HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Subject: Cr*m*r gets it wrong again
Organization: insert anything here
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 14:27:09 GMT

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:
># argh, stop it Clayton!

># Please, if you follow up to this thread, pay extra attention to the
># Newsgroups: header. soc.motss is a lesbian and gay positive newsgroup
># for the discussion of issues of specific relevance to lesbians and
># gays. talk.politics.misc and ca.politics are for the discussion of
># political issues. Please consider which newsgroup your message is
># relevant to, and only post it to those newsgroups.

>Straightspace is for straight people only.  Please pay attention
>when you are told that homosexuals aren't welcome, and stop trying
>to use your control over California's state government to impose
>homosexuals into straightspace.

	Apples and oragnes.  Now getting back to the real issue:
supportive heterosexuals are welcome in the *.motss groups.  However,
topics regarding the legitimacy of homosexuality, and general gaybashing
are prohibited from soc.motss.  This is explained in both the soc.motss
FAQ and in the introductory statement made at teh formation of net.motss
in 1983.

	Unfortunately, Cr*m*r doesn't seem to have any idea
about the word responsibility or the word courtesy.

	The reason there *are* RFD's, CFV's and voting on groups
is so an agenda can be defined for each new group.  Implicitly
going along with that is the intent that that agenda will be respected.
Soc.motss has been around for almost 9 years... it's purpose is clearly
outlined.  Users like Cr*m*r only make the system inefficient by
causing trouble and contributing nothing.

	We appreciate any help the rest of you can give us in keeping
USENET running smoothly.  If Cr*m*r has posted to any *.motss group
and you wish to follow-up, please remove *.motss from the Newsgroups:
line when you post.   Thanks.

	(What is annoying is that this would never happen to a group like
misc.jobs.offered...)

BBC
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 01:00:19 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug26.090715.19292@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
    >>Hmm. Interesting values there. So, to you, a political
    >>mediocracy (O.K., that IS redundant) is the same as someone
    >>who is actively for child molestation to be legalized?
    >>
    >I was simply asking why a nobody like Dan Quayle is supposed
    >to be fit for the highest office in the land.
    >
    >And why Marilyn Quayle feels that she has the right to attack
    >Hillary Clinton for having a law career when she herself went
    >to law school...

Well, this may come as a surprise, but, they "feel" they have that right,
because, they do. Ain't no intelligence test required to be president.
Just goota meet some age and birth requirements and you too can be elected.

But, I don't vote (never have, never will), so don't blame me.

In any case, you changed the issue. You WERE equating approval/acceptance
of NAMBLA with Dan Quayle. You STILL have your priorities fucked up.


    >And your comments about legalizing child molestation... I
    >think that Melinda Shore has the right idea of what to call
    >you :-)

Well, some people are looooonng on name calling, and short on everything
else.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: WELFARE:  AN IDEA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:42:36 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep2.190947.8855@nntp.uoregon.edu> eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
...  
>>     Instead of paying women for having children outside of wedlock and not
>>     working, we should give parents who are unable to support their children 
>>     an opportunity to temporarily place them in a foster home, get back on their 
>>     feet, and take the kids back.  That will take away an incentive to raise
>>     one's children poor with no man in the house, and reduce the number of 
>>     children living below the poverty line.
>
>This is the dumbest idea i've ever heard of....snatching children from
>their mothers arms - how horrible.  There are much better solutions then
>that one.

    Shatching kids from their mothers arms is your idea - I proposed
    giving parents an OPTION of placing a child in a foster home 
    TEMPORARILY, till they get back on their feet financially.  The goverment 
    would pay for the foster care (cheaper and, more importantly, the incentive
    to raise one's child in poverty would not be there).  Another word,
    the welfare benefits should go to the child, but not necessarily to 
    the child's parent(s).

    This may sound cruel, until you consider the alternative: getting hooked
    on every welfare program there is, moving into a drug-infested 
    neighborhood, sending your children to an inner-city school, watching 
    them joining a gang, LOSING HOPE...

    BTW, if you had to choose between the two alternatives, which one
    would you choose?



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: National Health Care
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:14:56 GMT

In article <92239.092117DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>There are numerous states that are already experimenting with novel approaches
>to health insurance under a program funded by the Robert Wood Johnson
>Foundation.
>
>Dennis G. Shea, Penn State


We've all heard about the Oregon plan (and its problems with the Americans
with Disabilities Act). What about other states? Which are they, and what
are the details?


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Is George running for First Lady?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:41:12 GMT
Keywords: Elections, Candidates, Presidential politics

bruce@godzilla.swdc.stratus.com (Bruce Overby) writes:
>                                           I'm confident, however, that
>the Clinton/Gore camp will make the right moves here too.
>

It's really amazing that they continue to make all the right moves... I
mean, they are Democrats, aren't they? I imagine Bush and Quayle as Butch
Cassidy and the Sundance Kid looking back at their pursuers and saying "who
ARE those guys?"

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Remarks by William Bennett (text)
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 4 Sep 92 10:31:29 CDT


In article <lad5neINNem@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:
> In article 92Sep3165307@tamarack13.timbuk, cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
> > Bradley K. Sherman writes:
> > 
> >    What is [Bennett's] claim to fame, anyway?  Henry Kissinger
> >    award for most respected intellectual with absolutely no
> >    accomplishments?
> > 
> > Something like that.  He strikes me as an intellectual-for-sale, the 
> > guy who makes a sleazy cause seem more respectable because he has brains.
> 
> Well he once went on a date with Janis Joplin!!

But did he inhale?  :-)

Seriously, could someone "date" Janis and not use illegal drugs?

-- 
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!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:43113 ca.politics:7314 ba.politics:4944
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...)
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:39:29 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <z2hn93_.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes
to Melinda Shore:

>Interesting. While we all fart, it is generally considered impolite and
>a mild form of social disfunction to be blatantly verbal about one's
>farting activities.

But Phil, social convention is an arbitrary and coercive authority!   :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Clair George's trial a mistrial!!
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:46:38 GMT

In article <17ga7eINNa6j@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:

   Just heard on CBS that a Federal Judge has declared the trial of
   former CIA Spymaster Clair George to be a mistrial after the
   jury was hopelessly deadlocked on the verdict. Walsh now has the
   opportunity to re-try him.

   What's the tally so far? 3 small cheeses, no big fish? Someone ought
   to thank Walsh for showing us why this special prosecutor thing was
   not that great an idea after all. 

Exactly.  The article in the Boston Globe this morning said that a juror,
who described himself as a "liberal democrat", told the attorneys and the
press that a "large majority" of the jury were for acquittal on ALL nine
counts!  He said the majority agreed that the government had failed to
prove its case.  The prosecutions main witness, Alan Fiers, was
considered a particularly poor witness.  I guess that's what happens when
you send an admitted liar to prove somebody else is lying.

The "3 small cheeses" to which you refer were all gulity pleas to
misdemeanors, instead of felonies, in exchange for testimony against
their former colleagues.  So, in the true adversary relationship of our
judicial the score is zero for the Inquisition, 100% for the victims.
For this we have spent over $30,000,000 in tax money and God knows how
much by the defenders.  And what have we learned, let alone gained?

The Chief Witch Hunter has decided he will try Clair George again,
despite the overwhelming vote of the jury against his case.  The jury's
spokesman said he didn't see how any body of twelve citizens could
convict George on the basis of the the Inquisitor's case.

The article went on to describe the prosecutor as "visibly shaken".  It
seems he thought there was a big majority for conviction with one or a
few holdouts for acquital.  Apparently he was shocked to discover a
majority saw through his hate filled attempt to jail patriots trying to
do their best for the country.

Don't get me started on that travesty, the Caspar Weinberger case.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: The Myth of Lesbian Safety from AIDS
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 13:40:44 GMT

[]
There have been six documented cases in the US of 
woman<->woman HIV transmission.  In each case there 
has been either needles or men somewhere in the picture.  

And how are the heterosexuals doing, Claytoon?
-- 
"I would promptly inform any homosexual who would dare to proposition
me that my preference is fisting."  -- Theodore A. Kaldis

       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
From: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Increase in millionaires
Date: 26 Aug 1992 19:41:04 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

In article <1992Aug24.134822.3715@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> 	Why do some people feel that the number of millionaires increasing
|> since the last election is a *bad* result?
|> 
|> 	If that number was 100% of the population (ignoring the inflationary
|> effect that would have :), would that be "a bad thing"?
|> 
|> 	It would seem that anything that helped raise the median income is to
|> be looked upon with favor.
|> 
|> 	Unless you're assuming that economics is a zero-sum game and these new
|> millionares did it on the backs of the poor.
|> 
Sounds resonable to me.  We have more working americans below the poverty
level than ever in our history.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42069 ca.politics:7072 ba.politics:4796
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:01:02 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., San Jose, CA

In article <11870@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.140250.416@tc.cornell.edu>, shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:
>> In article <c#!nkxp.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>> >In article <1992Aug18.160749.25660@tc.cornell.edu> shore@tc.cornell.edu writes:

.......... <article deleted for space>..........

>Exercise prior restraint?  Of course not.  As I have made clear
>on many occasions (though Melinda Shore must always be out of the
>room when I say it), if the homosexual community is really concerned
>about stereotypes as child molesters, they can exercise freedom of
>association by disassociating themselves from NAMBLA.  That this
>seems to be too controversial a stand to take is evidenced by the
>fact that the Gay Perotistas were prevented from marching in the
>S. F. parade, but NAMBLA was allowed.
>
Cramer you jerk! You had best retract and apologize. The
phrase "Gay Perotistas" is wonderfully close to libel aimed at
Ross Perot and I am tempted to send it to him!
>
>-- 
>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.

Len
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: US Public Schools: Get Rid of All the Bureaucrats!
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:06:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.160002.13154@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>In article <37209@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>>... A company which consistently lies about its 
>>products will not be in business very long.

>>				Brad Cote'

>That is the hope, anyway.

>As a mild counter-example, take a look at the persistent difficulty in
>finding honest, effective auto-repair shops. This has been a problem
>since the automobile came on the scene, and even in this regulated age
>is still a problem.

	And consider how the Detroit automakers for a long time
persisted in making _big_ cars, despite the fact that smaller cars
were a lot more affordable.

	And my favorite example of capitalist short-sightedness:

	During the first half of this century, business computing was
done with electromechanical punched-card machines. There were several
companies in this business, but all but one of them are now out of
business. The exception: IBM. And even _that_ took some lobbying in
the top level by electronic-computer advocates. About 1950, there were
those who seriously advocated that only 6 of them would be needed in
all of the United States (and presumably another 6 for the rest of the
world). But even these early machines, with their great bulk and
expense, and a thousandth the speed and a thousandth the memory of a
present-day personal-computer, not to mention breakdown-proneness and
severe user-hostility (interactive computing, for example, was
practially nonexistent), could clearly outperform the old punched-card
machines.

	And now IBM is trying to avoid the same fate as personal
computers and workstations prove themselves superior to traditional
mainframes by getting into those types of computers.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: The Myth of Lesbian Safety from AIDS
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:50:55 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

A continuing claim is that lesbians are at very low risk for AIDS.
The following summary suggests that the reporting schemes may be
unintentionally misleading people on this subject:

In article <1992Aug24.145318.23781@cs.ucla.edu>, bigoldberg@igc.apc.org (Billi Goldberg) writes:
# 
#                          AIDS Daily Summary
#                            August 24, 1992 
#  The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National AIDS Clearinghouse makes 
# available the following information as a public service only.  Providing 
# this information does not constitute endorsement by the CDC, the 
# Clearinghouse, or any other organization.  Reproduction of this text is 
# encouraged; however, copies may not be sold.  Copyright 1992, 
# Information, Inc., Washington, DC 
# "Girls Go for the Gloves" Advocate (08/13/92) No. 609, P. 55  (Califia, 
# Pat)
#      Although lesbians are a low risk group for HIV infection, many  
# believe they are not at all at risk.  Risa Denenberg, a nurse  
# practitioner who volunteers at New York City's gay and lesbian  
# Community Health Project (CHP) conducted a small study of  lesbian's 
# beliefs about the transmission of HIV and found that  one fifth said 
# they would not have sex with an HIV positive women or weren't sure they 
# would.  Most of the respondents said they  protected themselves by 
# reducing their sexual activity, rather  than by using gloves or dental 
# dams.  According to health  educators, one of the biggest problems is 
# the myth that lesbians  are the lowest-risk group for AIDS.  The Centers 
# for Disease  Control, which omits lesbian sex from the list of risky 
# behaviors for HIV infection, uses the classification "IV-drug user" for 
# a  lesbian who had risky sex with other women and shared needles,  
# rather than identifying her as a lesbian.  New York City  educators 
# Rebecca Cole and Sally Cooper reported in their paper  entitled, 
# "Lesbian Exclusion from HIV/AIDS Education: Ten Years  of Low-Risk 
# Identity and High-Risk Behavior," written for the Sex Information and 
# Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)  that "most women's AIDS 
# organizations, large AIDS service  providers, and longtime HIV 
# counselors have seen cases in which  female-to-female transmission has 
# occurred." 
-- 
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.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:09:33 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <mubfm18@Unify.Com> ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan) writes:
]In article <l955h1INN9gg@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
]>In article <1992Aug18.151018.27120@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]>> 
]>> In article <1992Aug17.190813.1645@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
]>>> Did someone just say that cutting the capital gains tax would benefit the
]>>> poor because it would lead to jobs?  That's what Reagan said some 12ish
]>>> years ago -- as someone here in San Antonio put it, quite aptly in my 
]>>> opinion, 12 years is long enough for anything to trickle down!
]>> 
]>> You seem to have forgotten the 30 million new jobs created during those
]>> twelve years.
]>> 
]> How could we forget.  The unemployment rate is up and a greater percentage
]> of the full-time employed is earning sub-poverty level wages.  Thank you
]> Mr. Reagan.
]
]The paper (Sacramento Bee) reported that the 1990 US Census reported that the
]average wage in the USA had declined since the 1980.  This average wage is
]in real numbers, not adjusted for COL, inflation, taxes, military in/exclu-
]sion, or any other voodoo.  That means that regardless of the numbers of 
]people who lost jobs, or who found them, or who used to work part-time and
]now works full-time, or vice-versa, THE AVERAGE WAGE HAS DROPPED during the
]Reagan-Bush era.  And this is the 1990 US Census, whose numbers, although

Taxes are a MAJOR factor in the decreased real wage. By the way, I believe
the "real wage" decrease was from 1977, not 1980.
-- 
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
 - - Comment too controversial for management - Deleted :-) -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Canada Has Pneumonia!
Date: 24 Aug 92 03:31:14 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <92Aug20.134342edt.136@neuron.ai.toronto.edu> steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:

> (There was a year when I worked for the NYC government and learned
                           ^^^^^^         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There is an obvious contradiction in the above line.
-- 
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???       ||
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clair George's trial a mistrial!!
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:15:05 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <ART.92Aug28102416@world.std.com>, art@world.std.com sez:
>In article <NEERI.92Aug27182449@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
>
>   In article <17ga7eINNa6j@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>   >What's the tally so far? 3 small cheeses, no big fish? Someone ought
>   >to thank Walsh for showing us why this special prosecutor thing was
>   >not that great an idea after all. 
>
> What makes you think that someone else might have been more successful? Or do
> you think that there shouldn't have been any prosecution at all?
>
>That's right, none.  Why?  Because juries have consistently been
>acquiting.  

Like the North and Poindexter juries, right?  Ooops, better check
those facts again.

(And before you saddle up on your high horse, I know perfectly well
that those convictions were vacated on appeal.  I could even give you
a fair account of the reasons.  That doesn't alter the fact that the
nonsense above about juries consistently acquitting is, well,
nonsense.) 

-- 
		   I am of course experienced in teaching
		  and have read the writings of Dana Plato.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck