HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Perot's IRS bill
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:29:22 GMT

In article 1bhsilINNous@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu, skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>The IRS reported today that Ross (Mr. Im not part of the system) Perot
>due to the stashing of his money payed federal taxes only on 30,000.00
>of his billions last year. 
>
>Not a "insider" Pleeeeeeeease !!!!
>

FYI:  income taxes are paid according to *income* not wealth.
 
HRP also prefers tax-free govt. bonds.  One could argue that
the lower int. rates on tax-free bonds saves the govt. more
$$ than they could get in taxes.  but that just confuses things.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52175 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6959 alt.politics.elections:17127 talk.abortion:42887 alt.sex:33090 alt.politics.clinton:10780 alt.politics.bush:9387 soc.singles:27892 alt.politics.homosexuality:6462 talk.bizarre:34326
From: andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: A Most Pressing COncern
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:29:01 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Attack of the Quayle Potatoes

robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) writes:
>walkerr@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
>>drieux, just drieux writes:
>>>Orgasms, in the main, are messy things,

[deletia]

>>	Sounds like this person can't get their rocks off to me.

[more deletia]

>  What does this have to do with Bush?

I nominate this for Best Straight Line of 1992.

--
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu                        would make even less sense.

                           Hank for President '92:
                       Because ten years later, dammit,
               logic is *still* the chastity belt of the mind.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50632 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6582 alt.politics.elections:15911 talk.abortion:41705 alt.sex:32479 alt.politics.clinton:9458 alt.politics.bush:8465 soc.singles:27421 alt.politics.homosexuality:6400 talk.bizarre:33487
From: shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:47:32 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Oct8.230609.23542@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Keith R. Jurena) writes:
>
>No wonder you sound so dumb.  You see, the Family Leave Act allows 3
>months of unpaid LEAVE with the specific purpose of ensuring that a job
>still EXISTS when that worker returns.

What is the business supposed to do with the work that needs
doing during these 3 months?  Just let it pile up?  Pay
for somebody to be trained, only to be laid off before being fully
qualified?  Hire more people than necessary and endure the
overhead all the time?

Do you think a business with 50 employees can afford to
keep a few extra employees around not doing anything while
nobody is on family leave to satisfy the government mandate?

>
>>This bill hinges on the premise that employers are cold and
>>mean slave drivers who don't care about their employee's families.
>>I have a revelation for you: they are NOT.
>
>Uh, Keith - why do you think the bill needs to be passed?  Because these
>imaginary benevolent employers in your fantasy are ALREADY granting such
>leave?

Those employers which are large enough to handle the burden do
provide family leave, in some cases paid.  One of my friends
and coworkers at IBM got ~3 months PAID leave -- another used some
vacation time.

>No-o-o-o-o...it'll ensure that people taking such leave will NOT be
>unemployed.  Your grasp of the guts of this bill seems tenuous at best.

Who will hire somebody knowing that they might have to be given
leave time? 

>Exactly.  Just the reason we gotta make sure creeps like SOME employers
>are DON'T make people who need leave to give up their jobs.

This is the point!  SOME employers are creeps and are gouging
their employees.  In SOME cases, giving an employee leave could
seriously damage the company.  We need a GUIDELINE, not a LAW!

Also 3 months seems a little long to me.  Why not make a shorter
period mandatory, with longer periods earning the employer tax
breaks?  Why is this bill the only answer??

David Shackelford
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Manu)
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:43:53 GMT

In article <4062@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Anisa Alnoor Aldoubosh) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.143749.7999@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>>
>>Of course. All Nazi scumbags are "vociferous critics of Israel".
>>
>>To avoid an uproar, I am NOT saying that all critics of Israel
>>are Nazis and/or antisemites.
>
>Thank God for your saying this Danny.
>
>Let you be the first and not the last.
>
>Anisa
>

	Actually, it shouldn't have to be said.  The implication that
"all critics of Israel are Nazis and/or anti-semites" cannot be logically
inferred from "All Nazi scumbags are vociferous critics of Israel."

Geoff
-- 
Email: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu            

"The Arab governments were largely responsible for the ruin of the Palestinian
  Arabs"     -Sir John Bagot Glubb
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:17:52 GMT

In article <Bw2CE4.GEC@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) 
writes:

}--PLH (just what's in that Edwards Aquifer water, anyway?)

Neither the Edwards Plateau nor the Balcones Fault impart anything into
the water.  The hydrology of this region has been studied fairly closely
by (you guessed it) cavers.  I don't think it is genetic, I don't think
it is environmental.  I think it might be a brain disease...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
In-reply-to: john@anasazi.com's message of Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:20:45 GMT
Organization: pubs
	<1992Oct6.003817.15753@pony.Ingres.COM>
	<1992Oct7.022045.19106@anasazi.com>
Date: 7 Oct 92 12:45:29 CDT

John VietNam Veteran Moore writes:

   To conspire with an enemy country during war is an act of a traitor.
   Bill Clinton may or may not have done this - he was more likely a
   "willing dupe" - but for him to protest the war IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY,
   and to travel to the capital of the main enemy, is, to say the
   least, very suspect. As a veteran of that period, I find it
   reprehensible and offensive.

   Oh, by the way, he says that he went to Moscow during a time of
   "warming relations." They may have been warming between him and
   the Soviets, but the soviets were actively involved at the time
   that he went there. Furthermore, one could not travel to the
   USSR without their permission, and they did a background investigation
   of people before granting permission (you had to give them a lot
   of personal information, and then wait a long time). They tended to
   admit people who would further their anti-US cause, and ban people
   who would damage their cause. They were especially fond of anti-war
   leaders, as they felt (correctly) that the war could only be
   won for them by the actions of these people.

   Then, there is the fact that a several of pages from his state department
   file are missing - specifically those from that period. This is VERY
   suspicious.

Mr. Vietnam Veteran, the pathetic issue that you're flogging is what's
known as a red herring.  Have you ever heard of being a tourist?  I know
quite a few people who visited Moscow in that era--AS TOURISTS.  Why
don't you apply your cold-war mentality to something productive, such as
trimming your hedge with napalm.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: das@unislc.uucp (David Shorten)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:12:42 GMT

Gregory R. Travis (greg@saltydog.dpsi.com) wrote:
: In <9565@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
: 
: >BTW, Germany may be an exporting super power, though this
: >seems to be changing, by all standard measures the US has a higher 
: >standard of living.
: 
: Umm, can you elaborate?  Let's see how the U.S. stacks up vs. Germany in living
: quality by some standard measures:
: 
: Health:
: 	U.S. has higher health-care costs and a less effective health care
: 	system (Amnesty International).
: 
: Freedom from economically mandatory servitude:
: 	The U.S. has shorter vacations (two weeks vs. 4-8 weeks - both
:         NOT including religious/state holidays).
: 
: Work week length:
: 	U.S. has a longer work week, with professionals typically
: 	averaging 50-90 hours/week in the U.S. and 35 in Germany.
: 	(New York Times)
: 
: Maternity leave:
: 	No paid or unpaid time off in the U.S. for maternity leave.  Fourteen
: 	weeks in Germany ("Family Values", HEH!).
: 
: Salary:
: 	U.S. blue and white collar, non-managerial, workers are paid less
: 	and taxed MORE than their German equivalents.  (Today's WSJ)
: 	Hourly labor costs in the U.S. are among the lowest in the
: 	world.
: 
: Note that the above is true for most other European nations vs. the U.S.
: 
: What are your "standard" measures?  Our standard of living is a lot closer
: to Mexico's than it is to Germany's.
: 
You forgot to mention there are a whole LOT more Mercedes on the road in
Germany then there are here.  :-)

Dave S.
From: sunder@sor.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Famous Republican Draft Dodgers
Date: 14 Oct 1992 22:10:39 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sor.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <3768@master.CNA.TEK.COM>, mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:
|> 
|>    *Newt Gingrich - Copped the I-Had-to-Take-Care-of-My-Aging-Grandmother
|>                     plea. Poor granny.
|> 
|>    *Phil Graham - Copped the ``Essential Industry'' deferment plea. His
|>                   essential industry was as an economics teacher! Yow!
|> 
|>    *Dick Cheney - Copped the student deferment plea. Played football!
|> 
|>    *Danny Quayle - Hid out in the National Guard. Dad helped get him in!
|> 
|>    It should be noted that all of the above also supported the Vietnam
|>    war. 
|> 
|>    Let's not hear anything more about Clinton's war record.

Note the straight explanations for each. None of which exceeds a line.

And then take a note of Clinton's explanations. Given a little more time,
and a few more explanations, and each of the above will feature in his long 
litany of things he did do or didn't do to avoid the draft.

I don't know about others who focus on his record, but I am more concerned
by the fact that he has never given one straight simple explanation for how
he avoided the draft. His many explanations for what happened are like the
output of a random-number generator -- a different thing each time. A pattern
that then gets repeated on other issues as well (NAFTA for one).

I for one, would have been satisfied with a simple explanation like:

"I hated the war; I thought it was wrong and immoral to send our boys 
to die in Asia for a cause I deemed worthless. I considered their lost
lives a waste. I didn't want to be wasted. Hence, I did everything I
legally could not to get drafted."

(Ok, so it isn't one line. Close enough though)

|> Mike

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51452 misc.headlines:6605 talk.politics.mideast:21078
From: aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Anisa Alnoor Aldoubosh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends MLKing Slur (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:19:11 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <1992Oct13.143749.7999@cs.brown.edu> dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>
>Of course. All Nazi scumbags are "vociferous critics of Israel".
>
>To avoid an uproar, I am NOT saying that all critics of Israel
>are Nazis and/or antisemites.

Thank God for your saying this Danny.

Let you be the first and not the last.

Anisa
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton will clarify
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:54:27 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:

>In article 15518@linus.mitre.org, jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
>> 
>> Just like the drug-use question of the same period...
>> 
>> "I was in protests against the United States, but I didn't inhale^h^h^h^h^h^h
>> organize."
>> 
>> 
>> And for those with "that far in the past doesn't matter":  Care to vote for
>> Nixon?
>
>Well, if he it was a choice between Nixon and Bush, I'd vote for Nixon.
>At least he has convictions....errr sorry about that, he was pardoned.
>
>Besides, per the 22nd amendment, Nixon cannot run for President....
>
Nixon never let the Constitution get in his way...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,tx.general,alt.politics.clinton,alt.activism
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Early voting in Texas
Organization: NDA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:01:59 GMT


Here is a press release from the Clinton/Gore campaign.

 Ann Richards to Cast First Vote in the Nation for Clinton/Gore
 To: National Desk, Political Writer
 Contact: Craig Sutherland of Clinton/Gore, 512-478-8683

   AUSTIN, Texas, Oct. 13  -- Texas Gov. Ann Richards will cast 
the first vote in the 1992 general election for the Clinton/Gore 
ticket Wednesday as Democrats flock to the polls for 17 days of 
"No Excuses Voting."
   Following Richards' lead, rallies will be held across the state to
encourage Texans to cast their votes for a new generation of
leadership, Hillary Clinton will attend a breakfast and a rally with
the Coalition of Black Democrats in Dallas; Sen. Bob Kerrey
(D-Neb.) will attend rallies in San Antonio and South Texas;
Democratic National Committee Chairman Ron Brown will lead voters in
Houston; Sen. Tim Wirth (D-Colo.) will attend rallies on the campus
of the University of Texas at Austin and in Victoria; and Texas Land
Commissioner Garry Mauro and Attorney General Dan Morales will attend
similar rallies in east and west Texas.
  Richards will be casting her vote at a "retail early voting site,"
an H.E.B. supermarket in east Austin.  Texas' early voting law is
unique in that voters may cast their ballots in person beginning
Wednesday morning until Friday, Oct. 30.  Increasingly, many counties
are placing their early voting polls in high-traffic, non-traditional
"retail voting sites" such as supermarkets and shopping malls.
   Some counties will also utilize "mobile voting sites," appearing
temporarily at senior citizens homes, community centers, factory
shift changes and even in some flea markets.
   While early voting is not new to Texas, much has been done to
expand the program and increase public awareness since the last
presidential election in 1988.  Texas Secretary of State John Hannah,
a promoter of the retail and mobile voting initiative, estimates that
voter turnout will be significantly increased due to the added
convenience to voters.  Although Colorado recently passed legislation
patterned after the Texas early voting law, the program does not
begin in earnest until Oct. 19.
   For further information about early voting, contact Unity '92
Early Voting Director Harold Cook at 512-320-0792.
 -30-

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52477 alt.activism:17584 misc.headlines:6626 sci.econ:8151
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Facts of NAFTA jobs, not fiction
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:25:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: desire.1992Oct16.102556.4889
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.


	Fact: Such agreements stimulate net gains of new US jobs.  Rising US
exports have been responsible for more than half the growth of the US economy
in the past five years.  The emirgration of low-wage, low-skill US jobs
overseas is happening *regardless* of trade agreements.
	But the US is likely to gain about 130,000 more jobs on net--better,
higher-paying jobs producing goods for export--than it would lose under the
pending free-trade agreement [paper says treaty--Brett] with Mexico.

Soure: Dayton Daily News, 10/16/92
Page 4A

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50322 misc.headlines:6548 talk.politics.mideast:20928
From: adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Jack S Defends Kosher Food Boycott (Was: ARF DEFENDS HIS HONOR)
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:31:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Oct8.203124.5379
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University

In article <Bvt2GE.7C9@ddsw1.mcs.com> arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:
In article <1992Oct5.024221.18207@cs.brown.edu>, Danny keren wrote:

+> >I wonder what is happening here. First, ARF (Jack Schmidling)
+> suggests boycotting Kosher food, claiming it would be a good
+> way to show solidarity with the Palestinians. As posters have
+> pointed out, this would be a clearly antisemitic and idiotic
+> thing to do

> Just because some "posters pointed out", doesn't mean we all have to agree 
> with them.   My target is supporters of Israel, if they happen to be Jews, 
> that does not make my boycott antisemitic.  If I boycott a Jewish deli 
> because the owner is a child molester, does that make me an antisemite?

No, your target is not supporters of Israel.  Your targets are Jews.

Lets take the following divisions of people

1. Religious Jews
2. non religious Jews

Within each, we have Jews who are:
a. "Supporter" of Israel
b. "anti"-Israel

and non Jews who are:
X. "Supporter" of Israel
Y. "anti"-Israel 

The boycott effects all people who are in sets 1a and 1b, in that a
product they like is targeted for the same reason they like it.

The boycott does not effect anyone in group 2a or 2b.

Nor does the boycott affect people in group A, supporters of Israel
who are not Jewish.  (Ignoring the case of pro-Israel mulsims who
drink beer, and care about its kosher status. :)

(I know.  Religious muslims don't drink.  Thats what the smiley is
for.)

Therefore, your boycott clearly targets a product marketed at
religious Jews, not at supporters of Israel.

> How the hell could boycotting Kosher food hurt anyone?  Observant Jews and 
> Muslims are free to ignore the boycott.  Those who want to show solidarity 
> with the Palistinians, would not.  The only one who gets hurt is the 
> manufacturer but protesters would buy from a non-Kowsher source and it would 
> be a wash, except for the message.

It makes kosher food less profitable (as is the goal of a boycott),
thus encouraging manufacturers to not certify their food as kosher,
reducing the choice available to jews and Muslims.


+> >Someone recently remarked on the net that ARF is in the beer
+> producing buisness. Could it be that there is some hidden
+> agenda here?

> Well, I am not quite up to Coors volume but my Jewish mom pronounced it 
> Kosher and I need all the help I can get.  It is however, vastly superior 
> beer, in spite of being Kosher.

As Jack really should know, his mother is not qualified to pronounce
anything Kosher.  Authoratativly pronouncing something kosher requires
years of study of dietary laws, and certification.
Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.      
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51208 alt.politics.clinton:9938
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Raving a bit, aren't we?
Date: 12 Oct 1992 22:29:42 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbang.berkeley.edu

In article <9550@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1b5fdcINN93v@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:

I asked for the names of five pre-OSHA workplace safety groups
which arose in the free market, and also

>>Below list what these groups did historically
>>if manufacturers denied them access.

>I imagine that they did, or at least could have told the consumers that
>company A was refusing to be inspected.  Anybody who cared was then free
>to boycott company A.

I ask for an EXAMPLE, and I get "imagine". 100% armchair analysis. Sort
of like academic Marxism at it very silliest. I did not ask what you
imagined these groups did. I asked what their names were and just what
they did, so that we could judge for ourselves whether they seemed to do
a good job.

This continues to prove my point: Libertarianism as a philosophy is
completely independent of reality.

andy

andy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 07:04:27 GMT

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>This is the same Robert Dornan who started as a right wing
>TV talk show commentator (sounds like a trend) and whose wife
>once asked (when co-hosting) if homosexuality was hereditary.

What was wrong with that question?  How about recessive genes or
kin selection?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:58:22 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <Bw3D3C.1u4@eis.calstate.edu>  kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>
>But as bad as Bush is, he's clearly the lesser of two evils.

I think you need new glasses...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)