HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:33:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.144834.13804@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> bobh@troy.cc.bellcore.com (hettmansperger,robert) writes:
>>However, the "scientific" view is _also_ a religion: It is based on
>>unproven (and unproveable) articles of faith. 

>What Bullshit flame-bait.  Science and religion may both require "faith" in
>something, but that doesn't mean they are equivalent.

Would you care to offer a definition of "religion", then? Or do you 
prefer to rely on "you'r wrong! I'm right!" rhetoric?

>>That the universe
>>and everything in it obeys physical laws; that these laws are
>>logical and understandable; that these laws are the same everywhere
>>in the universe; etc... 

>You may call this the central "dogma" of the "religion" of science, but science 
>would adapt and respond, and perhaps even change fundamentally if you managed 
>to seriously challenge it.  Try to get a follower of a real religion to 
>admit to that.

How about religious leaders, such as Martin Luther?

>>While I accept and believe in these principles
>>(which the Church used to refer to as the "cult of science"), I 
>>also don't put them ahead of other people's faith. 

>You don't necessarily have to rank them at all, becuase they are very 
>different.

The only real distinctions you have cited are flexablilty (which isn't
accurate, since religions do evolve and change) and (apparently) agreement
with your own views views, which is a totally invalid metric.

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder
From: jsl7@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (J. Shawn Landres)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.misc
Subject: Student - Youth Socio-Political Organizations
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:38:20 GMT
Organization: Columbia University

I'm doing an extended research and writing project on the political
socialization of the younger cohort of the twentysomething generation (born
between 1967 and 1981). My focus is on broad trends in sociopolitical 
attitudes, efficacy, and participation. 

Can anyone:
1) recommend primary (or close secondary) source material
and/or
2) send me contact names and numbers at organizations set up and run by members
of this generational cohort ?

Please be aware that this is *not* an examination of student activism per se
nor is it limited to any part of the political spectrum. I need all sides and
all viewpoints.

Thanks much,

Shawn Landres
jsl7@columbia.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.un
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: What does UN stand for in this newsgroup?
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:05:18 GMT

In article <2346@dutiws.tudelft.nl>, boender@dutiws (P.Boender.TI-tel-4593) writes:
>If so, what is the intended purpose of this forum, and are the specialized
>agencies of the UN to be included in the discussion?

From the newgroup message:

alt.politics.org.un		Politics of United Nations

What is the role of United Nations in world politics?  Who holds the
power on various organs of UN?  Does UN have any real influence?
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:55:50 EST
From: <DHE2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.un
Subject: How about the Security Council

The General Assembly of the UN is the main deliberative body, empowered by the
Charter with considering any matter falling under the organization's cognizance
.  The Security Council -- 15 members with 5 permanent ones (France, the UK, th
e US, the PRC and Russia) -- is the part of the UN which was intended to be pre
eminent.  No matter taken up by the Security Council may be debated by the Gene
ral Assembly without it being referred there by the Council.  Any of the 5 perm
anent members may veto an action being contemplated by the Council (a compromis
e arrived at between the US and UK and the Soviet Union in 1945).  And the Secu
rity Council is the ONLY body whose resolutions are BINDING on the members of t
he UN (it is made a condition of membership in the organization).  Hence, the w
orld did not take kindly to resolutions demanding immediate withdrawal from Kuw
ait being ignored by the Iraqi government.

Dan
From: boender@dutiws.tudelft.nl (P.Boender.TI-tel-4593)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.un
Subject: What does UN stand for in this newsgroup?
Date: 20 Nov 92 11:56:43 GMT
Organization: Delft University of Technology

Hello everybody!

I'm sorry if the answer to this question is supposed to be obvious, but I'm
going to ask anyway:

Am I correct when I think UN in this newsgroup stands for United Nations?

If so, what is the intended purpose of this forum, and are the specialized
agencies of the UN to be included in the discussion?

Answers here or (preferably) by e-mail.

Greetings from the Netherlands (Holland being but a part of this rather dull
little European country),

Eelco Essenberg.
(boender@dutiws.twi.tudelft.nl  or eelco@dutiag.twi.tudelft.nl)
From: jiangh@ucs.orst.edu (Jiang Hao)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.un
Subject: Help u.s. history??????
Date: 21 Nov 1992 01:54:20 GMT
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucs.orst.edu


hi, could anyone tell me 5 things about each of those following statement?
1.worldly affairs. 2.art.. etc. 3.government,war,politics.4.OREGON.5.women. 
6.sports.7.technology,industry.(I like to know the things happened in U.S. and
is between 1787-1850)
thanks for the help!!!!
dj
From: jiangh@ucs.orst.edu (Jiang Hao)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.un
Subject: test
Date: 21 Nov 1992 01:15:19 GMT
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucs.orst.edu


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:13:32 GMT

In article <treilly.722130963@vincent2.iastate.edu> treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly) writes:
>In <1992Nov18.210747.15453@ncsu.edu> mahunt@eos.ncsu.edu (MARK ALLAN HUNT) writes:
>
>>I think the subject line says it all !!!!!!
>>Send flames to alt.to.bad.the.country.will.be.fucked.up.for.four.more.years
>>Second thought KILL CLINTON,KILL CLITON,KILL CLINTON !!!!!!!
>>Appealing to your subconcious.
>
>
>     Well, there's a good way to get the secret service mointoring the
>network.  So thoughful of you.  hope you get a visit from them.
>
For the record, I didn't vote for Clinton, but I still want this idiot arrested
for posting this trash.  And I hope no one thinks all Republicans think this
way.  Heck, I'd be the first one to report him if I could!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17273 alt.politics.democrats.d:580 alt.politics.elections:23942 talk.politics.misc:60428
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:30:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.211953.10182@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox.com (Ron Goers) writes:
>Public employee isn't what I meant.  They DESERVE to get raises approximately
>equal to their private business counterparts.  The problem here is that while
>the "little people" didn't get raises, congress was busy voting themselves
>big fat raises, at the expense of the "little people".

I don't know about state governments, but pay raises for federal
Congressmen and civil servents are tied together: Either both or
neither receive raises.

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17592 alt.rush-limbaugh:10166 or.politics:700
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,or.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriage (was: The Difference Between Cs and Ls)
Keywords: homosexual, marriage
Date: 20 Nov 92 03:55:54 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: na
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <Bx4Dvn.MG9@agora.rain.com> batie@agora.rain.com
(Alan Batie) writes:
>stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>Well, I would like a little more in the way of evidence.
>
>My parents, for one.  I've got no idea why they ever got married.

I don't want to minimize your, or your parent's experience, but I
hardly think that is a basis for national or state policy, nor is it
enough to settle the issue [whether or not it is better on average for
parents to stay together for the children].*

Moreover, whatever pain your parent's marriage caused, it did produce
you (I assume).  This world would be a lesser place without you.

>>In any case, I don't think we are doing enough to encourage people to
>>properly care for their children.
>
>I'll agree with that, although I would go even farther and encourage
>people not to have them until they are really ready for them, and even
>more, really want them.

What would you propose?

>There's too many people on this planet already.

Who would you get rid of?  What groups of people don't we need?  I
don't mean to be flippant.  I find this attitude, this statement, very
troubling, even if it is quite common.  No one wants the world
over-crowded with people, but the way you have expressed this I think
devalues human life.  Human life is precious, and I don't think we
re-enforce that enough.

* Clearly, as I have said before, sometimes divorce is the best thing
for the children.  In years gone by, divorce probably was too hard to
get.  However, I think we have gone too far the other way.  Too many
people don't take the commitment of marriage seriously enough, and
couples get divorced when they and their children would have been better
off if they had stayed together.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:23:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.001754.6379@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>In article <rabjab.224.721014274@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>>I fear that the seemingly liberal idea of legalizing all manner of
>>addictive substances would result eventually in a government that would
>>use drugs to exploit and control its population. 
>
>I doubt the government could exploit legal drugs as much as they exploit
>illegal drugs.
>
>Currently various law enforcement agencies confiscate cash of sufficient
>quantities from "suspected drug dealers", confiscate houses, cars, boats,
>etc., for nothing more than suspicion.
>
>Exactly how could legalization be exploited worse than that?
>
>>Another problem is that the costs to the health system, regardless of
>>education, might become so enormous as to exhaust the amount of 
>>taxation that would keep drugs from being sold on the black market.
>
>The cost to the health system of ILLEGAL drugs is MUCH, MUCH higher than
>that of legal drugs.
>

i question the above statement.  alcohol and cigarettes cost us enormous 
sums of cash in healthcare and from accidents etc.c
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: HIV; Gays in military
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:12:32 GMT

Real important: no one has proved that HIV causes AIDS.  It may have
a high coincidence, but not 100% by any means, and the ignorance of
this fact (or the intentional disavowing it) is very dangerous for
dealing with AIDS in a responsible way.  It is VERY possible that
AIDS is caused by something else, and shooting all the money down
the HIV research funnel is irresponsible.  People discussing this
issue (including propagation re: gays, etc.) should be aware of
this.


Second:  Nice letter I saw in the LA Times this morning:

   "I don't claim to be an expert on homosexuals in the military, but
when I was executive officer on a ship in the Mekong Delta during the
Vietname War, at least 10% of my crew were gay and everyone knew it.
They slept in the same berthing compartments and showered in the same
showers as everyone else.  I never heard one complaint about sexual 
misconduct.  At first I wanted to drum those guys off my ship, but
then I realized that we wouldn't get anybody to replace them and we
needed everybody we could get.  Some of them turned out to be 
outstanding sailors and our unit was cited by the President."
    "It's time for the military brass to realize that the average
sailor is not a homophobic bigot."  
		
					signed Samuel G. Platts
						Sylmar


-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 11:29:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.225051.25114@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
}How many people die each year from cancer?
}How many of these cases are directly related to tobacco and liquor?
}Half of all traffic deaths are caused by alcohol.

No, they're caused by drivers whose dexterity has been impaired by alcohol.

}These three things adds up to an amount that is 
}staggeringly high when compared to ILLEGAL drugs.
}Brewers and tobacco companies are getting rich
}and people are being killed because of it.  When
}are we going to do something about it?

Let's expand upon this: people who know that smoking causes cancer and that
alcohol impairs the dexterity they need to drive consent to give their
money to the alcoholic beverage and tobacco industries.  In return, they
get the benefit of consuming their product.  The industries profit, and
some of their customers kill themselves with their purchases.

When are we going to do something about it?  What have we done about it?
Tobacco and Alcohol prohibition have both been tried and have been admitted
failures for decades in the case of alcohol and centuries in the case of
tobacco.  Education is being tried, but we're hampered in the USA by the
public school monopoly which graduates 60% of its students without teaching
them how to read.  Taxes upon cigarettes haven't been shown to reduce
consumption significantly, but they have subsidized a nasty ad campaign
against the tobacco industry that wouldn't ever get supported by cigarette
smokers voluntarily.

Yet for some strange reason, we've gone from bathtub gin to wine-coolers and
"lite" beer, and from stogies to low-tar cigarettes.  We must be doing
something right already, without any draconian tyranny.  How odd.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
From: asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Massive Clinton-bashing
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 18:29:15 GMT

In article <92Nov19.103908est.102@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>>
>They probably don't, 'cause the TaiPing rebellion against the Qing Dynasty
>in China happened during the 1850s and 1860s.  

Oh, picky picky. What do you expect; I'm the product of an American education.

By the way, just how far off the coast of Florida _is_ China?
:-)
Alan
From: atkins@bernoulli.WPI.EDU (aron chandler atkins)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: GAYS IN MILITARY
Date: 22 Nov 1992 01:39:31 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bernoulli.wpi.edu

In article <371.42.uupcb@uttsbbs.uucp> neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black)  writes:
>Some people are so silly. 
yes, this is true.

>They say that gays should not be allowed in
>the military because the heterosexuals will think that they'll get funny
>looks from other guys while in the shower.  Thus, they are saying that
>the problem is with the gay person.
the problem, people, is that in today's society, it is not right to view people
as individuals, it is not right to treat your brother as an equal, it is not 
right to even talk to someone who even has a differrent heritage. i call for a
change. this change must come now. we must be our own person, we must be true 
to ourselves.
so many people try so hard to be what others want them to be, and that is
upsetting. these people, though so accepted, are never at peace with 
themselves. feel sorry for them and help them to change. help them to realize 
the atrocities that are happening because of their behavior.

>It is not.  The problem is with the heterosexual man who *thinks* he's
>getting funny looks.  Those who think that gay men are attracted to
>anything that moves are prejudiced, just like people were (are)
>prejudiced against blacks, asians, and the like.
all i have to say is that finally is a decent opinion of how demon-like our 
society is.

still a humanist...
					-----aron-----

===============================================================================
| THE MEANING OF LIFE IS SOMEWHERE IN MY ALPHABET SOUP	 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@|
|    AND ITS MAKING PSYCHADELIC PICTURES IN MY MIND	 |      e-mail        |
|      I DON'T UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING BUT I TRY...        | atkins@wpi.WPI.EDU |
|              ...AT LEAST I AM MYSELF...                |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@|
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: williamf@umbc8.umbc.edu (TheBigBopper)
Subject: Re: FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON,FUCK CLINTON
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:09:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.080757.21689@wam.umd.edu> nuke@wam.umd.edu (root) writes:
>In article treilly@iastate.edu (Edward C Reilly) writes:
>>
>>     Though not a direct threat to anyone, mr. Hunt's post implies that
>>this is a free forum for discussing threats.  The government then has
>>reason to watch, in the interest of seeing someone go the next step and
>>discuss threats.
>
>Actually, discussing threats would be more relevant.
>
>For instance, as cute as his trip through DC was...
>He was traveling, in the open, through a region reputed for having
>a high number of people hiding and using guns.  Although a vast majority
>of the killings (note this is an area where gun bans are in effect) are
>due to drug-related incidents... this still isn't the best place in the
>world for PE Clinton to walk about, flashing his pearly whites.  All too
>easy for things to go wrong.
>

What the fuck are you implying???  That in an area where thousands of people 
live and pass through daily that the Prez elect is under greater threat that
anywhere else on the campaign trail??  Political assasinations (attempted or
otherwise) have all been carried out by political ideologues or simple crazies.
Its you stupid, motherfucking, white snobbish bastards who at every turn try to
drag Wash. DC down.  You might have well have explicitly included the racial
component you not so subtly implied.  Georgia Ave. is home to many, many decent
folks who own their homes and are heartily sick of some of the problems fester-
ing there.  But its NOT a war zone of any kind and you have NO right to imply
that.  You ought to stay in fucking College Park and drive down Wisconsin 
Ave. if you need to go into the city.  For all that I hope you get your fucking
head blown off one day in the city, you bastard.
     
implid aVe *all* been
carrieD>gRANted, this will be his new home... 'course, it's mine, too... mostly.
>
>Perhaps someone will clue him in, and he won't do stuff like this.
>Personally, I'm unhappy that he was elected, ESPECIALLY due to his non-
>stance on the economy... but better him than Gore.  Oh my!  
>
>Maybe I should mail him a bp-vest?  I *reeeeeally* don't want anything
>to happen to him.  <shudder>
>
>Take Care...
>
From: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: RE: GAYS IN MILITARY
Date: 21 Nov 92 15:44:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Transfer Station BBS, Danville, CA - 510-837-4610/837-5591
Reply-To: neil.black@uttsbbs.uucp (Neil Black) 

Some people are so silly.  They say that gays should not be allowed in
the military because the heterosexuals will think that they'll get funny
looks from other guys while in the shower.  Thus, they are saying that
the problem is with the gay person.

It is not.  The problem is with the heterosexual man who *thinks* he's
getting funny looks.  Those who think that gay men are attracted to
anything that moves are prejudiced, just like people were (are)
prejudiced against blacks, asians, and the like.

People have to face the fact that gay people are not animals, and there
are currently thousands of homosexuals in the military who perform very
well.  Hell, they even take showers, and I bet that they don't go around
giving funny looks.  It's time for America to mature, and not to respond
to such issues in such a childlike manner.
                                                          
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17533 alt.president.clinton:590
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Lame humor in the late night talk shows
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:15:29 GMT
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.

In article <20NOV199212274708@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>
>I suppose you were equally disgusted with the 4 years of Dan Quayle jokes, by
>Leno, Letterman, Doonesbury, Carson, etc., etc., which had only one motif
>instead of three: "Hey Dan Quayle is stupid!"
>

	It was an orchestrated campaign of dirty tricks consisting of
repeating what DQ actually said.  Brrrr.

	-rj
--
Ranjan Bagchi					       Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Legalizing drugs
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:50:51 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1992Nov20.212310.4009@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov18.001754.6379@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
|> >The cost to the health system of ILLEGAL drugs is MUCH, MUCH higher than
|> >that of legal drugs.
|> >
|> 
|> i question the above statement.  alcohol and cigarettes cost us enormous 
|> sums of cash in healthcare and from accidents etc.c

How many people die each year from cancer?
How many of these cases are directly related to tobacco and liquor?
Half of all traffic deaths are caused by alcohol.

These three things adds up to an amount that is 
staggeringly high when compared to ILLEGAL drugs.
Brewers and tobacco companies are getting rich
and people are being killed because of it.  When
are we going to do something about it?

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Jared Dahl             | "My heart is human, my blood is boiling, | 
| Systems Programmer     |  my brain IBM"                           |
| IBM - Rochester, MN    |              -- STYX,  "Mr. Roboto"      |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Opinions expressed are mine, not IBM's.