HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: My money's on BILL!
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:07:19 GMT
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas

On Tue, 26 Jan 93 18:06:44 MST, blh@uiboise.idbsu.edu (Broward L. Horne) said:

>Come on, Bill Baby!

>Pass that ENERGY BILL!   YES!!!!

>COME ON, COME ON, COME ON,   BABY NEEDS NEW SHOES!!! 

>Come on, just follow in those historical footsteps, com 
>Come on, come on, COME ON, CROSS THAT LINE!!!!

>YEAH!   ALL RIGHT!, William "Herbert Hoover" Clinton!

>Always, ALWAYS bet on numbers, Ted.  
>NEVER, EVER on words!

>Come on, Stephanopoulous,  come on, come ON!  Override
>congress and make that military ban-lifting an EXECUTIVE 
>ORDER!   Come on, come on.  Show those bastards who's 
>boss.  Do it, do it, DO IT! 

>YEEEEHHAAAAAWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!

>Ride 'em, Wild Bill.  You got my vote!

Broward --

Maybe you should try switching to decaf?

--PLH, and I thought it was bad, growing up during Nixon's reign of error...
--
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69125 ca.politics:10625 ba.politics:8268 alt.sex:42818
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.sex
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Date: 19 Jan 93 02:00:54 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan16.052356.28532@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> In article <13911@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan12.093713.5445@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
# ## He doesn't defend child molestation at all.  He says that sex with
# ## children under a certain arbitrary age limit may not be child molestation.
# 
# ## But literacy never was your strong point...
# 
# #I see.  If we redefine you as as "subhuman" then concentration camps
# #aren't committing murder, are they?  More typical liberalism.
# 
# Ah, so you agree with PETA that those veal farms are really Nazi
# camps?  Wow, Clayton is now a vegetarian tree-hugging liberal.  Wow.
# Otherwise, you're just redefining terms so that those people are called
# "animals."

I'm pointing out the problems of arbitrarily redefining words to
make them mean what you want them to.  A cow is not a human being,
contrary to the oft-repeated claim made by Ms. Feral of PETA: "A boy
is a pig is a dog is a rat."

# Child molestation means molesting people too young to consent.  But what
# that age is is NOT intrinsic to people.  It's being arbitrarily defined
# by *YOU* to be 18 years of age.  Amazingly enough, all over the world
# it's defined differently.  
# 
# David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 

Mr. Brack, NAMBLA, and many other homosexuals insist that there should
be NO line.  Clear enough?  That's NOT the same thing, and you know
it.  (Or should.)
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69643 alt.atheism:26965 talk.religion.misc:27491
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'HaIR (not O'Hare!)
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:56:16 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


In article <C19pC5.1rxt@austin.ibm.com> frank@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>> This is America here.  In this country, the word is spelled "tire".
>> You Brits do as you like, but if you are going to address us Yanks,
>> please do us the courtesy of spelling the words as we would perceive
>> them to be spelled correctly.

> Can it be that you made the above comment in jest?

No.  I meant what I said.

> If not, I find it to be uncalled for.

I disagree.  In fact, I think it needs more emphasis.

> Especially, in the light of the apalling spelling, grammar, and (dare
> I say it?), perceived intellect, of a great many of the American
> posters.

But I do not happen to be one of those posters.  Moreover, what
"perceived" intellect?  I often perceive at the very least ignorance,
if not outright stupidity in many of the posts here.  (And where do
you suppose that you might fit in?)  The only thing I find heartening
in this sad state of affairs is that (by far and away) most of these
aforementioned posters happen to be leftists/liberals.  So let's not
call them "American" posters -- in fact, "unAmerican" happens to be a
much more appropriate term.

> You could start by pointing out that it is Madalyn Murray *O'HAIR*, 
> not O'Hare, as the Subject line indicates.

Hey, I didn't make up the Subject: line.  Moreover, I don't happen to
pay much attention that malcontent.  The "O'Hare" I know best is the
airport in Chicago that I have on occasion flown out of, and that
spelling is right.
-- 
The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
as this would hold such views??? ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:42:27 GMT

In article <1k6elnINNlre@titan.ucs.umass.edu> jennyg@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Well Paid in Name Only) writes:
}In article <C1It7I.LEo@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
}>    Perhaps, but we are talking about a public policy issue here,
}>    not a military operation.  Colin Powell happens to be an expert
}>    on the issue, Bill Clinton does not.  In fact, Clinton has yet
}>    to tell the public why he wants to allow gays serve in the military.
}
}Oh, give me a break!  Nobody has ever told the public why we should
}allow, say, redheads, or people who are exactly 5'8-1/2" tall, into
}the military, and there really is no need to.  Anybody who wants
}to defend our country has a right to do so.  As far as I understanding,
}sex is prohibited in the barracks.  That includes both hetero, and homo
}sexual encounters.  But what someone does on his/her off-time is his/her
}business.

Not quite true.

}What we need it the realization that if someone is a good solder/sailor/
}marine, their personal life really shouldn't enter into it.

Unfortunately for your thesis, that is not the case.

Amusing thought:  It is not only not allowed, but right-down illegal to
beat someone to death.  It does not appear to be the case that legislating
morality did a great deal to stop the death of a homosexual from shipmates
in Japan.  If people are not deterred by a law that has penalties of life
imprisonment, why do you think that a "allowed" type law would work?


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70390 alt.peeves:19759
From: jennyg@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Well Paid in Name Only)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
Subject: "In" terms (Was: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military)
Date: 28 Jan 93 15:14:56 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucs.umass.edu

In article <1k8oh5INNoqf@umbc4.umbc.edu> potler@umbc.edu (Laura Potler) writes:

>
>"making wicky-wicky"??
>
>peeve: that i'm not up on all the "in" terms. 
>

Well, I wouldn't necessarily consider it an "in" term - though I suppose
it depends on whether you're using "in" as an adjective or a preposition-
it's just that I'm sick of all the standard euphemisms.

Jenny "Onomatopoeia is my life" Gutbezahl
-- 
***************************************************************************
jennyg@titan.ucc.umass.edu is Jenny Gutbezahl @ Univ. of Mass, Amherst
****************************************************************************
"I'm not cheap, love.  Loud, but not cheap."  - Dil in The Crying Game
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69373 sci.edu:1459
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.edu
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:54:09 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan21.043409.16335@sequent.com>, petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire) writes:
> susan@csbvax.uucp (Susan Finkelman) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan19.125900.2492@ucbeh.san.uc.edu> cho@ucbeh.san.uc.edu writes:
# #grade after grade, seen the same homework packet come home child after
# #child, and still don't see homework graded often if ever.  And hours are
# #8-4, good luck finding many of these people as late as 3:45.  And I also
# #think that tenure is worth something.  I certainly don't have that kind
# #of security.
# 
# I agreee, there a many DAMN good teachers out there. Who would want to
# put up with what they do if they were not personally into teaching ?

Because some of them aren't competent to do anything that pays 
anywhere near that well?  Because they are trained to teach, and
nothing else?

# -pete


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertarians
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:17:19 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan26.193114.318@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp  
(Michael Friedman) writes:
> Jack, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem.  The
> Libertarian Party believes that workers have that right.  I fail to
> understand why you think they don't.

The problem is, a right isn't much of a right if the government
doesn't prevent others from taking it away from you. I have
the right to vote for whomever I want to. It wouldn't be much
of a right, though, if my company said "if you vote for
anybody but .... we'll fire you" or my landlord (if I still
lived in an apartment building) said "if you don't vote 
for X we'll refuse to extend your lease next month when it
comes up."  (The latter can be an even bigger problem if you
landlord owns many of the major appartment complexes in
the area).

Similarly, the right to form a union isn't much of a right
if someone can be fired for joining a union or trying to
form one.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Debt Not Necessarily Bad
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:26:01 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1jq3oaINNpcl@shelley.u.washington.edu> wells@stein.u.washington.edu (Vernon Wells) writes:

 - Excellent text deleted -

->Now, I do not say in any way that the US Govn't operates under this model.
-> They do all sorts of tweeking, and their expeditures are far higher than
->"average" for tax receipts.  But I do contend, for these reasons, that
->debt, at least for the Govn't aggragate is not necessarily "bad".  And for
->business, this is true also.  For high Capital industries, it would be
->impossible to compete with entrenched companies without incurring debt. 
->Debt helps them to grow.  But I digress.  The former poster said that
- ***********************
->sometimes debt was "necessary" for particular reasons, and I assume he
->also meant "unavoidable" as well.  It is avoidable, consistently at least,
->for the US govn't, and they have done a poor job at that.


 I agree with your entire post and have underlined what worries me.
   IE - Debt helps "them" (GOVERNMENT) to grow..
 Is this growth at the expense of governments competition (free market) ?

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69116 ca.politics:10623
From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: Most Campaign Promises Broken Before Inaguration?
Date: 18 Jan 93 22:51:58 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <C0z295.HE5@queernet.org>, by rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese):
> In article <13928@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

#>1. He was going to abolish discrimination against homosexuals in the
#>military -- now he's furiously backpeddling.

> He did not backpedal.  He stated he intended to change the implementation
> strategy from an Excecutive Order to a Memorandum of Instruction, both of
> which are binding; uninformed protest has led him to go back to an Order.

This isn't a war, it's a pre-emptive strike.  No, it's a police action!

Truman had the balls to issue an executive order to racially integrate
the armed forces.  Clinton is chicken to do the same thing in terms
of sexual preference.  For better or for worse, the president sets at
least some of the moral tone for the country, and there is a
difference between him saying "Gays shall be admitted to the armed
forces" and saying "We'll, I think that it would be a good idea if
the defense secretary got his guys to agree on a timetable..."  He
did break his promise to use an Executive Order.

#>2. He was going to give a 10% tax cut to the middle class.  Whoops!
#>It's gone!

> Hurrah!

Unlike my friend Clayton, I believed that the proposal to cut taxes
was a bad idea, but we both would agree that it is a broken promise
nonetheless.

#>3. He was going to reverse the Bush policy of forcibly repatriating
#>Haitian refugees.  Whoops!  He's decided to continue that policy.

> No, he's decided to continue the policy until a reversal can be fully and
> cleanly implemented.

Yes, and this may take eons due to the horror in Haiti, meanwhile
people are being persecuted.  He broke his promise.  I bet he just
didn't realize how dark some of them really are until after he made
his promise.  For those wanting to flee opression, and for those
sympathetic to their plight, it is a promise broken.

Roger, you would make a great governmental spokesperson.  Please
feel free to use my name as a reference in this context.
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
From: bberbeni@nyx.cs.du.edu (Bill Berbenich)
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 00:09:18 GMT

Well gaw-lee, Jenny!

I am speechless in the face of such a rebuttal!

And for Jehovah's sake, will someone PLEASE scan in that pic of my butt
so that this whole "hairy butt" thing can be put behind us?  And lets
have someone recount exactly WHO wrote on it, nice (albeit somewhat
hairy) male butt that it is.  Banta wrote the NC-17 thing...  What
else was there?  Who put it there?  I WAS drunk, you know, so my
memory isn't too good on the matter.

Had I guessed that such tomfoolery was to take place, I would have
worn boxers.

But concerning your last paragraph, what if *I* want to eat *YOUR*
chicken, which may *wink* or may not be the case?
  -Bill (just a guy who happens to get horny when Jenny puts on her
         Brooklyn accent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Selling  of tv rights
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:53:58 GMT

In article <FXARS.93Jan21093616@thelastone.acf-lab.alaska.edu> fxars@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
}In article <1993Jan21.153839.20614@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}> How did the Clinton Campaign manage to sell exclusive rights to something happening
}> at a national monument on public land to a private business (HBO, for example)?
}
}Private commercial events/concerts happen on federal land all the
}time, espcially land managed by the U.S. Park Service, which, I
}believe, most National Monuments are.  What exactly are you talking
}about?  I hope this has nothing to do with the inaugural.  

Clinton's arrival and welcoming into DC was carried exclusively by HBO.
They, in turn, fed it to who they wanted after imprinting the HBO
logo on it.  If HBO didn't get the credit for it, you didn't see it.
The sites were the 14th street bridge and the Lincoln Memorial.


Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69739 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13811
From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:31:57 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <Jan.26.06.57.20.1993.7432@romulus.rutgers.edu> kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
...
>point entirely (or else are trying to ignore it).  Let me spell it out
>for you: since the U.S. is the most pre-eminent country on the earth,
>since the largest single group of net.users are American, and since
>English (primarily American English) is by far the most popular second
>language among non-English speakers world-wide, it is not an
>unreasonable request to ask all posts with worldwide distribution be
>composed in English.  Moreover, if the posts are addressed to U.S.
>readers (whether at large or in particular) then this becomes more
>than just a request -- it becomes a demand.
...
>The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
>my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
>believe that a major university  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
>as this would hold such views??? ||

This is a serious point of view (ie not a joke, nor trivially obvious).  But I
think you're wrong.

There is no need to request or demand anything of a poster, since the onus is
all on the poster's side already.  If the poster wants to reach person X,
it is up to the poster to address person X in whatever way the poster thinks
best.  That's not a demand or a request, just a statement of fact, since there
is no way anyone can impose conditions on the poster.  Netiquette is a
voluntary code, and many posters flout it deliberately, and without penalty.

In other words, Ted, your demands and requests are ineffectual.  You either
read the stuff as written, or don't.  Of course, the same applies to me
reading your stuff, but I'm addressing the content, not the form.

-Norman
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Gas tax.
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:45:16 GMT

In article 1jmuciINNgpf@cairo.crhc.uiuc.edu, peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
>pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>
>| peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
>| >
>| >Oil is far and away the cheapest way to power automobiles.  It is
>
>| This simply isn't true.  Oil is not far and away the cheapest way to
>| power cars.  In fact, it is not even the cheapest.  Right now natural
>| gas is cheaper than gasoline.
>
>Natural gas is cheaper by what measure?  Per liter?  Or per joule
>usable in an automobile?
>
>Note that, in order to say that natural gas is truly cheaper, one must
>factor in range and hazard as well.  The lower range requirements of
>cities coupled with the higher pollution hazard of gasoline may very
>well make natural gas cheaper in urban areas while making gasoline
>cheaper elsewhere.
>
>But if under all these measures natural gas is indeed generally cheaper
>than gasoline, I'll surrender the point 

but the point was "far and away cheapest" not "cheapest given the
costs structure i assume".

>and ask why natural gas cars
>are not built.

perhaps, because the technology takes time to pervade the marketplace.
perhaps, because of influence of oil/auto companies.  more likely it
is because gasoline is more convenient that natural gas, which can
take 20 minutes to fill the tank:(

remember, it took 90 years for gasoline to come to its current maturity
level.

>
>Mike Peercy
>peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu




Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69905 alt.sex:43228 talk.religion.misc:27624 soc.college:6063 alt.peeves:19622
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc,soc.college,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Shocked Beyond ALL BELIEF!!!!!
Date: 26 Jan 93 07:59:16 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <90641@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1993Jan25.151635.659@st-andrews.ac.uk> ccjm@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin Charles James MacDonald) writes:
>
>|Would you be more shocked to learn that prostitution is legal here in stuffy 
>|old Britain? It's only *soliciting* that is illegal. What's the difference?
>|How should I know? Solicitors are prostitutes that get caught?
>
>I thought solicitors were attorneys?
>Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
-------------------------------
No, in the dictionary, soliciting for prostitution is taken to be the act
by the prostitute of approaching a man entreating him to pay her money for
sex acts, as it is presumed that the man is unable to resists this and that
it threatens the otherwise stable family, a bit like entrappment in
criminal law. If the man requests the service, it is presumed that he knows
what he is doing. In other words, soliciting is advertising, unless a man
is selling his sexual favors for money, and then he can be soliciting for
prostitution too. In the old school, the payor is never in trouble.
- Steve

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69683 alt.atheism:26978 talk.religion.misc:27509
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: More Than Just A Coincidence?  (was Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare)
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:37:55 EST
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <Jan.25.07.53.29.1993.27105@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
> 
> If you wish to compose your post entirely in Norwegian, you know quite
> well that I cannot stop you.  But I surmise that you also realize that
> it isn't going to be understood by very many people outside of your
> puny little country (and perhaps a few wayward souls in Minnesota).
> And moreover you would be flamed by a good number of USENET readers
> (and not just American ones) for wasting net resources by posting a
> message that hardly anyone can understand.  (It seems that only the
> frogs are so ill-mannered as to engage in such rude and boorish
> behavior as this.)

   Well, you seem to have demonstrated that Americans are just as capable
of it, if not more.

   Of course, the big question is - why are two of the most obnoxious people
on talk.origins and alt.atheism (the two newsgroups I read regularly) both
named Ted?  Could it be that the Teds of the world are joining forces?  Maybe
they've come together to fight the Liberal Evilutionist Uniformitarian Leftist
Conspiracy [tm]!  Uv corse, it's a gud thing for them us nasty liburuls are
sutch terribul spellers, unlike thoz potatoe-hed konsurvativs.

Karl

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Lastly, I come to China in the hope      | "All you touch and all you see  |
| of fulfilling a lifelong ambition -       | Is all your life will ever be." |
| dropping acid on the Great Wall."  --Duke |                 --Pink Floyd    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         A Lie is still a Lie even if 3.8 billion people believe it.         |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton