HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: US as No. 1 (3 data books)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:09:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.215412.6116@lgc.com> ajj@zycor.lgc.com (Andrew Jackson) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.201645.13327@cs.rochester.edu> fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes:
>>
>>I have seen it claimed (but haven't verified) that Texas retains the legal
>>right to secede from the US.  Although many of us keep hoping, it hasn't
>>happened yet :-).
>>
>Actually, I do not think Texas has a legal right to secede. What it does
>have is the right to divide up to as many as five states. This was done
>when Texas joined the Union (1845) to better insure an equal number of
>senators from "free" states and "slave" states existed in the Senate.
>Also, it was policy to admit one "free" state for every one "slave" state
>to maintain this equilibrium.

Well, you could argue that in the 1860's they tried, much to their cost
in the Civil War.  Unfortunately or fortunately there is no "real" right
to secede - that is what the Civil War was faught over, Texas' "special
case" nonwithstanding.

Splitting into smaller states, however, really doesn't have a precedent
yet [West Virginia and Virginia were split under VERY SPECIAL circumstances
i e the Civil War].

-- 
+-------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------------+
| Brent L. Irvine         | For a mere $50 these personal  | Ak! Its 1992 tax|
| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu | opinions can also be yours!    |  season! Yuck!  |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------------+
Xref: sparky soc.culture.usa:10068 soc.culture.canada:10335
From: lmcjamo@egg.ericsson.se (Jacques Morris)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: US as No. 1 (3 data books)
Date: 25 Jan 93 13:48:46 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Communications Inc. Montreal, Canada
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1993Jan23.133928.1@vxdesy.desy.de> godfrey@vxdesy.desy.de writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.034059.21310@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, cbergren@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (Craig Bergren) writes:
>> Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>>> In article <1993Jan22.220321.8579@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.w.lacey) writes:
>
>> 
>>> Canada has twice the immigration rate per capita than the United
>>> States has.
>> 
>
>What is the point in this statistic - it is the total immigration rate that
>demonstrates the appeal of a country to foreigners, not the rate per capita.
>A high rate per capita simply suggests a small population, which in turn may
>suggest that Canada is not a popular place for immigrants.  

Or that any country can only integrate a number of immigrants that is
proportional to its size.

>Furthermore, I would remind you that on the first occasion that the US had
>a lottery (around 1987) for immigration visas for the US, the Canadian mail
>system was absolutely swamped with Canadians rushing to meet the Washington
>deadline, that trucks were being hired to drive the applications down to
>Washington in time, that Canadians were literally climbing over one another
>to get out of Canada to the US.  I was living in Ottawa at the time so, yes,
>I do know what I'm talking about.

And you probably have film footage to prove it...
Come on Laurence. Enough of this clap trap. Please.

>
>Canada's attempts to compete with the US are nothing less than pathetic, and
>those on the net who would like to persuade us that it's a better place to
>live just sound absurd to us foreigners who have tried living in both places.

No we're trying to identify the reasons why the crime rate is higher in the 
states. We know you hate our guts because of some huge chip on your shoulder so
your "arguments" carry very little weight here (especially in proportion to the
bandwidth they take up).

>
>Laurence
>
Ahh, Laurence, Laurence...
Loosen up, try to relax.
Life's too short :)

--
  Jacques Morris                       E-mail: lmcjamo@egg.ericsson.se
  Software Design Engineer             Voice:  (514) 738-8300 ext. 2370
  Ericsson, Montreal Canada            Fax:    (514) 345-7982
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
Subject: YAWN Re: US as No. 1 (3 data books)
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:40:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

>
>>> [blah blah it's great here ]
>>  [ blah blah no it's not ]
>
> [ blah it's great here and there blah ]

What a wank festival.
From: BL.JYC@forsythe.stanford.edu (Jon Corelis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Cars and suburbs
Date: 22 Jan 1993 12:57:14 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan22.181151.6670@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rod Anderson) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.083941.13852@truffula.sj.ca.us> cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) writes:
>>
>>Many commuters could get to work by bicycle most days.  Bicycling is good
>>for you, clears the head in the morning, and creates approximately zero
>>environmental harm.  It's also a lot less dangerous than most people think.
>>
>>Cameron
>
>ONLY if you live were it is warm year round.  If the streets are snow
>packed and slippery it is difficult to ride.  And what about those who are
>over 60. Not all of them are  comfortable rideing bicycles. [...]
>
>Just because bicycling works for you does not mean that it is the solution
>for all of the country.
>

   This is an especially clear example of the confusion which seems to
overtake many people's logical processes when issues of alternate
transit are brought up.  Look again at the original proposal:

  >>Many commuters could get to work by bicycle most days.
    ^^^^                                        ^^^^

   In other words, the major premise being proposed here is quite
clearly:  it would be economically and environmentally valuable if
everyone used a bicycle for those trips on which it was reasonable to do
so.  Starting from this premise, Rod Anderson adds as a minor premise
the utterly undeniable, and utterly irrelevant, statement that
bicycling is not always a reasonable option for everyone, and then draws
from it by some bizarre process of twisted reasoning the conclusion that
it's silly to promote greater bicycle use in general as an economically
and environmentally viable form of transit.

   No one is saying or implying that every single man, woman, and child
in the United States should be required by law to ride twenty miles to
work every day in subzero temperatures.  The point is that if everybody
in the country made the maximum reasonable use of bicycling as a transit
option, it would have a major beneficial effect for everyone.  And the
proper logical conclusion to draw from this is that government and
private agencies ought to do everything possible to encourage the use of
bicycling, by for instance building public bike paths, providing secure
bicycle storage places, and providing bicycle-friendly traffic control
mechanisms.

   (I tried to make the above clear, but just watch:  some one will
twist it around into the same or another wacko conclusion.)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: dobler@sparc2.wiwi.uni-karlsruhe.de (Volker Dobler)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: e-mail address in ILLINOIS
Date: 25 Jan 1993 10:41:06 GMT
Organization: Institut fuer Entscheidungstheorie und Unternehmensforschung Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH)
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dobler@etupc31.wiwi.uni-karlsruhe.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: etupc31.wiwi.uni-karlsruhe.de
Keywords: e-mail address


Hi,

i'm looking for an e-mail address of Mr. D. Sudharshan at the University of
Illinois.

Sorry, if this isn't the right groupe, but i haven't found a better one.
Thanks for any hints,
Volker
==============================================================================
|          Volker Dobler, Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH), Deutschland           |
|                         Tel.:  0721 / 608 - 4770                           |
|                                                                            |
|   e-mail: dobler@etupc31.wiwi.uni-karlsruhe.de     ,-----------------------|
|    oder     ul1f@dkauni2.bitnet                    |  I don't like chaos,  |
|  PGP20-Public Key:                                 |  but chaos likes me.  |
|        finger dobler@etupc31.wiwi.uni-karlsruhe.de |                       |
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
From: cjackson@adobe.com (Curtis Jackson)
Subject: Re: rec.xenophobia (was Re: US as No. 1)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:58:00 GMT

A premise is put forward: "Americans think that the USA is #1"

An explanation is tendered: "Americans think this because of the
flood of immigration"

I provide additional reasons why Americans might think that
the USA is #1.

Alec makes the blatant and illogical assumption that I think
the USA is #1 for these reasons, and tears into me and the USA,
even ignoring the parts of my post near my summation when I
clearly show my contempt for most of the "reasoning" of the
Americans I describe.

I now conclude that Alec is a reactionary bore, and refuse to
defend the obviously indefensible; I never intended to defend
the type of thinking I was characterising. I will make two
observations, however:

}	There is nothing more relaxing than a Sunday afternoon in
}	Germany, no need to go shopping, just relax and enjoy the
}	day, a glass of wine on the balcony, magic!

I am sorry, Alec, that you feel compelled to go shopping merely
because shops are open. I, too, enjoy a nice Sunday glass of wine
on a balcony, and am somehow able to do so despite the fact that
some large percentage of the local shops are open. Of course, if
I wanted to go shopping I would have the freedom to do so; something
Germans do not have.

}>That kind of personal (and national) power breeds arrogance and
}>contempt; it is human nature. I seem to recall that England
}>herself had a rather healthy case of it a few hundred years back,
}>and it ended up costing her The Empire.
}
}	I fail to see the connection between this paragraph and the rest
}	of the post unless it's an escape clause.

Hardly. America is the most politically and economically powerful
nation on the planet today, as was Britain in her heyday. I was
merely asking people to look back on Britain's arrogance in hopes
that it might help them to understand the present-day arrogance of
Americans.
-- 
Curtis Jackson			'91 Black Lab/Blue Heeler "Studley Doright"
cjackson@mv.us.adobe.com	'92 Collie/Golden "George"
DoD #721	KotB		'91 Hawk GT	'81 Maxim 650
"I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead." -- J. Buffett
From: hdavies@rx.xerox.com (Hugh J.E. Davies)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Cars and suburbs
Date: 25 Jan 93 14:48:39 GMT
Reply-To: hdavies@rx.xerox.com
Organization: Rank Xerox Ltd.

In article GV0WBLK8@cc.swarthmore.edu, dpeders1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Pedersen) writes:

[snip]

>Why is it that every time transportation alternatives are discussed that
>no-one _ever_ mentions bicycles?  Bikes are a viable, non-polluting method
>

Bicycles aren't completely unpolluting, since they are an industrial product
that has to be manufactured from steel and plastic - two products that are very
polluting to produce.

But I will concede that they are considerably less polluting than cars.

(N.B. When I lived 6 miles from work, I cycled. Now I live 40 miles from
work I drive.)


---


Regards,

Hugh.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't speak for Xerox. | It's no use being clever - we are all
Rank Xerox Centre, UK.   | clever here; just try to be kind - a
Huge.wgc1@rx.xerox.com   | little kind. (F.J. Foakes Jackson)
From: gvs@eng.cam.ac.uk (G.V. Stuart)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Healthcare in the US
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:06:17 GMT
Organization: cam.eng

Hi,
   I see that Mr Clinton is planning to make big changes to the healthcare
system in the US, but my question is, what's it like at the moment?  During
the Presidential election I heard reports that about thirty million people in
the US do not have health insurance, so what happens if they become chronicly
ill or have a serious accident?  That is, what is the minimum level of
medical care a US citizen can expect if they don't have either insurance or
plenty of money.  
    I would say that for all its problems, the National Health Service in
Britain - which is almost entirely funded from general taxes  - is our
biggest claim to being a civilised country.  I cannot understand why so few
other countries have as comprehensive a system.  Does it just smack too much
of socialism?

Greg
--
Greg Stuart				Cambridge University Engineering Dept.
gvs@eng.cam.ac.uk			Trumpington Street
					Cambridge, England	CB2 1PZ
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada,alt.activism
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Some small American's problem (was Re: CKS Airport is great?)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 15:43:24 GMT

I was once listening to an American of Arab descent tell of his visit to
West Germany (back before reuinification).  Germans would see his face
and skin color and yell "why don't you go back where you came from!".
He would reply, in un-accented Califonian (an oxymoron, I guess),
"I come from California."  They would suddenly become all nice and
appologetic.  It seems that they were very, very greatful to the United
States for the fact that they were not East Germans.  The military defeat
leading up to this circumstance was deliberatly forgotten, apparently.

Moral of the story:  Some nations hate outsiders, and some have reasons to
hate Americans less than everyone else.


Paul Ciszek                      When we are planning for posterity, we
                                 ought to remember that virtue is not
pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu            hereditary.     --Thomas Paine
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: RAJA@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
Subject: Re: Some small American's problem (was Re: CKS Airport is great?)
Organization: University of Florida, NERDC
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 14:00:24 EST

 
Ladies and gentlemen:
 
 
   I found the following article in social.culture.taiwan that might be of
interest to you.  I wish it entertains you all as much as it entertains me.
 
                                        Regards
                                          RAJA@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu
 
In article <C16vE1.M6J@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca>
ptyshih@watnow.uwaterloo.ca (Paul T.Y. Shih(Taku)) writes:
 
>
>Thank you Damon. Let's take a look at "why American are not welcome in
>most part of the world". There are lots of reasons; ignorant, haughty,
>rude, look down upon other people..... I can give you tons of reasons.
>It is a truth that lots American tourists pretended that their are
>canadian by butting Canadian flag on their luggages or wearing T-shirts
>with Canadian national flag on when they travel in Asia or Europe.
>Of course, there are lots "well-educated and elegant" American gentlemen
>too, I heard from one of them the below when I told him that I am from
>Canada.
>
>        "Oh, you are from Canada, the CIVILIZED north American country".
>
>Well, I will say let's just ignore this **** American guy's postings.
>
>
>Paul
>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: bennettc@mace.cc.purdue.edu (bennettc)
Subject: Re: Some small American's problem (was Re: CKS Airport is great?)
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:34:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.154324.1108@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>I was once listening to an American of Arab descent tell of his visit to
>West Germany (back before reuinification).  Germans would see his face
>and skin color and yell "why don't you go back where you came from!".
>He would reply, in un-accented Califonian (an oxymoron, I guess),
>"I come from California."  They would suddenly become all nice and
>appologetic.  It seems that they were very, very greatful to the United

I have travelled all over the world and I can say that I have never been 
treated badly just for being an American.  I have been to small towns and
villages where I may have been the only American that some people had ever
met and still I was not treated poorly.  I believe that you get back what you
put out.  There are many Americans (perhaps I should specifiy from the States)
who can recount the same experiences. I find it is usually in mythical(urban)
antecdotes that one finds a general hatred for people from the US. But I do
know of an incident somewhat like the one Paul tells of above.

Once when I was in Venice I encountered a young black man who was wearing a
baseball cap that had "Ich bin aus New York" (I'm from NY)printed on it. I  
asked him hy he had had that printed on his cap. He told me he was a US soldier
stationed in Germany(pre unification) and that being quite dark-skinned he
found that many Germans thought he was African. By wearing the cap he diffused
their anti-Africanism before he had to deal with it.  He found the Germans
very welcoming toward him.

So perhaps there is someting to Paul's theory about people being grateful to 
the US. I just think that the way you are treated, no matter where in the 
world you are or where in the world you come from, is usually more a function 
of how you're acting at the time than of what your national origin is. 

Cynthia
From: dlytle@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU (Don Lytle)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: The Association for the Study of Play conference
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:00:16 GMT
Reply-To: dlytle@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: oavax.csuchico.edu


                 *****   ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PAPERS   *****

                             TASP 1993 - St. Paul, MN
                     The Association for the Study of Play
      April 22 - 24, 1993 * The St. Paul Hotel * St. Paul, Minnesota

   The Association For The Study of Play (TASP) will hold its 1993 annual meetings in St. Paul, Minnesota.  The conference will begin Thursday and continue   until Saturday, April 24. There will be featured speakers, playshops, and forums for the discussion and presentation of   research papers on all aspects of play research, theory, performance and behavior.
    For the past twenty years TASP conferences have provided  a  mechanism by  which  researchers in diverse fields have the opportunity to share ideas  and  interact  in  a friendly and collegial atmosphere.
   Papers and proposals for panel sessions or tutorials related to the broad  study of play are invited.  Sessions include, but are not limited to:
 - Humor, laughter
 - Computer and cyperspace play
 - Folklore
 - Children's play behavior
 - Cross-cultural play
 - Body work and play art
 - Performance 
 - Anthropology of festive play
 - Sport
 - Literary playfulness

Deadline for submission of abstracts is February 5, 1993.

Send abstracts (100 word maximum), audio-visual needs, and registration fees  ($60 professional and $20 student made payable to TASP) to:

Dr. Don Lytle
Department of Physical Education
California State University, Chico  95929-0330. 
Bitnet/E-Mail: DLYTLE@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU; FAX: 916 898-4932; 
Phone: {916} 898-6617 or 898-6373 {message}
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
From: rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner)
Subject: Re: US as No. 1 (3 data books)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<C1DvK6.Dt4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1k2juuINNhcb@morrow.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:34:06 GMT

In article <1k2juuINNhcb@morrow.stanford.edu> silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:

	   My mother's people came to New York City from Bohemia and
   Germany just before the turn of the century. They were unflamboyantly
   rabid about America. I was raised on stories of how glad they were to
   leave the old country, how they eschewed speaking the old tongue
   (mostly german) and raised my grandmother as an episcopal (not one
   of your major sects in Mitteleuropa).

This, I believe, is the strength of America, or was. When we truly
were a melting pot, assimilating all comers, we forged the American
ideal. Perhaps we are still doing that today, but I have my doubts.
For one thing, we never truly assimilated African-American culture,
and we are suffering for it today. If we need any further lessons
about non-assimilation, we need look only as far as India. I
understand why your grandparents were rabid about America, and I think
that all the talk today about "ethnic pride" and keeping to your roots
only serves to turn ethnicities into indigestible lumps. Sure, the old
culture is valuable, but it is still the past. The real value lies in
the future, and what kind of culture we can create together.

RB


-- 
|"The truth is cruel, but it can be loved, and it makes free those who  |
| have loved it." -- George Santayana  // Opinions expressed here, when |
| clear and persuasive, are my own. --Rob Brueckner (rhb@world.std.com) |
From: gemmellj@merrimack.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Chelsea Clinton's yawn
Date: 22 Jan 93 12:58:27 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA, USA

In article <1jkcebINN3m@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.125011.2617@merrimack.edu>, gemmellj@merrimack.edu writes:
> |> I was just wondering if everyone in net land just saw Chelsea Clinton yawn in 
> |> the middle of the national anthem just after Bill took office.   It sure 
> |> was a great laugh.
> 
> The national anthem or the yawn?
I meant the yawn.                                     
-john
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
From: ajj@zycor.lgc.com (Andrew Jackson)
Subject: Re: US as No. 1 (3 data books)
Organization: Landmark/Zycor   Austin, Texas
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:54:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.201645.13327@cs.rochester.edu> fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes:
>
>I have seen it claimed (but haven't verified) that Texas retains the legal
>right to secede from the US.  Although many of us keep hoping, it hasn't
>happened yet :-).
>
>Mark
>-- 
>Mark A. Fulk			University of Rochester
>Computer Science Department	fulk@cs.rochester.edu

Actually, I do not think Texas has a legal right to secede. What it does
have is the right to divide up to as many as five states. This was done
when Texas joined the Union (1845) to better insure an equal number of
senators from "free" states and "slave" states existed in the Senate.
Also, it was policy to admit one "free" state for every one "slave" state
to maintain this equilibrium.

Class dismissed, ;-)

========================================================================
Andrew J. Jackson                     voice: 512-292-2323
Landmark/Zycor, Inc.                  fax  : 512-280-6731
220 Foremost Dr.                      email: ajackson@zycor.lgc.com
Austin, TX 78745
========================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa