HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. of Technology
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 16:37:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep04.181321.2461616@locus.com> jle@locus.com (John Elghani/10000000) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.035918.13993@colorado.edu> perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU (Eric S. Perlman) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep04.001354.2458721@locus.com> jle@locus.com (John Elghani/10000000) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep3.192057.29754@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wmuhanna@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Waleed A Muhanna) writes:
>>>>
>>>>In article <1992Aug31.200824.9011@colorado.edu>, perlman@qso.Colorado.EDU
>>>>(Eric S. Perlman) asserts:
>>>>>And E. Jerusalem is *not* occupied territory.
>>>>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>Really? Just because you say so?  For the umpteen time, point of fact is that
>>>
>>>He's right Muhanna.  Jerusalem is stolen territory just like its
>>>mother Palestine.
>>
>>Neither is stolen territory.  Israel reclaimed it in a purely defensive
>>war.  And Israel was not the agressor in '48, either.
>
>First, you rob my house, I go to reclaim it from you, you are stronger,
>you take my car in addition. Does that make you defensive?
>Besides, israel came to forcefull existence on May, 15 '48.  Before
>that the term israel was only biblical pointing to an extinct tribe.
>
>jle

The Arabs tried to take the whole house and refused to compromise in
result to their murderous attack on Israel they lost most of the country
They still had in their hands WB & GS , they tried once more - they
lost again this time even other lands (Sinai & Golan).

If one cannot take the heat one shouldn't enter the kitchen. trying to
"reclaim" with an axe "your" property and murder the current occupier
and then after failing miserably and losing even more - you still got
the nerve to complain to the police!!!!

There's a Jewish expression for this "Ha'Kosak Ha'Nigzal" (The robbed
Kossack).

Elgahni also plays the name-game again after he already made a fool of
himself during the "Philistine--> Palestine" thread.

The Jewish people was not extinct (although many people throughout
history tried to do it --> Elgahni and his ilk are only the most recent
ones). The Name Israel was saved in the prayers of Jews all over the
world as Erez-Israel and Am-Israel along with Zionism. Modern day
Israel is a shorthand for Erez-Israel (in 1948 Israel was not even
close to the borders of Erez Israel - the heart of it in Jordanian 
hands).

David.



-- 
=============================================================================
  David Ben-Ami (irc: bigdav)      |   "I can resist anything but Temptation"
  s2780369@Techst02.Technion.Ac.Il |       Oscar Wilde
  davidba@Carmel.Technion.Ac.Il  davidba@Moav.Techniona.Ac.Il
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Time Magazine's grasp of higher mathematics
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:51:04 GMT


Found this winning piece of journalism on p.28 of the 9-14-92 edition
of Time:

  In the latest TIME/CNN poll, 74% of the respondents said their votes
  would not be affected by their views of Hillary [Clinton]; but among
  the remainder, almost twice as many said they would vote against
  Clinton (14%) as for him (9%) based on their opinion of his wife.

You heard it here first, folks -- 14% is "almost twice as many" as 9%...

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45083 alt.rush-limbaugh:4663 alt.politics.elections:12950 alt.politics.clinton:5097 alt.politics.bush:4868
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:14:26 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <farenebt.716237519@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:

>Clinton's plan
>helps those who can't afford insurance but doesn't affect those who can.

Typical left wing bull crap.  Bri wants us to forget that we will have
to pay for it.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43861 alt.politics.clinton:4110 alt.politics.bush:4140
From: gross@eric10.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: Fiscal Responsibility
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 19:41:43 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

Scott:

A while back you responded to my posting.  I promptly lost it in the
shuffle.

As I recall though, you asked about how to vote.  You outlined you
method of voting.  To which I can't add a thing.

My point was, and is, that our economic situation as a nation is serious
enough that I'm not sure it makes any difference who we vote into the
White House.  Seems to me that we *must* do more than that.  We need to
get rid of many in the Congress as well.  The problems we face aren't
just Republican or Democrat problems -- they are American problems.

Americans have bought into the party lines for far too long now.  Each
election year this network fills up with political argument (shoot, even
when it isn't an election year 8-)).  Democrats blame Republicans,
Republicans blame Democrats -- and third parties are blaming everyone
else.  To me, it has ceased to make much sense when I look at what the
problems are that face us.

Solving a $12 trillion debt is a task that is going to require some
major effort on the part of everyone.  Somehow we have to work together
to solve this one, or all the other problems we face will mean nothing.
Our economy is essential.

So it is up to you how you vote.  I haven't decided myself.  However, I
can't see me voting for Clinton at this time.  But Bush....  Well, let's
just see what things are like come November.

Regards,

Gene

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Reply-To: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Organization: QueerNet
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:26:57 GMT

In article <yvwnk9b.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> Since that does confer another roadblock (gee, we can fire joe straight,
|> but not john homo because he may file suit) that other people don't have,
|> yes, it does confer de facto special rights.

Not at all: it certainly protects heterosexuals from fears of being fired or
not hired because of their heterosexuality...
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43984 alt.politics.elections:12516
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: "Down the Tubes" (was: Why I cannot vote Democratic)
Date: 6 Sep 92 17:43:05 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <JASON.92Sep1130906@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>, 
Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> said:

> What we really need is for people to stop sitting in their arm
> chairs finding fault in everything the government does, and start
> finding what is good and promote it.  We are the biggest producer in
> the world, we develop more technology than anywhere else in the
> world, and we have one of the highest standards of living in the
> world are a few among many.  Why do you think so many people want to
> leave their birth place to come here?  Anyone that says the country
> is going down the tubes is just whining because they don't get
> everything they want handed to them.

Your last statement is not supported by your earlier statements (or by
anything else).  There is no contradiction between "The United States
is currently the best nation in the world" and "The United States is
going down the tubes," and there is no evidence that the voicing of
such an opinion indicates laziness or lack of moral virtue on the part
of the person doing so.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:13:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.103622.27145@resonex.com>, michael@resonex.com (Michael Bryan) writes:

> Personally, I'd much rather see laws which said something to the effect
> of "Job hiring/firing/promoting/etc decisions can only be made based
> on factors directly related to the ability of the person to do said
> job.  Renting decisions can only be based on factors directly
> related to the tenants ability to pay the rent and properly maintain
> the property."  The problem with such laws is that they are virtually
> impossible to enforce, due to the way people could twist the meaning
> of what was relevant to the job.  Hence the need for laws which name
> specific things which are considiered illegal discrimination.  Is it
> perfect?  No.  But I don't think there are any reasonable alternatives.


These laws are impossible to enforce because they are not very smart
laws.
There is a lot more about a job than just performing it. How about if the 
person is a genius but smells terrible?
Why should I rent only based on the ability po pay the rent and maintain
the property? What about if the person smells, cooks weird stuff that smells
terrible, listens to music too loud, or just does things that I find 
offensive, like having a picture of Hitler or hosting meetings for the KKK?

I do not see why people support laws that do not take into account the social
aspect of a contract or a job. I do not see why I should have to rent a home
to someone who can pay but whom I find disgusting.



> 
> -- 
> Michael Bryan  michael@resonex.com  "Milk and Cheese in '92!"  |     ,_,
> "Lovers are like... dentures.  You don't want them in your     |    /oo \
> mouth all night, but you sure as hell want them within arm's   |    <>__|
> reach in the morning!"  --- Miss Elmira Gulch                  |    |  U|




AAp
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: record album stickering
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:06:48 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>In article <1992Sep14.141006.19839@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>>Any rating not applied by someone other than the artist themself to their 
>>creative work is a form of censorship...

>  Saying so does not make it so.   

>  I say labeling is informational; no different from putting the
>  sodium content on a can of soup or requiring that the content
>  of something match the description on the box in order to avoid
>  false advertising charges.

Not necesarily. The amount of sodium in a can of soup is constant.
If you say there is 10 mg of sodium, everyone knows what that means.
10 mg is a tangible amount which is universal. "Explicit lyrics" is
not universal, "explicit" for Eddie Murphy is different than "explicit"
for a Quaker, for example.

>  Parents need to have some way of determining what is appropriate 
>  material for their children to view/listen to, and a label
>  indicating language, violence, nudity, etc, is not in and of
>  itself censorship as long as the vendor is free to sell the item 
>  and the public is free to buy it.  

The problem with that is that the vendor is NOT free to sell it if
they open themselves up to a lawsuit. Since that has happened often,
many stores arent carrying the items because they know they could get
sued...not because they have a moral opposition to lyrics. If the 
vendor isnt free to sell it, the public obviously isnt free to buy it.
Again, violence and language and nudity can be interpreted differntly.
For example, some people are offended if a man takes his shirt off
(many are if a woman takes her shirt off...but not me :) 
The music industry's definition of explicit is certainly different
than some other peoples. Because the mi says it is explicit doesnt
mean that it is legally (obscene) and vice versa applies even more.

Anyways, if government censorship is imposed, no one is free to do
anything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "America needs leaders, not labels."
CLARKSON '95				    	---Ronald Reagan, 8/8/92
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
=============================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment 
unpopular."		---Edward R Murrow














>---peter



Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44120 soc.culture.usa:7167 alt.drugs:15441 talk.politics.drugs:6175 alt.society.revolution:500
From: bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Robert Church)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.society.revolution
Subject: Re: [alt.society.civil-liberty et al] FEMA and Hurricane Andrew - Forwarded post
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:01:25 GMT
Organization: Ohio University School of Art. Athens

In article <1992Sep8.093034.3895@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>Is FEMA a blueprint for tyranny?  The following articles provide the answer,
>which I think is unquestionably YES.

Better get used to it. We all seem to be desperately pushing to turn our health
care over to the federal governmeJust wait till seeing a Doctor, etc. is 
funneled through a government agency.



-- 
*********************************************
*    bob church                             *
*    bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu           *
*    D-8195 NFS #27                         *
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: A State monopoly on morality
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 20:05:32 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: na

In article <1992Sep4.201307.19612@pcnntp.apple.com> (Craig Webb) writes:
    >By all means, define your own morality. But don't ever let
    >your moral conception infringe on my right to live, work and
    >play in this country.

Hmm, you don't want ME to infringe upon you, yet by your support of
coercive laws, YOU want to infringe upon me. Isn't that very hypocrtical?

Tell you what! How about we all associate with each other ONLY on a mutual,
non-coercive basis. Great idea, huh? You don';t coerce me, I won't coerce
you.

    >When an individual is facing discrimination for whatever
    >reason (morality [eg: homosexual], ethnic [eg: Serbian],
    >physical [muscular dystrophy], etc.), for housing, a job, use
    >of a restroom, where does the responsibility lie to ensure
    >equity? Obviously, not the individual demonstrating the
    >prejudice. This ultimately limits Mom & the kids on where
    >they can live. Example: Recently, a clown manager of an
    >apartment building had a sign in the window stating 'no
    >kids'. He used (your) FOA. Then he took the sign down.
    >
    >(Your) FOA obliterates equity. Absolutely totals it. Gone.

Equity? WHOSE equity? Mom and the kids get what they want, but the
onwer DOESN'T. You want to FUCK with some people to make OTHER people
feel good. Proto-fascism at its best. Mind your own business. If it really
bothers you, YOU rent out YOUR apartment to Mom & the kids. 

    >Loss of freedom will be the only result.

Yep. All those people YOU want to force to do things they don't
want to do. They lose their freedom all right.

-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45738 alt.rush-limbaugh:4965 alt.politics.elections:13267 alt.politics.clinton:5639 alt.politics.bush:5309
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Horton Adds Worked Like A Charm (was Re: Bush's Accomplishments)
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:48:49 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
$niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
$>As an aside, has anyone noted that Saddam Hussein is Bush's Willie
$>Horton?  Think about the parallels.  You've got a known murderer.  You
$>could impose stiff penalties on the murderer, but instead you decide to
$>be nice to him and hope he'll suddenly become a nice person.  Not
$>surprisingly, this murderer takes everything you give him and then goes
$>out and murders again, anyway.  
$>
$>Of course, the difference is that Willie Horton only killed 2 people the
$>second time around, and Saddam killed thousands.
$
$Actually Willie Horton didn't kill anyone when he was out on furlough.
$Let me repeat: Horton didn't kill anyone when he was out on furlough.
$As proof let me remind everyone that the victims of Horton's furlough
$escapade briefly campaigned for Bush in 1988, hardly something a dead
$person can do.  
$
$I believe the line used by the Bush campaign was something like "Dukakis's
$furlough program allowed a convicted murderer to go out and rape and
$terrorize a Maryland couple."  It is easy to be fooled by this
$statement (and I believe this was intentional) into believing that
$Horton actually killed someone while on furlough.  You have to look to
$Reagan's furlough program to find someone who actually committed a
$murder while on furlough.

Paul's right. Horton did not kill anyone, but tying up a man, castrating
him, and making him watch his girlfriend get raped surely doesn't make
Willie any less hideous of a criminal.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my calls.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45717 ca.politics:7848 ba.politics:5370 soc.motss:39179 ba.motss:1639
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:52:16 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep14.173812.2523@midway.uchicago.edu>, elle@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ellen Keyne Seebacher) writes:
> In article <12274@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) sniffs:
> >Besides, would you want to work for a company that fired people
> >because they were gay?  I wouldn't.
> 
> It's nice that you can pick and choose.  Millions of people out of work
> in this country can't.
> 
> Ellen Keyne Seebacher            elle@midway.uchicago.edu

I see.  Millions of gay people are out of work?

Ms. Seebacher's response is classic non sequitur.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
There can be no peace as long as AB 2601 lives.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44583 misc.legal:17036
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: UCC 1-207 on license plate (was: Seizures, stops and searches)
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:24:55 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1685D12CC0.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu 
(David Veal) writes:
> 
>      I believe this is based on the idea of "implied consent."  That is,
> agreeing to a sobriety check is implied in getting a driver's license.  If
> you don't consent, don't get a driver's license.
> 
>      I have serious problems with this, because of the nature of the
> United States it is almost impossible to live without some form of private
> trnasportation outside of major urban areas.  What other rights are we
> giving our "implied consent" to waiving?

Which is an interesting segue to an observation I'd like to pass on that I 
made yesterday while driving.

The van in front of me had a license plate fram that said on the top "WITHOUT 
PREJUDICE", and on the bottom, "U.C.C. 1-207", apparently a notation that the 
driver was displaying the license plate under protest, and continued to claim 
other rights that might otherwise be waived by this acquiesence.

I thought this was an interesting theory.  One doesn't often see citations to 
the Uniform Commercial Code on vehicles.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 06:09:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <12211@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>The homosexual fascist lobby is creating a situation where the choice
>is "the devil and the deep blue sea."  If you were told that you could
>preserve your right to free speech by giving up your right to not be
>searched at random by the police, and that these were your ONLY
>choices, what would you do?  You would have to decide which right was
>more important, and hold your nose.  I would prefer to not make that
>choice -- but the homosexual fascist lobby seems intent on using the
>government's power to force people to hire and rent to homosexuals
>against their will -- and the only realistic way to stop it is by
>assisting another group that I don't like.

You're absolutely right, this is a grave danger.  Why, look what
happened in the sixties.  The negro fascist lobby used the government's
power to force people to hire and rent to negroes against their will,
and look where it's taken us.  People treat them as though they were
human!  Boy, Clayton, I wish you had been around then.  You could have
helped us prevent special rights for negroes.

--Rich, who can no longer contain his disgust
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc