HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:34:51 GMT
Reply-To: tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes)
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Distribution: usa
Organization: Boston University

In article <MATT.92Oct14122845@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>
>And just for the record: can somebody please explain, preferably in
>words of few syllables, why it is worse to participate in a protest in
>London than it is to participate in a protest in Washington that will
>then be shown on television in London?  I just don't see it.

Same reason the Blue Jays got upset when Dennis Eckersley struck out a 
guy and pumped his fist in the air.  You just don't do it.  Bad form.


Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3803 sci.space:14378
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,sci.space
Subject: Re: WE ARE STILL HERE: THE 500 YEARS CELEBRATION
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:43:34 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio


To all you politically correct people out there:

HAPPY COLUMBUS DAY.  Remember, this is the 500th aniversary of Columbus
DISCOVERING the new world.


Simon
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:53:16 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Matt Austern) writes:
|> Ted Krueger) writes:
|> 
|> > The right thing to do is certainly not to go to our ENEMY (remember, 
|> > we were in a cold war with the soviets at that point, and that they had 
|> > preformed a brutal crack-down in Czechoslovakia (sp) just a few months 
|> > before Clinton went there) and protest our country.  The right thing 
|> > may be to protest in our country.
|> 
|> I'm confused.  Yes, Clinton participated in protests against the
|> Vietnam War (*not* against the United States; are right-wingers really
|> unable to see the difference?) in England.  But in what sense is
|> England the enemy of the United States?  England and the United States
|> have been at peace for nearly 200 years.
|> 
|> And just for the record: can somebody please explain, preferably in
|> words of few syllables, why it is worse to participate in a protest in
|> London than it is to participate in a protest in Washington that will
|> then be shown on television in London?  I just don't see it.

I am sure that Ted Krueger and George Bush believe the chinese students
who demonstrated in the United States against Tienemann square showed bad
judgement.  They should have gone back to China to demonstrate.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: fischer@li.serum.kodak.com (Chris Fischer (x39613))
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Public Opinion on Hill/Thomas Hearings (was: CWA Membership)
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:03:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <JYM.92Oct12090534@remarque.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>[This thread is becoming only peripherally relevant to
>talk.abortion.  Select followups with care.]
>
>>>> Two-thirds of American women did not believe Anita Hill . . .
>>> [That] contradicts the polls I've seen, which show an
>>> *enormous* gender gap on this particular issue.
>> 63 to 70 percent of the people, even broken down by race or
>> gender, did not believe Anita Hill and thought Thomas should
>> be confirmed.
>
>=o= I was going to reiterate my recent remarks about polling
>techniques and discrepancies and such.  But then I saw the
>latest _US_News_&_World_Report_.
>
>=o= _USNWR_ is (and is widely acknowledged as) a newsweekly
>with a very conservative bias.  They conduct polls all the time,

"very conservative" is a bit strong.  National Review would be
very conservative.  Right of center or moderately conservative
is a better definition.

>and routinely come back with "public opinion" measurements that
>are more conservative than others'.  Nobody's quite sure how
>they manage this, but most can agree that whatever they do,
>their polls are "conservative-friendly."

Just like ABC/Washington Post polls are liberal friendly.
>
>=o= They're a source that Rush Limbaugh and his Dittoids would
>(usually) be happy to quote.
>
Who are they supposed to quote?  New York Times?  Washington
Post?  In These Times? Z?

>=o= The latest _USNWR_ has an interesting cover story on the
>Hill/Thomas hearings.  It seems that their conservative-friendly
>opinion polls have found a shift in opinion on the matter, one
>year after the fact.  And that shift has been away from Thomas
>and for Hill.
>
Probably because Anita gets constant favorable media attention.

>=o= More to the point, they compared their conservative-friendly
>1992 results with their conservative-friendly 1991 results.  And
>the gender gap that I've been mentioning shows up very clearly.
>    <_Jym_>
>__
Again, the big-lie technique (not that I am saying it is a lie, 
but that it
is repeated so many times that she is right that people begin
to believe it.  We'll probably never truly now the truth).

>I can't say I identify with any specific educational goal.
>                -- George Bush, 1988.


-- 
Chris Fischer (fischer@serum.clpd.KODAK.com)
They never even listen to my opinion, why would they make it policy?
"The healthy gum tissue of our liberties are being eaten away by the 
 periodontal disease of government regulation." - D.Barry
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Oct7150638@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <Bvs0yp.A38@rice.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:52:18

Must have been 89 then.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Oct7111217@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <BvrnGq.6o9@rice.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:11:59

I think her first year of journalism school was 1988, but it may have
been 1987.  They were old enough.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:28:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <MATT.92Oct7152423@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <JMC.92Oct7144925@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>
>> I've got $50 that says the New Republic has or will endorse Clinton.
>
>I won't bet against you on that.  They haven't endorsed anyone yet,
>but yes, if they do, then it almost certainly will be Clinton.  It
>isn't a liberal magazine, but then, Clinton isn't a liberal candidate.
>
>One of the editors of _The New Republic_ was actually quite explicit
>about that; he said that he would vote for Clinton, but that Clinton
>would be the first Democrat he had voted for in more than a decade,
>and that this was precisely because Clinton was not a liberal.

Dream on!  How many non-liberals do you know of who lead anti-American, 
anti-war protests, are in favor of abortion on-demand, promise to 
raise taxes $150 billion, promise to raise subsistence gifts $200 
billion, pick a running mate who believes that the automobile is the 
most dangerous weapon on the earth, etc.

Ted



-- 
"How dare you call us [people] `you people'!"
	-Benjamin Hooks

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,talk.environment,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Why we shouldn't worry about man's production of CO2
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:21:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.164937.20987@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>In article <1082@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>
>>|Virtually every compound used by biological systems exists in a
>>|state of dynamic equilibrium. The question is not if is "trace" in the
>>|sense that you mean, but what the extent of geological and biological
>>|buffering capacity is. And this, we don't know.
>>
>>Perhaps, but I was responding to the comment above, that we likely face
>>drastic changes in our ecosystem because of the increase in carbon dioxide.
>
>This is stretching my point to far. The original article contained the
>claim that there was no reason to worry about the changes in CO2
>concentration in the atmosphere, even if the increases are as high as
>some claim. van Zandt may in fact be correct that there will not be a
>problem, but he is wrong to claim that his figures show that.
>
>>I see reason to doubt that.-- 
>
>As do I. I don't think that much of what we're doing chemically will
>change our ecosystems - the bigger impact comes from stuff like
>deforestation, elimination of large mammals (witness Europe),
>desertification and so on.
>
>-- paul
>
>-- 
>There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
>little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
>price only are this man's lawful prey.
>						John Ruskin

From what I have read, the calculations about the change in radiative
forcing (the balance of energy entering and leaving the earth) are
not so complex and are not controversial among scientists debating
climate change.  "Small" changes that are occurring in our
atmosphere certainly can affect ecosystems.  The debate is whether
there will be a countering affect to prevent or lessen impacts from
whatever new equilibium is reached (assuming that such a condition
is reached).  These changes could easily lead to changes on a
similar level to desertification.  Though such changes are not
proven to occur, the real possibility exists.

There has been extensive debates about this subject in this group
recently and I think the local experts are simply tired of repeating
the same facts to newcomers of sci.e.  Any comments from Josh or MT?
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3784 talk.politics.misc:51031 alt.individualism:5740
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: High costs of college education
Date: 12 Oct 92 06:31:54 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <9523@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> In <FDa8RB3w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> bmb@bluemoon.rn.com (Bryan Bankhead) writes:
>>Hey, why not? we fund K-12, why not 13-16?
> 
> For me funding depends on the degree sought.  I have little trouble
> supporting someone who is getting a degree in science or engineering.  But
> I have a lot of trouble with most of the arts or humanities.  For the first
> you have a good chance of getting a job.  For the second, you run a big risk
> of flipping burgers anyway.
> 
	My problem with funding anything farther than K-12 is that one can 
get along perfectly well, including locating further education, with just 
stuff packable into K-12. I tend to include in that: 1. basic literacy; 2. 
basic history; 3. basic civics/political science; 4. basic science 
(primarily the scientific method); 5. basic computer usage; 6. basic 
library and other research usage; 7. basic mathematics. Beyond that, it's 
frills that no-one should be forced (i.e., taxed) to pay for.
	-Allen
From: 75300.3115@compuserve.com (Clinton for President)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: CLINTON ACCEPTS DEBATE INVITATION -- AGAIN
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:49:05 GMT

[file date 9/29/92]


            CLINTON ACCEPTS DEBATE INVITATION -- AGAIN

      Little Rock, AR.  On behalf of Governor Bill Clinton,
 Clinton/Gore Campaign Chairman Mickey Kantor today accepted the
 proposal of the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates to
 sponsor two presidential debates on October 4 and October 15, 1992.

      "The American people need and deserve presidential debates,"
 Kantor maintained.  "Governor Clinton was present in East Lansing and
 is present in Louisville ready to debate President Bush."

      Kantor stated, "We accept the Commission's proposal for two
 presidential debates to be held on October 4 and October 15 using the
 Commission's proposed format.  We also accept your invitation to the
 two campaigns to meet under your auspices prior to the debates."
 Kantor noted that the Clinton/Gore campaign has accepted the
 Commission's earlier proposals.

      The letter notes that in addition to rejecting the Commission's
 proposal, the Bush/Quayle campaign has rejected two separate offers
 by the Commission to meet and discuss any differences between the
 campaigns.

      In closing Kantor asserted, "In this election year, the nation
 faces truly watershed issues critical to its future.  The American
 people, who finance the general election campaign, are entitled to an
 open and frank discussion of these issues in a face-to-face setting
 between the candidates for president."

                              --30--



Distribution:
  General >internet:C-General-Distr@mail.clinton-gore.org
  All Volunteers >internet:c-all-volunteers-distr@mail.clinton-gore.org
From: mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor)
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: "Prioritizing Education"
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:22:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.160240.23675@mont.cs.missouri.edu> harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator) writes:
>The Decline of America: "Prioritizing Education"
>
>
>  Ratio of average teacher salary to per capita gross domestic
>                   product (GDP), 1988-90(30)
> [...]   
> Source: American Federation of Teachers.

The AFT is, of course, interested in raising teacher salaries.  They're
already rather high compared to world averages; you'll notice that they
used % of GDP rather than actual numbers.

Since US per capita GDP is high, actual salaries compare rather well.

Again, the poster is arguing that everything will be better if we just
throw money at the problem.  There are no proposals for imporved curriculums,
better teaching methods, performance monitoring, etc.  It's the moral
equivilent of walking up to someone and saying "give me a dollar."

(In fact, the correlation between money spent on education and 
standardized test results is somewhat weak.  Motivated students
and parents are a bigger factor than money spent.)

Frankly, I think that the public education entities had their chance 
in the 80's.  Despite increased spending by state and local governments,
there was no worthwhile increase in student performance. It's time to 
rethink the whole idea of how we go about education.   

-- 
Don McGregor             | "I..I blame society.  Society made me  
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu|  what I am."
Xref: sparky alt.activism:17328 talk.politics.misc:50708
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: High costs of college education
Date: 10 Oct 92 03:41:18 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Oct2.154222.25212@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> tgpt_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tom Guptill) writes:
-
-
-	Perhaps that's exactly the point:  education--at least through 4
-years of college--should be publicly financed, IMHO.  This seems to be the
-only way of insuring that all students, no matter what their economic
-background may be, have an equal chance to get an education.  
Sure, anyone regardless of background should have access to education.
However, there should be no guarantee of earning a *degree* in a subject. 
That would be very equitable, no? Objections are welcomed if they are not
flames. Thank you. 
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chester            |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Politically Incorrect      |"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us
Future Lunar Colonist      |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 76330.3412@CompuServe.COM ("John M. Sulak")
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Know any economists for Rep Andre Marrou &Nancy Lord's position?
Date: 17 Oct 92 01:38:29 GMT

from Liberent:

From: Mike Tanner <Mike.Tanner@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org>                        
To: Libernet                                                                    
Date: 15 Oct 92  17:46:26                                                       
                                                                                
The marrou/Lord campaign is compiling a list of economists who are willing to   
publicly endorse the Marrou/Lord ticket.  Bill clinton has been getting a lot   
of milage from the 756 (or whatever) economists that support his plan.  The     
list of pro M-L economists will be released to the media and possibly run in a  
full page USA Today ad.                                                         
                                                                                
If you know any economists who would be willing to lend their name to this,     
please ask them.  We need a signed authorization from them. After, AND ONLY     
AFTER, you've gotten their authorization, please call me at (404) 320-6110.     
Time is of the essence please.                                                  
                                                                                
                                                                                
--- Opus-CBCS 1.13                                                              
 * Origin: Dehnbase Emerald (1:104/418.0)                                       
                                                                                
                                                                                
--                                                                              
Forwarded from the LIBERTY echo via Fidonet 1:104/418 (dehnbase.fidonet.org)    
For public replies from Internet, send to: libernet@dartmouth.edu               
For personal replies, use the "FIRST.LAST@fNNN.nNNN.zN.fidonet.org" address.    
                                                                                



Distribution:
  Bob Wert [70353,362]
  alt-activism internet:alt-activism@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  misc.invest internet:misc-invest@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  misc.taxes internet:misc-taxes@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  talk-politics-misc internet:talk-politics-misc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
  sci.economics internet:sci-economics@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes)
Subject: Re: NLNS: 'THE PANAMA DECEPTION'
Organization: FYL
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:53:15 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Don McGregor (mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU) wrote:
: In article <9210031441.AA12058@igc.apc.org> nlns@igc.apc.org (New Liberation News Service) writes:
: >	According to Barbara Trent, director of the soon-to-be-
: >released feature-length documentary, The Panama Deception, 
: >"Thousands of Panamanians were killed during the invasion...
: 
: Americas Watch and the Roman Catholic Church don't think so.  They
: found no evidence of thousands of deaths; their estimates were 
: roughly in line with those of the US--perhaps several hundred
: civilian AND military.

I can't say that I have exact numbers but there were more bodies
exhumed from mass graves in the scenes they showed on 60 minutes than
the US government claims were killed.

Applying a little logic, if we bombed half a dozen square blocks of
apartment buildings in any city in the US at 3AM flat to the ground I
think you would kill more than "a few hundred".
-- 
Phil Hughes - FYL - 8315 Lk City Wy NE - Suite 207 - Seattle, WA 98115 
Phone: 206-526-2919 x74      Fax: 526-0803
E-mail: fyl@fylz.com or nwnexus!fylz!fyl 
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Al Gores "scintific" proof
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:20:14 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <ALANB.92Oct14111807@tornado.sdl.mdcbbs.com>, alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com (Alan Braggins) writes:
>>>>>> On 11 Oct 92 10:05:37 GMT, techie@cellar.org (William A Bacon) said:

>[Gore wants to impose taxes and totalitarian control in response to
> assorted enviromental threats] 

To which Alan replied:
>At least he can spell.

And Jared noted:
>Name three Bill.  And ones that can't spell better than you don't count!

It occurs to me that if picking on obvious typos is the best you can come up
with for criticism, the point he was making must be valid...

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: alt.activism
From: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Subject: Re: Green peace [con]fusion
Reply-To: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:13:16 GMT

In article <1296500410@igc.apc.org> Ecology Center <ecologycntr@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>OK, then, from someone who DOES know something about fusion, but
>who still thinks it's a bad idea:
>
>What about Tritium? It's bad enough having a relatively
>containable element such as Thorium sitting around decaying, but
>when you start talking about a gaseous, lighter than air and
>flammable substance which would immediately become part of the
>biosphere on its release, I get spooked.

Tritium, an isotope of hydrogen, is one potential fuel of fusion
reactors.  The half-life of tritium is just over 12 years.  Of the three
types of 'radation', tritium emits only beta.  Beta radiation is one of
the two 'mass'ed radiations, composed of electrons.  Thin metal, such as
aluminum foil, will stop this radiation.

    One ounce of tritium fusing into helium, neutron, and energy in a
    reaction similar to this:

      3    2        4     1
     H  + H   ->  He  +  n  + ~17.6 Mev's
    1    1       2      0

    yields about the amount of energy produced by burning almost 2000
    TONS of coal.

Obligatory Rhetoric:

I postulate that even if an entire OUNCE (!!) of tritium was released
into the atmosphere, the negative environmental effects would be
substantially less than that of 2000 tons of coal being burned.  The waste
products if you 'burned' the tritium amount to helium and easily stopped
neutrons.  Helium will diffuse into outer space if released into the
atmosphere.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns
From: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Subject: Re: Springtime for Honecker (part I)
Reply-To: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 22:28:47 GMT

Why was he barred, bad breath, no deodorant...wasnt dressed
to PC standards...why ?
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.belcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I by my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.
Newsgroups: alt.activism,soc.women