HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carroll@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:29:22 GMT

In article <1i0a1vINNilk@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
]<HERSCH@auvm.american.edu> writes:
]] In article <13723@optilink.COM], cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) says:
]] ]
]] ]The average homosexual: he doesn't like what you say, so he threatens
]] ]you with violence.
]
]Or calls you insane, or a hypocrite, or resorts to foul mouthed tactics 
]etc. Two months ago, I'd have laughed at such a stereotype and generalization. 
]Then I found soc.motss....wouldnt have believed it if someone told me, 
]but seeing is believing.  

Ah. 

And on the basis of reading 2 months worth of articles posted by a
bunch of people on usenet, you conclude that you can fairly judge an
entire group of people numbering in the millions.

Well, I guess that I can conclude that all Jews are assholes, because
I've been active on soc.culture.jewish for years, and I've seen far
more extremely vicious personal abuse by the other members of that
group than I have in the net at large.

And I can conclude that all Arabs are anti-semites, because just look
at the volume of anti-semitic drivel they post to
talk.politics.mideast.

And I can conclude that all african americans are criminals, because
just look at how many of them get arrested on COPS on TV.

If you want to conclude that a sufficiently large group of people
conforms to some negative stereotype, then all you have to do is
search for the right subgroup of them. Every large group of people has
assholes of all colors and stripes. But that doesn't allow you to draw
conclusions about the entire group. Many Jews aren't assholes; many
Arabs aren't anti-semites; most AAs aren't criminals. You can't draw
conclusions about an entire group on the basis of the behavior of a
small subset of members of that group.

	<MC>



-- 
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC>     ||"If love remains
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS|| Though everything is lost
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker || We will pay the price
|| carroll@udel.edu             || But we will not count the cost" -Neil Peart
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: 21 DEC 92 11:44:15 EST


In article <17DEC199215301538@zeus.tamu.edu>, srf6200@zeus.tamu.edu (Steven
Rush Fennell) writes...

>> 	Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
>>	for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
>>	program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
>>	pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.

One of the things that most people don't think about are the spinoffs produced
by the space program as things which were produced in getting us there in the
first place.

There are tens of thousands of items which have been produced to improve our
standard of living over the past 30 years which were direct results from the
space program.

Consider a few things:

Freeze drying.
Teflon.
Many, many, many variations of plastics.
Building materials.
Manufacturing methods for purer elements.

There are VOLUMES of books in your local library which contain lists of things
which were produced by the space program which we take for granted in our
everyday use.

We as a society have benefited more from our efforts to get to the moon than
from any other peacetime activity.

Maybe actually going to the moon was a moot point, but what we created in order
to get there was (and is) of significant value.

Regards,
Steve.

/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org  BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81  *
*******************************************************************/

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:12:28 GMT

James Meritt writes:
#Literacy check. "going to a resort" != "live in the resorts".
#"a cuban resort" was the published destination of the aircraft.

Check your own literacy. Or do you think that flying to a airport in a
resort town means the people are going to stay IN the resort.




--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Boycotts, Boycotts, Boycotts....
In-reply-to: doel@bae.bellcore.com's message of 28 Dec 92 19:09:19 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Dec9.010534.3600@s1.gov> <1992Dec9.081317.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
	<1992Dec10.022455.13782@s1.gov>
	<1992Dec10.081705.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
	<1992Dec15.003610.28723@ils.nwu.edu>
	<1992Dec15.093547.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
	<1992Dec22.201459.11968@ils.nwu.edu>
	<168C511000.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> <1ha5ioINNdgs@spim.mti.sgi.com>
	<DOEL.92Dec28110919@bbq.bae.bellcore.com>
Date: 1 Jan 93 22:29:27

In article <DOEL.92Dec28110919@bbq.bae.bellcore.com> doel@bae.bellcore.com (Michael Doel) writes:

>   Product: M&Ms 
>
>   Reason: For years, M&Ms have come in light brown, dark brown, yellow, green,
>   orange, and red.  How dare they leave out blue!  Many people consider blue
>   to be their favorite color and not making blue M&Ms surely shows a lack of
>   sensitivity on the part of the M&M/Mars company.  We cannot allow this kind
>   of mind control to continue!  Therefore, until M&Ms produces candies in the
>   colors I (or my PC buddies) deem acceptable, I call for all self-respecting
>   liberals to throw down their M&M wrappers at once.
>
Michael, easy now.  More power to you if you can gather the market
forces to your cause and affect Mars' sales enough to force them to
listen to you.  You may yet get blue (euwww) candies in your bag.

>
>   No such thing as a stupid boycott indeed...

Right, just stupid boycott callers.

>   --
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To whit...

>   Mike Doel				<doel@bae.bellcore.com>
>   444 Hoes Lane RRC 1B-209
>   Piscataway, NJ 08854
>
>   "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
>    and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
>   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You seem to read the right kind of guys, though.

Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Dissent)
Subject: Re: Space program necessary for ICBMs, B-2 Bombers, Beam Weapons
Summary: Face it -- space is neutral, not inherently good.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: And it still cost too much. 
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 06:37:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.210233.29370@spdc.ti.com>, 
crowder@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mark Crowder) writes...

>In article <1992Dec26.085446.11313@fcom.cc.utah.edu> freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec21.164657.9526@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:
>>|> 
>>|> In article <17DEC199215301538@zeus.tamu.edu>, srf6200@zeus.tamu.edu (Steven
>>|> Rush Fennell) writes...
>>|> 
>>|> >> 	Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
>>|> >>	for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
>>|> >>	program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
>>|> >>	pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.
>>|> 
>>|> One of the things that most people don't think about are the spinoffs produced
>>|> by the space program as things which were produced in getting us there in the
>>|> first place.

The simple fact is that a technology is not inherently good. Just like 
being educated is not inherently good (there are a bunch of smart crooks).

And the old spinoff argument just doesn't wash.

>...those funds would never have been allocated
>for "... a more practical purpose".  The taxpayers would never have
>stood for spending that kind of money for anything on the list above.
>They were buying a dream -- a dream that captured the entire nation.
>People need dreams.  I do.  Don't you?

How's it feel to offer a devil's deal?  This is the type of logic used
to sell dope too, and not just dreams. No dream which enslaves is worth
it, so now for the hard facts:

	o  every tax dollar is a dollar which could have been
           making you or your family money (bank, real "invest-
           ments," etc.)

	o  not only is you money taken from you, but it is spent
	   inefficiently, if not corruptly, (a percent here, a
	   percent there)

	o  not only are your taxes taken every day, but through
	   debt spending, your future retirement, your children's
	   education, and money for local business "investment" is
           taken from you on an exponetially increasing scale

Lastly, even Ross Perot never talked about fixing the fed-debt, only trying
to get the yearly overspending stopped in 6-12 years. In the mean time
the federal debt is going to go higher than any space launch, along with
state, business, and personal debt. If you want a space program -- you
better make it mostly commercial ASAP. There's not going to be a govern-
ment left which can pay for it in America.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65202 alt.activism:19794 alt.politics.usa.misc:714
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Mandatory Organ Donation
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:14:25 GMT

In article <merlyn.725160859@digibd>
merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>In article <92358.114511DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
>>>The actual law would make organ donation the default option, which
>>>individuals and families could reject.  In fact, they would have
>>>to be informed of their right to reject the organ donation.  It seems
>>>to me that this retains the individual right to dispose of their
>>>affairs.
>
>>        The decision should be the individual's.  What this group is
>>proposing is making a decision and then "allowing" the people involved
>>to reject it.  I'd just as soon make my own decisions, thank you.
>
>Doesn't there have to be SOME default action?

        The default action on who gets my favorite lamp is my spouse or
my children.  Should the default on *that* be that it is donated to some
charity if I don't say otherwise?

>What is done with dead people who leave no indication what they want
>done with their bodies?

        To the best of my knowledge, it is usually left up to their heirs,
which is fine by me.

>ANY action, including doing nothing and leaving
>them lying around, is essentially making a decision for them.

         Doing nothing is just that, doing nothing.

>What about people who think burying people is grotesque, but see nothing
>wrong with organ donation?  How is burying people any less a decision
>than organ donation?

         What does whether or not the option is grotesque have to do with
anything.  The question is whether the government should, or should be
allowed to, make decisions about your body and require you jump up and
object if you don't like it.  (Which is what this group appears to
be suggesting.)
         The default is what I want to do with my body, and should remain so
until I can no longer make the decision.  After which point it should become
my family or heirs' decision.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:39:16 GMT

In article <C00z4x.8Ln@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:

   Jay Denebeim P025 (denebeim@brtph254.bnr.ca) wrote:
[...]

   NOT quite as rosey as you make it out to be...

   : 1) The space program has always paid for itself by the worth of the
   :    technologies developed for it.  A very few are:
   :    a) Microelectronics without which we wouldn't even be talking.

   AT&T, the PHONE company (as opposed to a space technology company)
   invented the transistor.  Microelectronics would have happened without
   the space program.  DEFENSE technology had much more to do with all
   of the stuff you talk about here and even the space program itself.

Not so.  It was the space program's need for low weight, low power
electronics and NASA's willingness to pay any price for it that fueled
the development of the technology.  This activity drove the price down to
the point where it was economically feasible to offer solid state devices
in consumer electronics.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.conspiracy
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: ** The Birth of NEW-ISRAEL ** ( Re: Death of America xx )
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:27:36 GMT
Keywords: Happy New-Age

bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
>garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS) writes:
>> 
>>P.S. The trumpets mean war, plague, and famine. Let's not sound the trumpets.
>
>The trumpets could mean Miles Davis, though I wonder if God let him in
>with his Maseratti.  Actually, Miles would never enter without.

As long as he phones ahead to let the Pearly Gates P.D. know what kind of
car he's driving, he'll avoid a "profile" stop.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65593 misc.legal:21804
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 29 Dec 92 23:08:00 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <Dec.29.13.58.49.1992.2135@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu sez:
>In article <1hq11vINNq1f@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>
>> Ollie North was a criminal.
>
>Not for his part in the Iran-Contra deal.  His conviction has been
>overturned.

Which means that North is factually, but not legally, guilty.  If you
missed Al Thompson's attempt earlier this year to muddy this
distinction (and my repeated explanations of why his take on the law
was wrong), I will be more than happy to disabuse you of the erroneous
notion that North's conduct was not criminal.


-- 
They told me you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject:  "I'd Give Everything for Herzogovina"
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  Golden Oldies from the Yippie Years
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:02:00 GMT

tune: It's A Long Way to Tipperary

by Tuli Kupferberg  (c) '71, '72, '73 

 I'd give everything for Herzogovina,
 It means everthing to me.
 I'd give everything for Herzogovina,
 My blood, my pre-pu-ci,
 My liver and my lights,
 I'd give away my rights,
 My father and my son,
 The moonlight and the sun;
 I'd give everything for Herzogovina,
 It means everything to me
 Oh to die for Herzogovina-
 Would give new life to me!

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 15:48:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.152512.6080@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>In article <C057F4.842@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>>
>>I'm tired of arguments, so I will not bore you with things you have 
>>probably already heard. But I do have a question. Do you *really* 
>>believe that the civil rights analogy holds in the case of homosexuals?
>
>    [I was not the author of the post to which Jim responds, but what the
>hell...]
>
>    Yes, I *really* believe that the civil rights analogy holds in the case
>of homosexuals.  Being black is not a choice, and, for most gays, being gay
>is not a choice.


	This is a matter of contention.  Being black--it is not even
	a possibility that it's a choice.  Being gay, it is still 
	up in the air as to whether it's inborn or learned behavior 
	(with the further question of, "can it be cured in either case?")

	Pretty fluid with those facts, huh.  Claiming that "gay is not
	a choice" is like me claiming "god is a huge cow with two heads"
	because there's a *chance* that it's possible, no proof against
	it, and it happens to be my opinion.  

	None of those reasons make it _true_.  



>>I want to know this so I tell can if you are simply being argumentitive or
>>we you are stating beliefs you hold.  I don't think the analogy is
>>100% valid. But I am willing to listen. My major problem is that the 
>>difference between hets and gays is behavioral, not racial as is 
>>the difference between blacks and whites.
>
>    If you think the major difference is behavioral, you have a superficial
>view.  Being gay is an orientation; acting on that orientation is a
>behavior.


	"Orientation"?  Sexual orientation is *behavioral*.  It doesn't
	matter if it's inborn or learned or the result of being kidnapped
	by martians.  _Sexuality_ is behavioral.  It certainly isn't
	anything else (i.e. "grwoing hair" is not behavioral).

-- 
	Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
         ---  boycott == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---

		   	     Pain teaches.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65856 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11050 alt.rush-limbaugh:12633 alt.politics.bush:15212
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democrat Wars? (was Re: Democrat == Loony Left???)
Date: 31 Dec 92 15:33:24 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
: :       Just about every Republican since WWII has considered these
: : wars to be worthy causes, indeed very noble ones. Just consider Nixon
: : on continuing the Vietnam War before he decided on the "declare
: : victory and quit" solution of "Vietnamization". And consider what
: : Reagan thought of the war. He didn't say how awful it was of the
: : Democrats to get us involved in it. He called it a "noble cause", as
: : if that was somehow irrelevant.
: 
: Let's go ahead and rewrite history, It will be fun!
: 
: Republican D. MacAuthor *begged* LBJ on his deadbed *NOT* to send American
: ground forces into Vietnam. The Republican objection to Vietnam is that
: the Democrates WOULD NOT WIN IT they (Democrates) just sent more and more
: American kids overthere to get killed. Then when Republican Nixon finally
: DID WIN IT. The Democrates REFUSED to allow Nixson to enforce the Paris
: Accords. (Bomb N. Vietnam). 
: 
: Also Truman practically invited N. Korea to invade S. Korea. The Chinesse
: troops which reversed allied victories where "freed" for action when
: Truman ordered the Seventh Fleet to protect the Chinesse main land from
: Chiang Kai-shek. Thank God  F.D. Roosevelt was President during WW2 and
: not Truman. 
: 
: jim shirreffs
: 
: 

Yeah, I remember a lotta Republicans, marching around in their
business suits chanting "Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill
today?"  Remember the stirring speeches given by Republicans in
the Senate, demanding that Johnson withdraw from Vietnam now?  
Those anti-war Republicans; gotta love 'em.

Bill
:
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 28 Dec 92 02:59:47 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <72466@cup.portal.com> L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis Alberto Malo) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:
>> Michael Silverman:

>>> Far from being patriots, the men Bush pardoned (like Weinberger)
>>> are *traitors* to the United States of America

>> Why is Weinberger a "traitor"?  By all accounts, he had opposed the
>> so-called Iran-Contra arms deal.

> By "all accounts," Weinberger can be considered a traitor.

You must have neglected to consider Article III, Section 3 of the U.S.
Constitution.

> The following are excerpts from an article written in the Washington
> Post:

> [...]

I don't happen to be particularly fond of the Washington Post, but
even if we disregard my sentiments regarding this rag, I don't think
there is anyone who would be inclined to advance the suggestion that
the stature of the Post even approaches that of the U.S. Constitution.

> [...]

> BTW: I have a question fer ya, Tedz... do you *actually* believe
> Weinberger is as innocent as he claims?

If Weinberger's only supposed "crime" is withholding information from
that bunch of scumbags we call Congress, then I commend him for it --
and I applaud George Bush for rightfully pardoning him.

> If so, can you please provide some documented proof, such as I have
> for my position?  Thanks..

What proof?  It is my own personal conviction that something that is
printed in The Washington Post must necessarily be considered suspect
until it can be verified by other more reliable sources.  Even so,
even if we are to take Post accounts at face value, what do they
prove?  Nothing.  They are only Walsh's allegations, and the final
determination upon them was to be made in court, which is a moot point
now.

But the deeper issue here -- one which you have utterly neglected --
is why is it a crime to lie to Congress?  Because Congress has made it
so!  As if Congress has never lied to the American public.  But until
Cogress imposes the same kind of penalties for lying upon each of its
individual members, I will heartily applaud anyone who lies to
Congress and is able to get away with it.
-- 
The views expressed herein are my   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously      ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university as  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
this would hold such views???       ||
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66006 misc.legal:21939