HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gee@ampex.com (Tom Gee)
Newsgroups: ba.test
Subject: test 3 from nntp.ampex.com
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:28:18 GMT
Organization: Ampex

test 3 from nntp.ampex.com
From: jimt@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com (Jim S. Thompson)
Newsgroups: ba.test
Subject: Ylem forum.....
Date: 22 Dec 92 00:26:55 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: LOCKHEED, Sunnyvale, CA


	YLEM - Artists Using Science and Technology
	    announces their next forum:

		ART AND PHYSICS    

	Wednesday, January 6, 7:30 pm
	McBean Theatre, The Exploratorium
	3601 Lyon Street, San Francisco, CA
	Info: Trudy Reagan 415-856-9593

	YLEM Forums are free and open to the public.  YLEM is a 
	group of people interested in Art and Science.  Anyone 
	with an interest in Art and/or Science is welcome!
	Come and meet some like minded Artomata...  

	This is also a FREE NIGHT at the Exploratorium so come early 
	and enjoy the exhibits!

	THE PROGRAM:

		Leonard Shlain, MD
	
			Shlain talks on his book of the same name (Art and
			Physics), showing many examples that had to be 
			omitted from the book.  Later he will discuss the
			Origin of the Left Brain.  At intermission we will
			talk with artists staging an exhibit in the lobby -
			artists whose work ties in with the lectures.


	ART IN THE LOBBY:

		Eugene Tsui       :  visionary architecture.

		Ken Rinaldo       :  interactive inetspecies art

		Carter Emmart     :  3-D computer art

		Trudy Myrrh Reagan:  art exploring science concepts

		Jeff Murray       :   of the Holography Institute, art that
					is applied physics

		Therese Lahaie    :  glass sculptor

	-- and more!


	YLEM
	Box 749
	Orinda, California
	94563
From: s92068to@sfc.keio.ac.jp (Tetsuya Ohnishi)
Newsgroups: ba.test
Subject: test
Date: 1 Jan 93 18:35:32 GMT
Organization: Keio University Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Fujisawa Japan


test

tester

testest
From: spam@anarky.tch.org (The Godlike One)
Newsgroups: ba.test
Subject: test..
Date: 29 Dec 92 00:58:23 GMT
Organization: The Canned Ham, San Jose, CA.

just a test..
From: Richard.Devine@f99.n121.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: ba.test
Subject: Just a test!%%
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:32:40 GMT
Organization: Richard Devine
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4


What is up ?.
From: toddnguy@megatest.UUCP (toddnguy)
Newsgroups: ba.test
Subject: test
Keywords: t
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:30:36 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Megatest Corporation, San Jose, Ca

This is a test.  Please ignore it.

 thank
From: carlos@infoserv.com
Newsgroups: ba.test
Subject: TEST 3
Summary: TESTING STATIC FILE CHANGES AGAIN
Keywords: TEST
Date: 3 Jan 93 22:59:16 GMT
Reply-To: carlos@infoserv.com
Organization: Dominguez UseNet, Brooklyn NY, USA

TEST TEST to see if STATIC file changes work.


-- 
  ___ ___  __   .   ___  __  //  Carlos Dominguez, MS-DOS Enthusiast !
 /   /__/ /_ ) /   /  / /_  // | carlos@infoserv.com  carlos@dorsai.com
(__ (  / /  \ (__ (__/ __/ ..  | carlos@phantom.com   FIDONET 1:278/706
From: tp@cisco.com (t patterson)
Newsgroups: ba.test
Subject: testing posting again ( Ignore No Reply )
Date: 30 Dec 1992 01:41:25 GMT
Organization: cisco Systems, Menlo Park, California, USA
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: lager.cisco.com

somebody said that posting was broken.

tp.
From: spam@anarky.tch.org (The Godlike One)
Newsgroups: ba.test
Subject: just another test..
Date: 29 Dec 92 00:58:49 GMT
Organization: The Canned Ham, San Jose, CA.

Another test..
From: carlos@carlos
Newsgroups: ba.test
Subject: TEST
Date: 3 Jan 93 22:41:55 GMT
Reply-To: carlos@infoserv.com
Organization: Dominguez UseNet, Brooklyn NY, USA

TESTING NEW STATIC FILE SETUP.. CHECK FROM: AND MESSAGE ID
FIELDS..


-- 
  ___ ___  __   .   ___  __  //  Carlos Dominguez, MS-DOS Enthusiast !
 /   /__/ /_ ) /   /  / /_  // | carlos@infoserv.com  carlos@dorsai.com
(__ (  / /  \ (__ (__/ __/ ..  | carlos@phantom.com   FIDONET 1:278/706
From: timc@diva.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Castro)
Newsgroups: ba.test
Subject: Test
Followup-To: ucb.test
Date: 21 Dec 1992 17:41:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: diva.berkeley.edu


Hiya Folks!

--Tim


-- 
Tim Castro		    *   "When the air becomes uranious
U.C. Berkeley               *    We will all go simultaneous
timc@diva.Berkeley.EDU      *    Yes we all will go together when we go." 
timc@ocf.Berkeley.EDU       *           --Tom Lehrer, 1958
From: jimw@PE-Nelson.COM (Jim Watt)
Newsgroups: ba.test
Subject: Test
Keywords: Test
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:33:05 GMT
Reply-To: jimw@PE-Nelson.COM
Distribution: ba
Organization: PE-Nelson

Test only!

--
James G. Watt                                          jimw@PE-Nelson.COM
PE-Nelson                                              Voice: +1 408 725 1107
10040 Bubb Road                                        Fax:   +1 408 725 0825
Cupertino CA 95014-4132

Newsgroups: ba.test
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Sure is an awfully quiet system out there...
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 18:44:07 GMT


Newsgroups: ba.test
From: daryl@tcomeng (Daryl Jones)
Subject: test from tea
Organization: Telecomm. Engineering Associates
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:33:05 GMT


Test #2 from new tcomeng.com machine via nntp
Newsgroups: ba.test
From: brandari@kla.com (Paul Brandariz x6546)
Subject: tets
Reply-To: brandari@NISC.SRI.COM (Paul Brandariz x6546)
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:14:02 GMT

testing

Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 08:16:19 GMT

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes: >
madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: >#

># Typical.  Cramer refuses to acknowledge any information that
># disagrees with his ridiculous theories, and Ronzone, as usual,
># completely changes the subject.
># -- 
>I didn't ignore, I was on vacation.
>

You're back.  You're still ignoring.  Typical.

>Why are homosexuals such lying stupid scum?

Premises not proven, therefore question cannot be properly
asked.  You're still ignoring the original question, which
is why aren't you demanding that all churches be closed since
they're the biggest source of child molestors.

We're waiting.

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics,talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:05:40 GMT

In article <13700@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
>A poor analogy.  Most murderers know their victims to be
>unarmed, most car jackers have no such knowledge.  Most
>murders are crimes of passion, rarely for financial gain.

Wrong.  Most murders are by acquaintances, but that doesn't tell us
anything about the motives or the killers.  (After all, thugs have
acquaintances too.)  It turns out that people who kill have a long
history of violence.  It really isn't all that surprising that they
they kill the people who they're around the most, since access
provides both "motive" and opportunity.

-andy
--
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:37:09 GMT

In article <13729@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
>From article <1992Dec28.113059.1409@netcom.com>, by phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone):
    >Phil makes an excellent point here. If there were no
    >discrimination against gays in the military, then the
    >potential for this sort of blackmail would go by the wayside.
    >Why is it that the chiefs continue to argue that gays should
    >be barred from military service because they are vulnerable
    >to blackmail when we all know that the reason for this is
    >because the fact that such activity is banned? -- Mark Walsh

Well, since I don't think that the paperwork you fill out on joining the
military has a sexual preference section, or, if homosexuals were
accepted, that there wouyld be such a section, and since we are not about
to have homosexuals wear pinkl triangles, we still have the problem that
as most men would be uncomfortable with homosexuals, there would be strong
pressure to not come out. And that makes a blackmail situation.

Men, women, blacks do not have this problem because they effectively wear
their "pink triangles" on their very persons. As an interesting side, I
remember an early 1950's book I read (fact or fiction I don't remember)
about a man who was very very light skinned black passing as white in
OCS. Most of it was obvious and predictable, but the description of
the tension and emotional problems was rather good.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7994 ca.politics:10504
From: mcb@borges.postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Wire Stories on Iran-Contra 12/28/92
Date: 3 Jan 93 00:12:10 GMT
Organization: Postmodern Consulting, San Francisco, California USA

In the referenced article, tcbowden@clovis.felton.ca.us (Timothy Bowden) writes:
> rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
> > In article <1ht099INN5dh@hal.com> berggren@hal.com writes:
> > >I'm just passing on a posting of considerable import, for your 
> > >reading pleasureureureure
> > >Please copy and distribute as widely as possible.
> 
> > What has this to do with groups for California *state* or Santa Cruz and 
> > Bay Area *local* politics?
> 
> Point of Atlas info:  Somalia is not in Santa Cruz County, nor is
> Bosnia.  Yet the most noteworthy event in local annals this past year
> challenges our own perceptions and very natures to such a degree that we
> would willingly export our discussion to avoid it.  Ask why in this
> cradle of human potential sentiment there are gender-rigged traps to
> thwart that potential and even that humanity in one half of our number
> and be answered that along the sands outside Mogadishu the CIA piles
> grain elevators to forge an imperialist post on the Indian Ocean.

Very interesting, I'm sure, but you seem to have missed Mr. Klorese's
salient point: this does not belong in {ba,ca,scruz}.politics, which
are newsgroups for local/regional political issues.  There are plenty
of other possible places for this material, e.g.,

	alt.activism
	alt.activism.d
	alt.politics.correct
	alt.politics.reform
	alt.politics.usa.misc
	misc.activism.progressive
	soc.politics
	talk.politics.misc

and by posting this sort of thing here, which is explicitly reserved
for other types of topics, you are simply going to annoy people.
(Especially by implying that those who don't want the material posted
here inappropriately are trying to avoid the issue.)

--
Michael C. Berch  
mcb@postmodern.com
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Gee, he just "kissed a woman"
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:07:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.004513.20852@pb2esac.uucp> jlbrand@pb2esac.uucp (Jack Brand) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.230457.26712@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>>As I believe that both Democrats and Republicans are the "same" I do
>>not make much of the distinction.
>
>Ahh, but you do make a distinction of sorts: you bend over backwards
>to play down what Packwood (a Republican) is accused of and focus
>on how bad the Democrats are:

How many "Republicans" have the third most powerful Democrat in the country
come to their defense?

Some Republican ...


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 23 Dec 92 06:33:58 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <13712@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
># I also await Mr. Cramer's demand that all churches be
># closed because so many child molestors are among the
># clergy.  This is real, Mr. Cramer.  If you care about
># abused kids, then make a fuss about the people *really*
># doing the abusing, not your personal bogeymen.
># 
># Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
>
>Yet another argument for why homosexuals (closeted or not)
>shouldn't be employed around children.
>-- 


Your position is a best lame!  Irrelevant!

I can come up with a vast set of information and data
that shows heterosexuals should not be employed around
childern, nor should they be parents, since they cause
the most child abuse and suffering.

Get off it!  You cannot support nor claim anything.  The
weakness lies in yourself, in your inability to see clearly,
and interpret study results.  There are a many, many studies
and situations that show people exploit and cause suffering
to childern, and since the majority of people are heterosexual
they must be doing most of it.
From: mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: pressure those nasty Bay Area cable companies!
Date: 3 Jan 93 04:35:02 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <ubrtf2c@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>But in every place I've gotten cable service, the cable provider
>was a monopoly.  I couldn't punish one provider for bad service
>by going to another one.  A political solution is possibly the
>only one in this case.

Yes, monopoly is the problem. But finding a political solution is nigh
impossible when some say "give them competition!" and some say "make them
a government agency!" and some say "regulate them as privates!"

I say regulate them as a utility, and get the PUC involved.

One more thing. Banking should be a utility as well.

								   MPA
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Why Do We Have Separate Restrooms? (WAS Re: Gays, the military...)
Date: 29 Dec 92 05:07:54 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <105715@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.114046.1520@netcom.com>
>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

    >Again, why the subtle difference in how you word your
    >arguments about men and women? Why the implication of ALL
    >women, but only "mostly" for men?
    >
    >Come on, admit it---the reason we have separate bathrooms is
    >so that men don't sexually harass women.
 
No, otherwise there would be large scale rapes in nudist colonies.
 
It is sexual context. People from very puritanical cultures seem to
have a hard time dealing with something such as a topless beach -- to
them, such heretofore unencountered sexual "display" *must* mean the
women are all loose and "sexually available", which is of course, not the
case.
 
Yet a person accustomed to such beaches would think it no big deal.
 
Whether you like it or not, men in a locker room do not care to be placed
in a sexual context out of their choice. The only information on this other
than personal anecdotes is the complaints of men in professional sports.
Their complaint is not that some women reporter is going to rape them, but that
after a game involving a lot of hard work, they want the locker room to be
free of any sexual context. And both women and homosexual men introduce that
sexual context.
 
Ask a straight man how comfortable he would be if every time he took a shower
in his home, a number of straight women (that are not sexually interested in
him in any way) were to be cluttering his hallway. It can be bothersome.
 
Because of differences in sexual outlook between men and women (and that
includes homosexual men as well), almost all women would NOT want
unisex showers and bathrooms. Most men would not either, but, there would
be a higher percentage of men that WOULD want it -- most likely for hanky
panky.

Men are far more often the sexual agressor. Women, for this reason among others,
do not want unisex facilities. Men are not used to be sexually agressed
against. In the military now, homosexuality has to be hidden. If it were open,
it would remove one check against sexual agression against men. I.e., a
homosexual NCO could not make the slightest move against a private because
his homosexuality has to be hidden.

In short, given seperate facilities as in men's and women's, I can't see any
other rational reason to ban homosexuals.




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Freedom of Association and John Metzger????
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:02:40 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Dec23.111446.19813@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>How interesting. How fascist. The Freedom Of Association gives us all the
>ability to interact with others as we see fit. Of course, this right is
>greatly mangled, but then, being a slave in no way diminishes your rights.
>
>That is HIS right, if it is his day care center, or his right of
>patronage if it is his children.
>

Now I understand what Freedom of Association is all about it and one 
of it main proponents is John Metzger.  

FOA = separatist ideology.

So that separation of people falls along the lines of whatever we
wish to define as not acceptable to our own world view.

So I think the advocator of FOA needs to get in contact with John and
some of his buddies, becuase their main mission is to overthrow the
present US Federal Government, then make separations in society justified
by their 'absolute rights' ideology.
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Date: 23 Dec 1992 17:53:00 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Dec23.110137.19406@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1h9309INNofi@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
>    >So can you document the opposite? Show us proof that this is
>    >one of the few (if not the first) time you ever have admitted
>    >to being wrong about something. You always document- with at
>    >least one source, that is not sufficient for many of the
>    >arguments you make.
>
>This is really a gem. OK, here is the proof of all the times, other
>than Maddi's recent little correcto-gasm, that I've been wrong:
>
>			  "  "
>
Ooooooo!                  :^)   (i'm looking at it, what the hell is it?)

>I can't believe how stupid you are in public.
>

Et tu?  I would work on my sentence structure and clarity of writing.
Many posters find it difficult to follow your arguments and god forbid 
they should not agree with you.

>And, BTW, one documented source for what I believe is better than zero.
>
>

And a bird in the hand is better than two in a bush.

Oh, now this is extraordinary, a shining example of your cutting wit and
intellectual prowess. I must laugh with your feeble attempts at sarcasm,
but please continue on your path of haranguing, it is all the proof many
need to see through your inability to make your arguments stand.
>


I'll bet G. Flowers had a good time, think of the book!
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7858 ca.politics:10471
From: manley@optilink.COM (Terry Manley)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Carjackers/Citizens/Life/Guns/Bernhard Goetz
Date: 22 Dec 92 02:26:37 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

In article <13700@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
>My Un-PC statement of the day is:  Gee whiz, if we just
>blew away all of these carjackers, think of all of the
>money that we would save the criminal justice system,
>the insurance companies, etc...

Just think if we "blew away" anyone convicted of committing
three felonies.  You get three chances.  Then you die.

What do you think?

Would that have an effect on crime rates?


--
dave
manley@optilink
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:32:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.174104.3073@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
    >This still doesn't answer my original point that maintaining
    >the ban on gays in the military poses a BIG security risk for
    >the U.S. What benefits do we get from this ban which would
    >justify it given that it poses such a risk ?

Anything that one is "ashamed of", i.e., hides from neighbors, coworkers,
families, is a major susceptibility to blackmail.




-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: On the usefulness of ba.politics
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 08:09:59 GMT

Some poor innocent seems to have wandered into this newsgroup and left
in a huffy appalled state at the goings on here.

Tsk tsk and all that.

Then again, politics IS a bloody business. Politics IS the practice of
coercion, and is ultimately backed up by the working end of a gun.

The Bay Area is one the great areas of ferment that change can come from.

I personally think that the true great revolution of America, that the State
exists ONLY to serve the individual, is well on its way to getting lost.
(Just to prevent Maddi from issuing her automatic liar phrase:)

  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
   equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
   rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
   That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,"

Now, when we consider that the sum of ALL taxes, Federal, State, local,
sales, excise, "permits & fees", for most of us, taxes take about 50%
of our gross income.

50%!

To that end, I feel it is important to take issue with all that would
increase the power of the State over the individual, whether it be
taxes, AB101/EEO laws, eco-fascism, Politically Correct speech laws,
or whatever.

Because, in the end, it all comes down to this:

Either you believe:
   Any adult can with his/her property what he/she damn well pleases, provided
   there is no initian of coercion,

Or you don't.

One is about freedom.

The other isn't.


Like the woman who would go to bed with a stranger for $1,000,000, but not
for $5, we've established what she is, now we're just haggling over price.

Once you've said "aha, in XYZ case, the State CAN interfere", then, you're
just haggling about the price.



Now back to the Serbo-Croatia of newsgroups ...

(Gee, is it really true that Maddi is chairperson of NAMBLA?)



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: David;'s challenge
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:59:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.111330.988@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>And this at a time when other Republicans like Packwood are getting bashed?
>
>Note that Wacthler is well know for his very "correct" views on womens issues
>and has had strong Demovratic political support.

Note that Mr. Packwood ALSO has very "correct" views wrt women.
He is one of the most liberal Republican members of the Senate, and has
been very supportive of women's issues.  So what's your point ?

Guido