HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:09:10 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep13.093513.10341@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <12273@optilink.UUCP> walsh@optilink.UUCP (Mark Walsh) writes:

>>The good news is that the number of gays pushing for this brand
>>of governmental discrimination is relatively small.  The bad
>>news is that they are good at being vocal (though I will support
>>their freedom of speech without reservation) about it, kind of
>>like those white supremacist neaderthals.

>I think you're wrong about this.  In fact, right after Wilson vetoed
>AB101, a poll showed that two thirds of Californian voters supported
>AB101.  Sounds to me like many people, not just vocal lesbigays,
>support anti-discrimination laws.

>>I guess my problem is that I don't see gays as disadvantaged.

Really?  Fine.  Go tell the Army you're gay, and try to enlist.

>>My best man is gay, and he is every bit as competent in the
>>workplace as I am, so why does he need to be protected?  This

Because people are bigots, and fire even competent people out of hate.

>>kind of legislation results in resentment between the have's
>>(the protected) and the have not's, and removes the rights of

There are no unprotected people under this law.  It doesn't say that
gay people can't be fired.  It says "Gay people can't be fired for being
gay, and straight people can't be fired for being straight."

>>what one can and cannot do with their business.

That assumes that there is such a right, and that it outweighs the right
to feed yourself.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 00:14:27 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <BuHL0y.9I5@queernet.org> rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
    >In article <yvwnk9b.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >>>Since that does confer another roadblock (gee, we can fire
    >>>joe straight, but not john homo because he may file suit)
    >>>that other people don't have, yes, it does confer de facto
    >>>special rights.
    >>>
    >Not at all: it certainly protects heterosexuals from fears of
    >being fired or not hired because of their heterosexuality...

No, this is not honest. Just like the so-called "anti-racial discrimination"
laws -- these laws could not really address discrimination at a fine
(individual) level. Was the individual fired because of skin color or
because of performance?

I have seen enough homosexuals employed in high-paying Silicon Valley
jobs to believe that the issue is NOT discrimination.

The issue IS acceptance. A whole different ballgame indeed.

And BTW -- the only real life actual case of sexual discrimination
I have ever witnessed personally involved a hetersexual not being hired
by an all (apparently all) homosexual company.

Although I did see a pre-op transexual being denied employment (and was
otherwise greatly qualified) by a well know company that proudly
advertises its search for "diversity".



-- 
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: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (BLACK RIBBON)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: -=( Perot: If the parties won't face the issues... )=-
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:26:00 GMT

C-Span Excerpt -- Brian Lamb interviewing Ross Perot (9-11-92)
 
<BL>
Let me also tell ya what one of your supporters out there said.. ahmm
privately,  "I think there's going to be an `October Surprise' and so
do a lot of other Perot supporters, and that October Surprise is that
our man's gonna get back in this, visibly and on purpose." What would
you say to that?
 
<RP>
Ah.. that is certainly not our objective. Our objective is to get the
two parties to face the issues and deal with these issues responsibly
for the benefit of the American People.  And uh, we are working night
and day to get that done. So there is no plan for an October Surprise
or a September Surprise.. All these things are nice things for people
to talk about, there's nothing planned.
 
<BL>
Well I guess this is the other thing --  Is there any chance that you
might find yourself at some time in October saying, "I published this
book, I've been watching these two candidates, neither one of them are
really gettin' to the thing I think is important, and I'd better step
back in this thing?"
 
<RP>
There's no chance that I would do it unilaterally. Uhh.. on the other
hand,  millions of people, on their own,  have done the impossible by
putting me on the ballot in all 50 states. I belong to them. Now this
is interesting:  I don't belong to the PACs,  I don't belong to the
Special Interests, I don't have a Committee 100, I've got a committee
of millions, who put me on the ballot with their creativity and their
ingenuity.
 
If after we do everthing we can to get the parties to face the issues
-- if they won't..  if the volunteers said it's a dirty job,  but you
gotta do it, I belong to them. Now we will have failed if that happens.
It would be far better we think to get it done the other way,  that's
our `fall back' position.  And we've said that from the day I stepped
aside.   So let's try to get the two parties to step up to the plate,
if they don't, then uhh.. we'll do what we have to do.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: lear@yeager.corp.sgi.com (Eliot Lear)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization:  Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 06:17:49 GMT

In <12286@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>Great.  You know how much crap I received from homosexuals arguing
>that NAMBLA is not really that bad?

Oh really?  Name names.

--
Eliot Lear
[lear@sgi.com]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Bush's Accomplishments
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:23:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.160706.13227@den.mmc.com>
sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:
 
>jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>
>>Carter?  WHAT??  What war was going on while Carter was in office?
>>How about Nixon?  Does Laos ring a bell?
>
>Yup, Jimmuh "Ah seriously underestimated the Russians" Carter.  He
>completely bungled the Iran rescue attempt, but insiting on the makeup
>of the team.  He attempted to micro-manage the rescue attempt instead of
>giving the military a mission and letting them do the job.  THAT's what
>was wrong with Carter's approach and what was right with Reagan and
>Bush's approach.
>
This was the biggest problem with Carter's presidency.  He is a detail-
oriented manager, and the White House had too much detail for anyone to
handle.  He had a lot of problems, and this was the root cause of most
of them.
 
This is why "Carter-bashing" will not convince me not to vote for
Clinton.  This detail-orientation was a personal characteristic of
Carter's, and is not shared by all Democrats.  I have heard from people
familiar with Carter's record in Georgia that he was the same way
there.  I have heard no such reports from Arkansas with respect to
Clinton's administration.  I believe Clinton has a chance to be a good
President.  George Bush has proved in four years that he can be nothing
but a bad one.  Certainly, Clinton could also be bad, but I would
rather take a chance on improvement rather than stayinv with a
demonstrated failure.
>
>John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com
 
Jim McMaster
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More Democratic Campaign Songs
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:39:40 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <95928@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.224217.27735@usl.edu>
>pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:

>>		Spend All The Money
>>	(to the tune of "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang")

>>	Spend, spend, spend all the Money
>>	Spend all the money, rig-ht now.

>Republican defense spending tripled our deficit.

Much as I hate to credit Carter with anything good, I must admit that
he started the Reagan defense build up after the Commies rubbed his
nose in the shit with Afghanistan.

>>	We don't care 'bout tomorrow
>>	'cause we're having too much fun right now.

>Republican trickle-down theory failed miserably because it encouraged
>short term financial goals.

This is interesting.

Two questions...

1.  What evidence do you have that Americans (other than the poor) are
motivated by short term financial goals?

2.  What evidence do you have that trickle-down theory caused this
hypothetical state of affairs?

I don't even need a cite.  I'll happily take a coherent line of reasoning.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Top 10: Why Bush should be baseball commissioner
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:50:12 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: Nothing like perpetuating a lie, huh....

In article <1992Sep9.120835.13733@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> 
> Top 10 Reasons Bush should be the new baseball commissioner
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 6.  He won't let Willie Horton play in the majors.

	Al Gore and the media would beat him to it, eh?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "liberal bias"? (Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias)
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:16:58 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1992Sep8.144924.23515@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
|> 
|> What about a show like "David Brinkley" as an example of "conservative bias"?
|> They have accoplished conservative columnist George Will to provide the 
|> conservative view, but who do they have to support the liberal view?  They
|> have Sam Donaldson, who is at best a second rate reporter.  Then again, I
|> woubt that the shows sponsors, GE and ADM, would pay for a real debate (but
|> they will pay for a stacked debate).

They do normally have someone like Tom Wicker or Hodding Carter or Cokie
Roberts to provide the liberal view. I tend to think that that stacks the
deck against the conservatives, given that Donaldson is more liberal than
conservative (this despite his having voted for Goldwater in '64).

|> Russ Anderson 

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45453 alt.rush-limbaugh:4837 alt.politics.elections:13126 alt.politics.clinton:5425 alt.politics.bush:5127
From: Haosheng Zhou <philz@ee.umanitoba.ca>
Subject:      Suggestions
Reply-To: Haosheng Zhou <philz@ee.umanitoba.ca>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:33:46 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

My suggestions to netters in discussions:

1) try to respect, understand and tolerate your opponents;

2) be responsible to all netters;

3) stop discussions when you cannot convince your opponents after
clearly expressing your ideas;

4) try to concentrate on related topics;

5) try to be rational, not emotional; Try to be as specific as possible
in discussions; Try to give clear definitions for important concepts,
expecially for those related with China, Chinese people, China's
interests etc;

6) try to be positive, not negative; For example, instead showing how
others' are bad, try to show that you may have better ideas.

I assume that all netters want to make their contributions to China. But
if we even cannot hold a discussion in shape, how can we ......?!

Haosheng Zhou
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: WEL@CORNELLC.BITNET
Subject:      signoff
Reply-To: WEL@CORNELLC.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:51:07 GMT

Please sign me off.
From: jia@hcx.rockefeller.edu (Ran Jia)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: [News] PRC Announces Further Loosened Policies on Overseas Students
Date: 13 Sep 92 23:14:30 GMT
Reply-To: jia@hcx (Ran Jia)
Organization: Rockefeller Univ.,N.Y.C 10021


Due to the Protection Bill, Chinese government recently announced new policy
to overseas CSS. This includes that people with for public affairs passports
can change to for private affairs passports.  Five of us went to Chinese 
Consulate in New York on 9/8 to change.  Mr. Zhang Xiang-yang who is 
in charge of CSS of New York City told us that their procedure is we still
have to show approval letter from our working units in China (the letter
must be from Si/Ju Ji).  We told him the new policy in the People's 
Daily does not require this letter. He answered that this is our way to carry
the new policy.  Later we learned the Chinese Embassy in DC does make change
according to the People's Daily.  I then called the Education Section of NY
Consulate, they answered different consulate can do things differently.
If different representitives of the same government carry out the same 
policy in different way, how can we trust them?  We can only conclude
this new policy is not really reinforced (at least under the NY 
Consulate), it may be withdrawn if the protection bill fails.  To protect
our own rights, we must unite and push the Protection Bill.
CSS from Rockefeller Univ., Cornell Med College, Mt. Sinai School of Med.
Columbia Univ. College of P & S, Sloan-Kettering Cancer Inst. Howard
Hughes Med Inst.
From: zuofeng@POLLUX.WUSTL.EDU (Zuofeng Li)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re:  Where are the Ex-SUMCC volunteers?
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:08:46 GMT
Reply-To: Zuofeng Li <zuofeng@POLLUX.WUSTL.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

Ignatius Ding wrote,

>Not longer ago, a group of volunteers in the United States assembled a
>"committee" of more than a thousand Chinese students and some Chinese
>immigrants from Taiwan and other countries in a few weeks to come to the
>defense of the unconditional renewal of MFN trade status for China.  It was
>very impressive in terms of organizational and communication skills.  That
>"committee" drove a letter/phone campaign to call on U.S. Senators to support
>their objective.  Many of the participants truly believed their cause and
>dedicated their time and energy to do their bit.
>
>Now the arrest of Shen Tong and the othe people, whom Shen met and talked to,
>by the Beijing Public Security Bureau will likely cause a rather negative
>impact to achieving such an objective - frequently referred to by the volunteer
>"committee" as "the common interest of the Chinese people at large", then isn't
>it the time for these volunteers rise to serve again?  This time they can call
>on the Chinese government to let go Shen Tong and all others arrested before
>the situation gets worse.  Remember, the vote for the CMFN bill, S2808, is
>coming to the Senate floor in a matter of two or three weeks!!	"To Serve or
>Not To Serve" is the big question and challenge.

As an Ex-SUMCC volunteer, allow me to once more explain that SUMCC existed
only for the purpose of collecting signatures in support of the unconditional
renewal of China's MFN status. SUMCC no longer exists. Its volunteers are
free to do whatever they deem necessary and righteous. In fact some of them
are working for the release of Shen Tong, Qi Dafeng, and Qian Liyun, and
the many more that may be in danger of being arrested by the Chinese
government. Yes they are serving.

I am afraid that, as a member of the Ex-SUMCC "committee," I need to be
reminded of the "committee's" "frequent reference" to "the common interest of
the Chinese people at large."

Zuofeng Li
Washington University School of Medicine
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: utingli@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Tingli Pan)
Subject: Re: Proposal and Suggestions -- follow up
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 03:04:18 GMT

In article <Bu567H.9GI@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> Haosheng Zhou <philz@ee.umanitoba.ca> writes:
>I further propose that IFCSS assign a speaker (or administrator) to keep
>this net in order. I think most of you have seen how debates are
>conducted in common house etc. A neutral speaker is necessary by all
>means.
>
I don't think IFCSS has the power and right to administrate this net. At
least this is the impression I have from the protocol of the nets. Had
the IFCSS had administrated this net, the whole net would have become
worse. I guess you should know the reason.

>As a comlement to my previous suggestions, I further suggest that
>
>7) no personal attack is allowed;
>
>8) messages which do not concern with majority of netters should be sent
>via private email;
>
>9) it is assumed that no one in this net is ugly; freedom of speech [1]
>should be guaranteed in practise and every netters are equal.
>
>
>Haosheng Zhou
>
I support the suggestions by Mr. Zhou. But frankly speaking, as far as
the netters don't lie and torture the truth too much, (as some Chinese
paper over here does) This paper is tolerable.

Tingli Pan
>[1] So far, the only well-known limit is that one cannot incite hatred.
From: IFCSS HQ <ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      IFCSS HQ SR-4032: Open-Letter on Shen Tong Arrest
Reply-To: IFCSS HQ <ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:48:46 GMT
Comments: To: ccnl@utarlvm1.uta.edu, china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

****************************************************************
IFCSS Headquarters Special Report No. 4032    September 11, 1992
OPEN LETTER ON THE ARREST OF SHEN TONG, QI DAFENG AND QIAN LIYUN
****************************************************************
Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars (IFCSS)
   733 15th Street, N.W., Suite 440, Washington, D.C.20005
         Tel. (202)347-0017  Fax: (202)347-0018
                Email: ifcss@wam.umd.edu



As part of the effort to rescue Shen Tong and his friends, IFCSS
calls upon Chinese students and scholars organizations across the
U.S. to sign the following open letter. Individuals may also
sign the letter. Please send your name, school and telephone
number to the HQ. For organizations, we need the name of your
organization and the school your organization is located.
Please give us the contact person's name and telephone number,
which will not be disclosed.

Thank you for your help.

---------------------------------------------------------------

    An Open Lettere to China's State Education Commission
    On the Arrest of Shen Tong, Qi Dafeng and Qian Liyun



Mr. Li Tieying
Chairman
State Education Commission
Beijing, P.R. China

Dear Mr. Chairman:

We, the undersigned individuals and organizations, are writing to
request your immediate attention to the arrest of Shen Tong and
two other individuals.

Shen Tong, a Chinese student studying at Boston University in the
United States, was arrested on the 31 of August at his mother's
residence in Beijing during his home-visiting trip. Arrested at
the same time were Qi Dafeng and Qian Liyun, former schoolsmates
of Shen Tong. The police did not produce a warrant while making
the arrest; moreover, up to now no specific offence has been
identified and released.

The incident has roused tremendous attention in the U.S. as well
as other countries and caused alarm among Chinese students. The
skeptism about the government's sincerity in pursuing an open
policy regarding overseas students has deepened.

Although studying abroad, we are genuinelly concerned with
development and progress in our motherland. We believe that the
above-mentioned arrest was politically unwise and morally
unjustifiable, an incident that could not but discourage the
return of overseas students. Therefore, we strongly urge you to
intervene, through your office, in this case to win immediate
release of the three individuals.

We recognize that the arrest was not an isolated event and that
it reflected a lack of respect for the basic rights of citizen
guaranteed by our country's constitution. We look forward to
seeing general improvements made in this regard.

Sincerely,


(signed)


***************************************************************
         IFCSS Headquarters Office    Signature
***************************************************************