HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: s0xjg@exnet.co.uk (Xavier Gallagher)
Subject: Why not beat Cramer up?
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:17:52 GMT


So why not beat Cramer up?

Violence has two traditional uses.


1.  To oppress those who society condemns.  In this mode it is the
first resort, it is legitimate.  Look to the Nazis or to South
Africa.  It is also used to enforce laws (anti gay laws, 
anti-anti gays laws, anti drug laws etc)  with the violence
being the formal process of arrest, court, fines and prisons.


2.  To make someone hear you.  Take, for example, the poll tax 
riots in this country,  the armed struggle of the ANC.  It
seems (to me) to be a function of fustration.  If they wont
hear of their own free will then they must be forced to 
keep their distance.  You might not be able to get them to
change their views but you can make them fear your wrath.
In such cases it is the last resort, the method you use when
all other routes have been blocked.


Cramer seems to me to be a perfectly valid target of this second
kind of violence.  I do not mean he *should* be a target, what I
mean is if he had any sort of power and he was hell bent on putting
his misconcieved ideas into law and as many people had tried to
correct his facts for him as have tried on this net, *then* he has
cut himself of from all non violent means of change, then he is a
legitimate target for violence.

Ofcourse, he could then call us terrorists and we would become 
freedom fighters.

I suppose I am sort of supporting the idea of the armed struggle
when all other routes are blocked.




So, having said this, why shouldn't someone beat Cramer up?


Xave.

ps. please note, I am a pacifist.  I do not approve of use of force.

-- 
** Xavier Gallagher                        ***********************************
** Genius, Plumber & Madman                ******* s0xjg@exnet.co.uk ********* 
** Part time Dark OverLord Of The Universe ***********************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:16:31 GMT

The basic reason the US still has the embargo on is internal democratic 
pressures.  There are basically only two groups in America which care about 
the embargo even slightly.  The first is the campus hard left.  The collapse
of the SU has changed the general view of the campus left from merely confused
and powerless to quaint, confused, and powerless.  Pretty much all they're
doing nowadays is talking to each other. 

The other group is the Cuban exile community.  They are urban, organized, 
and getting wealthier every day.  They are concentrated in a politically 
powerful state, and are steadily acquiring political offices there.  Business
successes are also increasing.  They vote.  And there are a lot of them who
would volunteer to die if it would mean the end of Castro and his regime.

Boycott? It's only the garauntee that Castro will fall if the boycott 
continues that keeps us from taking military action!   

While the above is, admittedly, a morality-free calculation, there is a moral
question lurking there.  What is the effect of the Cuban exiles on questions
of the morality of the boycott.  There is a large body of Cubans who consider
Castro's regime to be illegitimate.  Does it make a difference that they
live in Miami rather than Havana?  We certainly allow that the Palestinian 
diaspora has interests in the West Bank, and the long-exiled ANC leaders had
interests in South Africa.  Why should the Cuban exiles be different?

 
 

-- 
Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
Department of Surgery                       dave@alex.bsd.uchicago.edu
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65771 alt.rush-limbaugh:12529
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:20:30 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

I suspect that you don't know what the word bigot means.  Why
don't you look it up, and then perhaps I'll understand why you
object being called one.

(You might re-read the first quote I provided after you've read
the definition.)

Susan

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65983 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11183 alt.politics.bush:15339
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:42:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.211646.6585@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>Yamanari writes:
>#	You can bet that such a person would be into a hospital faster
>#	than you or I could say, "Home run"...
>
>You can bet. You'd lose. So, there is a double standard there. 


	I doubt it.


>You, sir, are a bigot.


	Ooo, real objective.  I'm a bigot--against what?  

-- 
	Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.

         ---  boycott == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
		   	     Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Mandatory Organ Donation
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 03:45:25 GMT

In article <92358.193229DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
	context deleted (it  got in my  way)

>I'll offer an alternative compromise.  Allow hospitals to choose which
>form they use.  Allow hospitals to be paid for the organs they collect
>which are subsequently used.  The free market will soon make the
>form suggested by the communtarians the preferred form.

	Hmmm. Putting a price on organs makes me wonder if   they
can  be counted as an asset in civil forfeiture cases...

							James   Nicoll
From: buckmr@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: Re: House Voting Rights
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:25:19 GMT

kaskubar@kirby.mayo.edu (Bruce Kaskubar) writes:

>According to George Wills' December 17 column, the House Democratic  
>caucus (Tom Foley et al.) is attempting to give voting rights to  
>the five delegates from American Samoa, Guam, the District of  
>Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.  (OK, only when the  
>House is acting as a Committee of the Whole but real work gets done  
>then.)  Jesse Jackson and his four counterparts (all Democrats)  
>will now join the fray with all the representatives of us taxpaying  
>types.  American Samoa's representation will be about 17 times that  
>of Montana, per capita.  If taxation without representation is  
>tyranny, what's representation without taxes and statehood?

Hmmm, sounds good to me. What's your problem with it? :-)

Anyway, the votes of the 5 delegates are only active when Congress is in
``committee of the whole'' status, which apparently does NOT include floor
votes.

Jesse Jackson is NOT a delegate to the House of Representatives. Eleanor
Holmes Norton is (for the District of Columbia, anyway).

-- 
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735.  ***Clinton-Gore 92***
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
According to the January 5, 1992 _New York Times_ 0.1% of all abortions in the
United States occur in the third trimester.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<1992Dec29.230800.21195@panix.com> <bhayden.725731091@teal>
	<1992Dec30.213440.216@eff.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 17:09:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.213440.216@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

   In article <bhayden.725731091@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes
   in response to Mark Eckenweiler:

   >I don't understand how you can be exonerated from a crime, and
   >yet you can be factually guilty. The judicial determination of
   >the guilt was essentially overturned. Yet you can sit there and
   >say that he was guilty anyway. 

   Where was North exonerated? His convictions weren't overturned because of
   any flaw in the trial court's factual determinations about North's
   conduct.

A few months back there was an interview in the Globe with one of the
North jurors.  She said she felt he was innocent on all counts but voted
to convict on three of the lesser charges because, "...how could I go
home and face my neighbors if I didn't convict him of something?"  Nice
impartial jury there.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Hey, Bill, WAKE UP!!!!
Date: 24 Dec 1992 04:23:51 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) says:

>In article <1h57fuINNddk@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume) writes:
>}In a previous article, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) says:
>}>Obviously this person has a great future as a fiction writer.  Anyone
>}>who watched the conference knows that Clinton and Gore not only
>}>stayed awake, but demonstrated a solid grasp of the issues discussed.
>}
>}  As a matter of fact I taped and watched the full coverage. And if 
>}you didn't see Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore sitting in their chairs,
>}eyes closed and head pointed toward their lap then you sir must have
>}missed a large portion of this event.
>
>That is what Polen means by "solid grasp of the issues"..asleep.

 He probably figured Hillary would tell him all about it later but
she was dozing a bit herself.
-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   /   / __  /  /     |         Wally Blume         | Earth:
  /   / _ / /  / /_/  |      Internet address:      |    Mostly harmless.     
 /_/_/ /_/ /  / __/   | cd651@cleveland.freenet.edu |-HH Guide to the Galaxy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Democrat Wars? (was Re: Democrat == Loony Left???)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:57:21 GMT

In article <1756@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>: :       Just about every Republican since WWII has considered these
>: : wars to be worthy causes, indeed very noble ones. Just consider Nixon
>: : on continuing the Vietnam War before he decided on the "declare
>: : victory and quit" solution of "Vietnamization". And consider what
>: : Reagan thought of the war. He didn't say how awful it was of the
>: : Democrats to get us involved in it. He called it a "noble cause", as
>: : if that was somehow irrelevant.
>: 
>: Let's go ahead and rewrite history, It will be fun!
>: 
>: Republican D. MacAuthor *begged* LBJ on his deadbed *NOT* to send American
>: ground forces into Vietnam. The Republican objection to Vietnam is that
>: the Democrates WOULD NOT WIN IT they (Democrates) just sent more and more
>: American kids overthere to get killed. Then when Republican Nixon finally
>: DID WIN IT. The Democrates REFUSED to allow Nixson to enforce the Paris
>: Accords. (Bomb N. Vietnam). 
>: 
>: Also Truman practically invited N. Korea to invade S. Korea. The Chinesse
>: troops which reversed allied victories where "freed" for action when
>: Truman ordered the Seventh Fleet to protect the Chinesse main land from
>: Chiang Kai-shek. Thank God  F.D. Roosevelt was President during WW2 and
>: not Truman. 
>: 
>: jim shirreffs
>: 
>: 
>
>Yeah, I remember a lotta Republicans, marching around in their
>business suits chanting "Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill
>today?"  Remember the stirring speeches given by Republicans in
>the Senate, demanding that Johnson withdraw from Vietnam now?  
>Those anti-war Republicans; gotta love 'em.
>
>Bill
>:  

Bill I would love to have a memory like yours, just remember what 
you want to! 

The anti-war movement in the late sixty was not a monolithic one. 
I was composed of *many* factions. And yes bill republicans did chant
"Hey Hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today", while the radical left
was chanting "Ho Ho Ho She Min" (sp). Almost the *entire* country wanted
out of Vietnam, Republican Nixon ran on an anti-war platform, and won.
What's more he ended the war on terms favorable to the U.S. He did have
to widen the war to do it (Cambodia) but he *did* end it. Just like 
republican Eisenhower ended the Korean War. It's a fact bill, you can 
ignore it, you can forget it, you can say it ain't so, but it's a fact. 
<nonless I've forgoten something>

jim shirreffs
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:16:46 GMT

Yamanari writes:
#	You can bet that such a person would be into a hospital faster
#	than you or I could say, "Home run"...

You can bet. You'd lose. So, there is a double standard there. 

You, sir, are a bigot.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Pop Quiz
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:01:06 GMT

nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:

>Q: What is the difference between Nazi actions toward Jews in WWII and
>   Israeli actions towards Palestinians in the present day?
>A: U.S. backing. (Alternate answer: Volume.).

No ovens, no mass slaughters.  This isn't even funny.

Get a life.


-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 18:33:31 GMT

In article <C09LGq.Ctu@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:

   Al Thompson (art@world.std.com) wrote:
   : In article <C00z4x.8Ln@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
   : 
   :    Jay Denebeim P025 (denebeim@brtph254.bnr.ca) wrote:
   : [...]
   : 
   :    NOT quite as rosey as you make it out to be...
   : 
   :    : 1) The space program has always paid for itself by the worth of the
   :    :    technologies developed for it.  A very few are:
   :    :    a) Microelectronics without which we wouldn't even be talking.
   : 
   :    AT&T, the PHONE company (as opposed to a space technology company)
   :    invented the transistor.  Microelectronics would have happened without
   :    the space program.  DEFENSE technology had much more to do with all
   :    of the stuff you talk about here and even the space program itself.
   : 
   : Not so.  It was the space program's need for low weight, low power
   : electronics and NASA's willingness to pay any price for it that fueled
   : the development of the technology.  This activity drove the price down to
   : the point where it was economically feasible to offer solid state devices
   : in consumer electronics.
   : 

   The need for lightweight electronics in fighter aircraft and cruise missles
   had MORE drive than the space program.

Wrong!  Check out the Reid reference.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 16:42:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.172153.27129@seachg.uucp> chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask) writes:

>If anyone is going to take him at all seriously, I
>think he owes it to the discussion to tell us what he is founding his
>platform on, and why he becomes so irrationaly emotional about the issue.
>

Why?
He just sayus what he wants to say, and you can say your piece.
There is no need to say why he is doing it.
He expresses an idea, and you can answer to that idea with another.
No need to explain why you have that idea, if you actually have it.

AAP







Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 09:08:53 GMT

In article <1i0a1vINNilk@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>Or calls you insane, or a hypocrite, or resorts to foul mouthed tactics 
>etc. Two months ago, I'd have laughed at such a stereotype and generalization. 
>Then I found soc.motss....wouldnt have believed it if someone told me, 
>but seeing is believing.  

I posted to soc.motss once, in response to something CC wrote.
Five or so people sent me email asking very nicely to refrain
from crossposting to soc.motss when responding to CC as the
subjects CC posts on are in violation of the soc.motss charter.

Had I decided to be an asshole and continue to crosspost
inappropriately I would have EXPECTED to receive nasty email.
Are you above the rules, or am I missing something?

You seem to be basing your opinion of all homosexuals on reading
soc.motss a few months. How long have you been alive? At least
twenty years I'm sure. Isn't it rather silly to throw out
decades of real life experience in favor of a few months of net
reading? If you were to base your opinion of the civility of
just about any group on their net writing you'd probably not
form a favorable opinion. Everyone knows this form of
communication tends to generate flames. Aren't you applying a
double standard wrt homosexuals vs everyone else on the net?

-- 
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ri0a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Richard Iswara)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.privacy,alt.sex,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: To boycott is not to censor
Date: 2 Jan 93 02:39:06 GMT
	<1993Jan1.172113.13999@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: Masters student, Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

A lot of talk about censorship. And to think that in the Roman Republican
times a censor means a Senator whose job is to take census and award 
contract for public work bids. How time changes the meaning of a word.

Richard
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Cuba : Is an embargo still necessary?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 13:11:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.022917.21108@vlsi.polymtl.ca> d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens) writes:
}Cuba is probably the most appealing
}tourist destination in america (great beaches, wildlife, history, culture,
}and cheap ) but it is cut off from its main potential client.

Interesting claim.  Let's check out some objective facts.

Let's use approximately 50 people who have lived in Cuba all their lives, have
freinds, relatives, and the products of a lifetime in Cuba.  Let's give these
people a choice between going to a resort in Cuba or leaving it all behind,
taking the affiliated risks, and getting away from Cuba.

What would they choose? Answer:  The plane landed in Maimi yesterday...


Off hand, I'd guess that they know more about the situation in Cuba than you,
or your sister after a brief visit, do.  Their evaluation of the situation
can be easily observed.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:03:08 GMT

In article <8@bbx.basis.com> scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.172153.27129@seachg.uucp> chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask) writes:
>>************************************
>>
>>I had e-mailed Clay asking for the motivation behind his ongoing diatribe, and
>>he responded that he can't answer "...every emotional distrubed homosexual...".
>
>Sounds like you got your answer.  Clayton Cramers come and go on the net.
>There have been others before him and there will be others to follow.

But The Party lives forever, it has always been and it always shall be.

-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  I have a trig midterm tomorrow and I'm
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  being chased by Guido the killer pimp.
This University is too Commie-	|  -Miles, from "Risky Business"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Re: Pop Quiz
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 01:53:49 GMT

bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:

>nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:

>>Q: What is the difference between Nazi actions toward Jews in WWII and
>>   Israeli actions towards Palestinians in the present day?
>>A: U.S. backing. (Alternate answer: Volume.).

>No ovens, no mass slaughters.

Not yet. Give them time--they're a younger nation. It took the Germans
several tries before they really mastered genocide; I'm sure they started
with simpler stuff similar to what the Israelis have been doing. One must
learn to walk before one can run...but one CAN learn to run provided the
initial desire to do so exists. Certainly the desire to kill Palestinians
exists among the Israelis.

It is blinkered idealism at its most naive to believe that, simply because
a people was once put upon, it cannot then turn around and become a bully
itself. This is patent bullsh*t--a first cousin to the "noble savage"
argument. I'm sure to a gutshot Palestinian teenager, the fine distinction
between being killed by a Nazi and killed by a Jew is lost.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Department of Energy nominee
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:11:00 GMT

James Meritt writes:
#Question:  In you opinion, what conclusions may you draw from these facts
#on the validity of the statement "get best qualified for the position"
#posturing, and what is the likelihod that the decisive consideration was
#NOT experience in the appointed position's functions?

It tells me that Clinton is going to return the Department of Energy
into something useful, as opposed to its purpose for the past 12 years
of making the DoD expenditures look cheaper by having the DoE make
the nukes.




--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc