HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: DearOldDoug Steps out for The cure!!!!
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:13:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.191006.22831@Csli.Stanford.EDU>, mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:
# 
# 
# >drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
# >> dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
# 
# >>> Haven't you learned that a FORCED ORGASM EQUATES WITH SLAVERY??
# >>> Millions of couples are being ENSLAVED by their PASSIONS into 
# >>> having FORCED ORGASMS!!  Couples who engage in consensual sexual 
# >>> intercourse should not be forced to have orgasms against their will!!
# 
# > AMEN Brother And PREACH IT!!!!!!
# > HeteroSexuality IS CUREABLE!!!!!
# 
# > As Long as Hetro's Are Allowed to Wallow in their Sin and Degradation
# > what Will Protect the MORALS and SCRUPPLES and WholeSomeFamilyValues!!!!!
# 
# > I Agree Brother! OutLaw Hetro's NOW!!!!!
# > Its Not enough to "Just Say NO! to Hetro!"
# > We Must OUTLAW THEM! We Must Make THEM find The CURE!!!!!
# 
# I *hope* drieux (, just drieux) is joking, for his petty war against
# heterosexuality (not to mention proper cApitalIzatioN) is inane.
# Suppose we outlaw heterosexuality. Then the human race is extinct in
# one generation. Think about it.

Wimp.  I don't care if you're hetero, just don't bother me with it.
There's no reason anyone needs to know you're a het, so as long as
you're quiet about it, no one will know and you won't be hunted down
like the traitorous counter-revolutionary subversive running dog
breeder that you are.

And we won't be extinct.  My, er, housemate just got a job working for
a company that's involved in the technology that makes heterosexuality
obsolete.


-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

"there's a lot going on that you miss. nothing soft about THESE
machines. mean, timeless, mean, purposeful, crammed with meaning."
                                                  -- Andrew Palfreyman
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clair George's trial a mistrial!!
Date: 29 Aug 92 23:01:46 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com
Organization: ESL, a TRW Subsidiary

In article 6053@panix.com, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>In <1343@esl.ESL.COM>, drm@esl.com sez:
 >>
>>OK, juries have been acquitting the defendents in every fair trail
>>conducted so far.
>
>What exactly do you mean by "fair trial"?  You're blurring the
>necessary distinction between 1) trial errors that call into question
>the factual reliability of the outcome and 2) errors which are _per
>se_ reversible because they violate the constitution.
>
I'd say both these reasons would make a trial "unfair."  That's
why the verdict was tossed out and a retrial allowed--the jury
was shown tainted evidence, and North and Poindexter were
not allowed to use some classified material in their defense.  
Walsh was apparently under the impression that he could not
convict (ie, convince a jury) that crimes had been committed
under those constraints.  Even the convictions  in the original
trail were limited; North was acquitted on most counts.

Again, would J. Random DA still be prosecuting with Walsh's
conviction record?  I think even a government task force
on organized crime would have tossed in the towel by now.

No real purpose is being served (except perhaps prosecutorial
egos) by continuing at this point.  The special prosecuter was
arguably a good idea at the beginning, but has long since
become a Bad Idea.  I'm not attempting to argue that North
was an angel, but that Walsh has lurched out of control and
is no longer making rational decisions about whether to
continue keeping his shop open.

---
Don McGregor | "That which does not overflow my swap file 
drm@esl.com  | makes me stronger." 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Political Parties in the U.S. (was Re: Is this a socialist
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:49:41 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman):
| >> Now, property rights were, and are, considered to be primary in
| >> this philosophy, uninformed speculation to the contrary. You can't
| >> have a right to privacy without having private property.

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt): 
| > This is just silly.  Whenever I go into a bathroom, in Western
| > society, I have a right to privacy for a limited amount of time.
| > But it is not true that the bathroom is my private property....

dev@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Weeks) writes:
| In the U.S., you can be asked to leave the bathroom if you don't own
| it. The conductor can ask you to leave the train. And you can request
| the return of your toothbrush at any time. However, nobody can tell
| you to leave your own bathroom without the due process of the law,
| meaning a court. And nobody can search your property or person with
| due process, and nobody can take your property without due process (in
| theory today, though).

All of which demonstrates that rights, property, and privacy
are concepts and practices with long histories and very complex
workings-out in our society, which I think is what Chris Holt
was trying to get at.  Unless you define privacy as a form of
private property, they're certainly different, and you can have
one without the other.  

In my opinion, property was of primary interest to Locke et
al. because of their class interest.  That doesn't mean it
was somehow tainted or wrong; the rising bourgeoisie had to
work up a theory to confront the divine right of kings and
aristocrats to own everything, and they opposed the
aristocratic theory of violence with a bourgeois theory of
labor.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A rose is a rose is a....carnation?
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:04:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SPSS Inc.

jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:


>Notice that the demos aren't "spending", they are "investing"?

>Same money from the same place going to the same hole for the same reason.


In NewSpeak(tm) the Democratic plan is:

"Enhance Revenue from wealthy to Invest in our Future"

Or, in clear English "Tax and spend".

Just the same as George Bush.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43028 alt.politics.clinton:3657
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: More on Clinton's plan
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:25:11 GMT
Distribution: talk


Here is another item in Clinton's plan that has problems:

#      6. National Service Trust Fund. To give every American the
# right to borrow money for college, we will scrap the existing
# student loan program and establish a National Service Trust Fund.
# Those who borrow from the fund will be able to choose how to
# repay the balance: either as a small percentage of their earnings
# over time, or by serving their communities for one or two years
# doing work their country needs as  teachers, law enforcement
# officers,  health care workers, or  peer counselors helping kids
# stay off drugs and in school.

If students can repay their loan through such community services, what
will they get paid?

If they get paid the prevailing wage, then they would not be working off
their loans -- they would just be paid the same rate as everyone else
who's already doing that same kind of work.

If they get paid less than the prevailing wage, how are people who are
already doing those things for a living going to feel about a bunch of
other people doing the same kind of work for less money?  Seems to me
that the unions aren't going to be too happy about it.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Another good reason not to vote for Bush
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 03:32:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services

c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes ...
>>Of course, I don't agree at all with the principle that consent to sex =
>>consent to bear a child, in the case of contraceptive failure or even in
>>the case of not using contraception. So we're probably arguing from opposite
>>viewpoints.
>
>Perhaps I didn't word it right.  I didn't really mean to say that 'consent
>to sex = consent to bear a child.'  Maybe it is more like 'consent to
>sex = being responsible to any consequence of your actions.'  
>
>So this means that if you have sex and use contraceptives trying not to have
>a baby, then the contraceptives fail, then that means that you should still
>be held accountable for your actions. 

Using this same reasoning, I could just as easily argue that people who get
in car accidents should be allowed to die (an expected consequence of driving),
and people who have heart attacks, or catch a communicable disease, or get
lung cancer, should be allowed to die, as each is an expected consequence
of poor diet, socialize with people, or smoking (or socializing with smokers).

In fact, however, any activity has some associated risk.  The fact that we
use seatbelts when driving, and have hospitals and medicines and insurance
indicates that after-the-fact corrections are widely accepted and even
expected.

So why should abortion be any different?

-- 
Ray Fischer
rfischer@cs.stanford.edu
ray@netcom.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43739 ca.politics:7437 ba.politics:5035 soc.motss:38209 ba.motss:1532
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:54:36 GMT
Reply-To: shore@tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center

In article <12129@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> Do I make myself clear?

As a general rule I'd have to say that no, you don't.
-- 
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Keywords: Congressional & Presidential Term Limits
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:28:04 GMT

In article <Btp1Cq.JvE@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
} In article <19778@drutx.ATT.COM> dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
} >In article <3463@master.CNA.TEK.COM>, mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:
} >} In article <BtLwqr.MHG@news.cso.uiuc.edu?? daniels@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel R. Sawyer) writes:
} >} 
} >} ??I strongly agree with the (most) Republicans in their call for congressional
} >} ??term limits.  I used to live in Peoria, IL and Rep. Bob Michel (currently
} >} ??
} 
} >"Vote for their opponent.", you say?  Well, what if they run unopposed? 
} 
}   How often are Congressional seats uncontested?  (Ans: almost never)

Same can be said for the President.  Yet we have a term limit on that
office anyway.

} >Or what if there is opposition, but it is, in your view, even worse? 
} 
}   This would still be an issue with term limits.

True.

} >Or what if you just do not want the office filled, no matter who is
} >running?
} 
}    This is irrelevant to the question of Congressional term limits. 

The point I was trying to make with all these issues was that you
cannot depend solely on voting to insure that a conress-critter is
removed from office -- we can vote people only *into* office; we
cannot, specifically, vote them out.  There is a difference.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43794 alt.activism:15930
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Harel posts a particularly clumsy lie.  (Was Re: "STRONG FAMILY VALUES" (III) (1))
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:13:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.163918.20761@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>...although I know Canada's system is not perfect I still believe that it is
>both more efficient and effective as well as less costly at providing
>health care than is the US system. Gary and Gerald have already in previous
>articles made the points that provide the basis for this belief.
>
>
>-- 
>Jim Robinson

And this is one of the frustrating things about these debates. People such as
Gerald Olchowy and Gary Dare will put up one solid, informed post after another,
articles that are written largely from *personal knowledge*, and yet some clown
from 'down below' will respond, as though he somehow knows better, that they
are both *wrong*, that things are not at all as G. and G. describe them. Well,
on what basis is this claim made? How can someone who lives in the USA, who
spends at most a few days a year in Canada, and who has never participated in
its health-care system, know more about Canada's system than a Canadian?

I, for one, am willing to accept the word of a Canadian as more authoritative
on matters Canadian than that of the average U.S. citizen (note: not one who
has made a career out of studying Canada). But when disagreement includes
not only *what the facts mean*, but *what the facts are*, then productive
debate is impossible.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,ba.politics,ca.politics,alt.elections
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Slick Willie and the Rapists
Organization: nope
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:31:19 GMT

In article <farenebt.714789787@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>I just saw a little note in the Wall Stree Journal saying that Bush
>>was expected to slam Slick Willie by bringing up a bunch of rapists
>>whose life sentences he commuted.
>
>>So hey, folks, does anyone know what the deal is?
>
>Sure, it's another example of the kinder, gentler nation that 
>George "pro-LIFE" Bush has in mind.

What does "pro-life" have to do with it?  Rape isn't a capital crime
so we're not talking about death anyway.  (It is reasonable to be
pro-death penalty and anti-abortion.  The only inconsistent
combination of abortion and death penalty positions is pro-abortion
and anti- death penalty.)

Whether or not commuting a rapist's life sentence to something lesser
is a "bad" thing depends on details we don't know yet.

-andy is pro-abortion and thinks that people who spend much time worrying
      about the death penalty need a life


--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: US  Citizens Abroad (was Re: Why I cannot vote Democratic)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 16:50:04 GMT



Theodore A. Kaldis (kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu) wrote:

	Still no account in California, eh, Ted?

>Jim Robinson -- another Canadian -- wants to throw his two cents in.
>The trouble is, here is one Canadian who, because of poorly focused
>U.S. policy regarding citizenship, probably CAN vote demoratic -- in
>OUR elections.  (Jim was once an American.)  This is yet another
>problem that demands the attention of our do-nothing Congress, but
>don't hold your breath.  It is hardly even perceived as a problem.

	Heh. I know USAmerican citizens who have never resided in the
USA, but who derive their citizenship from parentage: children born to
USAmericans abroad count as USAmerican, even if  the parents do not
intend to return to the USA. This came up when my  younger brother
visited the Philipines. Although he was  born in the UK, and has lived
most of his life in Canada, he was at the time USAmerican by reason
of parentage (And was  expected  to fulfill the admittedly small  
obligations of  such  citizenship, like  registering in case  a  
draft occurs). This was  a decade  ago, but I doubt it has  changed.

							James Nicoll
From: mikeq@aspen.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The REAL Reagan Record
Keywords: Reagan, economics, media
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:42:37 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Redmond,  OR.

In article <66831@hydra.gatech.EDU?? gt7122b@prism.gatech.EDU (R. Mandock) writes:
??For those who would like a detailed analysis of the Reagan era that is NOT
??filtered through Harel Barzilai's "Hate America" newsgroup or laundered by
??the BIG MEDIA, I highly recommend the 31 August 1992 issue of National
??Review magazine.  The entire issue is intended to address the lies and
??distortions of the popular and not-so-popular American press, concerning
??the Reagan era.  No apologies needed.

Huh? National Review? Now there's a good example of objective reporting. 
Their editors seem to yearn for a military government. Is Buckley still
connected with that rag?

Mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: WELFARE:  AN IDEA
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:03:32 GMT

In article <Btyn61.DA6@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>
>    I think we should do away with the welfare system as we know it altogether.
>    Instead of paying women for having children outside of wedlock and not
>    working, we should give parents who are unable to support their children 
>    an opportunity to temporarily place them in a foster home, get back on their 
>    feet, and take the kids back.  That will take away an incentive to raise
>    one's children poor with no man in the house, and reduce the number of 
>    children living below the poverty line.

We may be able to drastically reduce the number of children living
below the poverty line if women are able to obtain jobs outside the
secretarial pool.  The enormous income dispartiy between men and women
goes a fair distance in accounting for the number of children in
poverty.


--
Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song
Sweet Thames, run softly, for I speak not loud or long.
			-- T.S. Eliot, "The Wasteland"
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Term Limits For All
Date: 29 Aug 92 17:40:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1992Aug27.164618.11575@kadsma.kodak.com>, 
pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) said:

> One thing that you think carefully about: the right to vote an
> incumbent out is empty unless there is a plausible alternative. In
> today's big-money campaign system, many incumbents run either
> totally unopposed, or with opposition only from fringe candidates.
> This is because the accumulation of huge campaign 'war chests', in
> advance of the campaign, effectively serves to discourage worthy
> opponents from entering the race. The only way to neutralize this
> effect is by introducing term limits.

The *only* way to neutralize this is by introducing term limits?
This seems a bit dubious to me.  How about the various forms of
campaign reform that have been proposed over the years?

Changing the rules to enforce a more level playing field for all the
candidates is a good thing.  Changing the rules to make it impossible
for people to cast valid votes for the candidate of their choice is not.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41960 talk.politics.theory:3868 alt.politics.elections:11569 alt.politics.marrou:917 alt.politics.bush:2910
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:05:45 GMT
	<ednschmi.714481009@kraken> <1992Aug24.140348.28205@kadsma.kodak.com>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
In-reply-to: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com's message of 24 Aug 92 14:03:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.140348.28205@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

>In article <ednschmi.714481009@kraken> ednschmi@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (John Schmidt) writes:

>>I wonder if Japanese children really are more educated than American
>>children.  They may be able to do some things (like pass rigidly codified
>>exams) better but that is not being better educated.

>This comment is made frequently. All I can say is: look at which companies
>are being granted the most U.S. patents these days. It's not pleasant reading.

	This MIGHT be relevant IF all japanese children worked for
japanese firms and all american children worked for american firms
and there were an equal number of each and each spent the same amount
on R&D, but ...

					--Jeff Turner
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Were Nazis socialist?
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:16:24 GMT

In article <Btwt32.K81@well.sf.ca.us>, rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford) writes:

|>In article <1992Aug28.184028.29365@dscomsf.desy.de>,
|> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|>>
|>>           This fringe is no more part of the general socialist movement
|>>than the Libertarians and Birchers are the mainstream of the Republican
|>>party.
|>
|>Since you have been so adamant that USAians should avoid gross
|>misunderstandings of Europeans and their politics, I'll take this
|>opportunity to remind you to extend us the same courtesy.  In
|>particular, while the Birchers may be a part of the Republican party,
|>to lump the Libertarians into the same category with them is just
|>plain crazy; the Birchers love authoritarianism and militarism (they
|>just hate communism/socialism) and Libertarians hate both. 

Yeah, Yeah, I was not discussing the type of the fruitcake merely the
dimensions.


|> Also, the
|>idea of being lumped in with Republicans frankly makes my stomach
|>turn;

I'm sure it'll turn out just right though, might need to serve some extra strong
tea.


|>I realize that you may not have very much good information over there
|>upon which to form an opinion of the various parties here in the USA

Huh, what do you mean? WE INVENTED FRUITCAKE ASSHOLE!

And we make a mean crumpet too!


|>BTW, the way you seem to be using the word "capitalism" appears to me
|>to actually refer to what I call "corporate socialism" (American usage
|>of 'socialism' here) and not at all to what I or other Libs would mean
|>by the word.  We try to avoid it and refer instead to "free markets".
|>Our emphasis is very definitely on the individual.  You mentioned
|>cooperatives -- such are *very* libertarian.

Yeah, being a socialist where else do you think I would get my McVities Ginger
Cake? Highly reccomended.


Post flame bait? what me, no I deny it absolutely, no I would never do such a
thing.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker