HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:18:19 GMT


In a previous article, djrea@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (david.j.rea) says:
>
>The Human body, Whether you believe a God created it or we came from the
>monkey, has many orifices that are there for obvious reasons. The nose 
>for the inhalation and exhalation of air, the vagina for excepting the
>male member into and the results thereof(see baby), and the anus for the
>removal of waste. I believe each has a purpose and that purpose only.

Indeed?  Interesting...

Let's see...

The nose's purpose is for the inhalation and exhalation of air, and that
is it's only purpose.  How interesting, then, that it also is designed
to detect odors.

How about the mouth?  It's primary function is as receptical for
nutrition and water, but it also serves as respiritory organ when the
nose is not functional (a cold), as communications device, as outlet
for materials taken into the body to be expelled when the body reacts
to those materials as potentially poisonous (vomiting).

The vagina?  It serves as a receptical of the male member (penis) and as
birth canal.  But does it not also serve as a passageway for waste (blood,
non-fertilized ovum, uterin lining) on a monthly basis?

How about the male urithra?  It is designed for a two-fold purpose, that being
the elimination of waste, and as a canal for the delivery of sperm.

Look at almost any human organ or organ system.  The human body is an
exersize in multipul redundancy.

This being so, why is it such a leap in logic to accept that the anus
could be a sexual organ?

>The anus was not made for input, it is there for output. This is why I
>feel that sticking something into the butt, for other than medical
>reasons ;-), is wrong. 

Indeed?  Why is it, then, that the most sexually sensitive area in the 
male anatomy (the prostate gland) is accessable only through the anus?
Seems like either a natural area for sexual stimulation, or just another
example of "God" once again making something most pleasurable and most
sinful at the same time...


>This is why I feel sick when Homosexuals perform
>that function not because "GOD" thinks so. Am I now to be called Homo-
>Phobic? Also, Hetrosexual sex is not a perversion! Remember, the only way
>the human species can exist is thru this process. The process thru which
>the penis and the vagina exist.

No one claimed heterosexuality was a perversion.

But because heterosexuality is not a perversion does not mean that 
homosexuality, by definition, is.

>
>David
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   These are the REAL  *         
*  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu/Kelley L. Miller  / /__\      Gay 90's!!      *           
*-------------------------------------/____\-----------------------*  
***************** Oxymoron: Freewill Christianity ******************
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65811 misc.legal:21861
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 31 Dec 92 02:10:12 GMT
Organization: The Devil's Advocate

In <bhayden.725731091@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:


>I don't understand how you can be exonerated from a crime, and
>yet you can be factually guilty.

That's because you don't understand the burdens of proof in a criminal
case.  In order to convict, the jury must be convinced beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime in question.
For a jury (or a judge) to find a defendant "not guilty" they need not
be certain of anything, they need only harbor a "reasonable doubt."  

So the Court's determination that a verdict of "not guilty" should be
entered in Ollie North's case only means that there remains some legal
doubt (after certain inadmissible evidence was excluded from his
case).  It is not a finding that he is, literally, not guilty.

 The judicial determination of
>the guilt was essentially overturned. Yet you can sit there and
>say that he was guilty anyway. 

That's right.  The overturning of a verdict has nothing necessarily to
do with its underlying truth value.



-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65632 alt.current-events.somalia:754 alt.politics.bush:15021 alt.president.clinton:1291
From: ck442@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Floyd Low)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: WAR IN BOSNIA!!!!
Date: 30 Dec 1992 06:19:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


while i certainly respect your opinion there is some value in
solving a problem where it starts rather  than let it come
over on an immigrant boat/Cubana airlines defection flight...
the thing I can't get over is that European military are
scarce on the ground, all told there are approx 1.5 Nato divisions
deployed as Canadians/french/brits etc...where were the Germans
in closing off the Danube to which I might add the Czechs/hungarians
not until just lately have they taken a real interest...as you say
G Bush and Coy are probably going to do something...I think they can
deal the belligerants a High explosive wakeup call with little
risk because they don't have to drive into rifle range to do it.
I'm talking about counter battery radars/side looking radar and
all the gadgetry that was on trial in the Saddam Hussein war
recently...additionally from a perspective of keeping the Serbs
off balance, what better way to make them miserabel than to start
sniping away at their positions with cruise missiles and other
standoff weapons just when they thought they could enjoy a
quiet winter of kiling helpless old women in Sarajevo
so in short I say fear not, G Bush and Coy have the means to send the
serbs packing in short order. do we want to do that though?
Can we put up with a sea of refugees floating around europe?
I believe a stable europe means a stable western economy, i do not
thnink that this means sending the 18 year old soldiers of all
nations to fix this. Sam Nunn et al prior to the end of the
Berlin Wall era often said Europeans must should the load to safeguard europe
In short, I bet something will happen soon after Jan 1 before GB leaves
office....we'll see.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Macroeconomics 601
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:24:43 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Dec22092627@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

><In article <19DEC199213471938@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
><   In article <1992Dec19.072841.8275@netcom.com>, 
><   nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes...
>
><   >The Republicans are saying "I told you so" about the recent
><   >uptick in the economy. They STILL don't get it: the reason
><   >the economy is getting better is because they've been driven
><   >from office, and their loss is everyone else's gain.
>
><   Republicans don't matter anymore -- forget 'em.
>
><   But...  1. You're wrong.
><	   2. There's an "uptick" due to christmas.
><	   3. There's an "bump" due to all the compulsive
><	      overspenders (43 million of them) getting
><	      there candidate elected -- and they used 
><	      credit mostly.
>
>	The Commerce Dept. numbers show the GDP increasing
>	by 3.4% in the 3rd quarter; July, August and September
>	aren't generally regarded as the "Christmas shopping"
>	season, y'know.
>
>	And unless those 43 million all had very good Ouija
>	boards, they couldn't have known over 30 days before
>	the elcetion *who* was going to win, right?

       No, no, no.  They had faith that Clinton would win, and that faith 
translated into increased spending.  And, of course, all the people who 
voted for Bush and Perot *really* thought Clinton was going to win and 
*knew* he would do a good job with the economy, but couldn't admit it to 
themselves, but spent money anyway.

       See?  :-)

><  -=   What goes up, gets sucked down, as the black hole of the combined   =-
>< -= Federal, State & Local Government AND Private Debt continues collapsing =-
>
>	Funny thing is, private debt is a smaller percentage
>	of private income now than it was in 1982; what do
>	ordinary folks know about "living within the means"
>	that government doesn't?

       The government can go to its employer and say "I need more money to 
pay the bills," and make it stick.  Private citizens get their credit cards 
canceled and lose their homes when they can't pay their bills.
        Few people are responsible when they have no personal stake in the 
money they manage.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Iraq (Was: Re: Somalia)
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:30:45 GMT

In article <1h4njuINNgfh@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
}I think there was another big reason for it. Early in the war
}(or even before the war itself, and during Desert Shield), a lot
}of different things (public opinion, the Congress, the
}alliance) pushed George Bush into saying that we were in
}Kuwait to destroy Iraq, but simply to liberate Kuwait. Several
}times, the Congress and others accused him of wanting to do more,
}of wanting to go after Sadam, etc.  Bush repeatedly denied
}this, saying that he only wanted us to free Kuwait.

Not to mention little trivia like "that was the directions given
by the UN".

Say so, did it.  Why suprised?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:45:12 GMT

mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

>In article <bhayden.725731091@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes
>in response to Mark Eckenweiler:

>>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. 

>Where was North exonerated? His convictions weren't overturned because of
>any flaw in the trial court's factual determinations about North's
>conduct.

Sorry, I misspoke. I agree, technically he was not exonorated.
Instead, his convictions were overturned because his constitutional
rights were violated - especially the protection against self incrimination.
But - the effect is almost the same. In this country you are innocent until
proven guilty. His reversal made him technically innocent of the
charges. This is different from exoneration, since in the latter
case (if he had been tried and aquited), double jepardy would keep
him from being retried. Walsh could have retried, if he had had
a case. He didn't. (not without again violating Ollie's rights).
s
Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

a 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
From: rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker)
Subject: Individual and Society
Summary: Individual and Society, which is more "real"
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:01:28 GMT

We have an interesting thread going here. In terms of objective reality
niether individuals or societies exist apart from conception or perception.

Which is more "real", forests or trees. What we have here folks, is a
variant of the problem of Universals.

How can each of us who consists of about 20 Trillion little specialized
animals regard ourselves as "individuals".  Each of us are a society of
cells bound together by complex interactions whose control is localized in
the subcollection called the brain.

The problem occurs when we reify the terms individual and society and
expect to find unitary objects out there to which the labels apply.

Tell me this, which is more real, the set of masses or the gravitational
field produced (caused?) by the masses?.  If masses exist independent of
the field they produce, then we have magic action at a distance. Do you
like that?

The field and masses are equally real.

By analogy, individuals and society are equally real. I don't see a
metaphysical problem here.

The problem arises in the moral sphere. Which, if either, has the primary
moral claim. The social duties or the rights of the "individual". Rabbi
Hillel put in the form of a question:

	If I am not for my self, who is for me?
	If I am only for myself, what am I?
	If not now, when?

The tension between individual and society, which touches on metaphysics,
politics, morality and ethics, is *the central* problem in Western thinking.

I say both society and individual are real, but they are not unitary things.

Conan the Libertarian



-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Macroeconomics 601
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<19DEC199213471938@utarlg.uta.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:26:27 GMT

<In article <19DEC199213471938@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
<   In article <1992Dec19.072841.8275@netcom.com>, 
<   nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes...

<   >The Republicans are saying "I told you so" about the recent
<   >uptick in the economy. They STILL don't get it: the reason
<   >the economy is getting better is because they've been driven
<   >from office, and their loss is everyone else's gain.

<   Republicans don't matter anymore -- forget 'em.

<   But...  1. You're wrong.
<	   2. There's an "uptick" due to christmas.
<	   3. There's an "bump" due to all the compulsive
<	      overspenders (43 million of them) getting
<	      there candidate elected -- and they used 
<	      credit mostly.

	The Commerce Dept. numbers show the GDP increasing
	by 3.4% in the 3rd quarter; July, August and September
	aren't generally regarded as the "Christmas shopping"
	season, y'know.

	And unless those 43 million all had very good Ouija
	boards, they couldn't have known over 30 days before
	the elcetion *who* was going to win, right?

<  -=   What goes up, gets sucked down, as the black hole of the combined   =-
< -= Federal, State & Local Government AND Private Debt continues collapsing =-

	Funny thing is, private debt is a smaller percentage
	of private income now than it was in 1982; what do
	ordinary folks know about "living within the means"
	that government doesn't?

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: HERE IT IS! (from ..YOU ARE CLUELESS...) 1 OF 3
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:00:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.043015.16291@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>In article <merlyn.724871258@digibd>, merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) wr
>ites:
>>>1. How many parents of 17+yr old children will welcome a man, who not only
>>>dodged the draft, but demonstrated against his own country on COMMUNIST SOIL?
>>
>>England was COMMUNIST in the last Sixties!?  Boy, is my education lacking!
>>I would have sworn that England was a constitutional monarchy at the time...
>>
>>Could it be that Clueless Boy is confusing Clinton's demonstrations against
>>US involvement in Viet Nam while in college in England with Clinton's tourist
>>trip to the USSR around the same time?  Naaa...
>>
>
>   Aw, come off it. He was demonstrating in the U.S.S.R. and it's DOCUMENTED.

The only documentation is the laundry list Bill Dornan was waving on
C-Span.

The GOP perhaps believed this or something similar must be true, and
managed to torpedo themselves with the State Dept. passport search, so
I suppose some good came of it (jail time for Baker?  Naaa...)

--
"What does not kill me only makes me stronger, right?"
	"Ooooh, no. You're weak as a kitten!"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's bigoted remarks at the convention...
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: hate
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:43:23 GMT

In <Bzp0Kr.6y8@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:

>Seems like Pat's comments on Slick Rosty were right on, considering the
>trouble he's in now.

>As for the quote that was supposed to have been part of the speech at the
>convention, that went out in a letter written by a staffer, signed by
>Robertson.  He has since disavowed the letter dozens of times.  Has Slick
>ever disavowed anything?

Yeah.  After months of lying, he finally admitted that "Mistakes were made."
Then he pretended he didn't remember any of the last 4 years of his career
when he was testifying under oath.

Oh, that wasn't who you were talking about?

Somehow I think it's odd that every time a Republican does something
illegal/unethical, it somehow becomes his "staffer" that did it.

Reagan didn't know about the funding for the contras.
Bushbaker didn't know about the passport search.
Bush didn't know about the BNL scandal.
Pat doesn't even read the things he signs.  Do you think I can bring a
	blank check over to him and get him to sign it?  Really.  Of
	course he disavowed it NOW; it made him look bad.  That doesn't mean 
	he didn't write it and mean it.
Nixon didn't know about the break-in.  Oh, no, wait a minute.  

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Term for blacks has changed
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:00:41 GMT

In article <1had2iINNfdn@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

>I give up.  Where are these blacks from that do not have
>African heritage?  It was my understanding that even the
>Australian Aborigenees (spelling?) migrated from the
>African continent.  Better than the Carribean and American
>Blacks who migrated involuntarily in the holds of slave ships.

	Hmmm. Australia was occupied by humans at least 40,000
years ago.  The  route would have from  Asia, to the north (I'm
told there  are 'Australiod' ethnic  groups in  India). Any 
reason to think the most recent African  ancestor  of  the
Aborigines departed  Africa more  recently than the ancestors
of other groups now considered  non-African?

						James Nicoll
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Macroeconomics 601
Date: 26 Dec 1992 21:15:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) says:

><In article <1h7t6uINNlel@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
><	The numbers are bogus.  This has been widely documented.
>
>	Are they? The "flash" estimate in October was for
>	an increase of 2.7% or so, which was widely poo-pooed
>	as "cooked".
>
>	Perhaps Horne can provide some actual documentation
>	of his assertion; something other than, oh, 
>	"Mother Jones" or "Spotlight" would be nice.
>	The "Wall Street Journal", for example, seems
>	to find these numbers credible.


     Ahhh, Andy.  As I said before, Barron's.  Perhaps 5 weeks ago,
     when the numbers first came out.  If I must, I'll go get the 
     exact date.  :)

>
><>	And unless those 43 million all had very good Ouija
>
><	This was apparent to *me* 30 days before the election.
>
><>	boards, they couldn't have known over 30 days before
><>	the elcetion *who* was going to win, right?
><>
><><  -=   What goes up, gets sucked down, as the black hole of the combined   =-
><>< -= Federal, State & Local Government AND Private Debt continues collapsing =-
><>
>< >	Funny thing is, private debt is a smaller percentage
>
><       Home equity loans, which have DOUBLED in the past 2 years, aren't 
><       counted as debt.
>
>	Aren't counted as debt by whom, please? Name
>	one reputable economist who does not count them
>	as debt?


    By the U.S. government reporting the figures.

    Barron's lists total home equity loans, as reported by Uncle Sam,
    at around 40 Billion.  

    On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal had an article, perhaps
    a week ago, showing a dramatic increase in home equity loans, from
    around 200 Billion in 1990, to almost 400 Billion in 1992.


     A recovery.   HEHEHEHEHE.  It gets funnier by the day.

    Mastercard reports dollar volume in credit sales is up 20% this 
    year.  I'm just waiting to hear about how everyone forgot they
    weren't getting a tax refund this year.  :)


>	Heck, even the Commerce Department counts them as "debt".
>
><   >	of private income now than it was in 1982; what do
><   >	ordinary folks know about "living within the means"
><   >	that government doesn't?
>
>
>	Anyone else care to answer the above question?
>
>	Horne obviously cannot.
>

       Say what?   My facts are pretty clear.  :)

       I'm convinced we're headed for a bust now.  Maybe 6 months, maybe
   1 year, maybe 2 years.  But a bust is coming.  Go ahead.  Don't believe.
   It's not MY problem. :)


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal