HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: ""Gay rights group files complaint""
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:28:38 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <Bz1Lxy.88n@access.digex.com>, bruceg@access.digex.com (Bruce Garrett) writes:
>    cramer@bigotlink.COM (Clayton Cramer) shows his knowledge of the subject...
#  ## # So the people who say they have been gay since before puberty have not
#  ## # all been abused (only the ones who are in psychiatric care, which makes
#  ## # sense since people who have been abused are more likely to need therapy
#  ## # that most!)
# 
#  CC# Except that the "I've always been gay" claim is very questionable, as
#  CC# I have posted from Masters, Johnson, & Kolodny's book.
# 
#         If we confine our examinations of people who are in therapy we can
# make sweeping conclusions about the general population of the Gay community.
# Heheh...you =like= that one don't you?  So much so that you're loath to even
# discuss the point.  Don't blame you.

Why do you assume that the claim made was based on interviewing people
in therapy?  Masters & Johnson are sex researchers, not psychiatrists.

#         Didn't Masters and Johnson once claim that they could alter though
# therapy a person's fundamental sexual orientation...make a Gay person straight
# and a straight person Gay...and didn't they make jackasses of themselves
# trying to back this claim up....?

Odd.  But there are gay people who have become straight.

#         So.  Clayton.  Do you think I should seriously doubt it when I hear a 
# straight boy tell me that he's always been straight...?
#  
# -Bruce Garrett

Why should I believe anything a homosexual says?  The most dishonest,
lying people I've ever met are homosexuals.  There probably are some
honest homosexuals out there -- but so few as to be irrelevant.


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: ** The Birth of NEW-ISRAEL ** ( Re: Death of America xx )
Keywords: Happy New-Age
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 02:37:35 GMT

garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
>>
>P.S. The trumpets mean war, plague, and famine. Let's not sound the trumpets.

The trumpets could mean Miles Davis, though I wonder if God let him in
with his Maseratti.  Actually, Miles would never enter without.

Cogito ergo Zoom.
-- 
{{{{ 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: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 29 Dec 1992 17:14:39 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

In article <Dec.26.07.44.44.1992.9492@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
|> In article <cubsfan.725313723@camelot> cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael Silverman) writes:
|> 
|> > Far from being patriots, the men Bush pardoned (like Weinberger)
|> > are *traitors* to the United States of America
|> 
|> Why is Weinberger a "traitor"?  By all accounts, he had opposed the
|> so-called Iran-Contra arms deal.
|> 
He was not a traitor.  He was being tried for obstructing justice.  He
did disagree, but he did not have the courage of his convictions to
tell the truth in front of the special prosecutor and congress.  That
is against the law.  Republicans make you a hero for breaking laws against
Congress as long as they are done in support of Republican agendas.

Ollie North was a criminal.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Stupid Boycott Mentality
Date: 30 Dec 1992 17:46:20 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

rgordon@convex.com (Rob Gordon) writes:
> 
> I suggest looking at results of Oregon vote for an approximation
> of the answer to this question. Roughly 43% of Oregonians voted on a very
> harshly worded amemdment denouncing gays and gay behavior. There was
> no tricky language like in CO so I think you get a pretty
> clear picture of who voted and why. 

I never did get to see the wording of the Oregon amendment; does anyone 
have it to post?

> So, I suspect there is approx. 
> 43% of CO folks who are bigoted against gays 

One thing I've found in these discussions is a difference in understanding 
words; when you say that 43% are bigoted against gays, what do you mean? 
That they think homosexuality is 'not a good thing'?  Or that homosexuals 
should not have equal human rights?  I'm looking for a clearer picure of 
what you think folks feel about this. 

> unless someone can convince
> me that CO and OR differ significantly. 

Well, I've never been to Oregon myself, so I can't really say.  

> In fact, a Wall Street Journal
> article I read suggested the reason these two states were targeted (my word) 
> is because of their similar makeup--a mix of liberal progressives and
> died-in-the-wool old time conservatives. 
 
Targeted is probobly a good choice of words...do you remember which issue that 
article was in?  

Another good reason for it happening in Colorado first is the large number 
of evangelical groups that have moved here; the Navigators, Focus on the Family, 
etc.  You should have seen the turnout they got for the anti-abortion 
demonstration this summer...

Walter

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:39:36 GMT


>You could take the entire human race and put it in the state of texas, have
>1/3 the state left over to grow enough food to feed the people, and still
>have 1/3 of the state left over for natural habitat.  The cost of moving
>people into outerspace is absurd, even for a handful.

As someone that lives in Texas, I not think moving *everyone* here is 
a very good idea. Home prices would really go up. 
 
What is wrong with exploring space? It's there and we're here, what more 
reason do we need? So it costs a few bucks, big deal. At least *you* are 
getting something for your money! 

jim shirreffs
From: tdober@llnl.gov (TDO)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:38:43 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: llnl

In article <1992Dec21.194249.2829@udel.edu>, carroll@nori.cis.udel.edu
(Mark C. Carroll) wrote:

[...]

> The gay pride parades are guaranteed to
> bring out the most extravagant and extreme members of the community.

...and the media is guaranteed to focus on the most extravagant and extreme
members of this already extravagant and extreme group. What shows up on
television is basically *doubly* filtered for oddness. That's no way to
judge the community at large.

> || Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>


TDO
--
#include "StdDisclaimer.h"

Pain, like time, is going to come on regardless. Question is, what glorious
moments can you win from life in addition to the pain? -- Lois McMaster
Bujold, _Barrayar_
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65264 alt.conspiracy:13377
From: max@admin.mport.COM (Max)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: ...Psst. Ya wanta Merry Christmas?? Just ignore Washington DC!
Keywords: Ahh-ha-ha-ha-ha, ahh-ha-ha-ha-ha, ah-ha-ha-ha, ha-ha ha ha
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:44:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Microport Inc., Scotts Valley, CA 95066 US of A

b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Ignorance) writes:

>There is only one true reality.

>(hint: tain't media)

there is no "one true reality". we swim in a sea of perspective and
biology. realising not to trust the media is good, but they are only the
smallist piece of the puzzles. gain what you can from you fellow people,
but trust noone to tell you the "truth". 

(hint: question reality)

-max

"dont trust leaders, watch your parking meters..."
                            -dylan
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Subject: Church (Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Summary: 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 1 Jan 93 03:37:49 GMT

In article <23073@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)                                 writes...
>In article <1hvcfiINNa6h@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>} David Veal) writes:
>} |> Mike Polen) writes:
>} |> >David Veal) writes:
>} |> >|> Mike Polen) writes:
>} |> >|>
>} |> >|> >There are those of us that won't agree with chris's definitions of
>} |> >|> >"Obscene."  Some of us think that pictures of a half-naked male nailed
>} |> >|> >to a wooden crossbar is violent and obscene.
>} |> >|>
>} |> >|> 	Well, it is, which is kind of the whole point to it.
>} |> >|>
>} |> >You mean we should hang "dirty pictures" up in church also?  Is that
>} |> >where obscenity belongs?  Maybe I missed the whole point of your
>} |> >"whole point."
>} |> 
>} |>         As far as the crucifix goes, it's a violent, horrible, obscene
>} |> thing to do to a human being, and even more so for what Christian's
>} |> believe was, and is, the son of god.  It's purpose is to serve as a
>} |> reminder.  The "whole point" is that it is a constant reminder to
>} |> Christians of their state of sin.

I have a question. If your best friend was shot and killed with a 44, would
you hang a 44 around your neck as a reminder? What is the difference between
that and a crucifix? What about hanging a picture of your best friend's corpse
on your wall?
	Why is one "sick, twisted, and obscene", and the other "a reminder?"

>David Olson   dlo@druwa.ATT.COM

-Garrett
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65886 misc.legal:21901
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 31 Dec 1992 20:04:23 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

When I started this side thread with the statement that Ollie North was
a criminal, I was expecting exaclty the response we have seen.  Ollie
North supporters believe that if he wasn't convicted he isn't a criminal.
These are the same people who complain that criminals get off because of
all the bleeding heart liberals in the judical and legal system.  Well
folkes, it is exactly the technicalities that you complain about that
have freed your hero.  The evidence that he was guilty was collected
illegally.  He deserves to go free, only because the prosecution did
not have the right to break the rules.  The fact that he was guilty,
and is indeed a criminal still exists.

Bleeding heart liberalism saves the war mongers too.
And we are not even upset he got off.  We are upset because people
believe he is a hero for breaking the law and getting away with it
because they believe in the cause.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65915 alt.rush-limbaugh:12709
From: pbowden@missing.kludge.com (Pete Bowden)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Boycotts, Boycotts, Boycotts....
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 10:56:31 PST
Organization: The Missing Link BBS, Santa Maria, CA  805-925-1129

jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman) writes:

> Thanks to all those who boycotted Colorado - I got my postcard from
> the Colorado Rockies baseball club that I received Opening Day
> tickets.  You all made my chances in the ticket lottery easier.
> 
> Joe Naiman

Too bad this boycott didn't happen a year or so ago.  If it had, we
would have been able to hold the Republican National Convention there
and maybe we'd have had more delegates than press in the building.

Pete

--
pbowden@missing.kludge.com  (Pete Bowden)
The Missing Link BBS, Santa Maria, CA  805-925-1129
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Department of Energy nominee
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:00:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Dec22.225052.11034@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
}James Meritt writes:
}#Pop test two:  When was the last nuke made (by DoE)?
}
}Bout two years from what I remember.

Next pop test:  Since you acknowledge that
	1. Nuclear Weapons are the #1 line item on the DoE budget.
	2. No nuclear weapons have been produced for years
Question: What HAS been the reason for the major budgetary impact?

}I'd still think that having the person running the DoE not need to be
}an expert on nuclear weapons to be a good thing.

How about cleaning up after nuclear weapons production?

}We already have a DoD, we don't need the DoE to be one.

And when did DoD have anything to do with nuclear weapons production
or any of the facility responsibilities to do so?  

Am I to interpret this to mean that you believe that the production of, as
well as use of, nuclear weapons should be a Department of Defense responsibility
and removed from civilian control?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:58:11 GMT

eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

>In <Dec.29.13.58.49.1992.2135@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu sez:
>>In article <1hq11vINNq1f@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>>
>>> Ollie North was a criminal.
>>
>>Not for his part in the Iran-Contra deal.  His conviction has been
>>overturned.

>Which means that North is factually, but not legally, guilty.  If you
>missed Al Thompson's attempt earlier this year to muddy this
>distinction (and my repeated explanations of why his take on the law
>was wrong), I will be more than happy to disabuse you of the erroneous
>notion that North's conduct was not criminal.

I don't understand how you can be exonerated from a crime, and
yet you can be factually guilty. The judicial determination of
the guilt was essentially overturned. Yet you can sit there and
say that he was guilty anyway. 

I do not believe that you sat through the entire trial. Therefore,
you are acting as a jury probably based on newspaper accounts of
the trial. This is exactly like the Rodney King trial, where
a great number of peoplwho didn't sit through all ofhe
testimony were sure that the 4 cops brutalized Mr. King. 

It has been repeatedly said that with an unlimited budget, one
can convict anyone of something. That is what happened here. 
Without any of the normal budgetary restraints placed on 
prosecutors to enforce some sort of prosecutorial discipline,
you have multimillion dollar prosecutions of what are at best
trivial offenses. 

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Church (Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 05:08:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.033749.1276@pony.Ingres.COM>
garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:

>In article <23073@drutx.ATT.COM>, dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)                                writes...
>>In article <1hvcfiINNa6h@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Plen) writes:
>>} David Veal) writes:
>>} |> Mike Polen) writes:
>>} |> >David Veal) writes:
>>} |> >|> Mike Polen) writes:
>>} |> >|>
>>} |> >|> >There are those of us that won't agree with chris's definitions of
>>} |> >|> >"Obscene."  Some of us think that pictures of a half-naked male naild
>>} |> >|> >to a wooden crossbar is violent and obscene.
>>} |> >|>
>>} |> >|> 	Well, it is, which is kind of the whole point to it.
>>} |> >|>
>>} |> >You mean we should hang "dirty pictures" up in church also?  Is that
>>} |> >where obscenity belongs?  Maybe I missed the whole point of your
>>} |> >"whole point."
>>} |>
>>} |>         As far as the crucifix goes, it's a violent, horrible, obscene
>>} |> thing to do to a human being, and even more so for what Christian's
>>} |> believe was, and is, the son of god.  It's purpose is to serve as a
>>} |> reminder.  The "whole point" is that it is a constant reminder to
>>} |> Christians of their state of sin.
>
>I have a question. If your best friend was shot and killed with a 44, would
>you hang a 44 around your neck as a reminder?

        No, I'd probably do something fairly violent and very illegal, but
none of it would entail hanging the murder weapon around my neck.

>What is the difference between
>that and a crucifix? What about hanging a picture of your best friend's corpse
>on your wall?

        If I had a "mission", say I wanted to remove all guns in order that
something like this would never happen again, I might keep something like
that around so I would never forget the horror involved.

>	Why is one "sick, twisted, and obscene", and the other "a reminder?"

        I wouldn't call either sick, twisted, or obscene, for the most part.
Nor am I particularly thrilled about the Christian crucifix, beyond it's
obvious value to them.  However, it *is* possible to be sick, twisted, and
obscene *and* be a reminder.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.censorship,alt.privacy,alt.sex
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: To boycott is not to censor
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 23:20:06 EST

In article <1993Jan1.172113.13999@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>>
>> So when a network censor refuses to show something that is too
>> explicit, he is threatening force?

[...]

>When a network censor acts, he
>is acting in his capacity as an agent of the owners of the network.
>Since they own the network, they can legitimately control what is and
>is not disseminated over the network.  This is not censorship; this is
>the exercise of a property right.  The network owner, through his
>agent, isn't preventing anyone from speaking, and he isn't preventing
>anyone from listening.  He's merely refraining from providing his
>privately owned resources as a forum.

No sir.  You confuse "censorship" with a sense of "legitimacy."  The
network undoubtedly has a (legal, moral, whatever) *right* to control its
private property.  That does not make them incapable of censoring.

Once again, here's a definition (one!) from Webster's Handy College
dictionary:


censor--

n.   1, one empowered to judge the fitness of manuscripts, communications, etc.
        for publication.
     2, one who censures; a faultfinder.
v.t. judge critically; examine for fitness; delete as unsuitable.


Nowhere here is there any requirement that the censorship be either
"illegitimate" or a result of governmental (threat of) force.

Yes.  "Censorship" *can* mean acts of the government.  However, the claim
that it is the *sole* province of the government is simply incorrect.

"Censorship" is an act by *any* authority.  In some contexts, that's the
government.  In others, it's private organizations.  When Prodigy deletes
public posts or email messages, it's censorship.  Most of us don't think
it's quite as bad as censorship by the government, since Prodigy has
competitors.  But it is censorship nonetheless.

Likewise, when a network censor tells a television producer what they can
or cannot do in their show, it's censorship.  They undoubtedly have every
right to practice the censorship, but that doesn't magically turn it into
something else.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Department of Energy nominee
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:50:52 GMT

James Meritt writes:
#Pop test two:  When was the last nuke made (by DoE)?

Bout two years from what I remember.

I'd still think that having the person running the DoE not need to be
an expert on nuclear weapons to be a good thing.

We already have a DoD, we don't need the DoE to be one.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.correct