HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bgdv706@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu (Noam Tractinsky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines
Subject: East Jerusalem? 1,2,3... Sold! (was: Re: Fair Swap)
Date: 8 Sep 92 01:40:06 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Texas @ Austin

In article <EGGERTJ.92Sep4232416@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>, eggertj@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert x6127 g41) writes:
> In article <1992Sep4.185303.10094@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@ellis.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:
+   In article <EGGERTJ.92Sep4121103@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
+
+   >This is a simple nonsequitur.  There was no Israeli presence in
+   >Jerusalem in 1947, as there was no Israel.  International law does not
		===============================
+   >mandate against Jews in Jerusalem, but rather against the Israeli
+   >occupation of East Jerusalem.
+   >
+   >You shouldn't confuse the occupation of houses by residents with the
+   >occupation of foreigh territory by nations. 
+
+   Then neither should the Jordanians, who drove out or murdered just
+   about every individual Jew in Jerusalem when it captured the place.
> 
> Indeed.


	Nor should East Jerusalem be Palestinian since there was no 
	Palestinian state in 1947... Where does your logic lead us to,
	Jim?  Will the next stage be an auction of East Jerusalem?

> --
> =Jim  eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu (Jim Eggert)

Noam
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:47:33 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep10.95709.12603@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
]There are other sides to 4. Like try to imagine what a "conservative"
]newscast would sound like: Hortatory. Example driven. Lessons to be
]learned. Stern. Statistical. 

Unlike the "liberal" newscast which is whiney, snide, and illogical?

You characterization of a "conservative" newscast shows how little
you know about conservatives, and how easily you stereotype people!

]Television needs a warmer image than, say, Rush Limbaugh with his
]pointless snide remarks. Or consider Buckley's "Firing Line" as an

Hmmm, perhaps this would explain why Limbaugh is starting a TV show
this year? 

]example of what a better conservative newscast might look like:
]argumentation, debate, etc. Fine, but you need to be a debater yourself

No, this is an intellectual show. One does not have to present conservative
views in an intellectual manner.



-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
- Democracy is two wolves and a sheep using majority vote to decide what -
- to have for dinner. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE 2nd! -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
From: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Subject: Re: Cat Control!
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:23:29 GMT

In article <altar.716021744@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>>  Richard Roberts, executive director of Chicago's Christian Industrial
>>  League, has learned a few things about people who listen to National
>>  Public Radio. On July 4, the league threw a barbecue for the city's
>>  homeless. Roberts did an interview publicizing the event on Chicago 
>>  public-radio station WBEZ and mentioned that the picnic would include the
>>  launching of red, white, and blue balloons. The league's office was 
>>  flooded with phone calls...protesting the balloon launch. Callers feared
>>  that birds might try to eat the balloons and choke on them. Not one
>>  caller volunteered to help with the event. Asks Roberts, "Where were
>>  these 'concerned' people last winter when we ran out of food at the
>>  shelters and were in desperate need for help?"
>
>
>> They were probably trying
>>  to train their cats not to kill birds.
>
>How does Mr. Richard Roberts, director of Chicago's Christian
>Industrial League, know this to be true?  Obviously not an
>empircal statement of what is probable, merely a sarcasm.
>So much for Christian love and kindness towards all living things.

Try paying attention to the quotation marks.  The editor of "Reason"
magazine made the comment "They were probably trying to train.....",
which appears without quotation marks.  The quote from the Christian
fellow about the homeless shelter, etc., ended before that.  The
editor was trying to tie together two totally unrelated items in his
editorial, and the Christian Industrial League probably has no idea to
this day that their quotes were presented in such a way.

Figure out show said what before you throw stones.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: I want Line-Item Tax Allocations for me (Was: Run conservatives, run..)
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:47:58 GMT

In article <12210@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <5176@gold.gvg.tek.com>, mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
>> In article <12158@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >In article <1992Sep3.100740@wsl.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
@  ## It is interesting that if the NEA were abolished we would be the only
@  ## "first world country" where the federal gov't did not fund art.
@  #
@  #Big deal.  We are also one of the few first world countries without
@  #an established religion.
@  
@  Non-sequitur.

>Not at all.  The turkey pointed out that all other "first world"
>countries fund arts; I pointed out that nearly all other "first
>world" countries fund religion, or give it a preferred status.
>His argument is bogus; just because other countries are screwed
>up is no reason for us to join them.

	Government funding of religion is OK, I presume. But whose
religion? I'm sure that Claytoon would scream at the idea of some of
his tax dollars going to a church that had some homosexual
clergypeople (of either sex). There are some such churches, actually;
just ask in soc.motss.

	More generally, I wonder if Claytoon would enjoy funding with
his taxes any religious body that was not some conservative Protestant
church, or even some ideologically similar Catholics, Jews, or
Muslims. I'm sure he wouldn't like the idea of his tax dollars going
to Unitarians, or to Hindus, or to Buddhists, or to New Agers, or to
neo-pagans. Judging from an earlier post, it is clear that he does not
relish the idea of dancing under some sacred trees, for example (yes,
I know about Druid human sacrifice, but present-day neo-Druids prefer
not to do that, just as Claytoon probably prefers not to practice the
Levitical animal sacrifices). For more info, just ask in alt.pagan.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 07:54:19 GMT

In article <82482@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

   In article 24320@romulus.rutgers.edu, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
   >Clinton (bald faced liar that he is) has since _ADMITTED_ that he knew
   >about his uncle's efforts.  But that's just the tip of the iceberg.

   Wrong again.  Clinton stated that he became aware of his uncle's efforts for
   the first time in March of this year.  He has consistently denied knowing about
   his uncle's efforts before that time.

His long time friend, Judge Hill states otherwise.

   >An Arkansas attorney who was very close to Clinton in his college days
   >has said that Clinton _HAD_ACTUALLY_RECEIVED_AN_INDUCTION_NOTICE_ and
   >somehow had it invalidated, and _THAT_ was the reason why he sought to
   >"join" ROTC.  (The _Los_Angeles_Times_ is reportedly working on this
   >story.)

   Sounds like you have a rock solid source there.  ;-)  A bona fide friend of
   Clinton's, who steps forward now, in the heat of a campaign, to offer 
   important new information.

He didn't step forward.  He is a retired judge who was sought out by the press.

  I was a draft counselor back then, and I never
   heard of a draft notice getting rescinded.

Wrong again.  The draft notice was sent while he was at Oxford.  It
arrived after his date to report.  As a result the draft board rescinded
it and prepared ti issue a new one.  Of course that was after they
delayed his physical for eight months.

If anything occurred, it was
   probably a notice to report for a physical.  That normally portended an
   induction notice, and it was a time, in many a young man's life, when the
   scramble to find an alternative ensued.

Sorry, it was a real notice to report.  He just happened to be out of the
country at the time. See above.

  Desperate attempts to find a post
   in the National Guard, the Coast Guard, a seminary, perhaps even ROTC, if
   that would delay conscription.  But there is no evidence, other than this
   one individual's claim, of even a draft physical summons having triggered
   Clinton's actions.

Actually, what has been reported, in the Boston Globe no less, is that it
was against the law to try to join some other branch of service once an
induction notice had been sent.  Agreed that it was almost always
overlooked, but technically it was not legal.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44249 ca.politics:7525 ba.politics:5110 ba.market.computers:4351
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,ba.market.computers
Subject: "Property is theft" (Re: WANTED : Very Cheap or Free Computers/Modems)
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:15:44 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <jtkn6nb.ladasky@netcom.com>, ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes:
# 	The San Jose Green Party is trying to get as many of its people as
# possible online.  We're looking for old computers and modems - preferably
# free - to distribute to our membership.  PC-XT's preferred.
# 
#  John J. Ladasky II ("ii")				(ladasky@netcom.COM)
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
# "Great composers do not borrow - they steal."  - John Ladasky		~ -	
# (At the urging of fellow netter Lon Amerman, I stole the above		o o
#  quote from Igor Stravinsky, who stole it from a statement made		 #
#  by Pablo Picasso about painting, who stole it from...)			\_/
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
# "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture." - Elvis Costello?
# 							    Frank Zappa?
# "Property is theft." - Groucho				    Laurie Anderson?
# =============================================================================

Yeah!  "Property is theft," so I guess we should ask the San Jose
Green Party where all those computers and modems will be based.
I mean, it's not like they will object to all those stolen
goods being expropriated, right?


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:04:14 GMT

farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:

>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>In article <farenebt.716237519@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:

>>>Clinton's plan
>>>helps those who can't afford insurance but doesn't affect those who can.

>>Typical left wing bull crap.  Bri wants us to forget that we will have
>>to pay for it.
>>-- 
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.

>All right, let me ask you this, could you propose a better system? 

NOw that I've finally figured out this editor let me say fully what I want
to say. Right now our system is not working. 40 million Americans lack
adequate health insurance; 70% of those are full-time workers (or their
families). What is wrong with this picture? Health care should not
be a privilege solely of the rich. If you don't like Clinton's program,
that's okay, but please suggest something that you believe will be better.

Anywyas, by "typical left wing bull crap" is nothing different that 
right-wing bullcrap ("We are not in a recession", "...efficiency of
House post office and compassion of KGB...", "Capital gains tax cut will
solve all our problems")
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL			      	   "America needs leaders, not labels."
CLARKSON '95				    	---Ronald Reagan, 8/8/92
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU  	    
A PC-HATING, PRO-LIFE, LIBERAL CARD-CARRYING ACLU MEMBER
=============================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men...not men who feared to write, to
speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment 
unpopular."		---Edward R Murrow

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.animals
From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Cat Control!
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:33:41 GMT

meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:

>>    B. M. Fitzgerald  "Is cat control needed to protect urgan
>>          wildlife?", ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, 1990, 17(2):168
>>
>>    P. Jarvis  "Unban cats as pests and pets", ibid, p. 169.
>>
>>Both authors argue that there is no real problem, that cats
>>are simply replacing other predators like weasels and that

>If this is the extent of Fitzgerald's and Jarvis's argument, then
>it's at once perfectly correct and utterly stupid.  When the weasels
>

What is wrong with the level of discursive literacy here?  Of
course this is NOT the extent of the argument.  This is NOT
a place to post complete journal articles, that is why I provided
a scholarly reference.  Now, do some homework and read for 
yourself the facts of the matter instead of blowing hot air.


>>Anyway, I doubt that anyone here is really interested in the
>>facts.  The desparate concern here seems to find some sorry reason
>>to again vilify animal rights advocates.

>Hmmm, a new wrinkle -- the preemptive ad hominem argument ...   :-)

Hmmm, you've just verified my point.   ;-)

                                          ted
     "Against human stupidity the very gods fight in vain"  Schiller
From: ads3@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew D. Shults)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Dangers of line item veto.  [Was: Yes to line item veto]
Date: 13 Sep 1992 21:58:07 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ads3@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew D. Shults)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu



     Its interesting to see that most proponents of the line-item veto are
Republicans, number one among them is George Bush.  Proof once again that
most Republicans are short sighted.  Remember that this is the same party
that fought for the two-term limit on Presidents because of FDR's success.
And it came back to haunt them when Reagan couldn't run for a third term
which he almost certainly would have gotten.

     But I digress, here's a little example from my home state, Pennsylvania,
which shows just what a line-item veto can do:

     For those of you who don't know, Pennsylvania's legislature is by far
the most partisan legislature in the country.  The House is currently
controlled by Dems while the GOP controls the Senate.  Gov. Casey, as many
of you know, is a Democrat.

     Every year, each party puts out its own budget plan.  The party
leadership then goes into closed-door negotiations to try to produce a
budget.  As the budget deadline loomed this year, the Democrats did an end
run.  They passed the Republican budget and handed it to Casey, who promptly
line-itemed out every piece of funding that the Democrats didn't like.  Now
the Dems are ready to go back and put together a supplemental funding measure
to fund all the programs they want to fund.  Of course, none of these measures
will require higher taxes because the funding is already there from the
Republican budget.  Can you see the problems a Republican would face for
refusing to increase things like education funding when the money is just
sitting there?

     The Republicans, of course, are crying foul but I'm just laughing and
thinking that there truly is poetic justice in this world.  Frankly, I don't
think anyone should have a line-item veto power, not Bob Casey, not George
Bush, no one.  Budgets are compromises worked out in the state legislatures
or in Congress.  An executive should be able to say yes or no to the plan,
but should not be allowed to re-work the whole deal to his liking.

     If you are truly against pork-barrel legislation, call up your
Congressman and tell him you want think that military base in your home town
belongs on the base closure list.  Tell him you don't want federal highway
dollars to help rebuild that highway through your home district.  Tell him
you don't want any federal money at all going to projects located solely
within your home district.  As long as voters keep supporting pork-barrel
legislation for themselves, it does no good to complain about dollars going
to projects in other districts.

   ---Andrew
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: James Baker
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:18:07 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department

In article <1992Sep14.114727.7279@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>If Bush really needs James Baker to save his campaign (ie create
>a domestic program for Bush to run on), why not dump the middle
>man (Bush) and have Baker run for prosident.
>

The James Baker who failed to reveal his stock in a major American
bank while he was negotiating a bailout of South American debt to
First World Banks, the James Baker who was Secretary of the Treasury
while nothing was done about the S&L crisis in Reagan's second term,
the James Baker who presided over the Willie Horton campaign, the
James Baker who was Secretary of State while the US encouraged,
financed, and armed Saddam Hussein, and encouraged Milosovic by
saying the US preferred maintaining Yugoslavian territorial integrity,
and tried preventing Gorbachev's Soviet Union from collapsing...
this James Baker?

Gerald
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Quayle a Moral Draft Dodger? (was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 13 Sep 92 19:16:45 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com

In article <1992Sep11.230303.16656@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp  
(Michael Friedman) writes:
>>Sure there were openings.  How do you think he got in?  Unfortunately, 
>>the openings weren't filled on a "first come,first serve" basis.  That's
>>why Quayle needed the influence of his family.  As for evidence, it came
>>out of admissions from the Quayle family.  You can't get better evidence
>>than that.
> 
> Does anyone know the details on this?

According the the Indiana National Guard commander, there were openings  
available for anyone to apply for at the time Quayle signed up.  The  
Quayle family, not realizing this, talked to some people about getting a  
slot.  They just told him to walk down to the recruiting station and sign  
on the dotted line.

--
Don McGregor
drm@esl.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,alt.privacy,alt.society.civil-liberty,news.admin.policy
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: [comp.org.eff.talk] Latest FBI Wiretap Bill
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 11:01:52 EDT

In article <Bu0Iu2.92G@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>>Don't be fooled!  THESE PEOPLE AREN'T AMATEURS!!!  Methods such as
>>you describe were used by spies in World War II, and the "secret"
>>messages were routinely intercepted and decoded.  Cryptology has
>>advanced significantly since then.
>
>  The methods used in WWII were very simple compared to mine. And even
>  then the clear-text methods often required outside sources of
>  information or other tricks to break.  An example of such a method
>  from WWII that was successfully broken was the means the Americans
>  used to identify that Midway was the target of an intended Japanese
>  attack.  They (the Americans) had to broadcast an unencrypted message
>  pertaining to a broken water desalinization unit on Midway and wait
>  to see references to this in the Japanese transmissions.  In other
>  words it required more than the text itself to break.  
>
>  The whole point of clear text encoding (or any encryption method)
>  is that not all the information is contained in the message.  The
>  feds might discern with their computers that the ratio of, say, 
>  the letter "s" to the letter "p" varies in a certain way, but 
>  the *meaning* of this is only known to the sender and intended
>  receiver.  And the other thing is that when you look at all the
>  possible things you can vary in an ASCII message of several hundred
>  or thousand characters, even the fastest computer on earth running 
>  for centuries cannot examine all possible permutations of these
>  things.  

*All* secret-key encryption techniques are such that not all of the
information is contained within the message.  (Namely, the secret-key
is not there.)

It looks as though you are working under the assumption that your
enciphering *technique* is unknown to the cryptanalyst.  If you asked
virtually any expert on cryptography, they would tell you that this is
a poor assumption.

When evaluating the security of a cryptosystem, modern cryptographers always
assume that the cryptanalyst knows the encryption method.

Generally-speaking, they also assume that the cryptanalyst is able to
get a significant amount of additional information.  For example:

   1. Known pairs of plaintext and ciphertext.  (known-plaintext attack)
   2. The ciphertext for a chosen plaintext. (chosen-plaintext attack--
      this corresponds to your midway example)
   3. The plaintext for a chosen ciphertext. (chosen-ciphertext attack)


Generally, in order to be considered secure, an encryption technique
should be secure *assuming* that the technique is known to the cryptanalyst
and that the above types of attack are available.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"