HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Interracial Dating (The Atomic Dog Speaks)
Date: 11 Nov 1992 10:39:30 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1992Nov11.144627.19924@osf.org>,
kenny@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup) writes:
>I wrote:
>>$(FWIW, I 2 yrs ago I used to date someone 38...no kids either. Perfection!)
>
>In article <1992Nov11.015259.18980@news2.cis.umn.edu>
>mmoore@staff.tc.umn.edu ("None of ya Bizness") writes:
>>Kenny, how can it be perfection if you ain't datin them no more.
>
>It was *great* while it lasted- I actually don't know how much her age had
>to do with it, but I'm sure it was a factor somehow. (It sure was on the
>way out of it!)
>
>I'm not with her for essentially two reasons:
>
>She called her cards in, ("I'm not getting any younger, and I need to know
>what you're gonna do with me"), and I'm scared-to-death of the "C" word....
>These last few years I won't be going in Guinness for "Longest Relationships".
>
>(That deafening "thud" you hear is, I'm sure, the sound of an "F" key being
>slammed down in Stanford, CA....IN-COMING!)
.
.
I was simply wondering when the next shoe was going to drop, when lo
and behold...
.
Frankly, dude, if you wanna have fun, great.  But front with your
partners...not string them, that's the point. Maybe then, my girl
wouldn't have thought you were serious and wasted her time dreamin
and schemin.  But perhaps that's your line anyway.
.
At this time, however, this 38-year-old is having problems with the
younger set...in which they are running after me and I am running
away from them! No, I'm not into brothers that young, no.  I am not
into raising male children not my own, no.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,triangle.politics,talk.politics.misc,soc.women,talk.rape
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Eva Clayton bio
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:43:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.165457.7393@ncsu.edu> black@akebono.math.ncsu.edu (Kelly Black) writes:
>knowledge of the subject boiled down to three words:
>training, training, training.  We were taught to respect
>the weapons we carried and taught that training and prof-
>iciency go hand in hand.

Out in the real world, effectiveness is the appropriate measure.

>I simply do not understand how
>people equate ownership of a weapon with safety.

Experience.  People who use guns for self-defense are less likely to
be killed/injured than people who use other methods.  Maybe they are
untrained rabble, but they're effective.  If you want to make them
more effective, start by increasing their numbers.  It is absurd to
think that decreasing their numbers will help anyone.

There are lots of people with more training than police, yet they
can't get permits to carry.  Take CA.  If the mayor doesn't kiss your
butt, you don't get a permit.

>matically gain protection.  In fact, use of a weapon by
>someone who does not understand it can result in quite
>the opposite.

"Often"?  How about some statistical basis for that claim?

The only people who lose guns to "attackers" are police, and they lose
them to holster grabs before they even know that they're under attack.
They lose them from exposed holsters, and civilians don't carry that
way.  (Even civilians who carry stupidly don't have the police
problem.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Subject: Re: Spike Lee
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:51:53 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


In <Ds2uTB2w163w@peewee> peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer) writes:

>	>Really, Stromer, you need to learn to pause and count to five 
>	>before you right down the first thing that comes into your head.  
>		    ^^^^^
>The teacher has spoken.  And I'll bet you laughed when Quayle had trouble
>spelling "potato".

Do you think I don't know how to spell "write" or do you think I (like
everyone else on this group) occasionally fail to proofread properly?
Pointing out spelling mistakes is the first refuge of someone who
doesn't have anything substantive to say.



>	>Georgia not only has an anti-Sodomy statute, but it was in 
>	>Georgia that the case of Bowers v. Hardwick originated, in which 
>	>the Supreme Court upheld a criminal prosecution for homosexual 
>	>sodomy in a bedroom.

>The Supreme Court overturned such a statute in 1992, with Thomas/Scalia/
>Rehnquist/Kennedy/O'Connor/Souter and co.  I shall take it upon myself to
>find the case name, date, and summary, and post it to this newsgroup.

I defy you.  Because no such decision exists.

What did happen is that a Federal Appeals Court invalidated the
discharge of a gay soldier because he hadn't actually done any overt
act.  Hardly what you claim though.



>	>You can discriminate against anyone unless the law says you can't.  
>	
>Gee, and I thought that the U.S. Constitution applied to everyone, not        
>just specified individuals.  Can I discriminate against people with
>glasses, because no law says I can't?  


Maybe you should actually read the constitution, instead of just
making things up as you go along.  The Constitution decribes our
system of government.  Everything in the constitution only applies to
the government.  It says what the government can do and what it can't
do.  It describes the way the government is structured.  It says not
one word about private conduct.  It says not one word about whether
private individuals can discriminate against other private indivuduals
on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other
characteristic.  That is why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was
necessary to destroy apartheid in the South: because to a large
extent, the segregation was not mandated, it was private, customary
racism enforced by peer pressure, habit and prejudice.

The same is true today with anti-gay discrimination.  And in the
absence of legislation, gays are just as vulnerable as were blacks in
the old South.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner


-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner

Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: stefan@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stefan Michalowski)
Subject: Re: " DIs and "Nigger" Dat
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:33:10 GMT

GRIIVEA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu gibbers:
>...
>That is to say that one of the unique characteristics of
>homo-socialis is her ability to act as a quasi-autonomous, boundedly
>rational, symbolic social actor.  Acting as cultural entrepreneurs
>with limited information, individuals use the resources at their
>           [much more socio-pop blather deleted]
>manipulate "that web of significance" in which we are all suspended,
>so that they can improve their life chances.
>...

>A people who losses control of its language...

You just lost it right there, pal...


Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: sunny@al.cs.wm.edu (John S. Egbo)
Subject: NBC Today Show.
Organization: College of William & Mary, founded 1693
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 02:33:57 GMT

How African is this newsgroup?  Did I miss something?  I don't
remember any discussions about the impact of a one week and one
day of Today Show focused on Africa and its peoples.

Is it just another show or do you think that this show is a small
step towards the education of the masses?  What do you think that
Africa is like?  I am betting that for most of you, your image
is distorted and mis-informed (or is it dis-informed?).

What do you think?

-Sunny

Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,triangle.politics,talk.politics.misc,soc.women
From: wbrown@access.digex.com (William Brown)
Subject: Re: Eva Clayton bio
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:24:03 GMT


Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,triangle.politics,talk.politics.misc,soc.women,talk.rape,talk.politics.guns
From: wbrown@access.digex.com (William Brown)
Subject: Re: Spike Lee
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:12:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.205153.15396@panix.com> lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:
>
>In <Ds2uTB2w163w@peewee> peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer) writes:
>
>>	>Really, Stromer, you need to learn to pause and count to five 
>>	>before you right down the first thing that comes into your head.  
>>		    ^^^^^
>>The teacher has spoken.  And I'll bet you laughed when Quayle had trouble
>>spelling "potato".
>
>Do you think I don't know how to spell "write" or do you think I (like
>everyone else on this group) occasionally fail to proofread properly?
>Pointing out spelling mistakes is the first refuge of someone who
>doesn't have anything substantive to say.
>
>
>
>>	>Georgia not only has an anti-Sodomy statute, but it was in 
>>	>Georgia that the case of Bowers v. Hardwick originated, in which 
>>	>the Supreme Court upheld a criminal prosecution for homosexual 
>>	>sodomy in a bedroom.
>
>>The Supreme Court overturned such a statute in 1992, with Thomas/Scalia/
>>Rehnquist/Kennedy/O'Connor/Souter and co.  I shall take it upon myself to
>>find the case name, date, and summary, and post it to this newsgroup.
>
>I defy you.  Because no such decision exists.
>
>What did happen is that a Federal Appeals Court invalidated the
>discharge of a gay soldier because he hadn't actually done any overt
>act.  Hardly what you claim though.
>
>
>
>>	>You can discriminate against anyone unless the law says you can't.  
>>	
>>Gee, and I thought that the U.S. Constitution applied to everyone, not        
>>just specified individuals.  Can I discriminate against people with
>>glasses, because no law says I can't?  
>
>
>Maybe you should actually read the constitution, instead of just
>making things up as you go along.  The Constitution decribes our
>system of government.  Everything in the constitution only applies to
>the government.  It says what the government can do and what it can't
>do.  It describes the way the government is structured.  It says not
>one word about private conduct.  It says not one word about whether
>private individuals can discriminate against other private indivuduals
>on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other
>characteristic.  That is why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was
>necessary to destroy apartheid in the South: because to a large
>extent, the segregation was not mandated, it was private, customary
>racism enforced by peer pressure, habit and prejudice.
>
>The same is true today with anti-gay discrimination.  And in the
>absence of legislation, gays are just as vulnerable as were blacks in
>the old South.
>
>-- 
>larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
>_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
>The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
>
>
>-- 
>larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
>_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
>The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
>


Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.misc,triangle.politics
From: barber@jazz.concert.net (Scott Barber)
Subject: Re: Release from the Clinton Camp
Organization: MCNC Center for Communications -- CONCERT Network
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:52:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct22.143719.5031@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>
What it takes is to 
>ignore the fact that the Constitution expressly prohibits the government from 
>infringing the right to bear arms, 

I'm not aware that the Brady Bill infringes on anyone's right to
bear arms, does it?  Please correct me if I'm wrong.  I thought it
was a measure to require a waiting period before purchase.
Personally, it seems to me to be moderately useless, but I don't see
how it is an infringement of the right to bear arms.  

The ammendment doesn't say, for example, that you can buy any arms 
TODAY and without registration, nor that 6-year olds can take them 
to school.  I feel that both of these "infringements" are not only 
constitutional and reasonable, but also an important step toward 
making the society safer.  Many others feel that this alone is 
precisely the government's role.

>and that a great portion of the people are 
>opposed to gun control.  

My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of Americans
favor gun control.  Additionally, the NRA is one of the most 
powerful special interest lobbies in existence.  I believe this is 
the group being referred to by Sarah Brady, not the American people 
as a whole, as you suggest below.

>If we, the people, are opposed to gun control then 
>nobody has any business doing "what it takes" to impose it. 

Would you agree that if we, the people, are indeed FOR reasonable
and constitutional gun control measures, that the government should 
not stand in the way of it?

Scott

Scott Barber		  "I voted for the crazy, bozo, ozone men."
barber@jazz.concert.net		--- Tuesday, November Third  ---
MCNC, RTP, NC, BVD		--- Many Voted, Bush Retired ---
					(anagramatized!!!)

Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: kenny@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup)
Subject: Re: Interracial Dating (The Atomic Dog Speaks)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:46:27 GMT

I wrote:
>$(FWIW, I 2 yrs ago I used to date someone 38...no kids either. Perfection!)

In article <1992Nov11.015259.18980@news2.cis.umn.edu>
mmoore@staff.tc.umn.edu ("None of ya Bizness") writes:
>Kenny, how can it be perfection if you ain't datin them no more.

It was *great* while it lasted- I actually don't know how much her age had
to do with it, but I'm sure it was a factor somehow. (It sure was on the
way out of it!)

I'm not with her for essentially two reasons:

She called her cards in, ("I'm not getting any younger, and I need to know
what you're gonna do with me"), and I'm scared-to-death of the "C" word....
These last few years I won't be going in Guinness for "Longest Relationships".

(That deafening "thud" you hear is, I'm sure, the sound of an "F" key being
slammed down in Stanford, CA....IN-COMING!)

-- 
Kenny Crudup, Contractor, OSF DCE QA
OSF, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142	+1 617 621 7306
kenny@osf.osf.org			OSF has nothing to do with this post.
	  Religion: The longest-running gag ever played on Mankind.
From: helfman@aero.org (Robert S. Helfman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: President Bill Clinton
Date: 9 Nov 1992 05:11:56 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Nov9.034617.28987@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes:
>In article <oXcwTB1w165w@netlink.cts.com>, galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross) writes...
>>[...stuff deleted...]
>>Smooth sailing with Congress? Not necessarily:
>>In my lifetime, the only President who had that was Lyndon Johnson. Every 
>>other one, without exception, found himself locking horns with Congress, 
>>even when it was dominated by his own party.
>
>LBJ didn't have smooth sailing, or at least it just may have appeared as such.
>He had plenty of disagreements with congress, even though it was dominated
>by democrats. The reason he had success with congress, was that he was a 
>master at getting congressmen to do what he wanted.  He would personally go 
>around and coax and push, and twist the arms of congressmen to go along with 
>him.  My point is, LBJ was the last president that had the ability to do this.  
LBJ was the last President to come from the Senate, as opposed to 
a governor's mansion or the Vice Presidency. He had been Senate Majority
Leader. It clearly helped.
From: HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Clinton's In, Bushie's OUT!
Date: 9 Nov 1992 15:47:37 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1dl8c1INNole@agate.berkeley.edu>,
ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202) writes:
>
>Choices I heard talked about for Sec. of Defense were Sam Nun, Senate Armed
>Services Committee Chairman, and Les Aspin, House Armed Services Committee
>Chairman.  If Aspin gets chosen, that would put Berkeley's own Ron Dellums
>in line to be the next Chairman.  He would be the first black man ever to
>chair this very important and highly public (lots of MacNeil/Lehrer and
>Nightline) position.
.
.
Hot damn.  Dellums as Armed Services Chairman!?  Now these guys
really have to get busy...the cocaine charge didn't stick and the
check bouncing didn't either.
.
If Aspin is chosen, Dellums is going to be one heavy gunslinger for
peace.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Subject: dating and commitment
Originator: gds@york.cs.ucla.edu
Reply-To: gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner)
Organization: in your face!
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 02:19:47 GMT

In article <1ds8e2INNkip@morrow.stanford.edu> HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.230334.2924@osf.org>,
>kenny@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup) writes:
>>But, see, that ain't it at all. This whole thing was going along just the
>>way I wanted it- no one (she didn't, and I sure as hell was never)
>>ever brought out sticky, problematic words like "love" or "future" or
>>"commitment" (consider also this is the word they also use when they throw
>>you in the looney bin), so we were just doing our thing, having a good time,
>>going everywhere and doing everything.
>Man, just because a woman doesn't say nothin, doesn't mean she's not
>thinkin about it.

True, but should he have to read her mind?  If she won't say how she
feels, and he's been honest about how he feels, what else can he do?

I think people (men and women) need to take responsibility for
themselves in getting their needs met in relationships.  People
shouldn't assume things are a certain way unless this has been
discussed.

>>I respect and care for the woman I'm with.  If this constitutes
>>"strangin'", well hell, I'm sorry. [...] Maybe, like I eluded to
>>in another post, certain appearances, possesions, actions and
>>careers may subconsiously put ideas in somone's mind, but this
>>wasn't an active thing on my part.  (Maybe I'm just nice to be with-
>><gasp>!)
>Look, man.  On the third or fourth date, you might have said,
>hey--I like you a lot and let's just continue to have fun.  What do
>you think?  You'dda been spared a lotta grief.  Which is what I look
>for in men.  No strain and no pain.

It looks to me from what he wrote that he was up front about what he
wanted and where things were.  Maybe she could've said up front,
hey--I am looking for something that could lead to something
permanent, what do you think?

A story:

I was seeing someone a few years back, who I wasn't in love with (but
liked a lot), who was in love with me.  I wasn't seeing anyone else,
because I was happy to be spending time with her and no one else.  She
said that it was cool by her.  My sister asked me why I wasn't seeing
anyone else, and when I told her why, she said that I was probably
sending the implied message to my SO at the time that this was going
to be a permanent thing.  I claimed that it was wrong for my SO to
make assumptions like that, but my sister said that that's the way
women feel.

Anyway, I discussed it with my SO and, basically, my sister was right.
After that, I decided that it was time to break up, because I didn't
think it was a good idea to stay with someone whose feelings for me
were not the same as mine for her, and who had a different picture
of the long term.  Yet, I still claim that people shouldn't make
assumptions about these things.  You can't read someone else's mind.
Only they know what they really need and want.

--gregbo
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: cp7927@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater)
Subject: Re: Thank God for Ron Brown
Reply-To: cp7927@oktext.UUCP (Caryn S. Prater)
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 04:44:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.201827.5735@rock.concert.net> bing@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.204635.8989@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> jama@inetnode.austin.ibm.com (Jama Barreh) writes:
>>In article <1dc8g7INNohm@morrow.stanford.edu> HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels) writes:
>>>.
>>>Otherwise, the dude could do good in The Clinton Cabinet and not in
>>>some of the "black" type positions like HUD.  How bout Attorney
>>>General?
>>         I heard/read somewhere that Ron Brown is eyeing even a bigger
>>price. He would like to be the Secretary of State.
>>   
>	I think that after the Brown`s contirbution to the
>party that they will demand that he stay on as Chairperson.
>The first four years will zip by!!!!
>
>			Carter

Geesh, isn't this kinda familiar; ala James Baker?

Caryn

--
Nolite te bastardes carborunodorum
       Author unknown :-)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
From: kenny@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup)
Subject: Re: Interracial Dating (The Atomic Dog Speaks)
Organization: Open Software Foundation
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:53:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.203317.9531@cbnewse.cb.att.com>
ronaldd@cbnewse.cb.att.com (ronald.h.davis) writes:
>but doesn't it so often seem that the one's doing most of the
>complaining seem to be women who:
>	a)weigh 300+pounds.  hey! there's *always* been a shortage for
>         these pigs.
>	b)have a half dozen kids by as many different guys.  who wants
>         to work hard all their lives just to raise *other* guys' kids?

In article <1992Nov9.205756.16041@cs.ucla.edu>
gds@cs.ucla.edu (Greg Skinner) writes:
>This isn't doing any of us any good.

True, but quick- how many brothas out there *not* run into this? It must be
some state law in Mass that unmarried (now, or ever) sisters have to have
at least one child. Everybody's got kids. Hell, I'll take a smoker over a
parent anyday.

>Comments like this justify black women calling black men dogs, etc.

...and how does this "justify"? Perchance you meant "Comments like this cause
Black women to *retaliate* by calling us dogs, etc."

	-Kenny "seen a lot in just 28 years" Crudup
-- 
Kenny Crudup, Contractor, OSF DCE QA
OSF, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA 02142	+1 617 621 7306
kenny@osf.osf.org			OSF has nothing to do with this post.
	  Religion: The longest-running gag ever played on Mankind.