Harbor.  There can be no mistake that FDR was looking for an
>    opportunity to get into WWII.  As early as 1939, FDR was attempting to
>    gear up for war, while professing "neutrality."  He submitted a $1.3
>    Billion defense budget (a *huge* sum of money in those days) and
>    declared a "limited emergency."  In 1940, the Selective Service act
>    was signed.  FDR wanted into the war (for good reason, I might add --
>    the tide of Nazism was flooding over Europe and there was a significant
>    chance that Great Britian would be overrun).
> 
>    With respect to Pearl Harbor, there is some amount of documentary
>    evidence to indicate that at least some of those charged with the
>    defense of this country were aware of the presence of the Japanese
>    Navy in the proximity of Pearl Harbor and had an inkling, at least, of
>    what the Japanese were up to.  While it may be stretching things a bit
>    to say, as some have, that the FDR administration knew in advance that
>    there was to be an attack on Pearl Harbor, I don't think that, in a
>    perverse way, FDR was at all disappointed or shocked at the attack.
> 
> This has been discussed recently on alt.folklore.urban-legend, and I believe
> that the true story is that some Japanese communication was intercepted that
> indicated that an attack somewhere in the Pacific was going to happen "real
> soon now".  Warning was radioed to all allied posts in the Pacific, but
> for some reason they had to telegraph to Hawaii, and the telegraph messenger
> delivered the message too late.

Not to mention that a delegation from the Japanese Embassy requested to see
the Secretary of State the day before Pearl Harbor, and were kept waiting
for something like 6 hours.  They were going to give their intentions to
the Secretary, who, I guess, wanted to be 'surprised'

dylan
dylan@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
From: aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:10:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


I think it's pretty obvious...
Bill Clinton made a deal with the KGB 20 years ago. He would run
for Presidency and resurrect Communism in the USA. In return,
he would receive a lifetime supply of Grecian Formula 44.
Since he's not president (yet), his hair remains gray!
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:35:38 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy

In article <1992Oct9.121809.15258@cbfsb.cb.att.com>,
colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) wrote:
> perhaps you're kidding, but Randall Terry (of operation resuce)
> has pretty much said the same thing.  He said a vote for
> Clinton was a sin against God.   so far  they suggested he's 
> a liberal, an intellectual, a traitor, - so can "anti_christ" be
> far behind.  I expect Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to express
> an opinion on this before the election.

So why are they then complaining? Instead they should vote for
Bill so the Biblical prophecies will fulfill...

Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: jfl@panix.com (Jeff Lipton)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Fun in Oak Ridge (was: RADIOACTIVE MEAT, MILK & PRODUCE)
Keywords: Fun in Oak Ridge (was: radioactive meat, milk & produce)
Date: 15 Oct 92 05:26:40 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Oct7.213405.2302@u.washington.edu> richter@hardy.u.washington.edu (Josef Richter) writes:
>>>
>>>What kind of medicine is "nuclear medicine" ? And wouldn't that be the
>>>DoD, and not the DoE?
>>
>>Nuclear medicine refers to therapies which use radioactive materials.
>>There are a number of them.

	Actually, nuclear medicine usually refers to diagnosis using
radioisotopes (Gallium, Technetium, etc), as compared to radiation
therapy, which uses both particles (neutrons) and X-rays to treat
tumors.

		Jeff Lipton

-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jeffrey F. Lipton, M.D. (jfl@panix.com) |   (212)-982-1219 (home)          |
| 353 E. 17th, #19-E  NY, NY 10003        | "Disobedience was Man's First    |
+------------------------------------------------ Virtue" (Oscar Wilde) -----+
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:11180 alt.activism:17393 talk.politics.misc:51070
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:19:40 EDT
From: Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: al gore's scientific proof
 <1992Oct12.025028.3259@Princeton.EDU> <1992Oct12.091705.19337@s1.gov>

In article <1992Oct12.091705.19337@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) says:

>>Just a simple question....  What is the "TCL/CFR"?

>        The Trilateral Commission and the Council for Foreign
>Relations, both John Birch Society villains. Apparently, the JBS holds
>that these two organizations are Communist fronts.

Obviously they've been doing a TERRIBLE job. :-)

                  "Two hundredth verse, same as the first!"
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:11343 alt.activism:17574 phl.misc:284 pa.general:349 talk.politics.misc:52433
From: techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,phl.misc,pa.general,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Do you homework and then vote!
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:56:58 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system


    "Everywhere you go, somebody's urging you to vote" says John F. McManus 
national president of the JohnBirch Society in Appleton, Wis. He questions 
whether high voter turnouts are synonymous with good government. Acording to 
McManus, "Some advocates of high voter turnout (only 33% of eligible voters 
turned out in 1990) are so desperate they would have voter registration 
promoted at the driver's license window and the welfare office -- anything to 
get more voters to the polls."
    "But there's something a lot worse," claims McManus, "than stay-at-home 
voters! It's people who vote -- but with poor knowledge of the issues and 
canddates. An uninformed ballot can cancel out an informed ballot -- a 
non-voter cannot!"
     According to the Birch Society leader, "Even the wildest spender in 
CongrCongress will come across as a fiscal conservative in campaign 
literature, because that's what people want to hear. Demagoges love a high 
voter turnout.They know many voters will have formed their opinions soley on 
party affiliation or on the shallow messages of campaign advertising."
  "It's not easy to cut through the fog of slickster promises and media sound 
bite manipulation." says McManus. "But freedom isn't free! Responsible 
citizenship requires becoming informed before you vote. Americas future 
depend on it."
    McManus especially recommends becoming informed on two subjects: 1) the 
proper role of government as envisioned by our founding fathers; and 2) what 
government andoffice holders are actually doing. Mr McManus advises learning 
much more about candidates or incumbents than the little they say when the TV 
cameras are rolling.
    "If you understand the duties of the county coroner," says McManus, "it 
does not make sense to elect him because he can get on TV and express concern 
over problems unrelated to his area of responsibility. Similarly, Americans 
familar with the reasons for the constitutional limits placed on the federal 
government will not be impressed by congressmen who propose to legislate 
affordable health care. A national health care system," claims McManus, will 
have the efficiency of the Post Office and the compassion of the IRS.
     The John Birch Society offers several educational services to help 
voters become better informed. One service is the TRIM bulletin which lists 
the votes of incumbent congressmen on major spending bills. For a sample TRIM 
bulletin, contact 
The John Birch Society
po Box 8040 
Appleton Wis 54913
ph- 1-800-jbs-usa1

------
techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon)
The Cellar BBS - (215) 654-9184
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.guns
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 13 Oct 92 10:53:56 CDT


In article <ATAYLOR.92Oct12165713@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
> <In article <Bvv752.Ltw@creare.com> inb@creare.com (Ian Brown) writes:
> 
> <   Anyway, that wasn't what I was intending to argue about.  Liberals don't
> <   like rules that don't make sense or favor people who need no favors over
> <   those that do.  
> 
> 	This statement is false. "Liberals" generally (but not always)
> 	favor such absurdities as the Brady bill; a "rule" which
> 	makes no sense and favors only the politically connected
> 	and criminals....people who need no favors over Ms. Average
> 	who wants to be able to defend herself against attack but
> 	often cannot because of "rules" that reserve the right
> 	of firearms ownership only to the rich/politically connected.

I'm glad you used "generally (but not always)".  There are also
many conservative that support the Brady bill (ie Reagan) and
have no problems using gun restrictions as part of their War
on Drugs.

2nd Amendment issues cut both ways across the liberal/conservative 
ideological lines.

(note that I am a liberal that objects to the Brady bill)

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: NLG Civil Liberties Committee <cberlet@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Date: 07 Oct 92 20:50 PDT
Subject: Re: Help -- Need name of publication
Nf-ID: #R:1992Oct7.134940.14527@stortek.co:1064831277:cdp:1299600093:000:212
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cberlet    Oct  7 20:50:00 1992



The new publication of the John Birch Society is "The New American" and
it is published by JBS from Appleton, WI.

On an editorial note, they are paranoid reactionary geeks. Hope you enjoy
the magazine...
-Chip

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin)
Subject: Makeup of the House (was Re: A Technical Request)
Organization: NRAO
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 22:12:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.191811.17688@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:

[This is essentially a "piggy back" posting to Andy's and I took some of
the cross posted newgroups out.  I also trimmed the reference line.
   Stuff deleted]

>The election isn't between Bush and someone better, it is between Bush
>and Clinton, who may, or may not, be better.  (Of course, there is the
>rich dwarf and the ignored candidates, but they don't stand a chance
>in the House and won't win outright.  Clinton can win outright or in
>the House and Bush can win outright.)

A possible "first blush" assession on the presidential election being
decided in the House of Repesentatives is that since it is likely that
the Democrats will be the majority party in the House in the next congress,
the Democratic candidate will win.  But it is my understanding that *if*
the presidential election goes to the House, the vote will be by states
with each state having *one* vote.  (Does the Speaker of the House have
a tie breaking vote?)

Well with neither the Constitution nor an almanac at hand, my question is
this:

Let's make a simplistic assumption that each state will caucus and each
representative votes according to party (also assuming no third parties
or independents).  Which party will be the majority party in the
majority of states?  I think that there is a least one state with only
one representative.  New Mexico has three and in the next congress it
will likely be two Republicans and one Democrat.  If the polls are
corrrect, Clinton is likely to carry the state which would imply
a lot of split ticket voting.  I am likely to vote a split ticket myself.

(The last poll I saw was before 1 Oct, i.e. before Perot got back in
officially.  I was phoned Saturday for a poll so there may be a new one
out for New Mexico shortly.)

It just occurred to me that if the presidential election ends up in the
House, then voting for the House of Representatives would be like voting
in a national election in a country which uses the British parliamentary
form of government.  What does one do if you like a presidential
candidate but don't like the local House candidate of the same party
or vice versa?  (Given that the election is going to the House.)
-- 
George Martin
Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
Internet: gmartin@something.aoc.nrao.edu
"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)
From: reykja@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Reykja Sigurdsson)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 09:25:43 GMT
Subject: Re: PEETRIFIED COMPUTER USERS
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy

    No, I am not confused! I just have one hell of a headache from trying
to read those damned CAPS!!! Please! If you want to be heard, present
your material in a non-offensive, physically irritating manner! 

    Geesh!
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Pt 1, RADIOACTIVE MEAT, MILK & PRODUCE: Supermarkets Selling Leukemia?
Date: 7 Oct 1992 10:57 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
Keywords: radioactive meat, milk & produce: supermarkets selling leukemia?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Oct7.133335.21576@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, cooper@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (Ralph 'Hairy' Moonen) writes...

>What kind of medicine is "nuclear medicine" ? And wouldn't that be the
>DoD, and not the DoE?

Nuclear medicine refers to the entire branch of medicine which uses
radioactive agents for a variety of purposes, both diagnostic and
theraputic.  So for example, radioiodine treatment for hyperthyroid
can be obtained in the nuclear medicine department of your local hospital.  

DOE is in fact in charge of all of the nuclear materials processing in 
the U.S.  There was an early decision to separate this function from
bomb production, and was one of the earliest functions of DOE.

>> Until 1982, when the Nuclear Reguatory Commission (NRC) ordered
>> Kerr-McGee to install scrubbers on the plant's main smokestack, the
>> company regularly spewed radioactive debris into the air and onto
>> the surrounding neighborhood. And Kerr-McGee continues to dump
>> radioactive water into the Illinois River. 
> 
>Show some back-up for this claim please.

I don't have the "back-up" that you asked for, nor do I know about
"dumping" of radioactive water into the river.  But I would add that
radioactive water is a common contaminant.  Facilities which manufacture
radiopharmaceuticals frequently deal with tritiated water.  Since water 
evaporates, spills, etc., it easily escapes.  It often contributes the
largest single source of radioactive release into the environment from
such operations.  And since it is chemically indistinguishable from 
nonradioactive water, it is not easily removed from the environment.

>> arsenic, mercury, lead, molybdenum and selenium. 
> 
>Bzzzzt. Arsenic is a non-metal, let alone a heavy metal

It is technically, if I remember my high school chemistry, a pnictide. 
But why is that relevant?  It still is highly toxic and shares the tendency
to be concentrated in the flesh of fish with the heavy metals.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
From: cooper@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (Ralph 'Hairy' Moonen)
Subject: Re: Bo Gritz not white supremacist
Keywords: Bo Gritz, white supremacist, anti-Semite
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:28:05 GMT

In article <12OCT199223495833@acad3.alaska.edu>, ksjwr@acad3.alaska.edu (REDELSS JOHN W) writes:

> 	Also, I would like to add something else I have discovered today.  I
> called a friend that I know from my church today who informed me that Bo Gritz
> is a member of our church, Mormon.  

Heard an interesting thing about Mormons, maybe someone who really knows
can tell me more about it. It seems that the mormons have the largest
records on humans in the world. It also seems that all people should be
gfiven an equal chance to become mormon,  including the deceased. To
accomplish this, any1 who is a mormon can put any1 else up for becoming one,
the theory being that the deceased will choose if they want to wherever
they are at that moment. This basically means that any1 could be an un-
knowing member of the church. Any truth to this?

--Ralph Moonen
--AT&T
From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Spotlight Endorses LaRouche, Perot
Date: 7 Oct 1992 08:17:09 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Chip, One or the other of us is missing something here. I was the
one who mistakenly used the term "endorsement" inaccurately. Are
you saying that the body of the article I reposted  misrepresentated
what was printed in the Spotlight? 
-Steve
From: bsou@cs.arizona.edu (Brandon S. Ou)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: FDR and Pearl Harbor
Date: 17 Oct 92 01:29:57 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona Computer Science Department

In article <1992Oct16.131213.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>As I heard it, the Japanese government sent a written communication to FDR
>stating that they were going to bomb Pearl Harbor.  The communication was
>written in Japanese and it took six hours to translate.  There wasn't much time
>left to prepare for the attack, but the was SOME time.

According to this book I have, the American Amassador to Tokyo, 
Joseph C. Grew, first discovered that PH was to be attacked back back
in the January of 1941.  Numerous warnings came after that, and FDR
didn't listen to any of it.


Brandon
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: trif@bike.rad.washington.edu (To Run In Fear)
Subject: FDR and Pearl Harbor
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle WA
	<adams.719073448@spssig> <1bhddhINNnsk@network.ucsd.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:50:43 GMT

In article <1bhddhINNnsk@network.ucsd.edu> spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) writes:
   In article <adams.719073448@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
   >I guess FDR asked the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor?  And of course, Truman
   >asked the North Koreans to invade South Korea...

   Actually, there is some controversy amongst historians regarding FDR
   and Pearl Harbor.  There can be no mistake that FDR was looking for an
   opportunity to get into WWII.  As early as 1939, FDR was attempting to
   gear up for war, while professing "neutrality."  He submitted a $1.3
   Billion defense budget (a *huge* sum of money in those days) and
   declared a "limited emergency."  In 1940, the Selective Service act
   was signed.  FDR wanted into the war (for good reason, I might add --
   the tide of Nazism was flooding over Europe and there was a significant
   chance that Great Britian would be overrun).

   With respect to Pearl Harbor, there is some amount of documentary
   evidence to indicate that at least some of those charged with the
   defense of this country were aware of the presence of the Japanese
   Navy in the proximity of Pearl Harbor and had an inkling, at least, of
   what the Japanese were up to.  While it may be stretching things a bit
   to say, as some have, that the FDR administration knew in advance that
   there was to be an attack on Pearl Harbor, I don't think that, in a
   perverse way, FDR was at all disappointed or shocked at the attack.

This has been discussed recently on alt.folklore.urban-legend, and I believe
that the true story is that some Japanese communication was intercepted that
indicated that an attack somewhere in the Pacific was going to happen "real
soon now".  Warning was radioed to all allied posts in the Pacific, but
for some reason they had to telegraph to Hawaii, and the telegraph messenger
delivered the message too late.

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:11326 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5485
From: spl@alex.uucp (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:43:54 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: alex.ucsd.edu

In article <D92msB2w165w@monsoon.com> sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta) writes:
>The perception that RR was elected twice by landslide margins is
>evidence that the big lie works. He was elected in 1980 by the
>slimmest of margins but took every opportunity to claim that he had
>a mandate from the people. 

The popular vote margin was over 7 million votes in 1980 (out of about
86 million votes cast), which we can play with semantically.  The
Electoral College vote was 489 to 49, which is certainly an
overwhelming margin by any metric you choose to apply.  The 1984
election margin was close to 17 million votes and 535 to 13 in the
Electoral College.

While we can argue whether 7 million votes is a "landslide" (certainly
a subjective term), it is still a considerable margin.  Jimmy Carter's
victory over Gerald Ford, for instance was by under 1.7 million votes
and Nixon beat Humphrey by fewer than a half million votes.  Kennedy
beat Nixon by less than 125,000.  Now *those* are narrow margins.

This is not to say that I am now, nor have I ever been a Ronald Reagan
supporter (Okay, okay, I confess: in 1966 I supported him for Governor of
California, but I learned, I learned!), but his margins of victory are
easily verifiable historical facts.

Out of deference for those who have been complaining about
inappropriate postings, I'm vectoring this only to alt.conspiracy and
alt.fan.dan-quayle.

							spl


-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"Twit twit twit/Jug jug jug jug jug jug/So rudely forc'd./Tereu"
                - T. S. Eliot, "The Waste Land," III. The Fire Sermon
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:11197 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6719 talk.abortion:42138 talk.bizarre:33868 talk.politics.guns:22034