HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Military Industrial Complex Drives Foreign Policy
Organization: Small Business Systems, Incorporated, Esmond, RI  02917
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 21:44:36 GMT

doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson) writes:

>Well, it is quite true that one can 'say' anything one's imagination can
>fantasize. But while 'the same could be said', do you have any evidence
>to say that because there is one quack in the world all CFC/Ozone
>chemists are quacks? 

No, there are only people with a political agenda to promote.

>1) Environment Canada is issueing "UV Alerts" based on measurements of the
>thinning ozone layer over my head, along with their hourly reports on
>temperature and wind velocity. These 'quacks' at Environment Canada have
>determined, in their 'quackery' that there is a real and measurable
>threat to public health. 

How many decades/centuries of statistical evidence does Environment Canada
have to prove that this "threat" to public health is recent? 

Furthermore, what type of organization is "Environment Canada"? What is
their company goal?

>2) The government of Canada, after years of their own studies has concluded
>A) the ozone layer is thinning, B) this represents a threat to public
>health, C) The use of CFCs should be banned.

A) Mass Transit Buses which impact against the human body cause damage, B)
this represents a threat to public health, C) The use of buses should be
banned.

>3) The government of Canada has banned CFCs.

So what? The US Government has spent several hundred billion more than it
took in. Shall Canada do the same?

>Now my first question is this: if there were *any* credible evidence to
>support the thesis that A) the ozone layer is not 15% thinner on average
>than it was 20 years ago,

Oh goodie. Now we can start proving that things *don't* exist. Like,
"mommy, prove to me the boogie-man doesn't exist". "Sorry, johnny,
hillary clinton really does exist."

[more babble deleted]

>Which risk are you most prepared to run? Are you willing to gamble with all
>life on earth? Are you *that* sure that the problem has been invented by
>quacks and has no basis in fact?

Oh please. The Doomsayers have been around since the beginning of time
telling us that the sky is falling. I suppose that somebody out there
will even attempt to tie in the "Ozone destruction" to the second
coming of Christ too, but that doesn't make it true

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /   I'm not a bigot,
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /    I hate everyone.
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              / 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Reply-to: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM's message of Mon, 06 Apr 92 20:30:08 PDT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 06:27:03 GMT

In article <XcLViB3w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
   manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) writes:

   > I think we should have djk frozen in a block of Lucite, and placed on
   > permanent exhibition. Idiocy on this scale really deserves publicity. 
   > --
   > \    Vincent Manis <manis@cs.ubc.ca>      "There is no law that vulgarity and

   Why are antagonistic points of view always reported as 'stupid'?

----
A careful reading of Mr. Manis' article convinces me
that he was not referring to your point of view as
stupid.  Rather, he stated quite clearly that it is
his opinion that it is you that is stupid.  I would
presume that he thinks your point of view is stupid
also, but that is not what he said.

--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17241 alt.individualism:2321 alt.activism:7339
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Class Warfare is STUPID: (Was: : Where Have All the Liberals Gone?)
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:17:04 GMT

In article <167C1FA94.KENH@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu>, kenh@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (Ken Hudson) writes:
} In article <15081@drutx.ATT.COM>
} dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:
} >Suppose I have some money to give to someone in exchange for some good or
} >service.  That transaction is only between that other person and me.
} >
} >However, in your system, government comes along and says, "You've paid
} >that person too much!  The fact that you see it as worth what you paid,
} >is irrelevant.  So, we will take 40% of it.  And if it turns out that
} >they are what we call rich, we will take even more.  We will then, after
} >keeping much of that money for ourselves, turn over what's left to those
} >that you didn't want to deal with in the first place.  Now, isn't that
} >fair?"

} Your case example is all wrong.  The government does not assess income
} tax on transactions; THAT would be a sales tax.

A sales tax is not part of the cost of that transaction -- it is an
additional amount that is tacked onto the price.

The money I give to that other person in exchange for a good or service
is considered taxable income by the government for that person.
--
David Olson ...!att!druwa!dlo
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money."  Alexis de Tocqueville
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson)
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:06:11 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
> 
> >Vaccination and child labor are the responsibility of the parents.


This is OK if you assume that children are the chattel of their
parents and have no rights to protection beyond what their parents
deem appropriate.  

I don't agree with that assumption. 
-- 
lpj@hpctdls.col.hp.com
Opinions expressed are my own, but may be licensed for a nominal fee.

VOTE FOR TSONGAS -- HE'S STILL ON THE BALLOT!
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Dumb, Sheltered College Puke( wasRe: Perot hang'in from a willow tree)
Date: 6 Apr 1992 21:39:55 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Keywords: WRONG NEWS GROUPS....

dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL) writes:

>In article <1992Apr6.133108@soil.gsfc.nasa.gov>, dave@soil.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Graham) writes:
>} In article <Apr.6.10.47.54.1992.6323@gandalf.rutgers.edu>,
>} shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>} |> ...The crime that
>} the
>} |> illegality of drugs creates is not the crime of taking drugs, it is
>} the
>} |> whole underground crime world that is created in order to fill the 
>} |> demand for the illegal drugs.  Legalizing recreational drugs would
>} |> do away with the organized crime that makes is living off the sale
>} |> of these drugs.  

Let me make this point a little clearer.  Organized crime thrives in an
environment where they can charge any price they want just because the
product they are distributing happens to be illegal.  By creating
competition for them (the government) at a substantially lower price
for the end user, we can remove the profit incentive from them.
Without a profit incentive, they have no reason to stay in business.
Therefore, organized crime (at least in this area) vanishes.

>} 
>} One thing that is overlooked here is crime created from dependancy.
>} As the life of the drug addicted degrades ( no longer can hold job )
>} often times these people turn to crime to support their addiction.

This is why the "clinics" which give out these drugs should also
provide treatment to the addicted so that they can break their
addiction.  The number one change that must be made is that we must
begin treating all forms of drug addiction (alcohol, cocain, whatever)
as a DISEASE, rather than a crime.

>} You may do away with some levels of organized crime, but I still
>} believe
>} crime would still be a major problem within our inner-cities.

Crime would be a problem (still), but none of it would be drug
related.  Any government that were to carry out programs such as the
ones that I describe would also be more likely to begin other programs
to combat crime in the inner cities.  "DRUUUUUGGGSSS!" certainly isn't
the only, or even the biggest issue that must be dealt with in our
cities.

>  Yet
>I do not see people turning to crime to obtain a carton of cigaretts or
>a six-pack of beer.

What about minors?  They are getting cigaretts and beer illegally.

Stratocaster

-- 
  Steve Davis  |    Contact me at ...            | The Boarding House BBS!
               | Internet:  strat@cis.ksu.edu    | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
               | FidoNet:    Steve @ 1:295/3     | America: 913-827-0744
 ** Operation Rescue's hidden agenda is to make ALL birth control illegal! **
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17727 alt.activism:7515
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: The Decline of America: Priorities: S&L Scandal (I)
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:38:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas



>The funny thing about statistics is that you can make them support any
>arguement you wish - you merely do not disclose all the pertinent information
>about the survey or statistics being quoted.

regarding inflation adjusted budget expenditures for '80 vs. '90, what was
the discount catagory?  are you using CPI?  GNP/GDP?  or separate inflations
for each catagory?  it seems unreasonable that federal spending on medical
care has been reduced by any amount after adjusting for inflation.  more info please.

>>Holm's comments on the Superfund are out of perspective-- why do we have the
>>superfund sites in the first place? (e.g. military plants and other commercial
>>activities in which environmental regulations were flagrantly disregarded and
>>society, all of us taxpayers, are paying the bill instead of those who did
>>the damage, just as in the S&L bailout).

FYI:  the S & L money has been spent.  it is gone.  it has bought a lot of 
nice meals, limo rides, vacations, and fancy parties.  it is all gone.  
the government is left with lots of obligations and worthless development.
fortunately, the cost of $500Bil, while being paid for over the next 40 years
by "off the budget" bonds, did buy a lot of prosperity (some of it was
wide-spread) in the 80s.  i just wish i wasn't in junior high, since
i'll be paying for it and the baby-boomers retirement.

>Most of the Superfund sites around here are the result of improper disposal
>of toxic wastes. Naturally, most of this disposal was done years ago, before
>any guidelines had been established for disposal of such substances, and
>people thought the best thing to do would be bury it and forget about it.

>Not exactly a bright decision, but not the "heheheh... dump it and we can
>improve the profits!" conspiracy the looney-left would like to make people
>believe.

THis is correct.  Most superfund waste sites weren't problems when they
were being filled.  Nobody knew DDT eradicated birds, when it was first
used either.  At least we are finally cleaning up the toxins, what is even scarier
to me all the military owned nuclear waste.  They got more nasties than
the Nuke power plants will ever generate.  let's hope those barrels hold
out a little longer!

>>I find it unsurprising that most of the stupid comments which ignore any
>>sense of reality come from .com addresses. 

>Funny, I have always noticed the same thing from the
>average suck-at-the-public-teat .EDU user (like Harel).

What is stupid is the vast majority of people, who not only don't know
what we are discussing, but they don't care.  "...isn't Vanna's dress
pretty tonight, Ma."--yikes!!

-don   : discussion, if it's not hateful, then it's not harmful.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:49:14 GMT

In article <4595@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil>,
jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>
># While I
># don't want to imply that Perot is as bad as Hitler there are
># disturbing parallels between the way people are reacting to Perot
># and the way that Germany and Italy fell to fascism.
>
>Go for it. What are the parallels?

I think both societies were at a point where they were looking for
a savior who would rescue them from what were perceived of as
very bad times compared to what had been known in the past.  The
known leadership could only offer more of the same while the Nazi's
and Facists were untried but spoke powerfully about making the
system work.  They did so in very broad terms, however, without
being real specific about how they would get the job done.  Some
people tried to warn that these ways might be very bad, or that the
people themselves might not be very nice people, but the majority
wanted so desperately to believe that their salvation was at hand
that they refused to believe the nay sayers.

Perot offers just this kind of "straight talk" to us today, again
without being very specific.  Some people are already reluctant to
believe that he really means some of what he has said; others brush
them off with assertions that somehow "the people" won't let him do
anything really bad.  I'm sure that some of the good people of
Germany and Italy had just such thoughts about Der Fuhrer and Il
Dulce.

/June
From: djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Straight Child molesters?
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 19:22:27 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: NMS&Systems Engineering

dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro) writes:

> 
> soc.motss taken out of Newsgroups line. You aren't welcome there.

Hmmmmmmm....... Discrimination.. Time to form forty new organizations
and put stupid symbols in my .signature file.

I'd be afraid of hearing the truth too if I were you. :-)

> In article <VDw5HB3w164w@Nitro.CtEdge.COM> djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM writes:
> >
> >Sheesh... Given enough information (or enough bullshit) one can
> >rationalize or explain away anything....
> 
> [ Refrain of "Onward Christian Soldires" as djk takes up the Flag of Cramer
> and marches off into the sunset to do just that. ]
> 
> >-djk
> 

Whatever floats your boat. Just watch out for those leaks
sweetie.

-djk

--- Daniel J. Karnes / WA6NDT --------------------------------------
--- NMS&Systems Engineering ----------------------------------------
--- Djk@Nitro.CtEdge.COM / ..CtEdge!Nitro!Djk ----------------------
-- 'innovative solutions for modern problems' ----------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:17158 alt.activism:7325
From: pmmuggli@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Pauline M Muggli)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.men,soc.women,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:46:19 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK


  em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:
>  jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:

>>  Excerpted from Napa Writer Blames Maleness for Crime
>>  by Ron Sonenshine
>>  San Francisco Chronicle (April 6, 1992)
>>  --
>>  A Napa author has filed another salvo in the battle between the sexes,
>>  arguing in a new book that the nation's annual $300 billion crime tab
>>  is exclusively a masculine problem for which men alone should pay.
 
>I wonder if she supports homosexuals and drug addicts should pay the
>bill for AIDS; women should pay for breast cancer; homeless people
>pay for homeless hotels; Congresspersons pay for the federal deficit;
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>women pay for "everything" related to abortion; etc.....

hhhhmmmmmmm......

now, *this* has posibilities!!!  

pauline
pmmuggli@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu   (the univ. of oklahoma) 
  	- standard disclaimer - 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: weyand@getafix.cs.uoregon.edu (Christopher Scott Weyand)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release: abolish IRS)
Date: 8 Apr 92 06:29:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: getafix.WEYAND.92Apr7222939
	<visser.702539448@convex.convex.com> <rdippold.702590624@cancun>
	<1992Apr7.193628.24602@cs.ucla.edu>
Organization: U of O

In article <1992Apr7.193628.24602@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:

   [...]

   If there was a little less "purity" in libertarianism and a little
   more interest in taking the current system and, by small modifications,
   gradually make it more libertarian, I'd be into it.  Trying to
   re-structure society in one fell swoop just doesn't cut it for me
   (call me chicken).

Where did you get the idea that libertarians want to change the country
overnight?   e.g. libertarians support the abolition of income taxes.
If a libertarian were President would this happen in a day, week, month?
No, we all know it would take a significant amount of time.  I believe you 
may be confusing the ideals set forth in the platform with their actual
implementation.  I don't think any of us believe that we could (or would
even want to) establish a completely libertarian society too quickly.
Look closely at the platform, there are instances in which interim measures
are proposed (e.g. to encourage growth of private schools tax credits
are endorsed).
Look, you can take libertarianism any way you want.  If it appeals to you
more than any other system then you should jump in and mold it, shape it to 
your desires.  It's not a take it or leave it proposition.


Chris Weyand
weyand@cs.uoregon.edu
From: jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The erudite National Review picks on Bill Clinton's daughter
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:08:51 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter) writes:

# Let me get this straight. The National Review, a gigantic political
# magazine, teases a twelve-year-old schoolgirl in print over her name, and
# you don't see anything wrong whatsoever?

Chelsea's steel will be tempered in the flame.

# Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have a fundamental difference in
# world-views here. The word "yawning chasm" could be used in this context.

I wish they wouldn't put spaces smack in the middle of words. It messes
up my on-line dictionary.

John
From: sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib.
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:47:49 GMT
    <rdippold.702939428@cancun> <1992Apr13.193000.12970@unx.sas.com> 
    <12350@tamsun.tamu.edu>
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 2098

In article <12350@tamsun.tamu.edu>, byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes:
|In article <1992Apr13.193000.12970@unx.sas.com> sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden) writes:
|>In article <rdippold.702939428@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
|
|>|I like it, except where the cards are kept legally stacked as to make
|>|it impossible.  For example, there are often laws in place to make
|>|sure that using an alternative to government supplied services is
|>|illegal.  Those would have to be removed.
|
|>Can you give some examples?
|
|Well, off the top of my head: gambling, 1st class mail, apparently peddling
|child pornography (cf. recent Supreme Court case). I'm sure there are
|many more. You could broaden this category if you wanted with licensing
|restrictions, it amounts to pretty much the same thing.

Wow, is kiddie-porn a government-supplied service now?

Also, I thought you could Federal Express, Purolate, and otherwise
privately send mail if you wanted.

Gambling I'll grant you is illegal most places except when the
government does it, and I think that's wrong.

Most licensing restrictions do not exist to force you to use government
supplied services, but to prevent unqualified practitioners from
preying on a lay public that has no way of verifying qualifications
before it's too late and the job is already botched.  Given that
"botching the job" might mean poisoning me, building me a house that
collapses in a strong wind, or wiring my dispose-all so it catches fire
the first time I put a banana peel down it, I think this is in general
a good thing.

|If you go to other "democratic" countries, you have things like radio &
|TV and telecommunications being controlled as govt. monopolies (scary,
|eh?), utilities, universities (no joke---in Greece for example it is
|[or was, last time I checked] illegal to set up a private institution
|of higher learning), etc.

People in those countries should do something about this.

-- 
--Fred, or another blind 8th-century BC  |  sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com
        Hellenic poet of the same name.  |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Polling Fraud?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:34:25 GMT

In article <RJC.92Apr14201827@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk> rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:
>This is why they don't print the questions asked, the sampling
>tequnique etc in the newspaper when they print the result, they just
>say that so many percent of people said they support policy X, never
>saying how that question was phrased, what other questions were asked
>in the same session nor how the people were chosen. 

I have seen newspapers that print the size of one standard deviation
(yes, they should print "+/- [two standard deviations]", not one)
and the exact phrasing of the question.  And it's not too hard to figure
out how Gallup chooses its samples.  It's to the polling companies
advantage to provide accurate polls.  A pollster that's consistently
wrong (or worse, wrong half of the time :) is of no use.
-- 
Ted Frank          + "He wanted to be the car rather than the thimble or the
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  hat."  -- District attorney explaining Marc Cienkowski's
U o' C Law Skool   +  murder with bow and arrow of Michael Klucznik in
Chi, IL 60637      +  Doylestown Borough, PA over a game of Monopoly.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty