HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:11:33 GMT
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.

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>A person who showed up AT any straight parade carrying a sign for
>something equivalent to NAMBLA would not only be ejected from the
>parade, but perhaps from this world.

And this is something to boast of ?

Killing people who are already dysfunctional might meet with Malthus'
approval, but it doesn't meet with the approval of people with an
appreciation of the complexity of the situation.

And how is murder any less dysfunctional ?

-- richard

-- 
=====
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration
                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Brian Kane claims pedophilia != child molestation (Re: Run conservatives, run away! (Was: Re: Homophobics can't...))
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:35:41 GMT


In a previous article, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) says:

>In article <95609@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>> In article <12158@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
># #As you can see, sexual orientation is not defined by this bill.
># #Rape is definitely a sexual orientation; so is child molesting.
># #Disgusting, immoral, horrifying sexual orientations -- but
># #nonetheless, sexual orientation.  AB 101, at least, defined
># #what it meant.
># 
># They're behaviors. Rape is not a sexual orientation. Neither is
>
>Rape is not a sexual orientation?  Perhaps your dictionary has
>different meanings for "orientation" and "sexual" than mine.
>

Rape is not a sexual orientation.  It is a act of violence, an act of power
over another person.  


># child molestation. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation.
>
>Oh that's right, pedophilia (adults having sex with children) 
>isn't child molestation.  I keep forgetting that.  Tell me,
>why do you insist that adults having sex with children isn't
>child molestation, then get upset with me for asking the gay
>community to shun NAMBLA?  It's pretty clear why, isn't it?
>

Pedopholia is a sexual orientation.  It is the orientation where adults
are sexually attracted to children

However, being an ACTIVE pedophile IS being a child molestor.  

># #If you want NEA, YOU fund it.
># 
># Someone like Michael Jordan probably won't need social security. Do you hear
># him complaining about paying SS taxes?
>
>Of course not -- he's so rich he'll never notice the SS taxes.
>
># Many gay men will never have children. Do you hear them complaining about
># paying for children's educational programs?
># 
># kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
>
>*I* complain about them, and I have kids.
>-- 
>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.
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Assembly of God???  Strange.. *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // I was not aware that the diety  *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // was available in source form..." *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45064 ca.politics:7690
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: World's First Known Bottom Found in Alps
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:17:49 GMT
	    <12259@optilink.UUCP>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <12259@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>Just in case Mr. Kane "forgets" to clarify the facts about the
>frozen Austrian catamite:

I've seen that Steve Dyer reported the same article separately in soc.motss,
and yes, I have followed the ensuing revelation that the story was a hoax.

># Unfortunately, the whole thing is a hoax; the Austrian newspaper
># that originally reported this has admitted that the whole thing
># was made up (at least about Otzi having cum up his bum).

So now you must retract your speculation that he was raped and murdered.

Fair is fair.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44907 ca.politics:7653 ba.politics:5208 soc.motss:38844 ba.motss:1583
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:50:44 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

>In article <1992Sep9.061734.9515@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
    >fundy? Why should religion be granted tax exempt status? Lets

An odd and undoubtedly politically motivated interpretation of the First 
Amendment.  I have no idea why we need a tax exemption for salaries of
professionals, for advertising, for businesses, etc., in order not to 
"prohibit the free exercise [of religion]".  A tax exemption for structures 
and the necessary property (until sold) and for upkeep and supplies 
seems to be the maximum necessary. 

Tax exemptions for charitable purposes are separate from religion.
 
    >get rid of all these special priviledges for "chosen
    >religious lifestyle". And I don't want religious people
 
Someone's lifestyle is their own business so long as it does not interfere 
with me and they pay their taxes on the same terms I do. 
 
    >congregating on the street, after all those are tax payer
If permits are not required for other groups, then they should not need one. 
 
    >funded. And schools really should teach the truth about the
    >destructive meme called religion...
 
Mythology is interesting and significant to anthropology.  Of course 
 everyone should recognize that it is all superstitious nonsense,
 though useful sometimes for social cohesion,
 military victory, or political control.

	 George Tucker        tucker@tcville.hac.com
South Central LA - solidly Democratic - a few million.
Florida          - close race         - $7 billion.
Too many Quayludes.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:45724 ca.politics:7855 ba.politics:5377
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:15:58 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep14.202843.8499@fico.uucp>, ala@fico.uucp writes:
> >In article <12251@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >Sorry, but I have NEVER taped my classes back together
>                    ^^^^^
> I know an eye witness that used to work with you that says you do.
> 
>   A A   apple!fico!ala           |  A mind once stretched by a new idea never
>   D S   uunet!jandel!fico!ala    |  regains its original dimension.

Then he confused me with someone else.

By the way, last week YOU claimed to have worked with me at HDTS
and Optilink.  Now it's a friend of yours.

Liar.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
There can be no peace as long as AB 2601 lives.
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger?
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:38:32 CDT


In article <1992Sep8.211325.9887@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.155452.19196@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
> >I'm wondering if the Bush campaign people overdid it in '88 with the 
> >Boston Harbor/Willie Horton stuff. That maybe people are looking askance
> >at any charge that the Bush people might toss out.
> 
> The Bush folks didn't even RUN the Willie Horton ad;

The Bush campaign ran an ad that mentioned Horton, but did not
show his picture.

>                                                       an independent
> group did

Floyd Brown ran the ad with Horton's picture.

>             (after Gore tried it against Dukakis in the primaries).

Gore brought up the furlough issue, but never mentioned Horton or
any other names.

> That group didn't run it very many times; every time I saw it (or
> parts), it was part of a news story on the unfairness of the charge.

Yup.

> If the Demos hadn't whined about it, it would have sank without a
> trace.

The Dems problem was they did not respond fast enough.

> It is a cute political trick though; whine about something and keep it
> alive long enough to get sympathy.

Sounds like Bush's whining about congress...

-- 
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!)
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton and Responsibility
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:27:36 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <lbcajlINNf7c@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc) writes:

> Theodore A. Kaldis:

>> The last time we had a veritable scumbag as President was when LBJ
>> held that office -- and he (and his legacy) has very nearly destroyed
>> this country.

> So, I suppose that you consider Nixon to be an honorable man?

Hardly honorable, but (as far as I'm concerned) not nearly as bad as
LBJ (though, in my estimation, not good either).

> Please!!  Give me a break!  Nixon was *THE* most dispicable [sic]
> person ever to hold the office of President.

No, that dubious honor should rightly go to LBJ (though clearly the
point is arguable).

> Also, be so kind as to document how LBJ "nearly destroyed this
> country."

Ever hear of "The Great Society"?  Ever hear of "entitlement
programs"?  It is these programs which are responsible for a good
portion of the national debt and the deficit.

>> The last thing we need now is Bill Clinton to finish the job.

> You'd rather have four more years just like the past four years?

I'd rather have 4 more years of Reagan-era prosperity, but I'll gladly
put up with 4 more years of Bush than with what Clinton will have to
dish up.  How do you suppose he's going to be able to pay for all the
promises he's making other than by greatly increasing the already
onerous tax burden imposed upon the American public?
-- 
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???       ||
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Bush's Accomplishments
Summary: The Do-Nothing King
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 07:06:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.182441.15949@den.mmc.com> sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>
>>john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>>>eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:
>>>]Bush has done nothing in 3+ years.  He talks a good game now, but hasn't
>>>]performed so far, and I see no reason to believe he will be different as a
>>>]lame duck in a second term--a time when even strong presidents become less
>>>]successful.
>
>>>Well... let's see...
>>>   He did a good job of conducting Desert Shield and Desert Storm
>
>>    Strange, I thought that Schwartzkopf (sp?) did a good job conducting 
>>the war, but the greatest credit I would have attributed to Bush is that 
>>he did a good job of staying out of the way and letting the real soldiers 
>>fight the battles. 
>
>Which is precisely what he should have done.  It's also something good
>ole LBJ and Jimmuh Catah just couldn't figure out.
>
>

First, without a sound domestic policy, any activity in foreign affairs is
doomed to be weak and ultimately failing.

Second, the need for the War with Iraq arose out of Bush foreign policy
blunders, including but not limited to arming Iraq and sending a green
light for invasion via our ambassador.

Third, the war with Iraq achieved neither its political nor its military
goals:  Saddam remains in power and the Iraqi military was not crippled to
the degree once thought (and claimed).  The question of whether Iraq will
be brought to heel and/or fall to the influence of radical Iran remains
open.

Big success, hey?  Well, I suppose to the unsophisticated it is...

So much for the old "I fought a war" argument.  Big stinking deal.  He
bungled the pre-war policy and the end-game of the conflict.  

Why don't you talk about the other Bush "success" in foreign policy:  the
illegal sale of arms to Iran to fund the contras.  Mr. "I Was Out of the
Loop" is being nailed for a liar by every official of the Reagan
administration.

Finally, you can add my name to the list of people who find Bush a
*reactor* rather than an *actor* with vision even in the foreign policy
field.  (On domestic affairs, he doesn't even react.) The man has no
"vision thing."

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44814 ca.politics:7631 ba.politics:5191
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Brian Kane claims pedophilia != child molestation
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:03:25 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <12209@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <95609@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>rape is not a sexual orientation.

>Rape is not a sexual orientation?  Perhaps your dictionary has
>different meanings for "orientation" and "sexual" than mine.

Evidently. ORIENTATION to me does not connote action.

>>Neither is child molestation. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation.

>Oh that's right, pedophilia (adults having sex with children) 
>isn't child molestation.

That's right. Pedophilia is an orientation. Child molesting is acting
on that orientation. If you are a pedophile and you don't act on your
compulsions, no one gets hurt.

>I keep forgetting that.

Well, try to remember it, then.

>Tell me, why do you insist that adults having sex with children isn't
>child molestation, then get upset with me for asking the gay
>community to shun NAMBLA?  It's pretty clear why, isn't it?

I didn't say that adult sex with children is not molestation. I said
a person who is sexually attracted to children (but doesn't molest
them) is not committing child abuse.

CC:
>>>If you want NEA, YOU fund it.

>> Many gay men will never have children. Do you hear them complaining about
>> paying for children's educational programs?

>*I* complain about them, and I have kids.

You DO know what my point was, don't you?

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cramer@optilink.uucp (Clayton Cramer): Message-ID: <12133@optilink.UUCP>
I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as [Brian Kane].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: RKBA - are you missing the point?
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns 
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:43:39 GMT

[This is the 2nd article in a three reply series to Wojcik's 2nd
amendment blatherings.  He knows that the appropriate group is tpg,
but ....  If you want tpm to remain "pure", don't let him get away
with that.]

In article <81482@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
>In article 17f7f7INN4p2@agate.berkeley.edu, fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
>>Madison, when he introduced the Bill of Rights to Congress,  specifically 
>>said he drafted them to satisfy the opposition to the Constitution (as
>>represented by the debates over ratification.)
>
>Again, this means very little.  You can explore Madison's personal motives
>and beliefs all you like, but he was not the only person who ratified the
>amendments.  You simply cannot know what was in everyone's minds when they
>approved the language.  Ratification is a collective process, not an
>individual one.  One of the problems with the "original intent" docrine
>is determining just whose intent you are talking about.

That's all well and good, but the fact remains that every one of the
involved parties agreed with the individual rights interpretation of
the 2nd amendment.

The problem with Wojcik's "compromise" argument is that there's no
evidence showing that ANY of the parties involved took the position he
attributes to "someone".  The available evidence shows that they
REJECTED it.  That available evidence includes the legislative
history.  (The 2nd was NOT a product of the constitutional convention,
so the absence of notes for it are irrelevant.)

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Will someone tell me the truth?
Keywords: lies truth taxes
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:18:01 GMT

In article <5156@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>Who really cares? But the way he answered the question regarding his
>"experimentation" with marijuana makes him look very suspect.

It would be political suicide otherwise.

>:>He did sleep with Flowers. 
>:>He did cheat on his wife.
>:If true, so what?  She supports him; it's no one else's business.
>Boy, I'd love to have a wife like Hillary, then! Doesn't that bother you
>if his wife "supports him" in every decision he makes, including sleeping
>with someone else?

No.

>Besides, Clinton's alleged affairs are no one else's business just like
>Jim Bakker's trists are no one's.

Who said they are?  Bakker's financial improprieties, however, are
another story entirely.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "I don't know how much support NAMBLA
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  has in the gay community."
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /   -- Clayton Cramer, August 1992
From: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss,ba.motss
Subject: Re: The Harrassing Phone Calls Can Stop NOW!
Date: 15 Sep 1992 01:28:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bendenweyr

In article <_7wnvxr.phil@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> 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".

And my uncle once saw a pink elephant fly!

Great hearsay.  Could you give specifics or do you have such an
overwhelmingly small amount of evidence that this is the best you
can do.  If you want nothing more than hearsay I think you would
be drowned out in the din of counterexamples, not to mention the
counterexamples that are openly and blatantly (even admittedly)
instances of homophobic discrimination.  Can you say BSA?

				...jim
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger?
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:55:58 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep6.223640.21393@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>Keywords: 

>If he had stated anti-war sentiments in a ROTC program, he would have
>probably been kicked out, and would certainly have been hassled.

Clinton never joined the ROTC.  He told the draft board that he was going
to join in order to delay getting drafted.  But when it came to time to
actually participate, Clinton decided that he would rather go back to
England to continue his education.  A country that was conveniently beyond
the reach of the draft board.
-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey)
Subject: Re: T*d, sh*t, and shinola
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 14:14:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.035634.13415@panix.com>, eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>In <Sep.5.08.05.01.1992.22101@romulus.rutgers.edu>, kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu sez:
>>
>> Ollie North is a veritable hero.  You're not even
>>fit to shine his shoes.
>
>"I'd be more than willing to spit on Ollie North's boots, on equal
>terms anywhere in the world.  OK?  *There's* an even deal for him."

So would I -- but why would Ollie need anyone else to shine his shoes when
he has such a dependable ass-kisser as T*d to do it for him?  :-)


-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
    *"The opinions expressed by Patrick do not necessarily represent those
             of Rice staff, management, or any living person."*
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton a Moral Draft Dodger?
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 18:27:36 GMT


In article <1992Sep2.164219.12716@anasazi.com>, 
john@anasazi.com said:

> What Clinton did was participate in an activity where he was draft
> exempt because that program required him to enter the armed services
> later. I guarantee you that he had to keep his anti-war sentiments
> quiet during that program. What he then did was renege on that duty
> and slip out entirely.

Why did Clinton have to "keep his anti-war sentiments quiet during
that program"?  Seems to me that he didn't give up his First Amendment
right of free speech at any time in the process.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:38:46 GMT

In article <400@vega.iii.com>, rhockins@enrico.tmc.edu (Russell Hockins) writes:
> In article <12293@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >
> >If AB 2601 gets signs by our governor, there will be no peace
> >on USENET about this issue.
> 
> It hasn't been passed and there *still* is not peace on USENET about
> this issue.  Weather it is passed or not, it will cause controversey.

  Well, you have to admit it would be refreshing change from Cr*m*r's
non-stop NAMBLA rant. Maybe we could talk about the real world rather
than the FantasyLand in his mind.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc