HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: AIDS and high-risk behavior
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:35:03 GMT

In article <BvII61.EBz@mail.boi.hp.com> kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen) writes:
>Boy, I must be getting thicker skin.  I can't believe I'm going to jump
>into this one.
>
>The definition of high risk behavior is becoming broader all the time.  As 
>more people get the virus, it becomes more and more of a heterosexual 
>problem.  I spent some time in Africa last winter, and AIDs is *not* a 
>homosexual or drug-users disease.  It is rampant in the whole population.  

Genital ulcers and other STDs (which greatly facilitate the spread of HIV
in vaginal sex) are rampant in the African population.  Thus, the African
example is of little relevance to one curious as to how AIDS will spread
in the United States.

>That may very well happen here also.  

Not likely.  In the vast majority of monogamous heterosexual couples where
one partner becomes infected, the uninfected partner stays uninfected.
HIV is not easy to transmit.  It requires direct semen-to-blood or
blood-to-blood contact.  And males are seventeen times better transmitters
of HIV than females, so the spread of HIV in the heterosexual community
will not be as rapid as that in the homosexual community unless heterosexuals
are more than four times as promiscuous.

>The way that relates to you is that 
>you cannot be sure you're safe just because you don't engage in hi-risk 
>behavior.  The virus can go undetected for years, and it's affecting more 
>people all the time.  

AIDS can lie dormant for years on end, but HIV is detectable within six
months.

>When everyone except you has the virus, there is no 
>such thing as low-risk behavior.  

But when an insignificant minority of the population of potential non-IVDU
heterosexuals has the virus, there is.

One has less chance of contract AIDS in a single heterosexual encounter than
dying in a car accident in the ten-mile drive to that encounter.

>Twenty years ago the chances you might get
>the AIDs virus were virtually 0.  Now you say yourself that the chances
>are *near* zero.  

What's wrong with near zero odds?  Look up some time the odds of being
struck by lightening or dying in a car accident or by slipping on the
soap in the bathroom or in an elevator accident at UMass-Amherst.  All
are near zero also, and none significantly affect people's behavior.

>In ten years from now, your odds will be worse.  

Not much worse.  New cases of AIDS have been levelling off for several 
years now.
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE right on target
Organization: Purdue University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:42:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.034639.18988@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes:

>   If anyone saw the sketch about Clinton, was that on the money or what?
>I mean if I hear one more man-on-the-street interview with Joe Blow from
>Kokomo saying "Uh, duh, none of the candidates are addressing the issues"
>I'm gonna PUKE!

Excuse me, but Dan Quayl is from Huntington, not Kokomo.

Larry J


-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman)
Subject: Re: pat buchanan's convention speech
Organization: University of Washington
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:48:26 GMT

groenvel@brown.crayola.cs.psu.edu (John D Groenveld) writes:

>I am looking for some quotes out of his speech but don't have the time
>read the transcript. Mainly Im looking for his and any other Republican
>which could be deemed racist or intolerant ("religious and cultural war"
>Basically im having a discussion with a republican who asked which 
>republican leaders were racist and i need some quotes.
>John

my time's valuable, too, but send me twenty bucks and i'll do it.

						-- dave

-- 
 /'''   The Machman     machman@milton.u.washington.edu    david c carroll
 c-OO                                                                      
    \                     "Big Science.  Hallelujah"
   -                                                                       
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 05:46:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.032721.4480@midway.uchicago.edu> elle@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>>wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>[something truly stupid]
>>This is sick. John Peter Wagner, don't embarass yourself and your high 
>>school and University of Chicago ...
>
>There are twenty thousand people with access to Usenet at this University,
>and _most_ of us can think our way out of a paper bag.  Please don't blame
>Mr. Wagner on the rest of us.

	Yes. I would have nothing to do with the culturally-brainwashed
'College Democrats' like Ms. Seebacher. I love watching them drop
classes that are 'offensive to their ideals.'

			Wagman

                  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
From: williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams)
Subject: Re: Quayle is more charitable than Gore
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:13:55 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <1992Sep30.034955.11642@midway.uchicago.edu>, by wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner):
> 
> 	I lov it! Once again you Democrats, liberals, basically
> cowardly scum of the Earth once again make a personal attack on
> an opposing viewpoint! What is this, Krystalnacht?  Who are the 
> fascists!  Attack me personally, you damned dogs of scum and cowardice,
> and I will take you ALL to your graves!
> 
> 					John Peter Wagner
> P.S. Pardon the bellicosity. 
> 
> 
The Four Alt.Fan.Dan-Quayle Disclaimers

1. We aren't nice to conservatives.  In our daily lives, for a multitude
   of reasons, we are nice to conservative people.  Here, we get rid of
   all the bile that builds up from all that being nice.

2. Ad hominem attacks are par for the course.  If you want otherwise,
   start alt.warm-and-cuddly.neo-conservatives, and stay out of our
   sandbox.  Ad hominem attacks are the heart and soul of politics
   anyway -- it's the core of the Republican Presidential campaign
   strategy.

3. If you post a really stupid message, as Mr. Pertunnen did, you should
   be willing to accept the consequences.

4. Spelling errors should be eschewed, as they generate a ridiculous volume
   of postings pointing them out.
--
Kent Williams -- williams@cs.uiowa.edu
"I'm tired of being nice to people who're full of shit" -- Me
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: elle@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ellen Keyne Seebacher)
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion
Reply-To: elle@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 03:27:21 GMT

mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>[something truly stupid]
>This is sick. John Peter Wagner, don't embarass yourself and your high 
>school and University of Chicago ...

There are twenty thousand people with access to Usenet at this University,
and _most_ of us can think our way out of a paper bag.  Please don't blame
Mr. Wagner on the rest of us.

--                    __
Ellen Keyne Seebacher \/             elle@midway.uchicago.edu
  "If I cannot write a follow-up or new article that communicates my thoughts
   quickly and with integrity, I don't post. ... my solution is not to post
   crap, but to not post at all."  --Peter Whittaker (pww@bnr.ca)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: You're a racist! statements
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 04:13:45 GMT


Geez I don't believe this, I'm called a redneck after posting a message on
why name calling is not the answer to racial problems.

No trailer park person here--I posted that message myself.

Simon

Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8265 alt.politics.bush:7566 soc.rights.human:3780 alt.society.civil-liberty:6124
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.rights.human,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Civil Rights are Absolute.  was: Re: Legalizing drugs (was Re: Clinton's Gestapo/Plan for takeover)
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:37:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <1992Oct1.000932.9903@newshub.ariel.yorku.ca> cs911461@ariel.yorku.ca (CHRISTIAN D. ARMOUR) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.011619.6470@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>>What good does having a philosophical position to back you up do
>>when the guns are out? Good question. In the short run, relatively
>>little (except that smug feeling of moral superiority) but in the
>>long run people have proven remarkably willing to put their lives
>>on the line and topple governments precisely because they believe
>>in those rights.
>	Oh yes!  Which is why I consider the right to bear arms a
>	worthwhile thing to have in any nation.  It prevents abuse
>	by the leaders who control the military.  But the masses are
>	the masses.  They have a power all their own.  The power of
>	the individual is relatively little.  We're addressing the 
>	relativity of the individual's rights in the face of in-
>	surmountable adversity.  Unless you have those numbers, your
>	opinions don't matter to anyone.

Think about it for a second. If an individual has no rights, then
how can the masses have rights? No matter how many times you add
zero, you end up with the same thing. It is only because each individual
within the mass believes in their own rights that the mass movement
can accomplish something. 

Once again: there is a difference between having rights and being able
to exercise them. If you put my arm and hand in a cast so I can't move
them, that doesn't me I no longer have an arm and hand, and that they
magically reappear after the cast is removed. If individuals confronted
by superior force had no rights, then they would have nothing to complain
about if those non-existent rights were violated. That is brigandage.

paul
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8094 alt.politics.bush:7428
From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Job Creation (Arkansas vs. USA)
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:26:15 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Sep28.181426.15712@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert) writes:
>In article <47895@shamash.cdc.com> rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes) writes:
>
>> Another piece of information from this morning interview:  Arkansas, 
>under the
>> allegedly "tax-and-spend" Governor Clinton has the second lowest tax 
>burden 
>> among all the states in the USA.  Does the label stick?
>
>Alleged....come on.  Clinton has made his intentions to raise taxes and 
>spending well known.   As for Arkansas,  with one of the lowest per capita 
>incomes in the country, you simply can't tax what people don't have.... 
>and unlike the federal government, the state can't spend what it doesn't 
>have.  By law, the budget must be balanced, although Clinton would have 
>you believe that he balanced it through some miricle.
>

When Bush was visiting the states surrounding Arkansas he was running Clinton
down for (among other things) not SPENDING enough on prisons.  It was later
revealed that Arkansas prisons were just as adequate as prisons in the rest
of the country but are run more cost effectively and thus require less
spending.

Peter Lauren
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Challenge for President Clinton
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:52:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Distribution: usa

tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley) writes:

>.... Even Al Gore doesn't like the line item veto...
>--
Of course Gore doesn't like the line item veto. He is one of the
biggest spenders in the Senate. 

				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Books: Perot, Gore, Limbaugh, Bio on Clinton
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:17:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.181029.3504@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.021002.23310@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.220008.25909@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>
>>>So who's in the lead in terms of number of books sold, current ranking, etc.
>>>
>>>Ross Perot's Book, Albert Gores, Rush Limbaughs, or Clintons Biography?
>>
>>Limbaugh's book is on the top (#1) of the NY Times Bestsellers List, as
>>of Sunday.  <head shaking, wondering "Why?">
>
>Rush Limbaugh is #1 on NY Times bestseller, hardcover.
>Ross Perot is #1 on NY Times bestseller, softcover
>  Ross's book came out in August - I am not sure when Rush's
>  book came out but I think it was about the same time.

The Limbaugh has 1 MILLION copies in print (some 700K sold so far, I
think).  This is an almost surreally high number for a hardcover book
($20-$25 a pop).  The trade paperback should be out within a year, and
supposed to make a greater killing.


--
"I was trying to figure out which of my friends were hedgehogs, and which
were foxes...."
"Shakespeare wrote _King Lear_, NOT _King Leo_...."
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Pro-Abortion
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:51:50 GMT
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
: I suggest that all pro-abortion people start by aborting their own
: children, all of them.  Then, when they have found the joy of it
: they can tell the rest of the world and the rest of the world
: can voluntarily join them.
:
: 			J. Wagner
: 
: P.S. Happy extinction, suckers

What?  You don't want to outlaw abortion first?  What a momentous day!
We can count Mr. Wagner among the multitudes of people that think abortion
is wrong, but does not need to be illegal!

--
Michael Adams (aka StarOwl)	 		"Republicans understand the
Internet:  StarOwl@uiuc.edu			 importance of bondage between
Bitnet:    FREE1217@UIUCVMD			 parent and child."
Anonymous: wi.5467@n7kbt.rain.com			-- Dan Quayle
UUCP:      ...!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!StarOwl                                    

Marrou/Lord in '92
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8467 talk.politics.misc:49531 alt.rush-limbaugh:6534 alt.politics.bush:7723
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:42:31 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Jack Schmidling) writes:
|> 
|>  Michael Polen)
|>  
|>        I'm with you.....  Tom Haden admits that when he says
|>  |> "economic democracy" that he is really talking about 
|>  socialism.  He says that "socialism" has a bad name, and as 
|>  such tries to avoid that term.
|>  
|>  
|>  <Tom Haden is nor more your typical Democrat than Rush L is 
|>  your typical Republican.
|>  
|>  
|>  First of all, who the hell is Tom Haden?
|>  
Tom Haden was a member of the Chicago 7, former husband of Jane
Fonda, a very, very, left wing activist.  Later he moderated
his views and was elected as a Democarate in Southern Calif.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Subject: "The Media Monopoly" posted to rec.mag
Organization: NDA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:33:43 GMT


For an interesting discussion of "The Media Monopoly",
see the recent posts on that topic in rec.mag.


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8457 alt.politics.bush:7718 alt.politics.marrou:1417 alt.politics.correct:5601
From: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu (Chris Peterson)
Subject: NAFTA was Re: Build that wall, Bill & Al!  Excellent.   NOT!
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Reply-To: a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 07:23:17 GMT
X-Posted-From: phobos.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct3.001024.11104@clipper.ingr.com>, ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes...
>In article <1992Sep30.150640.4437@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>
>>	Clinton and Gore have lined up on the anti-NAFTA side of the coin,
>>spreading protectionist fear and xenophobic hatred in their wake.
>>
>>	Smoot-Hawley, anyone?
> 
>How Greatly Depressing.
> 
>--Al Date


   Actually, I heard on CNN's Crossfire that Clinton/Gore have decided they
support Bush's version of NAFTA.  They've said all along that they were in
favor of NAFTA in principle, but wanted to read the fine print in Bush's 
version. Of course the Republicans were accusing them of waffling.  But Gore 
had said a couple of weeks ago that they would definatly come to a decision 
on whether they support it or not before the election. They have.

-Chris


Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8013 talk.politics.misc:48884
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Why won't you answer, Mr. Gore?
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:59:09 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	Money should be used to help develop other country's economic standing
so that (in part) they can be better trade partners with the US?

	Why can't you answer that question, Mr. Gore?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Bill Clinton / Larry King Show
Date: 2 Oct 1992 13:50:08 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / Howard Hughes Medical Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu


Gov. Bill Clinton will be on The Larry King Show for a 90 minute special
on Monday Night. 7:00 or 8:00pm start time CDT. 

Tim




-- 

Timothy B. Reynolds
CLINTON/GORE
Election Campaign '92
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: A Vote for Perot=A Vote for Bush (NOT!)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:41:30 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Sep30.145542.17152@ms.uky.edu>, fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
> There was a recent blip on the news which stated that Clinton has
> indicated that he feels an active Perot candidacy will give the
> election to George Bush. There was no indication whether he felt
> that Perot's candidacy was a deliberate effort to do just that,
> but as I've posted before, I think a "cui bono" analysis
> would indicate that Perot's run is a "you owe me one" message to
> George Bush. 

	On the contrary, Perot has been most critical of Bush.

> The Clinton people must not only address the issues now, they have
> to convince people who are attracted to Perot -- frustrated folks
> looking for a charismatic answer -- that two policy wonks like
> Clinton and Gore can seriously change the structure of American
> politics. I don't have the foggiest idea of what they should do.

	Get a real economic plan, for starters.

> All I can possibly do is ask people to recognize that their vote
> for Perot will not accomplish what they think it will accomplish.
> Yak...here I'll parrot Quayle: if you can't vote for Clinton,
> vote for both Bush and the Republican Representative/Senator on
> your ballot. Single party accountability will be the only way
> to break the cycle of ridiculous politics-as-usual
> in Washington. As charismatic as you find Perot, you should 
> recognize that without a poitical party to support him, he
> will be paralyzed in the White House. If you want change, 
> give one party power. And vote them out if they fail.

	What a stupid reason to vote for Clinton!  Or not vote for Perot!  If
Clinton and Bush were lizards, and you were afraid that the "wrong" lizard
would rule over humans, should you vote for the lesser of two lizards?
	Vote for the person who most closely matches your ideals and beliefs.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
				Marrou/Lord '92
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:8223 alt.politics.perot:1795 alt.politics.bush:7538
From: cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: 20 reasons TO VOTE REPUBLICAN (not)
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:58:10 GMT
Reply-To: cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Originator: cassidy@cypress.cps.msu.edu


[ deleted ]
>15) New World Order, lacking substance, sounds really neat...almost like
>a Pepsi commercial.

	Gee, what does "Camelot" sound like to you?
	Or try Clinton`s "New Covenent".
	
	This is why your argument it DUMB, DUMB, DUMB.  JFK is the most modeled
icon in the Democratic Universe.  He wanted "Camelot".  Gosh, how nice.
<sniff>  And supposedly critical media people can STILL gush about "Camelot".
And the Democrative party haggles over "who looks the most like JFK".
Gary Hart had in his favor that he "kinda looked like John F. Kennedy",
about four years ago.  So he tried to prove it, by sleeping around.
....oh and by the way LBJ had his "Great Society".  I know, I know..
it probably would have been a great society if Reagan hadn't have 
screwed everything up.  That`s probably why Carter said that our best 
days were behind us.  Maybe you like that as a political slogan, eh?

>
>Lost Boy 
>
>email reaponses to:
>smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu

	John J Cassidy		cassidy@cps.msu.edu
	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics