HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: Re: Bush's chances?
From: phygod72@nic.gac.edu (Phil )
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:33:46 -0600

In article <1992Oct9.030921.59555@cc.usu.edu>  writes:
} So, what do you overlords think Bush's chances are? I don't think they 
} are very good, but I think they may be better than polls suggest. I know 
} Clinton leads by 10-13 in most polls, but there are a lot of things that 
} polls don't reflect. 

Most political analists (sp?) believe that Bush is hurtung for certain in the  
Electoral College.  Novak gives Bush Texas, and still has him losing  
174-300-some.  Novak is also being generous to Bush, in his own words.  

} 
} And let's not forget our impetuous friend Ross. He still has three weeks
} to win the hearts and minds of the voters. He has LOTS of money. Clinton
} cannot split the anti-Bush vote with Perot and hope to win (not even if 
} he splits it 70-30).

I used to think that (when Ross got back in).  I thought that he may pull  
enough EC votes to put the election to the house.  Now, however, I am not so  
sure...  (another analist (I *know that's not right) gives Perot Texas, and  
Clinton 402 EC votes)


} I think it's going to be VERY close. Comments?
I think it's going to be a landslide.

Phil
Ambassador to the Intergalatic Planning Commission
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
From: jester@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Jester)
Subject: YAQOTD
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:29:24 GMT

	Some people go halfway around the world to find their graves;
	others wander in the waste places and along the highways of
	their own nation; and the lazy, easygoing ones dodder wherever
	they are, cognizant that in due course their graves will open up 
	beneath	their feet.
				-William T. Vollmann, The Blue Yonder
-- 
Join the Omnipotent Overlords of the Omniverse today. Add to intelligent    	
political, environmental, and social discussions. Buck the growing trend of 
apathy in the world today, and most importantly have some well earned fun.  
Read all about us on alt.overlords or e-mail : jester@sage.cc.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: Re: <None> 
From: djohnson@cayenne.gac.edu (Daniel P Johnson)
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:52:34
Organization: People Named Chuck Anonymous
In-reply-to: Mark Beirne Lively's message of Tue,  6 Oct 1992 19:15:36 -0400 Lines: 32

In article <8eoVsMK00awOA1GJJa@andrew.cmu.edu> Mark Beirne Lively <ml5a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
.>.>I can't imagine a "perfect child" developing in a family which is so
.>.>whacked that they kid divorces its parents, but I spose if that is the
.>.>sort of child that Mr. Rich Guy wants...
.>
.>.>We'll probably here about [whatzisname] taking out a K-Mart in a few
.>.>years, but hopefully not.  (if he's 12 then most of the damage is
.>.>already done)
.>
.>.	What I was atlaking about was a rich couple finds an adorable 5 yerar
.>.old or such and convinces him through sufficient bribes to divorce his
.>.parents.  Iw as stating that as a worst case possibility.  I agree with
.>.you though that the kids in the present case is pretty much screwed up
.>.for life.
.>
.>Valid point, but I would think (i.e. hope) that such actions would
.>probably be noticed by the biological parents, and that the resulting
.>lawsuit might create sufficient difficulties that the divorce would
.>not go through.  Also, 5 year olds tend to be *very* attached to their
.>parents, unless there is something wrong quite with their family, in
.>which case they are probably a mite screwed up.  
.>
.>--  Daniel Johnson  djohnson@cayenne.gac.edu  --
.>    Grandiose Pontiff of Misplaced Hostility
.Note this was part of a conversation over e-mail that origanally came
.from here and is being sent back at the other participants suggestions. 
.So what do you guys think about the above.

I agree with the first guy, but he can't type worth a durn.

--  Daniel Johnson  djohnson@cayenne.gac.edu  --
    Grandiose Pontiff of Misplaced Hostility
From: jester@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Jester)
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: YAQOTD
Date: 8 Oct 92 01:21:58 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

"A finely tempered nature longs to escape from his noisy cramped surroundings
into the silence of the high mountains where the eye ranges freely through the
still pure air and fondly traces out the restful countours apparently built for
eternity."  - Albert Einstein 

-- 
I am the cholesterol that clogs your arteries.
I am the onion that stings in your eye.
I am the tube of cadmium yellow that refuses to open.
I am the unexpected and unsightly inclusion that ruins the perfect gem.
From: bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu (Benjamin John McCall)
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: Re: 92' Elections
Date: 16 Oct 1992 06:25:03 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

Oops!  I forgot to include the amendment 23:


                   The Constitution of the United States

                               AMENDMENT XII

     Passed by Congress December 9, 1803.  Ratified July 27, 1804.

   The Electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by ballot for
President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabi-
tant of the same State with themselves;  they shall name in their ballots
the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted
for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they
shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the Government of
the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; the President of
the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representa-
tives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; - The
person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the
President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors
appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having
the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as
President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot,
the President.   But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by
States, the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for
this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the
States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to  a choice.
And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever
the right of choice shall devolve upon them, [before the fourth day of March
next following,] <<Altered by 20th Amendment>> then the Vice-President shall
act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability
of the President.  The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-
President, shall be the Vice-President, if such numbers be a majority of the
whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then
from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-
President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole
number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to
a choice.  But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of
President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

-- 
Ben McCall, Caltech - bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu
Students for Clinton/Gore: send Subject: line of "subscribe" to:
        clinton-students@cco.caltech.edu
Clinton FTP site: ftp.cco.caltech.edu, /pub/bjmccall/Clinton
From: majcher@acsu.buffalo.edu (The Wire Monkey)
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: Re: YAQOTD
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:51:04 GMT
Organization: UB

>Women comprise fifty percent of the world's population, perform two-thirds
>of the work, earn one-tenth of the world's income and own one percent of
>the property."

	...and 100% of the world's...well, let's make it a fair 90%,
counting homosexuals, shall we?

Wire Monkey

	still sucks for us (mostly) straight guys...

-- 
  majcher@acsu.buffalo.edu     *  The meek shall inherit the earth,   *
  Marc Majcher@P.O. Box 156          and the wise keep moving on...
     Amherst, NY  14226        *   The Earth is our Mother, but how   *
    Voice: (716) 834-1648       many of us still live with our mother?
From: sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six)
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: Bush's chances?
Date: 9 Oct 92 03:09:21 MDT
Summary: We could be surprised..
Keywords: polls, errors, Bush?
Organization: Utah State University

So, what do you overlords think Bush's chances are? I don't think they 
are very good, but I think they may be better than polls suggest. I know 
Clinton leads by 10-13 in most polls, but there are a lot of things that 
polls don't reflect. 

I read an editoral by Elaine Karmak (sp?) that listed several things that 
may be elluding the media, pundits and the polls. The most interesting thing 
IMO was the undecided column. Karmak holds that there may be as much as 5%
worth of voters who are claiming to be undecided simply because they do not
want to admit on the phone or in writing that they are planning to vote for
Bush. An interesting supposition. If Clinton's lead is 5 points smaller than
reflected in polls, that would bring the lead down to 5-8 points, scarcely 
larger than most margins of error, no?

Another dynamic Karmak discussed was that of un-registered, non-voting
people who participate in polls. It's well-known that older, wealthy, and
retired people vote in impressively high numbers. The percentage of voting 
college students is dismal. And yet, college students are the most likely to 
choose Clinton in a poll. So, what you have is many people affecting the poll 
(in favor of Clinton) who will not actually vote. Let's say that's another %5
error. Now you have poll results which are not merely inaccurate, but wrong.

And let's not forget our impetuous friend Ross. He still has three weeks
to win the hearts and minds of the voters. He has LOTS of money. Clinton
cannot split the anti-Bush vote with Perot and hope to win (not even if 
he splits it 70-30).

I think it's going to be VERY close. Comments?

Okay,
Minister and Department Head of the Department of Redundancy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chadd VanZanten SL9B4@CC.USU.EDU + ``My karma ran over my dogma.'' --Unknown
From: bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu (Benjamin John McCall)
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: Re: 92' Elections
Date: 15 Oct 1992 01:55:16 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

I hate to be the fourth person to jump on Jester's analysis, but I think
it is clearly in error.

>It is my personal feeings that unless Clinton does somethign stupid
>he has the presidential election wrapped up.

Okay, I'll agree with that...

>Think about it, with three
>candidates....no one is going to get a majority of the popular
>vote and with a Democratic House and Senate, Clintto wins hands down.

Hold on - you're not being coherent here.  It is possible that no one
will get a majority of the popular vote, especially with Perot in the
race.  However, we're now looking at numbers like 48% Clinton,
34 Bush and 12 Perot, in which case Clinton would have a majority of the
popular vote (assuming that the undecided don't decide and therefore
don't vote).  In any event, it is possible that Clinton will take
a majority and not just a plurality of the popular vote.

But that doesn't really matter.  What is important is that one candidate
(Clinton) needs to obtain _pluralities_ in enough states to tip the
electoral college in his favor.  According to even the most conservative
Republican pundits (excepting those who work for George Bush), Clinton
should have no problem doing this.

Perot will not take a single state.  No way, no how!  Not because he's
an independent and independents don't win - I don't believe that - I used
to support Perot.  I think Perot may even have won had he stayed in
the race - but having pulled out, and having kept Stockdale as his
running mate (did you see the VP debate???????), he doesn't have a chance
to take a state.

>The only thing Ross Perot has done by reentering the race, is hand
>the office to Clinton b4 November.

True, in a sense.  It looks like Perot will only have two effects:

1) He will help focus the campaign on the issues.  This definitely helps
Clinton, because Bush has nothing to say about them and would much prefer
to launch personal attacks.  Face it, Bush has failed - why would he
possibly want to talk about the issues?

2) He may take enough votes from Bush to swing a couple key states.  Most
analyses indicate that people who are going to Perot are proportionately
more the conservatives who supported Bush than the moderates (who still
support Clinton).  States that could be affected?  Texas is the most
likely choice, but chances are good that Clinton will win there anyway.
Florida is also a possibility...

Just my 2E-02 dollars worth...

Ben
-- 
Ben McCall, Caltech - bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu
Students for Clinton/Gore: send Subject: line of "subscribe" to:
        clinton-students@cco.caltech.edu
Clinton FTP site: ftp.cco.caltech.edu, /pub/bjmccall/Clinton
From: jester@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Jester)
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: YAQOTD
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:29:50 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

Dennis Leary on cocaine:

"I'd like a drug that makes my penis small, makes my heart explode, makes
 my nose bleed and sucks all of my money out of the bank.  Is that possible,
 please?"
-- 
I am the cancelled checque that comes in the mail.
I am the zit on the night of crime's really big date.
I am the line noise that screws up your download...
I am the ghost of a chance that you don't have.
From: jester@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Jester)
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: YAQOTD
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:08:30 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center


"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus."
                                        -- Mark Twain
-- 
I am the broken glass that cuts your sticky fingers.
I am the hero that every world and every culture needs!
I am the sequins on the Jumpsuit of Justice.
I am the corn on crime's big toe.
From: bahn@main.mndly.umn.edu (Christopher Bahn)
Newsgroups: alt.overlords
Subject: Re: WELL WELL WELL (VERY DEEP SUBJECTS)
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:05:06 GMT
Organization: the Minnesota Daily (U of MN Student Newspaper)

In article <00961B12.F9E20960@vms.csd.mu.edu> 2y16mulsoffr@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:

><I GUESS THAT IF A KED REAALY FEELS THAT HE CAN'T LIVE WITH HIS
>PARENTS AND OTHER RELATIVES <NOTE THE QUALIFIER) ARE WILLING TO TAKE
>THE POOR CHILD IN, THEN TS OK.  I KNOW THAT MY WIFE WISHED SHE COULD
>DIVORCE HER PARENTS- ONE AN ALCHOHOLIC, THE OTHER IS MANIC DEPRESSIVE.
>THE COMBINATION OF TE TWO PUT HER IN THE HOSPITAL MANY TIMES, AND
>SHE SUFFERED A MENATL BREAKDOWN HER JUNIOR YEAR IN HIGH SHCOLL BEACUSE 
>OF THE STRESS.  SHE TRIED TO MOVE IN WITH OTHER REALTIVES, BUT THE COURTS
>KEPT PUTTING HER BACK AT HOME (HELL). 

>I GUESS MAYBE THERE ARE CASES WHERE DIVORCING YOUR PARENTS IS NEEDED.

>WONKO THE SANE, KING OF THE CONSERVATIVE TROLLS

Please, man, _please_ turn off the caps lock.
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4314 talk.abortion:41552 talk.politics.misc:50483
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: About those first Amendment rights
Date: 9 Oct 92 10:00:33 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

reddeg@VAX309.NOSC.MIL writes:

] To Drieux:
] 
] You sent what I consider a confusing response to my message.
] The best I can tell is that you are talking about free speech.
] Free speech is not necessarily what I was talking about.

there is a major difference between:

1. no one can tell me....

2. No one can make me listen to....

Your assertion was on the order of the former,
and hence is a matter of first amendment rights.

I may not like that SatanicIdolWorshippingFetalIdolators
are willing to Balspheme against the Bible in their
effort to espouse their Godless AntiAbortionist Rhetoric,
but as a Veteran, I have a firm commitment to their liberty
to speak.

When that speach oversteps certain clearly defined boundaries,
and becomes harrassment, or worse, then the matter is different.

As They say:

"Your First Amendment Right does not allow you
to scream 'Movie Theatre' in a crowded Fire."

ciao
drieux


-- 
Modern Day Problems:

Entropy, Its not Just a Good Idea,
IT's The LAW!!!!!
From: mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Pro-life poster.
Date: 9 Oct 1992 19:03:55 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: mjb10@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael J. Bumbulis)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu



 An advertisement for pro-lifers.

 I've just put together a pro-life poster/flyer.
 It has a picture of a 17 week human fetus taken from a medical
 school textbook.  It reads: "FROM": and the title page of the medical
 text on human development is listed.  Next to it is the picture of the
 human fetus.  Below these you read "FROM" again, but this time the
 Cleveland Plain Dealer is listed.  And what is listed are some classified
 ads which proclaim that abortions "up to 24 weeks" are done for $$$.

 And finally the bottom of the poster reads "No rhetoric.  No slogans.
 Just two undeniable facts".  It's left for the reader to put it
 together.

 If you would like some master copies of this poster to Xerox and
 post around your city, just e-mail me and give me a mailing address,
 and I'll pay the postage to send it to you.
-- 
Michael        
 
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 04:16:31 GMT

In article <nyikos.719008403@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>I don't know what Don's point was, but I am going to monitor you
>VERY closely to see what more you say about Suzanne Forgach threatening to
>unplug Andy and Ray in order to protect HER child.  You seemed to
>be quite eager to dump on her a while ago for that.

Beaver's point is fairly obvious.  He wants to compare two
different statements (Steeves, who said that he wanted to kill his
ex-wife for her disrespect for him, and a woman who said that she'd
happily kill someone who threatened her child) and say they're equal,
all the while assuring us of his neutrality.

Sure.

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men,soc.women
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Guilty?
Summary: Let's not go around putting words in my mouth, ok? 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 03:34:07 GMT

In article <Bvzn2E.GAo@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

[About Will's "infamous" "Snap and kill" post...]
>
>That doesn't excuse the way he made his point -- I thought it was
>not only a great lack of judgement to use such terms but a possible offense 
>to women and men involved in such a situation (because of the possibility
>of misinterpretation) -- but at the same time, IMNSHO, the conclusions and 
>persistent misinterpretations by his "opponents" are hardly unbiased.

Tell you what.  Find me a woman who posts something similar to "...and with
the Goddess as my witness, if my husband fools around on me, and has the
gall to not only not tell me immediatly, but to wait a year or more before
mentioning it, I'd probably snap right there and kill him", and I'll suggest
that she line up to talk to Will's therapist right after he's done...

--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Planned Parenthood on RU 486 "Morning After" Breakthrough
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:53:29 GMT

In article <1bcgmgINNbgb@fido.asd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>In article <Bw0sw5.5GC@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu writes:
>|"Every individual, except a man, has a fundamental right to choose
>|when or whether to have a child."
>
>How Pythonesque.  Don't worry, Don.  I fully support your
>right to get pregnant.  Too bad you don't have a uterus.

Actually, the opposite is the problem.

How did you transform "choose when or whether to have a child" into
"right to get pregnant"?  Let's refer back to what the original poster 
quoted from Planned Parenthood:

"...regardless of race, age,
gender, sexual orientation, disability, or economic circumstances.
^^^^^^
Through its international program, Family Planning International
Assistance, Planned Parenthood helps meet the family planning needs
of women and men in the developing world."
         ^^^^^^^


>|or,
>|"Every individual has a fundamental right to choose when or whether
>|to have a child, and some individuals' rights are greater than others'."
>
>So what?  Some individuals-- women-- face more risk while
>reproducing than others.  Men take no risk, bear none of the
>physical burden, and suffer no consequences to their health.  Of
>course women have an extra option that men don't.

Once again, we see the attitude that men are irrelevant.  Perhaps
it would be less hypocritical if men weren't also automatically 
responsible for a 18-year bill, regardless of their choice, or the 
circumstances of fertilization, or their desire to raise children.


>Come back when men can get pregnant.  Then you might have a
>point.

Come back when a mother has to work to support her child
if a successful father didn't want to have children.
Come back when fathers get 50% of child custody awards.
Come back when men are not tied to a maximal-earning-potential
job for 18 years due to birth control that is at best 90% effective.
Come back when no woman able to escape a lifelong "burden" through
legal abortion can make a lifelong reproductive choice that unilaterally
binds a man.

Come back when the ability to get pregnant is the determining factor
for the ability to raise children and the right to plan one's life.

Then we can speak of equity in reproductive decisions.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4386 talk.abortion:42347 soc.men:17672 soc.women:17669