HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Rape as violence or sex.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:44:31 GMT

Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:
>You can think or read whatever you like, but your comments are common
>among people who think they can understand something they have never
>experienced.  No book can explain rape.  No fancy psychological
>theory can override the experiential fact that rapists and rape
>victims know that rape and sex have very little to do with each other.

Translation:  It doesn't matter how much scientific evidence has
been gathered on a point.  Missy knows about it, and the rest of
us cannot.

Hmmm... kinda makes the religion thing a bit clearer to me.

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 08:48:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Nattering Nabobs

Gary:

>>For example, Bush was wrong for not sending help to Florida sooner.  Now, when
>>he proposes rebuilding a military base to maintain the local economy (and a fe
   w
>>other minor projects), he's "wrong" for capitalizing upon a disaster for
>>political gain.  He's damned if he does something and damned if he doesn't.
>>That type of coverage is neither objective nor balanced.

>Hmmm.  Since the speed of response to areas devastated by the hurricane and
>the promising to rebuild a military base are not integrally related, Bush is
>not in a catch-22 situation here.  He could have, for example, responded
>with greater quickness and still promised the rebuilding of the military base.

Of course these responses are integrally related!  They both are aspects of the
disaster-relief program in Florida.  And my point was that when Bush is
*arguably* slow in providing such relief, he is accused of insensitivity or
confusion while when he proposes disaster relief he is accused of playing
politics.  Judging from the later accusation, if Bush had sent federal forces
into Florida sooner (before being asked to do so), he would have been accused
of political pandering.  Either way, the media put as much negative spin as
possible on Bush's actions, which is grossly unfair.

>(WRT to criticism of Bush on the response speed, I had the impression that
>most of the criticism was coming from local officials in Florida, not the
>media - but hell, why not kill the messenger for the message...)

Because the media have taken up the accusations of one or two Florida officials
and blown it up into a page 1 story.  The media could have covered the relief
program however they chose, and they chose to portray it as another case of
Bush being out of touch with his surroundings while devoting only minimal time
to any opposing point of view.

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:28:00 EST
From:         Tyrone Slothrop <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: i am so dismayed

linda:

the use and dissemination of jargon is key for deterritorialization.

brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 30 Aug 1992 11:44:52 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: morals
              29 Aug 1992 17:34:46 GMT from <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

From:         jimmy donal wales <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

>> Someone, maybe you, asked about atheists adopting.  My choice is NO.

> Thanks for the information, Robert.  I would like to see if we can
> spell this out in more detail.

> Do you think that if my wife and I (both atheists and both egoists)
> decide to adopt a child, the law ought to be such that we will not
> be allowed to do so?

Jimbo, you may want to quit while you are (relatively) ahead.
Remember what Robert said about his stance on abortion?  He
really is against all abortion but for political/practical
purposes he pretends that he is for certain exceptions such as
rape, incest, and life of the woman.

Robert might only SAY that you and your wife being atheists
cannot adopt kids.  What he really believes is that you should
be denied custody of even your own children as Robert thinks
you are unfit parents.  If I am wrong, I am sure Robert would
correct me and tell everyone that he believes atheists can be
good parents in which case I am sure many would ask him why
then they should not adopt.

I wonder if Robert would agree to the notion that minor children
of atheists parents should be able to hire a lawyer to sue
their parents in order to get out of a godless household.

I love this list.  Anywhere else would have chraged you an arm
and a leg in order to offer you so much fun.

> --Jimbo

--KAT

BTW: I was the one who asked Robert the question about atheists
adopting kids.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:01:19 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Deadly Force

>From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
>
>On deadly force, I recall my dad, who used to be
>a police officer in Louisiana, joking about the
>following scenario:
>
>You are at home at night and you hear a sound at the
>glass door to your patio.  You take your gun and go
>to investigate.  You see an intruder about to enter and
>you shoot.  The intruder falls back out of the house.
>In order for you to not go to jail, you have to pull the
>body forward so that the dead body is within the house.
>
>Nothing more needs be done and you are innocent.

Ok, first, thanks to Jason for providing SOME info on what the
law actually says, albeit anecdotal.

Second, I think what Jason means is, "Nothing more needs to be done
to erase the evidence of your guilt." Right? I mean, you broke
the law, then you tampered with the evidence.

In any case, if Pop Jason was serious (and correct), then we
have an answer to KAT's question for the case of Louisiana. My
guess is that this sort of thing won't differ a whole lot from
state to state, but who knows?

Jamie

"Oh my god, I just killed a Nocturnal Jehovah's Witness! Quick, drag
him inside...."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:50:58 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Nattering Nabobs

On the Florida question:

Bush sent help *as soon as* the governor of Florida *requested* it.
He could not legally do so before then.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:15:01 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
              26 Aug 1992 11:21:08 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> Technically, "G"od cannot be bound.  We have no *real* disagreement.

"Technically" ????    You mean, that "God cannot be bound" is
bounded by technics/technology?

> But, what if Jamie gets a terminal illness and prays for healing?  What
> good does it do if, while he prays, he doesn't believe?  Of course, "G"od
> could go ahead and heal him if it was within his will.  However, as a
> general principle, would you not think that "G"od would be somewhat
> pressed to answer an empty prayer?

Why would ask someone else what God would do in a certain situation.
I mean wouldn't THAT be bounded by what that person is thinking?

> ---Robert

--KAT :-)  Faith sounds very silly when attempts are made to
           prove it with human logic, which, by the way, God is
           not bounded by it in the first place.
From: IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: RE:drugs
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:42:53 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:13:43 CDT fred said:
>Rick asks: "what would be a proactive approach to the drug problem.."?
>
>Can you say: EDUCATION ? There, I knew you could.
>
>The statement that it is a republican policy to use the seizure laws
>was mine, not 60 minutes. This strategy was born of the republican
>administrations therefor my statement.

Most interesting since Congress created the bill.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN::"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 08:52:17 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      another question

Good morning:
I heard on NPR this morning that "Arab representatives to the mid-east
peace talks" were very unhappy about the no-fly zone that takes effect in
about 1.5 hours.  They were quoted as saying that, if the no-fly zone is
enforced, they would have to think about withdrawing from the talks.

Does anyone have more info on this?  Which Arab representatives were these?
Is this the common view among Arab countries?  What's going on??

Thanks
Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:43:55 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rape as violence or sex.

>Do pro-choice people
>not see a double standard here???
>-Travis

  I can't speak for the pro-choice people, but
I see a lack of standards here.  How else to
account for your posts?

            -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:19:08 EDT
From:         Tim Johnson <PH408014@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: morals

> "G"od allows us to take part in the creation process, but this does not
> come without obligation.  As parents, we are held to the responsibility of
> raising our children in "fear of the Lord".  No, that doesn't mean afraid.
> This task, of course, is one that will most likely be ignored, or more
> likely condemned, by atheist parents.  Unlike birth into this unfortunate
> situation, adoption offers the option of control.

  Oddly enough, "G"od also allows atheists to have kids.  Perhaps
he doesn't think it is as bad an idea as you do.  And, after all,
don't you think it is His job to control it, and not yours?  Specks
and logs and eyes...that's in the Bible, too.

                           -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:42:02 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
              25 Aug 1992 15:55:14 -0400 from <SPRG0002@TULSAJC>

From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

>> Do I also take it that you are first an American and then a
>> Christian or is it that your morality/religion/ethnicity takes
>> precedent while others should be pushed under the rug.
>> -KAT

> I get the feeling that your trying to characterize me as an extreme
> nationalist.  In response, I would point out that an "America First"
> position ( a few years ago ) was considered *patriotic*.  Only recently
> has it been twisted to mean *isolationist*.

Well, nice of you to drop the other part of your post that I responded
to.  But lucky you, I still have your earlier post.  This is what
you said:

> I'm on the *rolls*, from your comments I assume you are too.  Pat Buchanan
> hasn't said anything that particularly alarms me.  Maybe it's because I
>think of myself first as an *American* and secondly as having Indian heritage.

See, you were telling this other person that he should be first
American THEN think about his Indian heritage.  My question to
you is/was: would you also first be an American and then think
about your Christianity?  Or do you think your Christian feelings/
obligations supersedes your obligations as an American citizen.

And if that is good for others, why is it not good for you?

> ---Robert

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 11:35:44 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: slowly for macphil
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Mon, 31 Aug 1992 11:14:04 CDT fred said:
>phil, you always pick small parts of posts to respond to. Must be your
>Meyers-Briggs type that you are not a big picture person. There are tons

I guess that's why I'm able to synthesize so much information from so
many sources.

>The original intent of the seizure law was to go after large quantity
>dealers. The current administration has allowed that to deteriorate into
>harass anyone who is a minority member carrying large sums of cash. This
>brings some rather interesting political implications into the equation:
>
>1. Why are the majority of persons searched from minority groups?
>2. Why do these people have to prove that they didn't commit a crime to
>recover their property?
>3. Is this a form of discrimination based on race ?

/C doing research, any number of possibilities could exist.  The _60 Minutes_
story said pointed out clearly the trigger characteristics were persons
who paid in large sums of cash and had quick turnaround times.  Perhaps
one needs to determine if there are reasons (unrelated to drugs) why
minorities would do this more than caucasians.

I see it to be like the other _60 Minutes_ story where Floridian officers
stopped certain types of profiles for drug searches and were effective.
Minority race leaders claimed it was racist policy which did this as
young, black/hispanic males driving expensive sports cars on the interstate
fulfilled the profile.  But is it racist because they fit the profile or
because the profile happens to fit a racist stereotype?

It's been said 2/3 of the women murdered in this country know their
attacker (FBI stat.).  Do we see anyone screaming genderal bias
when the law enforcement officers query males a murdered woman knew or
do we assume they are playing the odds?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Patriotism
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:51:39 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Oops, when I said "war-bent hive mentality," I was not speaking of Robert in
specific, but only conservatives in general.
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Woody dumps daughter fer Fergy. Film at 11
Date: 26 Aug 92 04:41:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <POLITICS%92082423485120@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET (Kerry Stephenson) writes...

[...]

>(Sorry, but I'm getting rather sick of having my file space taken
>up with puff pieces from the Clinton campaign.  Another good
>reason to vote for Bush--he'll leave us alone to debate each other
>in peace.)

	Repent Missy! Repent!
	You show scorn at someone dumping 1700 lines of meaningless 
drivel onto your disk? You express displeasure from receiving 300 
lines of addresses that you will never use onto your space?
	Infidel! You dare castigate the minions of the Correct 
Candidate(tm)? You have been warned!

	Insert Ernie laugh here : kheee kheee kheee

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:41:00 EDT
From:         "Peter J. Schledorn" <UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Comments on numbers ...

> I have watched this abortion numbers process with interest, and decided
> to calculate what 30 million abortions over 19 years, (including all of
> 1973, and all of this year) might mean. That's 1,578,947 per year, or
> 125,000 (rounded off) per month, or 4107 per day. But, and I recall asking
> this question once before, and hearing silence on the matter - doesn't the
> FACT that 30,000,000 million abortions HAVE occurred indicate need, reason,
> or purpose for them having happened? One other thing - the Holocaust was
> done to people for specifically negative purposes, and I believe most
> abortions occur for positively motivated reasons - long term survival of
> the family, interactions, etc. Could all the systems that are overloaded

Excellent points.  One major effort on the part of the anti-choice crowd
is to trivialize the reasons women choose abortions (and in the process
trivialize the women themselves).  If they can build up a public
perception of the average abortion seeker as an upper-class woman, six
or seven months pregnant, trying to get a kid of the "right" sex, then
they can press emotional buttons.  That's harder to do when people
really appreciate the difficulty these women face.

Also, it's easier to take things (like rights) away from "bad" people.

BTW, anneliese's right, the use of the term holocaust is really
offensive, and you point out some of the reasons above.  Yet another
injection of triviality into what should be a serious matter.

Jenna, about your poll: I have three hands up.  Got it?  Good.  I'm
going to stop now because this posture hurts  :-).

Best,
Peter

> now - health care, schools, counselling, courts, welfare, et al - stand
> 30,000,000 more people? Personally, I actually agree with Barbara Bush on
> this - it IS A MATTER OF PERSONAL DECISION, not a matter for the state, or
> the would-be imposers of "Christian morality." VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:52:58 MST
From:         Roger <CARROLL@SCC.BITNET>
Subject:      I'm feeling a little warm already

I take no credit for the following....stole it off another list, but figured
it would be worth posting here just to get the 'flames' rollin......

                                                    ---roger

>Dear Jobs Advisor:
>
>I'm always scanning the list of jobs available (but there is a hiring freeze
>on) and so I've handwritten letters (for the personal touch) to several
>departments listing my wonderful qualities and enclosing my resume.  I would
>gladly leave the university for a career that challenges me.
>
>My question.  What else can I do to advertise me, my qualities, my desires,
> and get into something I like?
>
>                                             Stuck in Colorado

Dear Stuck in Colorado,

Indeed you do appear to have the exuberance and vivaciousness required
to be a valuable member of a 'people' team. Your anxiousness to make a
move is well timed, too.

Today's climate offers the person person a myriad of opportunities for
change and advancement --and, it's very easy to do!

Select a politician whose platform is abominable to you, and give an
interview with the local news media claiming to have had an ongoing
affair with this individual. Due to recent changes in the attitudes
of the public, it is no longer necessary to ensure that they are of
the opposite gender as yourself.

Reaction of the job market is swift, and before you know it, you'll
be swamped with offers from many of todays most popular publications
and broadcasters. Just think, in only days you may ride the swell
from your boring and lackluster position to the pages of Cosmopolitan,
Playboy, and even the New York Times! You'll have the opportunity to
interract with MILLIONS through the auspices of Donohue, Geraldo, Oprah
and Sally Jesse Raphael! Countless people will hang on your every word
as the cameras move in for extreme close-up on the Tonight Show with
Jay Leno, and crowds will "woof-woof-woof" you on Arsenio!

Sound terrific? IT IS! Not only that, but you'll be performing one of
the only remaining political activism avenues left for Americans.

Think of it! Money, fame, notoriety and fun, fun, fun!

If you have reservations about your ability to make this leap to the
best your life can be, we can help! Our organization offers classes
in the appropriate diplomacy of provocateurism and exploitation. Our
rates are highly competetive too!

For more information write:

The Jennifer Flowers Institute
12134 Carlsbad Ave.
Chicago, IL 60608
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:00:00 EDT
From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject: Re: my last word on this EVER

On Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:27:27 EDT Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET> said:
> >From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
> >
> >Jamie:
> >
> >How did you and linda get where you are now without having been
> >fetusus? (feti?....unborn babies.)
> >
> >--Missy P 2 B
>
> Well, I'll answer the question, but I'll also try to answer the
> tacit premise.
>
> Linda and I used to be fetuses. But now we are persons.
>
> Suppose for a moment that god one day turned a puppet into a real
> live boy (there may be precedent). The boy used to be a puppet.
> And the boy is a person. But that doesn't entail either of these:
>      a) the puppet was a person, OR
>      b) the boy can imagine what it is like to be a puppet, OR
>      c) cutting a puppet to pieces is murder.
>
> Clear enough?
>
> Jamie

Well let's say he turned a puppet into a real live boy that still needed
its strings to survive for say six months.  Then what?
-Travis
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 10:34:37 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Bill in Buffalo
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              28 Aug 1992 05:52:07 GMT from <bobweiss@ACSU.BUFFA LO.EDU>

On Fri, 28 Aug 1992 05:52:07 GMT Robert Weiss said:

>	How does traveling the country in a bus help the smaller press
>cover the campaign as opposed to staying in one spot?

Smaller press = smaller budget = fewer opportunities to cover
news outside the "catchment area" first-hand (i.e. they usually
summarize wire service stories).

Bus tours bring the newsmakers to them and their expenditures
are negligible.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:28:46 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Say What??!?
              25 Aug 1992 16:21:24 GMT+4 from <MARYELEN@HFX001.NS.ISTC.CA>

MaryElen (or somebody else who can answer this):

Is the Quebec separatist movement still alive and well or has it
died out?  Why?  (Either way.)

Just wondering.  Thanks.

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:08:18 EDT
From:         jcs <GE777009@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: my last word on this EVER

>From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
>
>I do not hold the same beliefs you do, linda.  I do not believe that
>raping a woman is a violation of their bodies.  The evidence is not
>there.

uh oh. there goes robert's lead in the polls.  what do you consider rape
to be Travis? just a night out for a buncha guys?

>I know this may be a little absurd, but I was brainstorming and the idea
>suddenly popped into my head that maybe a great way to solve all these
>problems is for a woman not to get pregnant.  Kinda supid, huh--just a
>thought.

I have a better idea. Lets castrate men. well, not all men. just most of
them. dumb ones go first, with a rusty old hack saw.

 That should keep men from getting women pregnant.

jcs
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU