HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: The Lab Rats
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:24:23 GMT

In article <Bvns4C.HJz@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

}   The flaw in this has already been explained:  The typical margin of
}   error in a major poll is 3-5%, which is way over the % of the voters
}   who have voted for the L.P. in any presidential campaign, so there's
}   simply no rational reason for any polling company to include them.

since no scientific poll thus far has asked the question honestly, eg.

    "If the presidential election were held today, who would you vote for:
       George Bush (Republican),
       Bill Clinton (Democrat),
       Andre Marrou (Libertarian), or
       Ross Perot (Independent)?"

you have no basis for your claim that support for the LP candidates is 
less than the margin of error. do you really think that Perot would be
polling about 7% if his name was not listed as a "legitimate" choice?
-- 
tom@udel.edu                                        ...!{gateway}!udel!tom
tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu           UDel: School of Life and Health Sciences
Libertarian candidate for Delaware House of Representatives, 23rd District

"Themes were useless; Destiny was here, and the foot pedals were bleeding."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: ash@ulysses.mr.ams.com (Alan Harder)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: American Math. Society
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:33:28 GMT

In article <BvnGwt.5LC@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

   >In article <Bvn0yE.Fqz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) writes:

   >>        MOST NOTABLY, WITH PEROT'S ENTRY, THE MEDIA ARE TALKING
   >>ABOUT THE "THREE CANDIDATES".  THIS MUST STOP.  PEROT IS SHOWING
   >>ABOUT 7% IN THE POLLS---NOT MUCH BETTER THAN ANDRE.  YET HE IS GETTING
   >>COVERAGE.

     >First of all, no L.P. presidential candidate has ever exceeded 1%
     >of the vote, so even if Marrou/Lord are doing that well this year
     >and Perot is only doing 7% then Perot is still doing *7 times as
     >well* as Marrou/Lord!   I would say that this IS "much better".

     >Second, the polls I've seen show Perot to be in the 10-14% range.

     >Third, how do you know how well the Marrou/Lord ticket is doing?
     >How many national polls have shown any L.P. support above the 
     >margin of error?

     >Fourth, the news media are privately owned and can say anything 
     >they want.   


   >---peter

So are saying the media is justified in not covering alternative
candidates?  Why do you think that alternative candidates have so
little support?  Could it be because they get so little media
coverage?  If Ross Perot wasn't a billionaire, would he have gotten
any media coverage, and if not would he have gotten any support?  

Yes, the news media are privately owned, and yes, they can cover
whatever they want.  But most people think that the all-powerful media
has some social responsibility.  Putting pressure on the media isn't a
new idea, it's done all the time.  The only way to effect change in
this country is through the media, so make those calls, Libertarians.
Marrou deserve unbiased media coverage.  Hell, *any* coverage would be
nice.  Most people have never even heard of him.


-Alan
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cable Regulation [Was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!]
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:03:54
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU's message of 6 Oct 92 14:47:53 GMT

In article <70165@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK) writes:

> PROGRESSIVE RESULT?  This has got to be one of the most disgusting examples
> of government interference.  The way congress pandered to the public (and
> especially the networks), embarrassed the President, and infringed on the
> rights of the cable companies

I'm afraid the rights of the cable companies, before this bill passed,
included the right to be an unregulated monopoly---to set any rates
they wanted, and any level of service, without fear of competition.

To be honest, I don't know which would have been better: regulating
the monopoly (as Congress chose), or just taking steps to ensure
competition.  I don't believe in the ideology that unregulated
free-market competition will always produce the optimal result, but in
many cases it is better than trying to regulate the market.  Maybe
this is one of those cases, maybe not; I don't pretend to have thought
about cable TV enough to have a firm opinion.

One thing is clear to me, though, and that is that either regulation
or competition is far better than the unregulated monopoly that we
used to have, and that Bush wanted to keep.  Let's be clear about
this: Bush doesn't stand for free-market capitalism, he just stands
for government handouts to the rich.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: United We Stand, America  (was "... Deliver")
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:40:35 GMT
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio

From article <BvAGBD.FJo@apollo.hp.com>, by nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson):
> In article <01GP8SO80X0W000ZHN@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU
>   (STEPHEN TICE) discusses Original Sin:
> 
>> And you have to take responsibility, and give responsi-
>>bility when you offer change. Recognizing that as tax-payers
>>*we are responsible*
> 
>   31% federal and 12% state tax is ENOUGH responsibility!

Stop whining about your 12% state tax.  Nobody is forcing you to live
where you do.  If you don't like it, move.  

Also, care to guess what that 12% state tax rate would go to if you 
tried to balance the federal budget entirely with spending cuts? 

"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:46:33 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep28.164104.18842@ms.uky.edu>  fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
> Why don't abortion opponents join together to help get a ban
> on something around which a consensus could be contrived: say,
> a ban on abortions after the first trimester?

Why after the first trimester?

> I don't know
> of many people who are comfortable with the idea of abortion
> after fetal viability.

1.  Fetal viability is closer to the third trimester.
2.  Perhaps you've heard of something called Roe v. Wade?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Perot to be on CNN 9/28 Larry King 9pm, live from Dallas
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:24:30 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1a1op9INN30v@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:
>
>   Peter, your other responses I won't even bother responding to, but:

  ( these were the charges that the Consumer's Union, publisher of 
    Consumer Reports is owned by a Japanese Corporation)  Of course
    you won't respond to this, because you can't!


---peter
From: jbutterf@mal-s1.gatech.edu (Jill Butterfield)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Abortion related mortality
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:32:39 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Res. Inst., Modeling & Analysis Lab

In article <1992Sep30.171758.150099@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In  <BvCr49.KKs.2@cs.cmu.edu>  garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>      [L. Talbert, "DIC More Common Threat with Use of Saline Abortion,"
>>      Family Practive News, 5:19 (October, 1975)]
>
>Hey - maybe that's why they don't *do* saline abortions any more.
>Welcome to the 90's.
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


I just wanted to comment on this.

Are you SURE they don't do saline abortions anymore? The last I heard,
they still performed saline-amnio infusion for second trimester abortions.

D&C is generally used only for 1st trimester.

Anyone know this for sure?

jib
-- 
Jill Butterfield, Research Scientist       EMAIL: jbutterf@mal-s1.gatech.edu
Georgia Institute of Technology, GTRI Modeling and Analysis Lab
"Happiness is excitement that has found a settling down place..."
-E.L. Konigsburg, _From the Mixed-up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler_
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Yes on 9 (was Re: William F. Buckley opposes anti-gay ballot measure)
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:53:14 GMT

Ron Buckmire (buckmr@rpi.edu) posted, to talk.politics.misc and
soc.motss:

>Carl Kadie posted elsewhere:
>
> ELECTION UPDATE (Washington Blade, 9/21/92)
>
> WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY OPPOSES ANTI-GAY BALLOT MEASURE:

Then Theodore A. Kaldis (kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu) posted, to
talk.politics.misc and *alt.flame*:

>I just want to take this opportunity to announce that if I were an
>Oregon voter, I would vote "YES" on Prop. 9

Crossposting inflammatory anti-gay articles *out* of soc.motss is
something which is done, traditionally, only by readers of soc.motss.

I think this confirms something that I have believed for a long time:
Ted Kaldis is the pseudonym for a homosexual whose only goal, by
posting his absurdities on the net, is to discredit the ideas of
homophobes.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: That Legal right over Gambit...
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 06:40:34 GMT

In <mlbruce.717738296@husc8> mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:

>	Do you truly see no difference between joining a National Guard unit
>in which positions were open (contrary to dominant-media-culture
>misinformation, the Indiana Guard was not at 100% capacity when Quayle joined)
>, and using obsequious letters, relatives' clout and illegal activity to avoid
>military service entirely, EVEN THOUGH ONE ALREADY WAS TO BE SERVED A DRAFT
>NOTICE? What Quayle did may not have been Patriotic enough for you, but what
>Bill Clinton did was illegal and flat out WRONG. There is but one Draft Dodger
>in this Presidential race, and who it is should be manifestly clear.

It may have been "wrong" to avoid getting drafted, but it wasn't
illegal.  The draft is unconstitutional, and thus it cannot be illegal
to avoid it.

Do you truly see no difference between skipping a war one supported
because "I wanted to go to law school" and skipping a war one thought
was immoral?  Do you truly see no difference between wanting only other
people to be FORCED to fight in Vietnam and not wanting anyone to go to
Vietnam?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!	  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR ROSS PEROT!
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:30:45 GMT

In article <19q0n6INNvg@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Thomas Hill) writes:

|>   Just like to encourage everybody to show their support for Ross Perot
|>for president. Change your sig file, put a sign in your car window, and
|>spread the word about this decent man and his realistic plan to move this
|>country forward.

O.K. willco.

---
Phill Hallam-Baker

Don't vote for Ross, hes a liar a quiter and a crook.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy"))
Subject: Attn: Jerry Solomon constituents
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:47:46 GMT

Attention all residents of the 24th(?) NY Congressional district
represented by the Honorable (?) Gerald B Solomon. Please email because
I'm kinda interested in what's going on back there.

Thanks,
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				"Violence is the last refuge of the
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU     	 incompetent."  --Salvor Hardin	
CLARKSON '95
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
"If you choose not to decide, you have still made a choice."   --Rush Limbaugh

	(I know it's HIM, but it's still a great quote)
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: CNN welfare story
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:54:01 GMT
Organization: pubs


Last night CNN did a story on a new welfare law in Michigan,
incorporating typical reforms: work requirements, no additional support
for more kids, etc.  As a real-life illustration for the story, CNN
interviewed two women who will be affected by this--a mother and grown
daughter.  What struck me right away was that these folks seemed to be
living quite nicely.  Then the daughter, roughly in her 20s, complained
at some length about the new law, remarking that she doesn't want just
any old job paying ordinary pay--she wants a job with really good pay,
or else (she seemed to imply) she'd just as soon stay on welfare.  Her
words and the depiction of their comfortable apartment aroused my
immediate ire.  I later wondered if CNN had deliberately used this case
to argue against welfare (but I'm not implying there was something
underhanded about doing this--just editorial discretion).  Did anyone
else see this segment and react similarly?

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: An informed voter picks Bush
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:03:37 GMT

cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>     What wasn't reported on CNN is that around 3:00 in the afternoon,
>a rumor was circulating the markets that there was more damning
>evidence about Clinton's draft escapades (based on reports of what
>James Carville said during the taping of Evans and Novak).  This caused
>the DJIA to increase around 15 points in an hour.

Did it really? Is a 15-point move in one hour unusual? How is it definitely
linked to the rumor?

I saw Mr. Carville on E&N today, and I don't remember anything really
thrilling. They wouldn't have cut out any good parts, surely. But I don't
dispute that Wall Street moves on crazy rumours sometimes.

---
Joe Knapp    jmk@cbvox.att.com 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49495 alt.politics.perot:1850 alt.politics.elections:15133
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 1 Oct 1992 14:11:33 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Oct1.112124.20541@sniap.mchp.sni.de> Frank.ODwyer@ap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.194019.29818@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep22.211122.21587@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> hymowitz@whatever.cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!) writes:
...
>>
>>Not at all, human's have the right to life which includes their body
>>and the products thereof.  That person has a right to do with his/her
>>body as they see fit, you do not have any just claim to the kidney.
>>Before someone says "Ah ha! But doesn't the Mother have a right to her
>>own body?" let me add, it is not at all clear that the fetus is her
>>body or that it is an individual's.  That's the question.
>
>No, that's not right.  Even if the fetus is individual, then the nutrients
>etc., that a mother supplies are her own.  She might refuse them, as a donor
>refuses to give a kidney.  The question that I see is, should she have
>more obligation to "donate" than a kidney donor, as she is the mother of
>the fetus, and also partly responsible for the fetus' requirement in the
>first place?  
>
>If someone can convince me that the answer to this is "no", then I am 
>pro-choice, because then a woman is at best completely justified to refuse, 
>at worst selfish.  And no, I do not care to say which is which, for any 
>individual case.  But if you wish to base your argument on your petty 
>perception that a fetus is not worthy of the same respect and dignity as 
>any other human life, you may forget it.  (convincing me, I mean, not 
>abortion rights :-))
>
>>
>>Mike Best
>>
 
The kidney analogy can be made more accurate. Assume that the potential
doner is the father of the potential donee. Then he has as much or as
little responsibility for the donee as the mother has for the fetus.

I wonder how many of the Operation Resuce types, here or elsewhere,
would be a doner? How may would make it criminal to not be the doner?

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer























Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: call 1-800-925-1300 if you want Perot to run
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 03:06:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: utarlg.uta.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes...
>

>nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>> 

>Perot is a *person*, an individual
>candidate; the Republican and Democratic parties are entire ideals, as
>are the "various ends of the political spectrum."  

The D & R parties are not ideals. They couldn't gain broad support if
they were. 

>It's not uncommon
>for people to be zealous about specific political goals or ideals, for
>that's the nature of politics.  However, specific supporters of Bush
>or Clinton rarely (ever?) get as single-minded as the Perotistas.
>When someone's support for a specific candidate rises to the level of
>support that Perot has marshalled, we call that dogmatism.

And you've failed to see that many of us hold freedom, the American
Dream, and love of the country as noble beliefs. Perot shares that 
with us. Perot almost embodies the American Dream because of his 
incredible success and luck. There is a resonance to be sure, but 
Perot is not the point -= America is =-. Not as an ideal, but because
it is the vessel of our families, neighbors, children, ancestors,
and God willing, generations unborn. All abstractions pale next
to the living spirit of us that creates those abstractions.

>It remains that people supported him -- to an alarmingly 
>unqualified extent....

Is there none left among the Democrats and Republicans who will
place country before party?

 >____ Tim Pierce                / "You are just naive and repressed because
 >\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  penis envy is here and it's now and it's
 > \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham

   |                            
-- J --                    "America's strength is it's people. You are
   |     Stephen D. Tice    deeply patriotic, creative, and dedicated.
   |     Arlington Texas    You are filled with love for your country.
                            You are brimming with ideas. You are deter-
                            mined to leave a better country to your 
                            children. You are at one with the spirit
                            of our forefathers... [and only you] can 
                            make America strong again."  (RP in U.W.S)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49574 talk.politics.drugs:6602 talk.politics.guns:21711 alt.politics.elections:15183 alt.politics.libertarian:544 alt.politics.marrou:1427
From: brady@castor (Andre Marrou)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:56:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia

In article <1992Oct5.171522.8500@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>
>BTW, the best coverage I've seen so far of the Marrou
>candidacy has been on PBS, the only tv network
>which receives any federal funding (BWAAHAAHAAHAA!).

Actually, C-SPAN gives the LP a good bit of coverage (as compared to
the other networks.)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Brady - brady@castor.cs.uga.edu   Had enough? Vote Libertarian!
--------------------------------Marrou/Lord '92------------------------------

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Brady - brady@castor.cs.uga.edu   Had enough? Vote Libertarian!
--------------------------------Marrou/Lord '92------------------------------
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Quayle and Lawyers
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:45:21 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Oct3.214031.19453@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:

>>> But it is necessary to use logic to convince this jury (the average
>>> USENet reader).

>> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

>> Got any more good ones?

> My guess is that Mr. Kaldis doesn't understand what I wrote.

Your guess is wrong.  There is nothing arcane about your statement
above.

> I did not state that usenet readers were logical.

'Cause they ain't.

> Rather, it is necessary to use logic in order to make them change
> their positions.

Horsefeathers.  If the average USENET reader isn't any more logical
that any average person (at least where political opinions are
concerned), then of what use is logic in attempting to make them
change their minds?

> I'm well aware that most usenet readers have opinions set in concrete
> such that many so called discussions here are little more than jargon
> spewing matches.  But I have yet to see any evidence that anyone's
> opinion is changed by illogical arguments.  If Mr. Kaldis has any such
> evidence perhaps he could share it with us all.

The original observation didn't have very much to do with making
people change their minds -- it only dealt with persuading them to
render a specific decision (i.e., a jury reaching a verdict).  My
observation was that one might at times be able to achieve that end by
appealling to something other than logic.
-- 
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???       ||