HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:13:59 GMT

green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>The reference was to the Somalis who got killed or wounded at the
>>weapon-confiscation checkpoint. Their truck (or bus) failed to stop
>>and the French soldiers fired on them. The original story (disinformation)
>>was that there was a weapon mounted on the truck... [etc.]
>
>Hmm, I watched the Pentagon press briefing, and nowhere did they come up with
>any of these stories.  Maybe Dan Blather did, but not the military.

	NYT 12/11/92 p. A6:

	MOGADISHU, Somalia, Dec. 10 --
	...Maj. Gerard Massot of the French Foreign Legion said that the
	clash took place at 6:45 P.M., when a truck sped up at a French
	checkpoint and opened fire. The French troops returned fire, he
	said, killing two Somalis. Five others were wounded by bullets
	or when the truck crashed.

	Despite the assertion that the Somalis had fired first, the
	Legionnaires refused to say whether they had found any
	weapons in the truck...

:-)

	Before the incident, the scene at the checkpoints was almost
	festive, as hundreds of Somalis, mostly men and boys in
	tattered clothing, cheered and hooted every time the soldiers
	found a weapon, an empty cartridge case or a rusty bandolier...

	A smattering of incidents earlier in the day [included] the
	hijacking of six cars driven by relief-agency employees and
	shots fired at an American television crew... 

Note the "festive" scene, as opposed to the nice fable of a tense
scene where the nervous soldiers responded to a dire threat. Also,
it seems that maybe the unarmed people over there (civilian relief
workers and the press) stand a better chance of getting fired on
than the Marines.

>>I do plenty of press bashing. Right now, I'd rather bash people like
>>you (?) who cry crocodile tears about how the press is endangering
>>lives when really it's not endangered lives they're really concerned
>>about, it's preserving their militaristic fervor and testosterone buzz.
>>Their media bashing is a political smoke screen.
>
>Wow, do I detect a little militant feminism there?  We lucked out, no one
>was hurt.  The guys came in at night to minimize the danger, and the jerks
>in the press met them like it was a training excercise.  What if some
>sniper had been lurking in the bushs just waiting to spill first blood?
>Like I said, we lucked out.  If someone had been hit, especially a reporter,
>now that would have been interesting.

Oh... ohhhhhhh.... yes, YES, YES!

I suppose I might be a "militant feminist" in Rush Limbaugh's world,
but there is no doubt that military actions are described by
non-grunts (like generals, politicians, and armchair generals) in
sexual terms. Like we didn't want to "pull out" of Vietnam before
the job was done, did we? My biggest thrill during the Gulf War was
watching those missiles going down those chimneys and exploding, yes
siree. And "first blood" is always sweet.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's bigoted remarks at the convention...
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:53:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.012106.13073@bsu-ucs> 00rdharringt@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Rob Harrington) writes:
>In article <lisoh9INNm58@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

>> So far the best convention joke I have heard is about the reporter
>> that ran across one of Bush's grandson's after Barbara had the
>> family up on stage.  The kid was crying.  When the reporter asked
>> why he was crying, he said that he didn't want Clinton to be his
>> grandfather.  The reporter said the election was to decide who would
>> be president, not who would be his grandfather.  The kid stopped
>> crying and said "then why was I up there?"

>Yeah I watched that speech and laughed all the way through...

>Barbara was up there talking about how nice of a father and grandfather
>George was and his grandson came up and spoke and read a letter.  I
>was left with the immpression of "so George is a nice guy, big deal."
>Ok I'll vote for him in a race to see who's grandfather of the US...
>Just because he's a nice guy doesn't mean he's a good president...

Well, my thought was "just because he's nice to his family doesn't mean
he's nice to anyone else, let alone being a good president."

Actually, I thought this was a pretty ridiculous thing to be claiming
anyway.  Barbara went on and on about how good a parent he was and about
how well he brought up his kids and about how he never had to punish any
of them.

I dunno, somehow if Bush was running on the "knows how to raise kids
right with good family values" platform, then his children's
questionable business dealings DO become relevant, now don't they?

So for him to attack Perot for allegedly investigating his kids is a
double standard, isn't it?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Re: Boycotts, Boycotts, Boycotts....
Organization: ILS
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:36:10 GMT

I really don't understand this conservative dislike for boycotts.  Firstly
a boycott is a perfectly fine way for groups to gain their ends via the
free market without having to pass laws.  In that way the use of boycotts
promote  free enterprise and limit the expansion of government powers.  In
a free market economy the consumer has a right to decide what they are
going to consume on what ever grounds they want. 

In fact,  the effectiveness of many boycotts recently, and the failure of
some really stupid ones,  shows the growing reliance that many liberals
feel on carrying out their policies in the economic rather then political
section of the economy.   Also successful boycotts argue that consumers are
smart enough to be interested in what companies are doing and therefore
more regulation is not necessary.

Look at the use of dolphin safe nets by the tuna companies,  this was
accomplished by a major boycott of tuna and shrimp in the USA.  After a
while the tuna companies figured they could make more profit by being
dolphin safe,  in fact they could increase profits more by turning it into
a sales pitch.  

the companies made money,  the environmentalist got an end across,  a lot
of dolphins got to live a little longer (you guys don't hate animals do
you),  all accomplished with one extra law or one extra government file
clerk being hired.  

I think boycotts in themselves are great,  even though most of them are
pretty stupid.  Over time the stupids ones will most likely fail for the
same reason that stupid products tend to fail;  because they are stupid and
nobody is going to pay the price for them.  

I mean people who are concerned about the environment,  civil rights, 
education, peace, etc (namely liberals) are not new.  There will always be
liberals and there will always be conservatives and they are going to
always be fighting against each others.  The boycott seems to be a great
way for the liberals to promote their causes without undermining the
freedom of the individual and the free market system.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:48:19 GMT

In article <92346.134257DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
}
}Is that "make it work??"  Maybe if you could explain what you mean
}by "practical alternative" it would help.  I took it to mean that
}private charity could replace the social service operations of
}government in a reasonable fashion, without the detrimental effects
}of big government and coercion, at the same or lower costs.
}If that's a reasonable interpretation,
}I'd like to see some proof of it.  Most of the private charities I know about
}spend 25-40 percent of the monies collected on advertising and administration.
}Medicare spends less than 5 percent of total monies collected on admin. costs.

My understanding is that total overhead for these "public sector" programs
averages 75% of their total expenditure.  That's a hell of a lot of input
for little output.  As for proof, the canonical libertarian text on the
subject of welfare programs is Charles Murray's "Losing Ground," which I'm
told is exhaustive.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Death of America 3
Date: 19 Dec 92 00:56:01 -0500


Oh ye of too much faith ...

We shall do whatever keeps us alive until tomorrow. We shall commit
whatever hypocracy, abandon whatever principals, purger ourselves
against our friends. We are the majority. Your political ambitions,
your philosophical assertions - they fall on deaf ears. We are not
interested in consistency, in logic, in commitment. We just want to
stay alive - and will rat on anyone who jepordizes that position.

Grand political and social philosophies ... they come and go. Why
should we suffer to support a transient whim ? Only the fool dies
for politics. We support only one philosophy - survival. 

So please sacrifice yourselves for 'principal' - the less of you
the safer things will be for us. We don't care about your delusions.
Only base survival counts. We live, we prosper, we pass on our genes.
Fanatics deserve exactly what happens to them.
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bob Novak, Incompetent Pundit
Date: 20 Dec 92 07:18:41 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

Wally "Facts are Stupid Things" L. Blume writes:
>In a previous article, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) says:
>>nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:


>>>Hey, Bob--you're a fool!
>>>                                    ... Finally, on the eve
>>>of the election, Novak grudgingly predicted during a round-table
>>>discussion with other pundits that Clinton would
>>>"eke out" a victory by no more than 30 electoral votes, a number
>>>that was only 170 votes short of the truth (an error of 700%);
>>>for comparison, the smallest margin any other pundit predicted
>>>during this discussion was 150 votes.

>>He did a lot better than John Sununu and John McGlaughlin, each of
>>whom right before the election predicted a narrow victory for Bush!?!?
>>Since Sununu had a job in the Executive Branch, as did McGlaughlin's
>>wife, this myopia can be attributed to a misguided loyalty.

>Oh yeah, remember all those Dukakis supporters who predicted a win 

No, I don't.  Could you name any of them?

>for him (when actually he only carried one state.) Not to mention

Which election was this?  You seem to be confused about American
history.  Maybe you should try reading a book, or a newspaper, or
something, before you post.

>all those people who were proclaiming Fritz Mondale the new president

All which people?  If you could name one, I'd like to hear it.

>right up till his defeat as well as practically everyone in the Carter 
>administration celebrating a second term. My point is this, who in their

"Practically everyone," huh?  That's short for, "I have no idea what I'm
talking about, but maybe I can confuse people into thinking I do."

>right mind is going to say "Well there is no point in anyone voting for the
>candidate I support so don't even bother going to the polls." 

No, but there's also no point in saying "the polls are lying" if they
aren't.

> What's even worse is Democratic Senator Wyche Fowler STILL wont accept
>his defeat and has groups trying to boycott his own home state to protest
>his loss, talk about a sore looser.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia
From: wbs@mred.llnl.gov (William B. Schaefer IV)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Gay Child Molesters (Re: Youth Info Needed)
Date: 18 Dec 92 01:30:39 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

With self-righteousness that Pat Robertson would be proud of:

In article <1992Dec17.195153.3443@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

      <NAMBLA stuff deleted>

>... You are vile, your issues are vile, and I wish
>a nasty death for you -- say, via rape by large Hell's Angels. Then maybe
>you can get a whole new perspective in life.

The NAMBLA discussion was one of opinion and perspective. No actions were
advocated nor discussed.  Phil, you advocate a violent and illegal act.  Who
is the villan here?


And the light of knowledge continues:

>Ugh, let's get this straight. NAMBLA members want to fuck little
>children.

How do you know?  Do you just *assume* this because "age of consent" is
mentioned?  The only one mentioning sexual acts was you...

>... They use the word consent, but does offering a lollipop to
>a 5-year old so you can touch their "pee-pee" constitute consent?

You create a hypothetical situation and then condem someone for it.  Please!
We are not 5-year olds here, so let's not use schoolyard logic!

       <Comparison of NAMBLA to Nazis>

ACK!  Nazis adovated specific violent acts against people.  These acts
occured and were obscene!  Any comparison of group that merely presents an
alternate opinion (no matter how distasteful you may find it) to the Nazis
is absurd.

>Come on now...  do you REALLY not know what NAMBLA is about???

Do you?

Phil, you are wrong and you are a bigot.  Now be quite, I have work to do.

wbs
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg )
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:29:22 GMT

green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:

>In article <BzFHJF.BqG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg ) writes:
>>Seriously, I'm sure that even IF the Pentagon did let the press know 
>>the whereabouts of the landing, that's no excuse for recklessness on 
>>the part of the media.  I'd be willing to bet that they were advised
>>against doing just the sort of thing they did.

>The press was informed of the landing, and they were told to "Stay off the
>beach!!"  They hit Pete Williams pretty hard the day after with questions
>like "But did you tell us not to use lights?".  They were told to use the
>control tower, the view would be great, and any lights wouldn't be a problem.
>They were not told not to use lights, but they were told to stay off the
>beach.

Thanks Brad!

Sorta says something about the media, doesn't it?  DON'T BELIEVE 'EM!!!

*******************************************************************************
* Gregory Tao                      | E-mail to:  gt38091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu     * 
* Univ. of IL at Urbana-Champaign  |        OR      gtao@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* Department of Computer Science   |        OR      gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
*                                                                             *
*  	``Change, suddenly, is everywhere we look, sweeping empires and       *
*    ideologies before it, shaping a new era even as we watch. Such moments   *
*    are rare. Today we stand at such a moment.''                             * 
*                                                                             *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
* DISCLAIMER:  My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of CCSO or the    *
*              University of Illinois.					      *
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: czmt@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Season Marie Taylor)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:44:06 GMT

In article <145@bbx.basis.com> scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker) writes:

>It doesn't matter.  Even if there was only *one* homosexual on the
>entire planet, he'd still be able to kick Clayton's sorry ass.

he?

season

-- 
                     ____
Season Taylor        \  / "we are one body/we are one spirit/one breath/one
czmt@gibbs.oit.unc.edu\/   dream of life and death/.../one sex"
(yes, as in the 4)                          -sophie b. hawkins
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bradley@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Kevin Bradley)
Subject: US Constitutional Amendment
Organization: Boeing Computer Services
Distribution: pnw
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:00:50 GMT

As I understand it, the US Constitution had a new amendment added to
it within the last year.  I am trying to obtain an electronic copy
of it to update an online copy.  If someone could post it, I would
be grateful.

Thanks.

-- 
DISCLAIMER:         :    __  __  __        __ : Send EMail Replies to:  
 Opinions expressed :   / / / / /   / / / / / : bradley@bcstec.ca.boeing.com 
 here, are my own   :  /-/ / / /-  / /|/ / _  : or 
 and not BOEING's!  : /_/ /_/ /_  / / / /_/   : uunet!bcstec!bradley 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: al@gtx.uucp (Alan Filipski)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: GTX Corporation, Phoenix AZ
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:47:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.195812.23632@netnews.noc.drexel.edu> giamomj@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu (Mike G.) writes:
>All of your statistics don't mean a thing. And *Nature* magazine is NOT a
>juried publication, anyway (unlike the New England Journal of Medicine, for
>example...).

if by juried you mean refereed, you are wrong.  Nature is a highly
regarded refereed British science journal. Perhaps you are confusing
it with a U.S. popular magazine of the same name that changed its name to
Natural History around 1960.


  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 ( Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 8836 N. 23rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA )
 ( INTERNET: al@gtx.com      UUCP: uunet!gtx!al         PHONE: (602)870-1696 )
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's bigoted remarks at the convention...
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:55:51 GMT
Keywords: hate

In article <1992Dec18.171346.20713@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>In article <BzEH95.ILn@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
>

[deleted stuff]

>I've been collecting information about Gritz here on the net, and have tried
>to save the relevant articles on both sides of the fence (although I tend to
>lend more weight to his associations than his public utterances), and these
>files are readily available via listserv@oneb.almanac.bc.ca. To obtain a
>complete list, send the commands "index" and "help get" to listserv.

I have an article from maybe 5, 10 years ago from Soldier of Fortune (a
very lefty rag to be sure) in which the author roasts Bo Gritz alive.
Basically he shoots Gritz's war record completely full of holes, shows that
most of his so called MIA activities were bogus, and that the man is just a
charlatan.  That it came from SoF it clearly shouldn't be dismissed.

Also, having spent most of my life in Las Vegas, I've watched Bo try to
finagle his way into local politics.  In general most in Clark County
Republican party have dismissed him (Bo Gritz was a resident of Sandy Valley,
about 30 miles outside of Las Vegas in Clark County, don't know if he still
is).

>-- 
>The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
>     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT 
> Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Just south of Tupperware Central...  
>                 Information is power - get connected


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:46:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.000759.26234@news.acns.nwu.edu>, dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
> Besides, your comparison of homosexuality to religion is apples to oranges. 
> Homosexuality is a behavioral trait. 

  And religion is not? This better be good...

> Behavioral traits span from irritability
> in one celled critters to sexual preference in higher order mammals.  

  Give it up:

> Religion is something only possible in beings who are able to reason.

  This stands alone as a singular indictment of your utter lack of reason.
-- 

		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)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64643 alt.current-events.somalia:601 alt.politics.europe.misc:229
From: armel@vignemale.inria.fr (Armel de la Bourdonnaye)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.europe.misc
Subject: Re: Somalia
Date: 9 Dec 92 17:08:54 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: CERMICS

|> 
|> 	Well, enlighten us; what exactly ARE the Europeans doing
|> 	about the Balkans, aside from running guns under the table
|> 	and proclaiming an arms embargo in public?

 US take it really easy making war against underdevelopped countries
(Iraqi was , and Somalia is still more) which are not anymore helped by the USSR. In the same time they refuse to go in Yugoslavia. They just accept to 
help the European going to death in Sarajevo. In fact the US after having been humiliated in Vietnam want to take a revenge against the third world. In Europe 
we are a little fed up with war this Century : 12 years making a few 10 million 
dead people. The former century we had The Napoleon wars and the 1870 war( In france) and we know what having war on our soil means ( what US may be don't really remember : 1776 independence and about 1850 secession war and what else???). So we really want to solve our conflicts by another way then making millions of dead. The question is would 
a war in Yugoslavia make millions of dead. The response is : it depends ( no  I'm not a norman) Maybe an atomic bomb on belgrade would only make a few 100000. But nobody is 
ready to do that. And a classical war would be much more painfull than Vietnam. Another question is would a war solve anything in Yugoslavia. I think that it is not this way that you will make Serbs appreciate the Croats ( or Bosnians) and Reciprocally.And after a war which could be seen as a punishment against Serbia, This nation would only want to take a revenge. Still they speak of Tcheknics and Ustaches which were groups living during WWII and not now and they kill Children because may be they will bec



ome enemies when they are older. This nationalism is a Catastroph in Europe because you have many more people than countries, especially but not only is Eastern Europe. And a war against a nation doesn't make Nationalism disappear, it strengthen it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc