HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.activism
Subject: Re: The Crimes of Nicaragua: Ending "Systematic Repression"
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:05:20 EST
 <brian.717030661@coombs> <1992Sep22.220907.27779@oracle.us.oracle.com> <rich.717533326@pencil>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <rich.717533326@pencil>, rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) writes:
> In <1992Sep22.220907.27779@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>Nope.  The Sandinistas were not elected.  Moreover, when they were
>>finally forced to have an election they lost.
> 
> What bullshit.  Why don't you read a book about it before you show off
> your ignorance.

	Maybe he's been reading anonymous posts about the GREAT SANDANISTA
COVERUP!!!!*******

:)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Reagan/Bush PRIORITIES
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:07:46 EST
 <1992Sep26.011730.3358@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> <1992Sep25.155808.22980@vexcel.com> <1992Sep28.210607.13685@clpd.kodak.com>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Sep28.210607.13685@clpd.kodak.com>, fischer@li.serum.kodak.com (Chris Fischer (x39613)) writes:
> In article <1992Sep25.155808.22980@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep26.011730.3358@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>>>harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>>>
>>>>The point of course is that genuine cuts in the military are not even
>>>>on the table (for discussion) so that the really important programs
>>>>must all compete in a "zero sum game", ie, one's gain equals another's
>>>>loss:
>>>
>>>The point of course is that the military budget only equals about 30%
>>>of the US Budget, with entitlement programs and debt service equaling the
>>>other 70%.
>>
>>Funny that debt servicing and entitlements are limped together since the
>>debt service could be seen as being for deficit military spending.
> 
> Or deficit social spending.

	Like the extended unemployment benefits.  $80 billion added to the
debt.  *Presto!*

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: gdsimpso@unix.amherst.edu (GILBERTO DANIEL SIMPSON)
Subject: Latino E-Mailing List
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:14:10 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: "Totalitarian" Sandinistas, etc.
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:12:32 GMT


Reagan and Bush have always been disliked by the media, despite the
outcome of the last three elections.  The media repeatedly attack Reagan's
anti-Sandinista policies.

Do those that support socialism realized that it doesn't work?? Eastern Europe
in 1989-90 and the former USSR in December of 1991 has proven that.
And to those who think socialism is democracy, read about a communist leader
named Stalin, and also read about Tineanmen Square(sp?).

Simon
From: Clinton-HQ@mail.clinton-gore.org
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: [75300.3115@compuserve.com: Thanks from Little Rock]
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:58:48 GMT

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:33 EDT
From: Clinton for President <75300.3115@compuserve.com>
To: Clinton Team <clinton-org@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Thanks from Little Rock

Volunteers,

Jeff Eller asked me to pass this along.

"FYI to the team:  David Kuznet...chief speech writer and mastermind
of the  Notre Dame Speech says the info he gets from e-mail is great!
Keep it up!"

Please do keep it up.  And please do let people know that what we send in
gets used and is valued!

Regards,
Jock


Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: bnolte@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Bill Nolte)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:25:35 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <1992Sep28.165443.16261@advtech.uswest.com>, by steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak):
>> = (Bill Nolte) writes:
>>> = ( Steve Novak):
> 
>>> Has anybody confirmed or denied this rumor for poor Jym?  I haven't
>>> heard.  Though, Nolte and other sheep are already buying Snapple in
>>> droves :).
> 
>>Gee, thanks Steve.  I didn't know that all it took to become famous on
>>the net was to get under your skin.  
> 
> If you make me laugh, inadvertently or not, I remember you.
> 
>>You make me proud.  Bring on the Snapple!
> 
> Bah-ah-ah-ah!
> 
> Tell me, Bill, do you have good evidence that the Snapple company is 
> indeed as Jym surmised?  Or are you gonna have a garage sale to unload
> those cases of Rasberry Pomegranate?
> 
You know, I still don't ever recall my saying it was true, Steve ol' buddy.
I do recall saying I hope it's true.  Now unless that cross-eyed glance
of yours is moving the letters around before they get to your brain, I just
can't see how you are reading into my words what you are.

Bill Nolte

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3403 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6038 talk.abortion:39247
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:40:17 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <80713@ut-emx.uucp>  zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:
>
> There seems to me that there are four main positions on abortion:
>
> 1) Abortion on demand: abortion is always OK through all nine mos. of
> pregnancy

What about the more common "Abortion is rarely 'OK', but it is often the
least objectionable choice, and so should remain available as an option."

> 1)  I think none but the most calloused among us can seriously believe that
> abortion up until live birth is acceptable,

I think that none but the most stupid among us believe that abortions
really are induced right up to birth, for other than grave health problems.
I think none but the most stupid *and* calloused would prohibit an
abortion necessary to save the woman's life.

> How can on argue that 3 inches separates
> a child from rights and no rights?  (If anyone *does* support this position,
> I'd *love* to hear the logic involved).

Hint - it's not 3 inches of air separating the fetus from becoming a child.
If you press up against a woman without her permission, she doesn't have
the right to blow you away.  If you try to stick your dick in her without
her permission, she does.  How can one argue that those 3 inches separates
you from rights and no rights?  Simple - those 3 inches are part of the
body of another person.

> Either abortion is right, in which case it
> is right all the time and enough about the indecision and trauma faced by
> women having to make such a painful decision--it takes very little investment
> to actually create life, so it's not like she's missing out on her only
> chance--and quit pansying around with limits and restrictions.

Sounds good to me.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: DEMOCRACY FOR ECONOMICS
Date: 5 Oct 92 05:14:13 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

Question: Who's going to make sure the People don't democratically chose not
to accept this? It is a chilling possibility to you, isn't it? ;>

Of course, you would have to refute such a result because it would obviously
be the People following the "programming" the corporations and government gave
them, no? Might have to force them to follow your plan "for their own good?"
Nope, not going to let you forget your programming claim. 

As an economist, you make a great Astronomer and Physicist.

What happens if I make a lot of money from my work? Do I have to give it away?
Won't. Need to buy a Cosmosphere. ;>
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chester            |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Politically Incorrect      |"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us
Future Lunar Colonist      |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Reagan/Bush PRIORITIES
Summary: Debt is not only due to military spending
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:40:55 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR

In article <1992Sep25.155808.22980@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com
(Dean Alaska) writes:
>Funny that debt servicing and entitlements are limped together since the
>debt service could be seen as being for deficit military spending.

That is no less dishonest than seeing debt service as part of entitlements.
The is no justification to saying that all of debt service is part of
military spending.  At best you could attribute it's share of the budget,
i.e. less that a third of the debt, to the military.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: "Totalitarian" Sandinistas, etc.
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:40:59 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:


>Isn't the FMLN communist??  I thought that they lost in a democratic
>election-because the people had had enough of them??  What is wrong
>with the opposition parties.  I'm curious why some are sympathetic to
>communism??  When I was in high school I actually got in trouble for
>openly expressing anti-communist sentiment-in America!!

	Pity Reagan and Bush weren't treated the same way.



--
Brian Ross____________________________________________________________________
	"If this is the revolution, why are the drinks so fucking expensive?"
		- unsigned Graphitto, Paris, 1968
______________________________________________________________________________
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.activism
Subject: Re: The Crimes of Nicaragua: Ending "Systematic Repression"
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:34:28 GMT
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>In article <rich.717533326@pencil> rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel) writes:

>   In <1992Sep22.220907.27779@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>   >Nope.  The Sandinistas were not elected.  Moreover, when they were
>   >finally forced to have an election they lost.

>   What bullshit.  Why don't you read a book about it before you show off
>   your ignorance.

>   Rich

>I did read a book about it, and while Michael Friedman oversimplifies
>a bit, he is substantially correct. 

	John, is one book your idea of research?  I'm surprised that someone
who is so willing to push the complexities of mathematics on the net (in your
signature) is willing to accept such a simplistic explanation of what occurred
in Nicaragua.  You seem, in this statement to be completely dismissive of
the role that your own government played in what occurred in Nicaragua.  Could
if be that you are in fact in favour of paternalistic imperialism (either overt
or covert) and refuse to accept the idea that the Nicaraguan people themselves
possess the ability to make decisions for themselves WRT to what form of 
government that they want.  Is that the impression that you are trying to give?

>					 Moreover, the Sandinistas still
>don't recognize the right of the elected government to dismantle their
>army.

	There army or the "peoples' army" which could be said to be the only
thing which is standing between them and a return to the old oligarch


--
Brian Ross____________________________________________________________________
	"If this is the revolution, why are the drinks so fucking expensive?"
		- unsigned Graphitto, Paris, 1968
______________________________________________________________________________
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3385 alt.activism:16852 talk.politics.misc:48307
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.activism,soc.culture.african-american,talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Yet another totally pathetic lie from Harel
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:29:41 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.


Harel, are you really stupid enough to believe the figures you list
below?  In partricular, see point 3.

In article <1992Sep27.060322.26323@mont.cs.missouri.edu> harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>[Inquiries to harelb@math.cornell.edu] 

>			=====================
>			I n c o m e   G a p s
>			=====================

>****************************************************************** 
>Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 00:28:02 -0400 
>From: aj912@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Maurice Maschke III) 
>****************************************************************** 

>     Please let me help clarify this point further, with the 
>following facts. 

>1. The "Median" income for Whites in the U.S. in 1988 was at a 
>   level of $33,915. 
>2. The "Median" income for Blacks in the U.S. in 1988 was at a 
>   level of $19,329. 
>   ---------- 
>-  1991 Information Please Almanac - Pg. 44 - taken from The 
>   Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Figures 
>   Computed as of March 1989. 

>3. In 1988 51,202 White people were listed as living below the 
>   poverty level, while only 9,864 were listed as Black living 
>   below the poverty level. The combined total of 63,743 were 
>   listed as being the total number living below the poverty 
>   level. 

So hey folks, let's think about that....

In a country with 250,000,000 people 63,743 are under the poverty
level.  That's one out of every 4,000.  I wish it was true.  If it was
it would be an amzing triumph for America.  Unfortuantely, it is total
nonsense.

So hey, Harel, did you really beleive this?

>        [Small calculation:] 

>        [That would make 15.5% of people in poverty Black -- Blacks 
>        are 12% of the population; hence poverty for Blacks is about 
>        30% higher than the (already abysmal) national average. 
>        --Harel] 

Actually, that would make you a mathematical illiterate.
 
If these numbers were true the poverty level for blacks would be .033%
compared to a national average of .025%.  The poverty rate for blacks
would be .008% higher than the national average.

You are taking a percent of a percent, something that is
not meaningful in this context.







-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton)
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: "We're Number One" in Childhood Poverty
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:16:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.035928.24429@mont.cs.missouri.edu> harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>        Percentage of children living in poverty 1984-1987:(3)
>        =====================================================
>
>                                     CHILDREN          
>               COUNTRY              IN POVERTY         
>               ------------------------------
>
>               United States           20.4            
>
>[twice the second highest:]
>
>               Canada                   9.3            
>               Australia                9.0            
>               United Kingdom           7.4            
>               France                   4.6            
>               Netherands               3.8            
>               Germany                  2.8            
>               Sweden                   1.6            

  Why is this list limited to just 8 countries?


  [ commercial advertising deleted ]

>  Number of individual and family fortunes worth $1 billion or
> more, and billionaire fortunes per 10 million population, 1991:
>
>COUNTRY             BILLIONAIRES   PER 10 MILLION PEOPLE
>
>United States            96                 3.8
>Japan                    41                 3,3
>Germany (unified)(4)     40                 5.1
>Canada                    9                 3.4
>France                    9                 1.6
>Hong Kong                 7                12.2
>Italy                     6                 1.0
>Switzerland               6                 9.0
>Saudi Arabia              6                 3.5
>United Kingdom            6                 1.0
>Taiwan                    5                 2.4
>
  Hong Kong appears to be doing quite well, but we can probably look
for their numbers to decline over the next seven years.
>



Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,sci.econ,alt.censorship,soc.college,talk.politics.misc
From: bmb@bluemoon.rn.com (Bryan Bankhead)
Subject: Re: High costs of college education
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 22:06:26 EDT

robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
> 
> 
>   Obviously, they don't care who pays, as long as they continue to get a free

Hey, why not? we fund K-12, why not 13-16?

After all society decided you need a bachelors degree to have any kind of 
future right? And it's sure hare to come up with the money making $5.00 
/hr. flipping burgers which is all you can get theses days without it.
The idea of public education was to provide a level playing field. Well 
these days that isn't a high school diploma sport.
It'll be cheaper that telling 50% of the work force they have no right to 
a worthwile life.

 This is from
     bmb@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have his (or her) own obnoxious signature yet
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: Re: **** ANOTHER COVER-UP - Please read this... ****
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: 26 Sep 92 05:15:28 GMT

In <1992Sep24.210611.24906@CS.ORST.EDU> mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor) writes:
>I've had slightly better experiences with Rich.  He's been willing to
>include information critical of Cuban human rights violations in
>misc.activism.progressive, at least, where some others are intent on
>minimizing the problem.
>Not that he doesn't contribute a share to the general silliness of the
>group.  I think he posted an article on polling in the Nicarugan 
>elections of 1990 that was remarkably counter-factual.  (ie, the 
>conventional wisdom was that the Sandinistas were leading in the
>polls right up to election eve, despite his assertions that the
>media was trumpeting UNO-tainted polls.)

Hmm .. I don't recall the article, and I don't believe the assertion is
true.  Both the mainstream and left media thought the sandinistas would
win, if I recall ...
Cuba DOES have human rights problems, as any country under a state
of seige for 30 years would.  The cure, however, is not to add it to the
list of US colonies in latin america.

rich
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3365 alt.rush-limbaugh:6003 talk.abortion:38849
From: ma3750@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Mark Thomas Arisman)
Subject: Abortion
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:33:46 GMT

Hello, this is the first note I've posted on nn.
I usually just read them, but the abortion issue
seems to make me do strange things.

* Why is it so hard to accept that a fetus is a human from the
	moment of conception? If a fetus is not aborted, it will -
  	barring any pregnancy complications - grow and eventually be
	born at which instance everyone agrees it has rights. Prior
	to conception, all that is present is an unfertilized egg which
	will never grow and be born UNLESS it is fertilized by a sperm 
	which we all know (I hope) will not happen without intercourse.
	The fertilized egg has everything that is required to be human;
	the unfertilized egg does not. The fertilized egg will be born
	unless it is aborted; the unfertilized egg will not.
    A fetus is simply a human in the first stages of development. The 
   	next stage of development begins at birth. Because it does not
	look the same as us does not mean it isn't any more human than 
	the rest of us. A caterpillar and a moth look drastically different,
        as does ant larvae from an ant, but everyone would agree that they
	are the same animal - one no more alive than the other. This is
	stuff we learn in grade school biology.
 
* I have never understood why adoption is not seen as an alternative.
	If the mother does not want a child, adoption is a wonderful
	solution. There are many families in the world who are not able
	to have children or just would like more children and spend
	years on waiting lists - sometimes with no result. Why not turn
	turn a mistake or accident into another's joy or miracle?

This note was not targeted at any note in particular. I would appreciate
some responses (serious ones!).

Arisman  => ma3750@eehp3.cen.uiuc.edu
 
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 06:08:46 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>In article <qhbz8l#@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>In <0bbz2kq@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>>>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>>>Why do you focus on that?  How about focusing on the reality of women 
>>>>who oppose abortion?  Are you aware that the membership of Concerned 
>>>>Women for America (an anti-abortion group) is many greater than 
>>>>NOW and NARAL combined?
>>
>>>And I have faith that having made this statement, you will certainly
>>>follow up by proving this.  Relevant information would include the
>>>exact membership statistics of each organization, including paid
>>>members if appropriate, as well as people who "consider" themselves
>>>members of the organizations in question, and also exactly how
>>>these numbers were calculated.
>>
>>and when you post this data, mr. krueger, could you
>>please include your sat scores. thank you.

>Is this another one of those male-competition, penis-size things?

Dear me.  It appears I was mistaken about your ability to support
your assertion.

>Ted

                      -rocker
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.activism