HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: An Abortion Argument that has nothing to do with OT and NT
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:27:46 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>Anyone can call themselves "Religious" and "Catholic" [note absence of 
>words like "Roman" and "Greek Orthodox"] in these free-for-all times.

Ya know, for a guy with a PhD, you don't know very much, do you?  The word
'Catholic' means 'universal.'  All persons who are members of the one,
universal church are catholic.  Lutherans are catholic.  So are Orthodox
(both Greek & Russian), Episcopalians, etc.  You're being far to
provincial, Dr.  The Roman church has no valid claim on sole catholicity.

  -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:46:34 GMT

hsims@vax.clarku.edu writes:

I forgot to respond to a few things in the last post so here goes....

[Lotsa stuff deleted]

>>Those poor, homeless and hungry children should have had parents responsible
>>enough to realize they couldn't afford to feed children.  If they could
>>have controlled their hormones there wouldn't be a problem.  

>It sounds like you are blaming poor, homeless and hungry children for being 
>born to parents who's sex lives you don't approve of.  They should have had 
>responsible parents?  I don't think they had much say in the matter.  This 
>is really bizzare.

Of course I'm not blaming the children.  Another brainless comment on your
part.  The children should be supported, by forcibly removing them from
their parents if necessary.  You've got to take away incentives to stay
poor though.  These incentives include financial GAINS from having children.
People who work for a living invariably stand to lose financially by having
children.  These people have children out of love, AND the knowledge that
they can provide an environment where their children can prosper.  People
on welfare get MORE MONEY for each kid they have.  This is what I call an
incentive to stay poor and have more starving children.

If our ancestors adopted the attitudes of today's society, America would
still be an English territory. 

>>You tell me which
>>is the worse crime, society refusing to pay deadbeats or deadbeats knowingly
>>bringing children into the world whom they cannot feed.  Would any decent
>>person bring children into this world to watch them starve?  I think not.

>Whether or not these people are "decent", the fact remains that there are 
>millions of poor, homeless, and hungry children in the world.  They exist.  
>What do you suggest we do about them?

Americans comprise only 5% of the world's population.  We can't be responsible
for every bloody problem in the world.  We took condoms over to some of
these starving nations and tried to give them out for free, no one would
take any.  We try and send food to these countries with starving children,
and their own governments, interest groups, or whoever makes sure that food
doesn't reach these children.  What we ought to do is give these starving
people guns to overthrow their governments.  Americans fought for our rights
in the Revolutionary War.  Why should we expect less of anyone else?  It's
the sacrifices of our ancestors, especially our parents, that give us an
appreciation for our life.

>>And yes, wasteful social programs WILL encourage children to be bums because
>>they learn by the example of their parents.


>				.... Heather. 

Edward Simmonds

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy
From: naraht@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu (Randolph J. Finder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Balkan War getting uglier and uglier by the day...
Date: 24 Dec 92 07:40:13 -0500
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

In article <15187.2b353347@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> It seems that if something isn't done to end this war, it is just
> going to grow into bigger mess than it already is.
> 
> If Macedonia sides with Serbia and becomes an active participant
> does Albania ally with the Bosnians? Does Greece back Serbia, bring
> Turkey into the war on the side of the Muslims? Does Bulgaria back
> the Serbians? Does Ukraine get involved? What about Romania.
> 
Macedonia is unlikely to take the side of the Serbians, the serbians and
the greeks would probably just like to subdivide Macedonia...

In my view It is going to be the following line up:
Serbia & Greece
vs.
B-H, Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Turkey etc.

It is possible that if turkey gets involved in this war then they could
have trouble on their other fronts. 1) Kurds could revolt
2) Armenia vs. Ajerbazhan war could spill over as a parallel war

The only way that this gets to be a full scale European War is if Russia
takes the side of the Serbs. Even then the biggest thing that will keep
it from becoming a full European war is that the Germans want NOTHING
to do with this. Things spread toward the center of Europe only if the
Serbs are stupid enough to try to do the same things to the Hungarian
minority in the north of serbia that they will do to the Albanians
in Kosovo. The Hungarians could get involved. Northern and Western Europe
want nothing to do with this but at some point they must decide who are the
villians.

One strange thing about this is that both the Arabs and Israel have made
statements condemming the Serbian actions. The Israeli situation in the
coming Balkan war may make the Israeli situation in the Iraq war look normal.


One of the Kaiser's Generals in the 1890's said "The next great war in
Europe will be started by some damn fool thing in the balkans"
I only hope that someone saying it today would not be right as well...

> This conflict has all the ingredients for a full scale European
> war...
> 
> Personally, I think that the U.S. should take out the Serb air force
> and start supplying Bosnia with arms so that they can defend themselves,
> otherwise this cyst is going to rupture into a war where millions of
> people might be killed.   :/
> 
> -Garrett
> 
> 
> 
-- 
(naraht@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu)	  | Leadership,Friendship, and Service
(vri_rjfin@dmis.ha.osd.mil)	  |          Alpha Phi Omega
"The service we render to others  | National (Co-ed) Service Fraternity
 is the rent we pay for our room on earth" - Sir Wilfred Grenfell
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Why not beat Cramer up?
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:00:18 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

As quoted from <C08qy0.166@exnet.co.uk> by s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher):

> So, having said this, why shouldn't someone beat Cramer up?

1. He has as much right to be vocally obnoxious as you do.  I don't advocate
beating up "Mr." Radow, whom I UTTERLY despise, merely for expressing his
opinions.  If Clayton can be beaten up for annoying you with his opinions, then
you can be beaten up for annoying him with YOURS.

2. He's a gun dealer.  He'd shoot you.... :)

> ps. please note, I am a pacifist.  I do not approve of use of force.

And apparently like most, a very confused one! :)

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Macroeconomics 601
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:49:55 GMT
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) says:

>an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
>
>>In a previous article, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) says:
>
>>>
>>>	The Commerce Dept. numbers show the GDP increasing
>>>	by 3.4% in the 3rd quarter; July, August and September
>
>
>>     The numbers are bogus.  This has been widely documented.
>
>Could you supply some specifics on this?  (Sincerely curious, since
>I haven't heard the bogus charge much since the election).


      Barron's, about 3-4 weeks ago, did an synposis on the numbers.
      In addition, they have an interesting article this week on
     the unemployment numbers.  I find any of it hard to take seriously.
    
      The Titanic was nothing compared to the American people at this
      time.  We have over a $1 trillion in foriegn hands, just itching
      to get back in the country.  The Japanese are truly becoming 
      strapped for cash, as they begin dumping the U.S. properties they
      paid top dollar for during the 80s.   Meanwhile, the first two
      months of 1993 show a budget deficit of 80 Billion so far.

      Ho, hum.  Same as it always was.  The world is ALWAYS going to 
      loan us money, the FedGov is ALWAYS going to pay, etc, etc.

      I predict 1993 will be an eye-opening year.

>-- 
>{{{{ 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]                              }}}}
>
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Department of Energy nominee
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:35:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia

James Meritt writes:
#Incorrect.  I have, through discussion, managed to get you to state my initial
#viewpoint.

err, what? This thread started when you complained that Clinton
appointed someone unqualified to be in charge of the DoE, because
Clinton's appointee didn't have experiance with nuclear weapons. 

#Neither your,
#nor my, opinion counts.

Gee, and I thought that the USA was a democracy. Silly me.

#I suggest that you check again.  I believe that you are incorrect.  

If the DoD isn't in charge of purchacing battleships, who is? (or
substitute "destroyers" if that makes you feel happy.)

#Is this suppose to be a demonstration of your understnding of the Department
#of Energy and Department of Defense?

It is a bit of rhetoric, but Reagan basically gutted the DoE of most
non-nuke activities. I'd like to see it return to something non
defense department related. Let the DoD take care of it self.




--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:14:28 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Dec29.141930.21139@panix.com>, patth@panix.com sez:
>
>	Oh, I can assure you that Walsh is not
>
>	"just some prosecutor"  :-)
>
>	Martindale-Hubbell will tell you that he
>	is a former U.S. Supreme Court Justice
>	(no, no, no, don't argue - look it up!)

Correction: Walsh is a former U.S. District Judge.  Were he a former
Justice, he would be addressed as "Justice Walsh", not as "Judge
Walsh", his preferred title.

-- 
They told me you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65471 soc.motss:53912 alt.sex:40337
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:15:37 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Dec23.172153.27129@seachg.uucp>, chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask) writes:
> Clay;
> 
> Personally I think  you ARE an emotionally disturbed homosexual.  And I still

Wrong.

> fail to see why you spend so much time harrassing them.

Because they won't exclude child molestation advocacy groups from
their parades.

> 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

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.

> -chris blask


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
From: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Date: 24 Dec 1992 04:40:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, d40937@pascal (Jean Yves Desbiens) says:

>With the demise of communism and the now non-existent support
>of Russia to its former ally, what is the reason, if any,
>behind the continuing embargo of Cuba. The Cuban's
>should be flourishing if not for this uncalled for economic 
>drain on their country. The cuban missile crisis is not relevent
>here : 30 years have passed and germany was forgiven for its
>actions in lot less time than that. The US's overpowering
>urge to rid the world of every communist country like a plague
>that must be eradicated smacks of hipocrisy after its support
>of an uncounted number of dictators and despots. For the US, if
>someone is not an ally, he must be an ennemi.
>
 Other than  the Soviet Union no longer backs Castro, give us one reason 
why we should lift this embargo. He still holds political prisoners,
is often cited for human rights violations, and openly voiced his hatred of
the U.S. and it's leaders (at least while it's good buddy the U.S.S.R.
was behind them and they didn't need us.) I think it would be fair
to open up OUR exporters to Cuba but we have a big enough trade deficit
as it is.
 I know, you are going to say we trade with other countries who do the same
thing. That is poor policy and we should stop trade with them also.
If one murderer beats the rap we don't open the doors and let all murderes
go.
-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   /   / __  /  /     |         Wally Blume         | Earth:
  /   / _ / /  / /_/  |      Internet address:      |    Mostly harmless.     
 /_/_/ /_/ /  / __/   | cd651@cleveland.freenet.edu |-HH Guide to the Galaxy
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Re: Bob Dole, Sore Loser
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 08:59:38 GMT

adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:

>>Right. I'd like to see him try. How much of a presidential
>>hopeful is Dole going to be if Clinton goes on TV to announce
>>that Dole is the only thing standing between the electorate
>>and health care reform? Dole gets in line or gets out of
>>politics forever is the way I figure this works out.

>Then you know nothing about politics, do you?  Dole has only to answer
>to the people of Kansas.

Senators have to get along with other senators, too. If being an obstructionist
butthead is out of favor (as it will be under Clinton--that's a guarantee) and
Dole persists in being one, he will lose power within the senate itself: quid
pro quo and all that. You must have learned about politics from a 4th grade
primer.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Reply-To: chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask)
Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 18:20:31 GMT

In article <1hahvrINNqcn@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) 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.

>And that is correct- according to which study you believe supports
>your own position and view.  There are no reliable hard numbers of
>the percentages, and you need to still understand what the difference
>is between an adjective and a noun, and how 'homosexual' is used
>in these context.

Ol' Clay isn't worried about figures, and by his own definition they
probably are true.  By his definition, all adults who molest children of
the same sex ARE homosexual.  The 97% figure is based on the person's
professed orientation.  Therefore, while the average child molester may 
be white, mid-aged, married, with children, no history of homosexual
activity and would call HIMSELF heterosexual, Ol' Clay would call him gay.

I've tried to find out what Ol' Clay is up to, I love a good debate better
than anything, but all he does is snipe.  I've followed some of the other
threads he's been caught up in, and there has been no attempt at anything
other than one-line repudiation and snarling.  He has repeatedly accused me
of being gay (as if it would be a crime), and I imagine that will be his
only response to anyone who disagrees with him.

It's too bad the subject was brought up by such a dickweed in the first
place, I would love to see a rational discussion about child molestation;
some good may come out of it.  And just for Ol' Clay, because I know you're
out there:  I take this subject very seriously.  I'm sorry, but I'm not gay
or a pathological liar.  When I was a teenager I discovered my girlfriend
had been raped over a period of four years by her 40-year old, white,
heterosexual brother in law, and I spent a night outside his house with a
.3006 (he was out of town, damnit).  If you want to demean this topic with
your paranoid delusions, I will thank you to butt out.  If you have
anything even barely plausible to add, we're still waiting.

-chris blask
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Macroeconomics 601
Date: 22 Dec 1992 20:18:38 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) says:

>
>	The Commerce Dept. numbers show the GDP increasing
>	by 3.4% in the 3rd quarter; July, August and September


     The numbers are bogus.  This has been widely documented.

>	aren't generally regarded as the "Christmas shopping"
>	season, y'know.
>
>	And unless those 43 million all had very good Ouija


     This was apparent to *me* 30 days before the election.
>	boards, they couldn't have known over 30 days before
>	the elcetion *who* was going to win, right?
>
><  -=   What goes up, gets sucked down, as the black hole of the combined   =-
>< -= Federal, State & Local Government AND Private Debt continues collapsing =-
>
>	Funny thing is, private debt is a smaller percentage


    Home equity loans, which have DOUBLED in the past 2 years, aren't 
    counted as debt.

>	of private income now than it was in 1982; what do
>	ordinary folks know about "living within the means"
>	that government doesn't?
>
>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: busta@vicki.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:32:34 GMT


In article <1992Dec29.140432.20579@panix.com>, patth@panix.com (Patt Bromberger) writes...
>In article <cubsfan.725313723@camelot> cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael Silverman) writes:

(some deleted)

> 
>>2. Bush, who is very concerned about his place in history, must be
>>in very much fear that his actions in the Iran-contra case would
>>have been exposed to issue this pardon, which will undoubtedly
>>tarnish him in the history books.
> 
>	Well, the history books will write about the
>	Silverado bank scandal, the arms deals, the oil
>	deals, Desert Storm (how much money did Saudi Arabia
>	give Bush to bring in the USA's policemen of the world?);
>	too bad the Prez couldn't pardon himSELF!


  The other night on CNN, Satirist Mark Russell, when asked for a
 prediction for 1993, stated that he could forsee George Bush
 announcing his resignation on January 18th, Dan Quayle being sworn
 in as President for the next two days, so that Dan, in turn, could
 issue a pardon to Bush ala Ford/Tricky Dick.....;^)



<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Paul R. Busta	Busta@vicki.enet.dec.com                       Salem,N.H.  
		--or-- ...!decwrl!vicki.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
		--or-- busta%vicki.enet@decwrl.dec.com

         "One only sees what one observes, and one observes only 
              those things which are already in the mind."