HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: galsci!mpearce
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: = X = (The Movie)  Please take Wednesday (18th) off...
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 14:05:49 EST
Reply-To: iccdev!galsci!mpearce
Organization: Galaxy Scientific Corp.

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>       Those of us who think Spike is an ass because of the way he exploits
> his race for personal gain.
>       Anyone else disgusted by the way he shafted the family of Malcolm X
> (only giving them part of th proceeds from X after they sued) and trying to
> rationalize it by saying (ala Sister Souljah) he can't possibly be exploiting
> anyone because he is black?
>...
> Brett

In what way is Lee exploiting "his race?" Because he made a semi-historical
movie about a black leader? Thus Woody Allen is an exploiter because he 
draws a mostly white audience. And all musicians exploit their audiences by 
selling T-shirts at ridiculous markups. Wake up, you are living in a
consumer society, even if you don't like it.

Dr. Shabazz's trademark on "X" is just silly. It's one thing to protect an
investment in making a name for a product, and another thing to make money
from dead relatives. Do the families of JFK and MLK have similar programs?


-----------
Mike Pearce, Knowledge/Interface/ToolBook Engineer
Galaxy Scientific Corp., Information Division, Atlanta GA
(404) 491-1100 or mpearce@galsci.uucp

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: "Monsters Among Us", Frontlines, November 10, 1992, PBS
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:50:43 GMT

In article <13279@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#It's
#what happens when you say that there are no limits to governmental
#authority, as Mr. Hennessy seems to believe.

But Mr. Hennessy does not believe that.

Clayton, what color is the sky in your world?

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60380 alt.politics.clinton:17256 alt.president.clinton:466
From: jim@rand.org (Jim Gillogly)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and Dole v. Foley and Mitchell
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:42:46 GMT
Organization: Banzai Institute

In article <1992Nov16.081331.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>     I heard Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole reiterate his support
>for granting President-Elect Clinton the power of line-item veto.
>However, Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and Speaker
>Thomas Foley do not want to grant Clinton -- their own man! -- this 
>power in full (although they have considered a watered-down version).

In this morning's news conference Clinton said that in their dinner
meeting last night Foley presented his alternative suggestion on
line-item: 50% required to override an appropriations line-item veto.
Clinton indicated he was favorably disposed to the idea, and thought it
would serve as a starting point for the discussions.  In the same news
conference Mitchell said he'd review the Foley proposal and talk to people
about it and decide whether to support it... so he's still not on board.

I found it refreshing that Clinton is willing to start off talking about
a compromise on this, rather than trying to demand it all by claiming a
mandate.  I'd prefer the 2/3 requirement for override myself, in order to
cut down on pork-barrelling, but the 1/2 version is better than none.

-- 
	Jim Gillogly
	U.S. National Debt: $4,135,547,603,658
	Your Share: $16,169
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61477 sci.econ:8828
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Keynes and holes in the ground.
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:58:36 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov23.222939.16253@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
...
> I checked "General Theory".  This is a gross misrepresentation of Keynes, who
> was ridiculing the gold standard, rather than making a serious proposal:
> 
> "It is curious how common sense, wriggling for an escape from absurd
> conclusions, has been apt to reach a preference for *wholly* "wasteful" forms
> of loan expenditure rather than *partly* wasteful forms, which, because they
> are not wholly wasteful, tend to be judged on strict "business" principles.
> For example, unemployment relief financed by loans is more readily accepted
> than the financing of improvements at a charge below the current rate of
> interest; whilst the form of digging holes in the ground known as 
> gold-mining, which not only adds nothing whatever to the real wealth of the 
> world but involves the disutility of labour, is the most acceptable of all
> solutions."

	So why did Keynes object to the gold standard?  Because the value of
gold arose from "digging holes in the ground"?   Keynes seems to be saying that
the value of a comodity determined by society is wasteful and that we should
only use intrinsic values.
	Is not the demand of the buyer true demand?

> Keynes goes on to compare gold-mining to filling old bottles with banknotes,
> and then makes the statement which Brett (or his source, Robert Bartley) 
> misquotes.

	Mr. Bartley.  Misquotes or quotes out of context?  I got the impression
that Bartley does believe that Keynes thinks gold mining is the same as 
digging up bank notes.  So do I.  If Keynes fails to realize the nature of
demand....  It sounds like Keynes is a fan of the labor theory of value.

> If I were you, Brett, I'd throw out that Bartley book.  The man is either
> dishonest or ignorant.

	I don't see any misrepresentations.

	What's Keynes' beef with commodities?

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60516 alt.politics.elections:23994 alt.rush-limbaugh:9846 talk.rumors:1318 alt.activism:18904
From: v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:11:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov14.182556.23508@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes...
>Again, this is not evidence.  How can we presume that she is telling the truth
>or are you counting the number of claims and using that as proof.  I would
>hate to be accused in your court, ethereal visions had during sleep would
>potentially be as tangible as what this woman "said".  I suspect that it is
>just as plausable that a smear campaign was underway - oh, but I don't have
>proof.
> 
>Mike Best

You certainly don't seem to be applying this standard to Thomas, whose word is,
apparently, good as gold without corroboration. The point of my original post 
was simply to refute the claims of Thomas  proponents that Anita Hill offered
no witnesses who could back her  up with anything more than hearsay.

And  I should  also add that in harassment  cases word is often the only  thing
we  have to go on. And viz. Ms. Wright-the mere fact that she was scheduled to
testify about Thomas  harassing her neutralizes the countercharge against Hill
that nobody else saw this behavior  on Thomas's part.

						Dan Case
						V140PXGT@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

		"A prohibitionist is someone you wouldn't want to drink with,
		even if he did drink."-H.L. Mencken
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61257 alt.sex:37106 ca.politics:9791
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,ca.politics
Subject: Re: For Those Who Think That Gay Men Have Changed Their Behavior
Date: 22 Nov 92 01:34:11 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Nov21.225909.26965@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.213102.21606@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>>Ya know, Clayton, I was waiting for you to post something about this.
>>I just knew you could not resist. 
>>
>>I was amused becasue a story on CNN about 10 days ago gave figures
>>that 57 percent of heterosexuals engage in "unsafe" sexual practices. 
>>
>>So of 57 percent of hets and 33 percent of homosexuals are  doing
>>something bad, which group is acting more reasonably?
>
>You're comparing apples and oranges.  What was defined as "unsafe sex"
>in the heterosexual study puts one at thousands times less risk than
>the behavior Clayton describes.
>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
>standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637

I am not sure that the apples and oranges statment really works.

What we are talking about is the degree of risk according to category.
But a group gets to a higher category of risk by continuing to ignore
and practice unsafe sex. So even if the risk factor is much lower at
this time for a particular group, if more people in that group are
practicing unsafe sex, then you may very well spread the HIV virus
more and more, therefore slowly pushing the risk factor upwards.

Remember that the majority of (HIV/AIDS) cases in the world are heterosexual.

Remember that the number of gay people is somewhere in unconfirmed range
of 4-10% of the total world population.  And Clayton would love to argue
that it is lower, around 2%.
From: 00rdharringt@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Hillary will not have a cabinet position.
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:11:12 GMT
Organization: Ball State University

In article <1992Nov17.183446.5669@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
> 	It's illegal for the President to appoint relatives to positions over
> which he exercises control.
> 	The law was passed in response to Kennedy giving the AG position to his
> brother.  Johnson signed it into law in 1965.
> 

hate to break this to ya but we knew she wasn't gonna get it... sheesh...

And who's to say Bill "exercises control" over Hillary?  If it's any type
of marriage then they have a partnership, not one dominating the other...

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                                Clinton/Gore '92                             |
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
|                Not a spokesperson - REPEAT - Not a spokesperson             |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Eidolon)
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:54:00 +1030
Organization: Bevare ov cheep imitatings!

In article <adams.720997951@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:

>>To say that an inheritance tax, which only taxes the unearned gains
>>of the heirs, is a disincentive to anything - or that it is unfair -
>>is, IMO, pure selfish nonsense of the kind which put the economy in its
>>present condition.
>>
>To say that society has a right to seize a significant portion of the lifetime 
>gain of a man simply because he died is anti-investment and a disincentive
>to building capital and wealth.  It asks that the wealth be squandered
>instead of invested.

Your soooo blind Steve! Where would the money go if spent (which is
really the whole idea)? It would buy things, LOTS of things. This
means lots of jobs, wether they be on Disney rides, hot dogs
or several video recorders it still means LOTS of jobs, each of
these gets income tax so the government WILL see more of it AND more
people make money. Not to mention less people off the dole!

Trouble will come if the money is spent on imports, but that's a
perrenial problem. Besides, more foreigners with more money means
more exports.

The real problem is rich assholes inheriting millions instead of
earning it. All they do is direct investment. I'd rather see indirect
investment, a response to an increased market by many small shareholders,
not one or two rich pricks.
-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student, Terror Tekkie and T.S.A.K.C. member!
Any email can be posted unless I state explicitly otherwise.
+-----------------------------------------------------+    ________
|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |  \/Darwin o\
+-----------------------------------------------------+  /\________/
" [Jesus] was a hippy...He had long hair and no job, what more do you
want?? " Rimmer, Red Dwarf
From: 00rdharringt@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Rob Harrington)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: State Department revealations
Date: 20 Nov 92 05:44:51 GMT
Organization: Ball State University

In article <BxzMGI.68u@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, frist@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
> 
> Sorry, we don't always get complete news on what's going on back home in 
> the USA from Canadian media. Could you fill elaborate on the
> State Dept. inquiries of which you speak?

Ok... the story goes that the State Dept. went through the passport records
of Bill Clinton, his mom, and Ross Perot.  Now the big question is who
authorized it and who knew about it.  Asst. Sec Tamposi was fired for it
but she claims that someone at the White House authorized it and therefore
knew about it...

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|                                Clinton/Gore '92                             |
|                  Ball State University - University Democrats               |
|                Not a spokesperson - REPEAT - Not a spokesperson             |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Go see "X"!
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:16:47 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

As quoted from <92323.081654KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu> by <KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu>:

>   Today is the opening of the 3 hour 20 minute epic, "X" starring Denzel
> Washington.  I think that it is important that people go see this movie
> about the life of one of the most intriqing people in the 20th century.  His
> many changes througout his life, from pimp to prisoner to racist to tolerant
> man is fascinating.  I think it is important for people to study the man and
> see why he is a hero for the young Blacks today (and some of the older ones).
> A lot of us are too young to remember him while he was alive, and this movie
> will help to go understanding him.  Of course the best way to learn about him
> is through his autobiography, but go see the movie.

I saw it last night.  I was extremely impressed with the overall quality of the
film and the as well as the individual performances.  I'm not sure whom I liked
better, Denzel Washington as Malcom X, or Al Freeman Jr. as Elijah Muhammad.
I remember seeing and hearing the latter when I was a kid in Chicago.  It was
like they'd raised Elijah Muhammad from the dead just for the movie.... :)

By the way, the issues of guns and self-defense raised in the movie ought to
make some patronizing liberals very uncomfortable.  I hope Sarah Brady goes to
see it.  I hope she lies awake at night in a pool of her own sweat at the 
thought that Blacks might realize that we have a right to defend ourselves with
firearms.... :)

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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.veterans
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Re: Compensation for Gays Ousted from Government Employ
Summary:  How 'bout those State Department Folks, NSA, and such??
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:26:00 GMT

In article <1ec06nINNmc0@talon.UCS.ORST.EDU>, 
olsenm@ccmail.orst.edu (Monte Olsen) writes...
|

|In article <16NOV199201375310@utarlg.uta.edu> 
|(General Boycott) b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu writes:
|>I think anyone who has ever been ousted or outed from the military 
|>*or* other-branch-of-government for just being gay, deserves monetary 
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>compensation for pay loss.
|>
|>As to how much is appropriate, let's make it $1 million dollars 
|>each (likely consistent with similar damages being awarded these
|>days). Anyone care to `up' the figure? It's hardly adequate considering
|>the benefits lost, psychological impact, career blow, and such. 
|>

|I am not taking a stand on whether gays should be in the
|military. This is strictly a response to the above
|statement. It flat out wouldn't work. To have joined the
|military, gays would have had to lie on their application.
|Doing so would negate any chance at compensation.
| 
|Monte Olsen

Twouldn't do any good for me to go back and review any of my 
"employment" contracts with the military or defense contractors
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
to see if they actually do ask if you're gay -- it's been too
long ago, and likely the matter is covered in current contracts. 
So your point is well made. 

Likewise, I'm almost certain the question comes up during security
clearance screenings, and you definitely *sign* both contracts and 
security questionnaires asserting that all statements are true -- 
and under rather steep penalties for fraud. So yes, this would likely 
cancel a number of people out of compensation. But...

Not everyone who enters the military is sure they're gay or straight
at the often young ages of 17-20, or even up through 26 or 27 for
officers. It takes a while for some to realize, and by that time
they're into as long as 6-year-contracts, (and I seem to recall they've
upped that to 8 for some schooling these days). So there is a group 
who "discovered" they were really happier gay after getting hooked
into the contracts. I think you'll grant that this group may be due some
recompense if prejudicial actions were taken against them -- resulting
in separation. Especially after the ban is lifted, and we institute
a policy that being gay never should have been a crime.

SO... how about other government agencies, especially those with
security clearance requirements, and defense contractors? Should we
also give those folks who were fired wrongly, in those organizations
a million bucks in compensation too??

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.women,soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Misogyny gay and straight
Keywords: hippocrapy
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 07:25:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.181441.4642@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>
>No, a heterosexual is more likely to do something more charming, such
>as refer to a woman as a "cunt".  By the way, when one gay man
>addresses another as "Miss", it is not always intended as an insult.

Or refer to a disliked man as "cunt" and then claim that no insult to
women is intended.
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Re:
Date: 15 Nov 92 18:53:11 GMT
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization

>>The German economy in 1932 was seriously crippled, but the deficit
was
>>nowhere near a trillion.
>
>       1933 World Alamanac, Pg 656:
>
>    " The Statistical Bureau thus estimates the total amount of German
>      Foriegn indebtness on Feb. 29, 1932 at 25,600,000,000 to
>      26,600,000,000. "

...which amounts to about 26 billion if you're using the system in
which a billion is a thousand million, or 26 milliard if you're using
the system in which a billon is a million million.

Not a trillion in either case.

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: poser@vxcrna.cern.ch (Till Poser  -  ZEUS OFFLINE)
Subject: Re: Re:
Reply-To: poser@vxdsyc.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:53:06 GMT

(warning: You might see this twice)

In article <9211142252.AA24608@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>,
GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward "K-Wave" Horne") writes:
|> poser@vxdsyc.desy.de writes:
|>>The German economy in 1932 was seriously crippled, but the deficit was
|>>nowhere near a trillion.
|>
|>>Sheesh, what they teach those USAians these days!
|>
|>       Gosh.  The Truth?!
|>
|>       1933 World Alamanac, Pg 656:
|>
|>    " The Statistical Bureau thus estimates the total amount of German
|>      Foriegn indebtness on Feb. 29, 1932 at 25,600,000,000 to
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sweetheart, once You stop raving, it would not be the worst of ideas to
take a good look at the numbers again: In my book that is 25.6 x 10E9
Reichsmark, i.e. 25.6 _billion_. Even given that the buying power of the
Reichsmark was higher than todays Mark, that still makes it less than a
trillion (1e12).

|>      26,600,000,000. "
|>
|>     Yes, that's right.  EIGHT zeros.  Perhaps you should run for
|>     our congress.

No, since it seems to be populated with the likes of You. 8 zeros, oh
most clueless one, are a hundred million, capiche?

It appears that Your mathematical erudition is on par with with Your
political acumen. It might serve well as an idictment of US education.

Sheesh, what they teach those USAians these days!

       Till Poser         Internet: poser@vxdsyc.desy.de
-F35- ZEUS DESY/Freiburg  Bitnet:   POSER@DESYVAX
bldg.1b-235, Notkestr.85  Hepnet:   VXDESY::POSER (13313::Poser)
   D-2000 Hamburg 52      Tel.: -49-40-8998-2004
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:60303 sci.econ:8679 alt.activism:18837 misc.headlines:7050