HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Dec29.230800.21195@panix.com>
	<Dec.30.09.52.11.1992.9973@romulus.rutgers.edu>
	<1992Dec30.212641.12200@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 17:00:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.212641.12200@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

   In <Dec.30.09.52.11.1992.9973@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu sez:
   >eck@panix.com wrote:
   >
   >> Which means that North is factually, but not legally, guilty.  If you
   >> missed Al Thompson's attempt earlier this year to muddy this
   >> distinction (and my repeated explanations of why his take on the law
   >> was wrong), I will be more than happy to disabuse you of the erroneous
   >> notion that North's conduct was not criminal.
   >
   >I did not miss it.  But I found your voluminous quotations from
   >grossly slanted press accounts far from compelling.  Ollie North's
   >conduct can be considered as "criminal" only if you accept the
   >outrageous attempts by congress to criminalize differences in policy
   >with the executive as sound law.  

   1) What "voluminous quotations" were those, Ted?  I cited a few short
   passages to explode Al's misguided claim that North asked the
   government for home security and was refused.  Pray, how were these
   factual excerpts (which I will happily resupply you with) "grossly
   slanted"? 

Well, all you really did was cite some denials from government agencies.
The problem is that the denials were not made under oath, while North's
claims were.

   2) Among the charges on which North was convicted was that of
   accepting an improper gratuity.  I'm sure we'll all be powerfully
   entertained by your attempts to explain why the enactment of this
   statute, or prosecution under it, criminalizes interbranch policy
   disputes. 

Enactment of the statute in and of itself does not criminalize policy
disputes.  The problem is that the purpose of the statute is to prevent
gov't employees from accepting bribes.  To chase North for accepting
something to defend himself and his family from harm, the treat of which
resulted from his performance of his official duties is a far different
thing than accepting a free trip to the Bahamas or a fur coat for his
wife.
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Date: 31 Dec 1992 18:00:18 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

David Veal) writes:
|> Mike Polen) writes:
|> >David Veal) writes:
|> >|> Mike Polen) writes:
|> >|>
|> >|> >There are those of us that won't agree with chris's definitions of
|> >|> >"Obscene."  Some of us think that pictures of a half-naked male nailed
|> >|> >to a wooden crossbar is violent and obscene.
|> >|>
|> >|> 	Well, it is, which is kind of the whole point to it.
|> >|>
|> >You mean we should hang "dirty pictures" up in church also?  Is that
|> >where obscenity belongs?  Maybe I missed the whole point of your
|> >"whole point."
|> 
|>         As far as the crucifix goes, it's a violent, horrible, obscene
|> thing to do to a human being, and even more so for what Christian's
|> believe was, and is, the son of god.  It's purpose is to serve as a
|> reminder.  The "whole point" is that it is a constant reminder to
|> Christians of their state of sin.  You don't have to buy into that,
|> but it's their wall, which is a considerably different situation than
|> the government paying for it.  (And, for the record, I oppose the whole
|> of the NEA and government funding for the arts, not just the obscene
|> parts.)

As long as their wall is tax exempt, I'm helping pay the bills.  There
is no difference.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:31:46 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <C01x89.MC1@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>how come we don't see our dogs (male) and cats (male) giving one
>another head?

Because they're capable of licking themselves.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PKJAMES@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
    <13710@optilink.COM> <Bzrn5n.rx@exnet.co.uk>
Organization: University of Kentucky
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:11:44 GMT

In article <Bzrn5n.rx@exnet.co.uk>
s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
 
>
>In article <13710@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>In article <BzMEHL.46t@exnet.co.uk>, s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:
>
>
>>#
>># Come on, be fair!  97% of reported child molestation is done by hetro
>># men.  The rest is made up of gay men and women.  Given these statitics
>>
>>FALSE.  Depending on which study you read, at least 21% of molestation
>>is by exclusive homosexuals, or about 30% is done by homosexuals or
>>bisexuals.
>>
>># ** Xavier Gallagher                        ***********************************
>>
>>If you don't even have the basic facts right, there's no point
>>in arguing with you.
>
>
>Name your sources cramer.  Mine is the 1989 British Home office report
>on child abuse.  The *vast* majority of sexual abuse if *male adult*
>on *female child*
>
>Xavier Gallagher.
>
>ps. I am sorry to break my promise so soon but I can't allow this jerk
>to get away with telling me I don't know what I am talking about.
>
>
I wish I could have said what you said.   I should have known by the
time I looked at your sig you weren't from here.  I think we all like
the USEnet because of it's complete openess-it's like a "freedom wall"
where everyone can go, BUT that doesn't mean we have to agree and I will
let you know that if that fucking Clayton ever comes here to KY and
starts that bullshit-he better be bringing body guards.   He can say
stuff like I'm crazy- I think he's the crazy one, and if he say's it to
my face he's just damn suicidal.                Paul  (...xavier only
mad dogs and englishmen go out in the midday sun..smile)
PAUL JAMES   (PKJAMES@UKCC.UKY.EDU)
 
 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65626 alt.activism:19897 alt.politics.usa.misc:742
From: bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:26:53 GMT
Reply-To: bud@mtek.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: MTEK International, Inc.

garrett@Ingres.COM (MMMMM...ESSENCE OF GELFLING) writes:

>In article <1992Dec23.173821.64@mtek.com>, bud@mtek.com                                 writes...
>>You may wish to consult the Israeli statute regarding prosecution
>>of war criminals who conducted their unspeakable acts not only in
>>Germany, but in Poland and other countries -- none of them Israel.

>Those are war criminals. They are fugitives from "international law".

Certainly you cannot be unaware that there were several countries
which refused extradition of such persons -- which again makes the
point that sovereign nations can pretty much pass whatever laws they
may choose, and ignore laws of other countries (or combinations there-
of) which they disagree with. Thus "sovereign" nations.

>Not just Isreali law. Also, Isreal doesn't invade countries and kill 
>thousands of civilians in order to get them.

It is *ISRAELI* law under which these acts have been carried out, not
international law, which does not provide for such acts as the abduc-
tion of Eichmann. Nor raid on Entebbe. Nor aerial bombing of Saddam's
nuclear plant. Whether you wish to mark such events as "invasion" is
up to you. I also assume your reference to "thousands" springs from a
personal claim upon artistic license.

>>>>Noriega was not tried on the basis of a treaty violation, since none
>>>>had occurred.
>>>Then why did we invade Panama at all?
>> 
>>Based on the treaty, which provided the U.S. the right to defend the
>>Canal against hostile threats. In this case, Noriega's gang.

>But Noriega never did break the treaty.

That is your judgement, and it may even be that the incoming government
may choose to consult with you on future decisions about treaty enforce-
ment. Anything would seem possible.

But it is not in doubt whether the United States did or did not have the
treaty right to defend, under arms, the Canal against "threats" (as well
as outright acts) hostile to Canal security.
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Speed is life.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: Department of Energy nominee
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:18:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.133257.3521@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>
>Pop test:
>1. Rank the budget of DOE in decreasing order, with the biggest line item
>first.  Now, by a sizeable fraction, what is the #1 item in the budget of the
>Department of Energy?
>
>2. What area does the Clinton nominee have absolutely no experience in?
>
>hint:  If you had the same answer for #1 and #2, you win!
>
>Question:  In you opinion, what conclusions may you draw from these facts
>on the validity of the statement "get best qualified for the position"
>posturing, and what is the likelihod that the decisive consideration was
>NOT experience in the appointed position's functions?
>

I would conclude that Clinton intends that the priorities of the
Energy department be shifted away from nuclear fission, and toward other
areas, such as those mentioned by other posters (conservation, renewables,
etc.).

As it happens, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, 'line items'
in the DOE budget has historically been the management of the facilities
which produce nuclear weapons. I would certainly hope that *any*
President, and especially a President of Clinton's known beliefs,
would NOT make this the major requirement for a new Secretary of DOE.

>
>--
>James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term for blacks has changed
Date: 23 Dec 1992 19:01:38 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Don Pajerek) writes:
|> David Veal) writes:vk
|> 
|> >       I'm waiting for the next move, where the response to "African-
|> >American" will be "What, are you implying I'm not a real American?"
|> >
|> One thing bothers me about 'African-American': there is a large black
|> population that is not African in its ancestry. Is there no PC way
|> to refer to them, or do they have to settle for the (now non-PC) 'black'?
|> 
|> Don Pajerek
|> 
I give up.  Where are these blacks from that do not have
African heritage?  It was my understanding that even the
Australian Aborigenees (spelling?) migrated from the
African continent.  Better than the Carribean and American
Blacks who migrated involuntarily in the holds of slave ships.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Term for blacks has changed
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:57:16 GMT

In article <PA146008.577.725052065@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>       I'm waiting for the next move, where the response to "African-
>American" will be "What, are you implying I'm not a real American?"
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education


One thing bothers me about 'African-American': there is a large black
population that is not African in its ancestry. Is there no PC way
to refer to them, or do they have to settle for the (now non-PC) 'black'?


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:34:40 GMT

In article <bhayden.725731091@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes
in response to Mark Eckenweiler:

>I don't understand how you can be exonerated from a crime, and
>yet you can be factually guilty. The judicial determination of
>the guilt was essentially overturned. Yet you can sit there and
>say that he was guilty anyway. 

Where was North exonerated? His convictions weren't overturned because of
any flaw in the trial court's factual determinations about North's
conduct.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65412 soc.motss:53837 alt.sex:40295
From: manley@optilink.COM (Terry Manley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 27 Dec 92 18:43:13 GMT
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

In article <168C7D5B8.PKJAMES@UKCC.UKY.EDU> PKJAMES@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
>In article <Bzrn5n.rx@exnet.co.uk> s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher) writes:

>>ps. I am sorry to break my promise so soon but I can't allow this jerk
>>to get away with telling me I don't know what I am talking about.

>I wish I could have said what you said.   I should have known by the
>time I looked at your sig you weren't from here.  I think we all like
>the USEnet because of it's complete openess-it's like a "freedom wall"
>where everyone can go, BUT that doesn't mean we have to agree and I will
>let you know that if that fucking Clayton ever comes here to KY and
>starts that bullshit-he better be bringing body guards.   He can say
>stuff like I'm crazy- I think he's the crazy one, and if he say's it to
>my face he's just damn suicidal.                Paul  (...xavier only
>mad dogs and englishmen go out in the midday sun..smile)
>PAUL JAMES   (PKJAMES@UKCC.UKY.EDU)

Well Paul aren't you special.

I may not agree with what Clayton may write but unlike you
when someone says something I do not like I do not threaten 
them with physical violence.

Perhaps you are unclear on the following concepts:

1. Freedom of Speech

2. The illegality of assault and battery.

I'm glad you're keeping the tradition of the South alive.
Beat on anyone you don't like.  Kill them if you think
you can get away with it.

Welcome to the enlightened 1990's.

Are you sure you don't put on white robes with peaked hats and go out
for a little fun?  Dave (...paul only idiots like you from KY would
want to try and beat-up clayton cramer...smile) 
DAVE MANLEY (manley@optilink.com)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: hopper@ucunix.san.uc.edu (FreeBird)
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 08:21:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.201304.14662@seachg.uucp> chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask) writes:
>>> They only way I would be defined as a homosexual would doubtless include you
>>> and the rest of the human race as well.  
>>> 	Homosexual:  "Anyone who has ever had sex with a same-sex partner."
>>> 							Clayton Cramer
>(extrapolation resolving this into "anyone who could conceive of having sex
>..." deleted by ol' Clay)
>>
>>There are a number of surveys that show that only a tiny percentage
>>of people EVER have sex with a member of the same sex.  See the
>>December 3, 1992 _Nature_.  But I don't expect a homosexual to be
>>capable of accepting data that interferes with his emotional
>>problem.
>>
>>-- 
>
>Clay, ya' ol' drag queen!  Thanks for taking my words out of context,
>twisting the shit out of them and deciding my sexual orientation for me!  The
>rest of you please refer to my previous post.

  I wouldn't worry, Chris.  I don't expect a bigot to be capable of
accepting data that interferes with his little perfect world.



-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
|  David Ian Hopper  * hopper@ucunix.san.uc.edu * o/~ FreeBird! o/~ | 
|  Found on Quartz BBS, Sunset BBS, Prism Hotel, and QuartzParadise | 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Macroeconomics 601
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:36:51 GMT

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

>	And unless those 43 million all had very good Ouija
>	boards, they couldn't have known over 30 days before
>	the elcetion *who* was going to win, right?

Despite the worrisome doubts caused by various Perot shenanigans,
changes in polling methods and the possibility that late charges
against Clinton could stick and affect the outcome, his poll 
ratings were fairly stable from early July on in to the election,
so I think a large number of people might have assumed that Clinton
would be elected.  Gambling yes, but the bet panned out.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wormer@ads.com (Joel A. Wormer)
Subject: Re: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, a division of Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:50:46 GMT

In article <1hvke8INNc8n@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
|> John McCarthy) writes:
|> |> Mike Polen says:
|> |> 
|> |>      Japan is a highly nationalistic company.  Corporations and
|> |>      the government work hand in hand.  Unlike the US, you can
|> |>      not draw a distinctions between the two.  If a company or an
|> |>      industry wants the government to support their plans against
|> |>      outsiders, they've got it.
|> |> 
|> |> This seems exaggerated to me.  Japanese companies compete with
|> |> each other, sometimes in the face of more intrusive regulation
|> |> than in the U.S.  If the U.S. copies this mythical Japan, we are
|> |> in real trouble.
|> 
|> Try the following example.  In Japan, Honda and Nissan can join forces
|> in manufacturing, development, etc. and they can do it with government
|> support and funding.  In the US, GM and Chrysler can not build a joint
|> plant but GM and Toyota can.
How about this example: In the US, GM and Chrysler can raise capital by
issuing stock, offering potential investors sustantial dividends.  In
Japan, dividends are typically fixed rate and rather small, so companies
are more likely to borrow heavily from Japanese banks.  While you don't
necessarily have to pay a dividend, you DO have to keep up with payments
on a loan.  What we consider "dumping" may be more like a "fire" sale,
raising cash to reduce debt by liquidating inventory.  This has worked
well for the Japanese banks as well as Japanese corporations - up to a
point.  Recently, several large Japanese banks have had their Moody's
ratings lowered because they are undercapitalized (too much capital
tied up in outstanding loans).  With the International Bank of Settlements
requiring tighter capital-to-assets ratios next year, the financing may be 
drying up for some Japanese corporations.  My guess is that this will only
increase the propensity to "dump" products.
|> 
|> We are already in trouble.
|> 

So are the Japanese.  Their corporations need sustained growth to keep the
cash flowing, and that means growth in exports.  Regional trade "zones",
(e.g., NAFTA and ECC) are going to squeeze these corporations' ability
to export more.  There are also logistical problems looming for Japan.
Japan already "consumes" a lion's share of the global shipping industry
for both her import of raw materials and export of finished goods.  There
isn't that much capacity left.

Besides, the US consumes something like 30% of Japanese exports.  If we
were really mean, we could just quit buying, and put the screws to them.
(Note: I do NOT advocate this approach - just making a point.)

What I'm trying to say, in a very clumsy way, is that Japan ain't all that
invincible...
---------
These opinions are MINE, I tell you !! MINE !!! MINE!!!
(Well definitely not my employer's...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Bush really IS a wimp
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 01:57:38 GMT

As expected, he was too timorous to brave open court, so he did the typical
Republican thing and pardoned those who might otherwise serve to convict him.
What a wimp: afraid of his fellow citizens. What did he have to fear, after
all? Either Weinberger lied to Congress or he did not. Either Weinberger's
notes show that Bush lied to Congress or they do not. If Weinberger and
Bush are really innocent, then they have nothing to fear from a jury of
12 good men and women--the truth will out. Or is that what the little
sh*t was afraid of?
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: kamilewi@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz)
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:49:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.021415.8073@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.005651.3627@news.stolaf.edu> kamilewi@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz) writes:
>
>>>A recent German study of patent citations shows that space R&D is very
>>>inefficient at generating spinoffs, compared to commercial R&D.
>>
>>And boy, those Germans have done a lot in space recently...
>
>They're part of ESA, and part of the Arianespace consortium.  ESA sent
>a probe to Halley's Comet, while NASA did nothing.  Ariane's boosters
>swiped the commercial launch market from the shuttle even before the
>Challenger accident.

France and England are the main parts of ESA.  The Germans have done little
in rocket technology since Werner von Braun.  Besides, they don't have a 
FLEET of spaceships.

>
>A country that spends less on space is Japan.  Boy, that lack
>of spinoffs has really crippled *their* technology.  

It's a well-documented fact that most of Japanese technology originated in 
the U.S.  They just produced it better.


Alex

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65688 alt.politics.homosexuality:8538