HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: 18 Dec 1992 23:34:11 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec18.214426.20076@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> In article <1992Dec18.192013.11974@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec18.172417.9705@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
> >}In article <1992Dec18.162102.4872@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> >}>
> >}>Out of curiosity, do you think there was a gun mounted on top of the
> >}>bomb with wheels that took out the barracks in Beruit?
> >}
> >}Er, the thread so far seems to be one in which we're discussion
> >}Pentagon weaseling about the truth ("disinformation" and "later
> >}admitted" are clues to this), NOT whether the troops should have
> >}fired.
> >
> >That's nice.  And?
> >
> >
> 
> ...and your remark was, well, irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Good try, Elizabeth, but that wasn't the original tenor (at least not
as I read it) of the original poster.  He seemed to be complaining that
they had senselessly killed unarmed civilians.  The fact that the brass
may have tried to put a good face on it afterwords is another issue.
Not an invalid one, just a different one.

[deleted]









-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Gay Child Molesters (Re: Youth Info Needed)
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 06:19:10 GMT

In article <BzJ6LH.555@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>>     Regarding the slogan "Sex by age eight or else it's too late!"
>> This was the slogan of the Rene Guyon Society back in the 1970's.
>> THIS IS NOT, NOR WAS IT EVER, A POSITION OF NAMBLA.
>> 
>Maybe not, but I'm sure you can live with it.

And this from the same Christopher Morton who has argued on other groups that
animals should be used for sex, and that rape is OK because women deserve it.

Don't bother to deny it: if you do, I'll just say "Maybe not, but I'm sure
you can live with it."  After all, it's so much easier to make up positions
for the other side than actually argue rationally...

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: From each, to each
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:55:57 GMT

In article <PA146008.562.724350475@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>       A lot of people have set up their own socialist/communist 
>communities.  All you need are a bunch of like minded people and a little 
>money.
>
True enough.  Read about "The Farm" in Peter Jenkins' book, _Walk Across
America_.  Then learn about what finally happened to it.

-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  I have a trig midterm tomorrow and I'm
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  being chased by Guido the killer pimp.
This University is too Commie-	|  -Miles, from "Risky Business"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Health insurance stuff
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:45:04 GMT

In article <lihgi6INNb2h@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
    >This line of reasoning is not even near reality. The cost of
    >health insurance and health care is relatively fixed across
    >hospitals and doctors. The great majority of doctors and
    >hospitals do not treat indigent or un-insurred patients. The
    >only place those patients cost us money is in taxes to
    >support publically owned hospitals. If indigents and
    >uninsured were the problem, private hospitals that only treat
    >the adequately insured would be the least expensive places
    >for treatment -- but they are the most expensive.

Huh? On WHAT do you base your "opinions"? Surely not facts?

I get my from articles in the WSJ (this year) on hospital costs.

For example, El Camino hospital, near where I live, is not a public
hospital. When a part-time nanny I occasionaly employ went there for
an emergency, she ended up costing the hospital over $80,000.

She has Krohn's disease, an autoimmune disorder of the intestine. When
it flares up, and it can do that it in a few hours, the person must
receive a "total nutrient" IV. The hospital bill charged $800 a
bag, and she was getting one bag an hour.

She has no medical insurance.

Two weeks, $80,000.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Those "nutty" Polls
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:29:41 GMT

On the eve of the election, CNN's final tracking poll came
out with the following numbers:

47% Clinton
35% Bush
18% Perot

with a margin of errot of +/- 3%.

In other words, those "nutty" polls called the election dead
on within the stated margin of error.

The next time some idiot with what is apparently no background
in statistics claims that polls are inaccurate, unscientific,
bogus, etc--tell them to go away. Polls are actually VERY
accurate, and are ignored at one's peril.

P.S. According to some other "nutty" polls, 70% of Americans
believe abortion should remain safe and legal, and 75% of
Americans believe handguns should be regulated.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:63882 ca.politics:10285 ba.politics:7675
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Health insurance stuff
Date: 11 Dec 1992 21:50:42 GMT
Organization: Sun
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <lihgi6INNb2h@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>The problem is that the health insurance companies make their money on a
>percentage of the medical dollar spent.  It is against their best interest
>to hold down costs.

Ack.  I had missed that point.  This is one reason (there are others)
AT&T funded Bell Labs -- if you are a publicly regulated monopoly, one
way to increase profits is to increase expenses and collect a
percentage on top of that (so a cynical former AT&T employee related
to me).

>It's nice to keep trying to blame high health insurance on the poor, 

I take it all back, assuming that the usual suspects will supply
figures blaming the poor if any exist.

One slightly related question -- how many people (nowadays) have a
regular doctor?  About a year ago I went to an urgent care clinic for
an urgent sinus and ear infection, and did follow-up (less urgent)
through the clinic where our pediatrician works.  It was pretty clear
that the urgent care clinic cost more for less service.  I read
somewhere (don't know where) that this pattern of getting medical care
is more common than it used to be, and it is clearly not the cheap way
to do it.

(Note that this is not unlike what poor people are accused of doing.
"Urgent care" is not as expensive as ER, and it probably makes sense
to reserve ER for people near death, but UC is not cheap.)

David Chase
Sun
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Are they not men?
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:28:16 GMT

In article 13647@optilink.COM, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 
>> Indeed. There were over a hundred reports of sexual misconduct during the
>> Gulf War. Only four were homosexual, and three of those were consensual
>> acts.
>
>Of course.  Homosexuals aren't inducted, and are separated from the
>service when discovered.  Next you will surprise us with the very
>low number of females in the military going AWOL.  No more than
>4% of the general population is homosexual.  In the military, it's
>doubtless much lower. 

the members of the military are hardly a representative sample of the
countries population.  i would suspect the homosexual % to be signicantly
*higher* than the general population, because of the demographics.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 21:24:06 GMT

In article <1gg7dhINN72e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>      What I really find interesting is this:
>      My (  Canadian ) girlfriend now lives in the US.
>      Her parents live in the US.
>      Her brother lives in the US.
>      Her sister, who has declared bankruptcy 3 times so  far,
>      still lives in Canada. :)

Which proves that your immigration laws do work.
That's all. Just what's your point anyway?
-- 
Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64683 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10348 alt.rush-limbaugh:11819 alt.politics.bush:14670
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
From: judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:26:56 GMT
 <1992Dec14.231008.14184@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> <1992Dec15.223806.28846@rchland.ibm.com>
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <1992Dec15.223806.28846@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.231008.14184@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>|> And remember how it was JFK and Johnson that promoted the space program
>|> during the 60's that ultimately got the US to the moon.  Now, hopefully
>

HAHAHAHAHA!  Turn of the century?   Get real.  We don't 
>even have the space station up yet and every plan for a
>manned mission to Mars includes construction of the ship

	       [stuff omitted]

 	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.

		Judy

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:63868 ca.politics:10281
From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: For Those Who Think That Gay Men Have Changed Their Behavior
Date: 11 Dec 1992 19:31:18 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

>In article <13544@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> Actually, contact with homosexuals is a marvelous way of seeing that
> there is indeed, something very broken about them.
>


I think there is only one thing that is really broken around here.  And it
might be the observer who does not see around his own misinformed fixations.
Trying looking with your brain and your eyes at the same time for a change.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Those "nutty" Polls
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 17:34:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.072941.8509@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:

>On the eve of the election, CNN's final tracking poll came
>out with the following numbers:
>
>47% Clinton
>35% Bush
>18% Perot
>
>with a margin of errot of +/- 3%.
>
>In other words, those "nutty" polls called the election dead
>on within the stated margin of error.
>
>The next time some idiot with what is apparently no background
>in statistics claims that polls are inaccurate, unscientific,
>bogus, etc--tell them to go away. Polls are actually VERY
>accurate, and are ignored at one's peril.

       It all depends on the poll.  Some polls have some accuracy to them, 
some are vehicles for political agendas.  I'm not all that concerned with 
polls unless I know which they are, and the pollsters rarely show you the 
questions that were asked.

>P.S. According to some other "nutty" polls, 70% of Americans
>believe abortion should remain safe and legal, and 75% of
>Americans believe handguns should be regulated.

       You should read some of the abortion polls by the pro-life groups.

       As for handguns, most Americans a just an eensy-weensy bit clueless 
about what the laws are on guns, anyway.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 07:43:32 GMT

In article <71739@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
>Here's another one...
>
>"The gay science of genes and brains" Economist Dec 5, 1992
>
>Researchers in the field doubt the oft-repeated figure that one in
>ten men is gay; they think that people whose sex lives are
>exclusively homosexual make up about 4% of the adult men and less
>than 2% of adult women.

Quite true around 4% of people are kinsey 6's, however the world is
not composed of only 0's and 6's. Try taking out the "exclusively
homosexual" and see what you get.

>Don't give us the "that data can't possibly be valid" crap unless you're
>willing to admit that the 10 percent figure is certainly baloney if
>4 percent might be wrong. 

No both are correct the numbers just refer to different things. 

>There are no surveys that show 10 percent, most
>show much smaller numbers. 

No one is claiming that 10% are exclusively homosexual, 10% are
largely homosexual.

>Why not just admit it's 2-4 percent, and get on with it?

Because the lgb communitee isn't made up of only exclusive homosexuals.
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Re: Space program necessary  (or the SSC, or Genome, or....)
Summary: "Burnin' down the house..." 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: "We have the technology."  - St. Hera of the Incarnate Mind
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:32:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.040635.12036@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, howiegbk@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jr Howard Mea Turner) writes...
>In article <1992Dec19.012613.28186@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>In article <17DEC199218251606@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
>>>In article <17DEC199215301538@zeus.tamu.edu> srf6200@zeus.tamu.edu (Steven Rush Fennell) writes...
>>>>In article <1992Dec17.172656.27110@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes...

>CAN WE PLEASE GET THIS THREAD ONTO THE PROPER NEWSGROUP???
> 
>It is a very good thread, but please, take it over to misc.space 
>or something.
> 
>Thanks,
>H.

The newsgroups were: 
talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush

The newsgroups are:
talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.space

Change 'em back if you like.

>>-- 
>>David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?

Why limit yourself to a year?

I predict that regardless which funding bills are voted down in the
house, they'll be resurrected in the senate, and stuck in the major
departmental appropriations bills for FY'94, (which are always passed 
with only token haggling). There will be an attempt to force a new
presidential election by 1994. The federal debt will double during the
next 4 years. And we'll have a new collection of American Republics
under a newly formed Global Economic Union, by 1996. 

So what good are predictions?

-= Abolish the House -- It's useless =-
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64591 alt.conspiracy:13245
From: dmd39855@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel DuBois)
Subject: Re: No solid proof to support ( was: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:44:16 GMT

gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:

>Daniel DuBois writes:
>#I wish you had quoted the entire paragraph, I was much more clear there
>#than I will be at 3:00 in the morning (now).

>Not to flame, but in my opinion you are just as incorrect at 3am as
>you were before.

>#However, the statement
>#made was that even if we assume that the x # of people that refused to
>#answer the survey were participants in homosexual activity, this 7%
>#people sampling cannot be reasonably extrapolated to represent the entire
>#population.  Clayton was _giving_ up those people as a lee-way
>sample.  

>I disagree. Clayton was clearly assuming all of them *WERE*
>homosexuals, to boost the number to the maximum possible. He is so
>sure that the number is less than ten percent that he didn't even stop
>to consider what 4.1+7 was. Now, I agree, it is highly unlikely for
>all the seven percent are homosexual, but that is what Clayton was
>assuming. 

Damnit, how many times do I have to say this, its getting a little boring.
The 4.1% can be extrapolated to apply to the population. OK, thats fact.
Clayton gave up the non-respondents of the survey as positive repliers.
If he had extrapolated this into saying all people of the population would
have 7% non-respondents and hence, 7% additional positive repliers, THEN
yes, 4.1 + 7 = 11.1... However, since Clayton was giving these numbers up
for the sake of the arguement, with no scientific reason for doing so, he
is free to 'give up' this many people with no necessarilly reasonable
                                           -------------------------
conclusions to come forth about the rest of the population.  YOU may make
that conclusion, but just because you misinterpret someones arguement doesn't
mean that your misconceptionms are now part of their arguement, and
something to be refuted.

If you want to argue what you think Clayton was trying to say, fine,
thats debatable, maybe he actually did mean for the 7% to be extrapolated
to the population.  However, my interpretation of what was said is quite
possible, and if true, then the reasoning behind the above paragraphs/
arguements are completely valid.

-Dan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Dec 92 11:42:03 CST


In article <1183@bug.UUCP>, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
> In article <1992Dec2.203836.27157@Princeton.EDU>
> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> >BTW, Clarence Thomas discredited himself.  "I have never discussed Roe v. 
> >Wade."
> 
> That's not exactly what he said, if I remember correctly.  I believe he
> said (and meant) that he never discussed the legal merits of Roe v.
> Wade.  I don't know why you find that hard to believe.

Clarence Thomas was in Law school at the time of the Roe-v-Wade decision.

>                                                           It is very
> seldom that I hear anyone discuss the legal merits of Roe v. Wade,

I don't think it is suprising for lawyers, or law students, to discuss
the legal merits od a Supreme Court decision.

> rather most people take a position based on their opinion of abortion
> and talk about that.  The propriety of abortion is (or should be)
> irrelevant to the legal merits of the decision.  Not enough people
> understand that.
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,mtl.general,can.general,can.politics
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: global
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:31:13 GMT

In <1992Dec10.154952.12639@xenitec.on.ca> merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>at one time, i decided that i would like to have a Baretta 9mm pistol.

>i can get it legitimately, but it cost $750 at the gun shop.

>i wondered what the street value was.

>it took a couple of days of talking to friends of friends, and friends of
>friends of friends, and i got a quote of "a couple hundred".

>the contacts i made were those whose my friends bought drugs (mostly soft)
>from.

>i didn't buy the gun, i just wondered.  what amazed me was how cheap illegal 
>guns are.

All right, in this instance it might be very easy to procure an illegal
handgun.  In others it might not.  The key word here is ILLEGAL.  The
recent gun legislation just puts more of a hassle on legitimate gun
owners.  I don't think you'll find too many illegal handgun owners very
concerned about the law as they just ignore it.

>and if i didn't want to buy it locally, one can always head down south, where in some states,
>you just walk in, drop the cash, and legally buy a gun.

That all depends on where you go.  Some states now have waiting periods
and a few have bans entirely (New York I think).  If the Americans have
trouble with an enshrined ammendment what hope do legitimate firearms
owners in Canada have when their elected officials think gun ownership is a
privelege, and a dubious one at that?

>then you put it under your car seat, and drive across the border.

>there is a high likelyhood you won't get caught.

Again the key word here is ILLEGAL.

Will Christie
-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy