HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) 
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bible, Homosexuality,
Date: 10 Sep 92  2:48:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks) 


JP> >
JP> >    The "King James Version" of the Bible is NOT a translation! (look
JP> in
JP> >    any history of the English Bible for documentation.) It is , as I
JP> have
JP> >    said before, wildly inaccurate. (For more resons than mere "Drastic
JP> >    changes in meaning"). The goal of the modern translations is to be
JP> >    accurate, not to be "adjusted" (with the exception of the NIV which
JP> >    explicity claims a "conservative" bias). C'mon guy, do you honestly
JP> >    believe that King James and his cronies had no "views" to adjust
JP> >    toward? (gee, I can't imagine why they would, instability and the
JP> >    reformation notwithstanding...). Use the KJV if you prefer, but
JP> don't
JP> >    try to pretend that it is a less slanted verison, or the most
JP> >    accurate. It clearly is neither. It is at best an archaic
JP> curiosity;
JP> >    one which is avoided at all cost by biblical scholars in both
JP> >    conservative and liberal schools of thought.

JP> Your opinion.

   My opinion where? On the origin of the KJV, no, that is a well
   documented historical fact. On its accuracy, again, no, you can easily
   compare it to the original languages and see that in several places it
   is dead wrong. That is is an archaic curiousity, yes, this IS my
   opinion, and one which is shared by many others as well. That it is
   avoided at all cost by Biblical Scholars? No, this is a fact. My
   professors, noted commentators on the Bible, theologians of many camps
   all agree that the KJV is simply not accurate enough for serious study.
   Actually, most of us (Biblical Scholars) use the original languages
   whenever possible, and avoid ALL translations. When we do use English
   translations we tend to use either NAS, RSV or the Jerusalem Bible.

JP> BTW, if you believe that the NIV is conservative, you must not have read
JP> it (or
JP> had nothing to compare it to.)

   I have read it cover to cover (the NIV) and have compared it with the
   NAS, RSV, Jerusalem, and many other translations as well as with the
   original languages. It is by and large a very accurate translation. I
   say that it is explicity conservative, because the translators
   themselves say in the preface that it was their intent to produce a
   "Conservative" translation.

JP>                                                Jim Pritchett


   David

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *                           
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Church and state again
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:08:03 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <7290@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep10.161624.41204@watson.ibm.com> johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
|> >It may be pointless to argue with Robert Heinlein on tx.politics, but
|> >communism is not a religion.
|> 
|> It isn't? Why not? After all, it is essentially the worship of the State and
|> the People...it's close enough to a religion for me.

No deity.  Communism is a political and economic system.  It doesn't
involve the "worship" of anything.

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5079 alt.politics.clinton:4860
From: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Poverty
Date: 6 Sep 92 03:20:00 GMT
Reply-To: david.brooks@cutting.hou.tx.us (David Brooks)
Organization: The Cutting Edge - Houston, TX - 713-466-1525






FS5> Bush/Quale 92
          ^^^^^
    I guess you spell about as Quayle does, eh?

FS5> Fred Seals

   David Brooks

/* Poor spellers of the world UNTIE! */

 * Q-Blue v0.7 [NR] *
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:27:34 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <kKaDr*gX0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <BtyMLn.HtH@rice.edu>, David E Boyes writes:

>> The line that most of the concerned doctors I know draw is this:
>> 
>> If the fetus is incapable of surviving independently of the mother *without*
>> mechanical assistance or significant medical procedures, it is not yet human.
>> 
>> To me, this seems to be an intelligent compromise -- admittedly,
>> a relatively arbitrary point, but, I think, a reasonable one.

>So, do you want to apply this logic to the critically ill?

Well, I didn't see anyone mention anything about the critically ill
(other than you), but a lot of states DO let you draw such a line.
The patient can decide beforehand to ask for 'no heroic measures'.
Then if something happens during a medical procedure, they just let
them go rather than ventillation, artificial heart support, etc.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Bible, Homosexuality, Translations, etc.
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:28:41 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: None

cathyf@is.rice.edu (Catherine Anne Foulston) writes:

> Do you think that a person can believe in the existence and
> teachings of Jesus, believe that following him is the one true way to
> salvation, and yet not believe that Paul, or some other prophet, was
> divinely inspired?  Who said Paul was divinely inspired?  Anyone I
> can trust to know better than myself?  Anyone (besides Paul) who was
> there at the time?

Well, the apostle Peter meets the preceding criteria.  He said:

    Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our
    dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
    He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these
    matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to
    understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do
    the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.  (2 Peter 3:15-16)
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So Peter says that Paul's letters are Scripture, just like "the other
Scriptures."

Chris

-- 
Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5256 alt.politics.clinton:5522
From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:31:26 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: usa
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep15.010551.8372@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.214556.29784@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Cu writes...
>>FDR's policies, channeling private money into government paper doll
>>factories, did no good for the economy.
>
>This is wrong. Unemployment went down from well over 20% when FDR took over
>to around 9% in 1940 (before WWII had an effect).

Wrong.  We were already sending goods to Europe before 1940.  Also, how
much of FDR's "employment" was the CCC, WPA and NRA?

>>Reduced taxes, (with equally reduced spending.)
>
>Fact?

Yes.  The Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                             UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151                           Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
Xref: sparky tx.politics:4860 alt.politics.clinton:4200
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 23:29:23 GMT
 <21437@rpp386.lonestar.org> <21450@rpp386.lonestar.org> <1992Sep2.205150.3382@pony.Ingres.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Sep2.205150.3382@pony.Ingres.COM>, QUOTE OF THE YEAR writes:

> Pardon my ignorance, but how does the growth of the 80's cause the 
> current recession unless you are saying that we morgaged our future
> in the 80's. In that case I agree with you.

There are economic cycles.  The economy goes up, then the economy goes down.
This has been going on for hundreds of years.  It is hardly a case of "paying
for the 80's."

> Like FDR did when he successfully reduced unemployment.

Yeah, he did it by getting us into WWII.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: benedict@chaos.utexas.edu (Thomas Benedict)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: BOOK BANS ON RISE
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:06:43 GMT
Followup-To: tx.politics
Distribution: tx
Organization: Center for Nonlinear Dynamics, University of Texas at Austin
In-reply-to: curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com's message of 2 Sep 92 21:53:26 GMT

Here's an synopsis of one story from a particular book.  Tell me if it
should be banned:

A guy and his wife are travelling through the desert.  They're set
upon by bandits, and he is robbed while his wife is beaten, raped, and
eventually killed in front of his eyes (the story is quite
descriptive).  Rather than go get the authorities, he chops his wife
up, stuffs her in a bag, and continues on to the next town.  When he
enters the town he shows the townsfolk what the bandits had done.  The
townsfolk get all riled up and tear off into the desert to see justice
done.

My question:  Should this book be banned?  At LEAST one story is
highly graphic in nature.  At LEAST one story (not necessarily this
one) show examples of thwarting authority as being the right thing to
do.  It has stories that explicitly tell of the work of the devil, and
the wrath of an angry god and what it can wreak upon the earth.  Is
this considered to be proper reading material for SIXth graders?
Should a highschool student be exposed to a book with such a graphic
description of a rape?  Should we ban the bible?  Whoops!  Silly me.
I let the title out.  But don't let that change your opinion of the
book.  After all, no such considerations are made of any of the other
books that get banned.

Tom
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Health Ideas.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:19:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

In article <1992Sep10.200418.4732@cs.cornell.edu>, allan@cs.cornell.edu (James Allan) writes:
|> I don't follow this.  How is it in the insurance companies' interest
|> to fix things so that they have to pay artificially high rates to
|> doctors, hospitals, etc?  Wouldn't they rather pay artificially low
|> rates to the doctors and charge artificially high rates to the
|> consumer?

Sure they would, but then nobody would buy insurance.  They set a
"prevailing rate" that is the maximum that they will pay for a specific
procedure, and guess what?  All the doctors charge exactly that amount
or just above it.  And by the way, the doctors can't price compete
with each other or advertise their fees because the AMA has decreed
that "it's not becoming to the profession".  It's not becoming to
their pocketbooks either.

|> Are you sure there aren't anti-trust laws of some sort?

It's called the McCarren Act.  The insurance industry is exempt from
all anti-trust laws.

-- 
John Iacoletti    IBM AWD Austin    Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Now I laugh and make a fortune off the same ones that I tortured, and the
  world screams, 'Kiss me, son of God'" -- TMBG
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and the Bible: Refutations (Long)
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 08:19:27 GMT
 <RraDr*fX0@caleb.UUCP> <1685B13A47.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1685B13A47.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, Joseph L. Lockett writes:

> In article <RraDr*fX0@caleb.UUCP>
> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) froths:
>  
> >In article <1685513A1C.JLOCK00@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, Joseph L. Lockett writes:
> >
> >> I have read ALL of John 8.  I see the story of Jesus and the adulteress,
> >
> >You obviously didn't understand it.
>  
> Um, Jim, I understood it was about heterosexual adultery.  What this has
> to do with homosexuality I'm not sure, though I think it's unfortunate
> that you confuse the two.  What does your confessor think?  :-)

First, I didn't write the stuff about John 8.  Second, I don't confuse the two.
Third, I am definitely NOT Catholic.

> >Since you are deliberately perverting the Scriptures, there is little point in
> >specifically rebutting each point of your ridiculous diatribe.
>  
> Oh, bull, Jim.  You're merely speechless.  I quoted actual pieces from the
> Bible, your Revered_Book_of_All_Information,_Without_Which_I_Could_Not_Sort_
> My_Socks_In_The_Morning.  Would you prefer I go back and replace all my
> quotes from the New Jerusalem Bible with those from the King James?  I
> assure you they wouldn't be that different.  Direct quotes FROM the very
> source you adulate CANNOT be construed as "perverting".  Get a life and
> learn to argue.

No, you merely claimed that you were doing so.  Find me a single quote anywhere
in the Bible that condones homosexuality.  Oh, you can't?  No, don't even try
that hogwash about David and Jonathon.  There is a big difference between love
and sex.  (P.S.  the "Lockett Revised Version" doesn't count.)

> You realize, of course, that it's difficult to have an argument when your
> opponent refuses to discuss the issues?  (Gosh, like George Bush does....)

Yeah, I've noticed that you refuse to actually produce more than your rantings.

> I'm doing my best to hold up my end of the bargain, but you're failing
> miserably.

Yeah, right.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Sex Education <fairly long, but good!>
Keywords: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:40:18 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <exuptr.600.716574079@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:

>I know I tend to get passionate about this, but I can't stress enough that 
>we are talking about KIDS, not (for the most part) mature adults.  They 
>don't think things through (as a rule).  You gotta say it, and say it, and 
>say it again (Sam :-).  Just think about how many times kids have to be told 
>to clean their room (I'm talking 16 and 17 year olds here).  Then they don't 
>do it, and they can't go out.  Next week, the same thing happens.  

Uhh... aren't you undermining your own argument that parents should be
responsible for sex education? After all, parents are not in the
position to provide case-examples of teens who have gotten pregnant or
contracted STDs; parents can only tell their children "Don't do it,
'cause this and this and this could happen!" Like you said, teens will
almost invariably ignore that kind of advice.

>My God, you want to trust this person to make a life-changing decision on 
>their own, without any "moral" teaching, or at least repetition of 
>the dangers?

Who else can you trust? They're going to make the decision anyway, and
at least they'll be able to make the decision with complete facts.
Seems to me that 'moral' (i.e. "Don't do it because it's bad!")
teaching would just fall on deaf ears, like you said above.  Although
who knows. If sex education really worked well, we might know.  So
far, it seems like only a partial answer.

>I'm all for educating kids on the facts.  Let's just remember who and what 
>we are talking about here.  

Well, we're talking about nearly adult humans who can drive and will
soon be able to vote and enter the military. Seems to me that if their
parents have done a good job on the moral side and they have all the
facts, accurate and complete, then they should be able to make their
own decisions. If their parents aren't there (or only one working
parent is there), then deciding what and how to teach them becomes a
*lot* tougher.



-- 
# Rick Russell    | TAMU Meteorology   | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Internet) #
# I am sane. I am perfectly and completely sane. I shouldn't be in here     #
# at all. There's been a terrible mistake.                                  #
Xref: sparky tx.politics:5170 alt.politics.clinton:5144
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 20:11:15 GMT
 <16854DD1A.TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> <BtwrsF.A1J@rice.edu>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <BtwrsF.A1J@rice.edu>, Ben Gamble writes:

> And speaking of abuse of federal powers (just to split off YA tangent
> here), one of the most disgusting facets of the Republican convention
> was Bush grousing about a "gridlock Congress," with teammate Quayle
> arguing that the Executive needs a rubber-stamp Congress to match its
> rubber-stamp Supreme Court.  Must have been out on the golf course
> when their civics classes were discussing things like "separation of
> powers" and "checks and balances."

Have you been on another planet for the last 12 years?  The Supreme Court has
never been even close to being a rubber stamp for President Reagans or Bush!
I think that YOU are the one who needs to go back to civics class.

> I guess if Americans are willing to let their Executive become a king,
> then that's their decision.  As my old friend George Bernard used to
> say, "Democracy is a device that insures that the people shall be
> governed no better than they deserve."

President Bush has never acted like a king.  He has never said he wants to be a
king.  As far as I know, noone wants to make him a king.  So, why are you
blathering about letting him become king?  Actually, your quote sounds quite
elitist.  Are YOU the one who wants a king?


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Clinton Policies (was: Re: Legalized Theft)
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 05:37:28 GMT

In article <JMC.92Sep5210845@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>Third trimester abortions are what give rise to the idea of the doctor
>killing the aborted baby.  They are what cause nurses to quit.  They
>won't show up in any statistics for neonatal homicide, because they will
>simply be classified as finishing the abortion.  It seems to me that
>Victoria L Boyd PhD is throwing dust in our eyes in the statistics she
>cites.
>
>However, I would be surprised if viable aborted babies are killed
>every day.  As far as I know Roe vs. Wade permits the restriction of
>third trimester abortions, and I have heard that many doctors won't do
>them.  Would someone supply information about how many third trimester
>abortions are done?  

My impression is that there are very few doctors who will perform
3rd trimester abortions in the country (you probably can count
them on one of your hands), and will only do so for medical emergencies.
I believe there was an article in the NYT earlier this year on one
of them.

>
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>

Only applied mathematicians do arithmetic.  Pure mathematicians
play with colored blocks.


--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"There is . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Sex Education <fairly long, but good!>
Keywords: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:14:33 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep10.052102.22878@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell) writes:
>I think most sex educators simply prefer to avoid these issues
>entirely, leaving moral teachings to the student's parents and church,
>since there is no uniformly fair and reasonable way to apply morality
>teaching in the public educational atmosphere.

Which is why I'd rather do it all myself, instead of having the school give 
out facts without regard to our morality.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Sex Education <fairly long, but good!>
Keywords: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:26:50 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep10.231215.36105@watson.ibm.com> john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>In article <exuptr.483.716148645@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:
> 
>|> I'd like an option.  I'd like to be able to say "My kids will learn that
>|> material at home", sign some paper and voila, they are not in public
>|> sex ed class, but something else.  Parents who feel otherwise can do what
>|> they like.  Kinda like pro-choice isn't it?

>Guess what?  That's what they do in every sex education program that
>I've ever heard of.  That was easy to resolve.  Next controversy?

Sorry, I was in a program as a child that was mandatory.  

>|>                         About as far as I'd go here is giving them
>|> some really thorough info and interviews with kids who have had pregnancies, 
>|> diseases, abortions.  Real life examples.  No judgements will be necessary, 
>|> I think.

>Sure.  As long as you also bring in kids who have had sex and had no
>problems with pregnancy, diseases, and abortion.  They can tell the
>class how much fun it is.  

What for?  You think anybody doesn't get that already from their friends, 
movies, etc...

>What?  You only want to show the negative
>side?

Of course.  Do we, in driving class, want to show them films of people
who drink and drive and get away with it?  Our job is to show them the
possible worst outcomes.  If the outcome is better, they will not suffer.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton