HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CNN is not a good reference for Gore's Cari
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:41:15 GMT
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 4816@desire.wright.edu, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 	CNN was wrong.

Gee, you stated the "facts" so eloquently, how could anyone *dare* to
argue with you???


Bob De Guc
I vote, therefore, I am!!
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:10685 alt.politics.bush:9330
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:51:40 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Oct12.194546.19965@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
| 
| Blah. Blah. Blah.  That's not what I see.  I see a media and advertising
| saying use a condom when they know that condoms aren't that effective
| in stopping AIDS.  I read a statistic of 16% failure in stopping the
| AIDS virus.  That doesn't sound too effective to me when you're talking
| a lethal disease.

Whoa!

Citation, please.

You are spreading a quite remarkable number -- one that needs a citation and
some explanation.  For example, is this 16% per sex act, per year, per decade?
16% under what conditions?

   Fritz

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: black@jazz.concert.net (Rob Black)
Subject: Clinton vs. Carter Bush vs.Nixon??
Organization: MCNC Center for Communications -- CONCERT Network
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:02:59 GMT

This thought just occured to me. It seems to me that everywhere I
hear, "I'm scared to vote for Clinton 'cause I remember how bad things
were under Carter, blah blah blah blah."

So my qustion is this: Using the kind of logic stated above:ie;something
bad happening in the past means the same thing could happen again, why
aren't people using this same logic to evaluate Bush?? Remember that
little indiscretion in the early 70's called Watergate?? So if:


                       Carter = high interest rates, bad economy

                       therefore,

                       Clinton = high interest rates, bad economy

                       How come
      
                       Nixon = oval office scandal

                       does NOT equal the same under Bush??????


Rob Black

(yes I know that Iran-Contra was a scandal but I'm not arguing what
did or didn't happen, I'm just arguing the basic logic.)


Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.sex
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: AIDS
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 00:42:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Oct7.001205.2359@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Followups cut down somewhat.

No joke.  Those alt.fan.rush-limbaughers won't be able to read this.
(Who is Rush Limbauh, anyway?)

>In article <1aqmlvINNnvd@gap.caltech.edu> anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje) writes:
>>Yes...ANYONE can get it. AIDS doesn't care if your balck, white, gay or 
>>straight. 
>Neither does a rampaging rhinocerous or a lightning bolt, but I don't
>let those low-probability events affect my life, either.

Really?  I do.  I try not to piss off rhinoceri and I make sure I'm not the tallest one in a rainstorm.

Big Al.  Who charges bears, though.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.correct:5619 talk.politics.mideast:20877
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: What is a terrorist
Date: 7 Oct 92 06:52:38 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.correct
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <14533@chalmers.se> d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:
)
)  I'll take this opportunity to push my own definitions:
)
)Military intentionally targets military: war
)Military intentionally targets guerilla: counter-insurgency
)Military intentionally targets civilians: warcrime
)Guerilla intentionally targets military: guerilla-war
)Guerilla intentionally targets guerilla: very dirty
)Guerilla intentionally targets civilians: terrorism
)Civilians intentionally targets military: becomes combattant (guerilla)
)Civilians intentionally targets guerilla: becomes combattant
)Civilians intentionally targets civilians: 'normal' crimes
)
)  Depending on how you define unannounced hostile intrusions by unconventional
)forces, the Swedish Navy is thus engaged in either war or counter-insurgency, 
)not terrorism:)
What about these categories:
Military accidentaly hits civilians: ????
(i.e., F-16 flying on low-level bomb run on airbase or something has to make
 a sudden evasive manuever to dodge flak, SAMs, etc. and while doing so, the
 pilot accidentely hits the "pickle" button for the bombs and 3 500-pounders
 roll into the civilian dwellings near the base and kill a bunch of civilians
 what sort of action is that?)
Military mistakes civilian target for military one:????
(Still possible, even with today's intel capabilities a Human must decide what
 is in that photograph or what that radio intercept means.) 
You might categorize these under "criminal neglect" or something. I don't
know.
)
)
)-bertil-
)--
)"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
) strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
) exercise for your kill-file."
)"This is the famous Hasan B Mutlu-trigger, insert it in your .sig file today!"


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chester            |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Politically Incorrect      |"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us
Future Lunar Colonist      |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Tuesday, 29 Sep 1992 18:16:50 EDT
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Model United Nations Newsgroup

Would anyone out there be interested in creating a alt.politics.model united na
ions newsgroup?  Email f36si@cunyvm
Thanx
Matt
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 14:59:19 GMT

In <14OCT199214000932@zeus.tamu.edu>

>In article <1992Oct12.194546.19965@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galile
>>In article <1992Oct11.030319.9764@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.ed
>>>In article <1992Oct9.154536.10425@uoft02.utoledo.edu> jsteiner@anwsun.phya.ut
>>>>how is this fallacious?
>>>>    1. irrisponsible behavior is the primary factor in the spread of AIDS
>>>>    2. eliminating such behavior will slow the spread of AIDS dramatically.
>>>>
>>>>
>>Blah. Blah. Blah.  That's not what I see.  I see a media and advertising
>>saying use a condom when they know that condoms aren't that effective
>>in stopping AIDS.  I read a statistic of 16% failure in stopping the
>>AIDS virus.  That doesn't sound too effective to me

>That's also a 84% effective rate for condoms, and that's one hell of a lot
>better than no condom at all.

Agreed.  But the attitude among the condom-pushing crowd is that condoms are
"safe sex."  If they said "safe sex 84% of the time," do you think it would
give the same feeling of invincibility that some people who use condoms feel?

>[stuff about government wasting money on "no sex" pamphlets deleted]

>>
>>I'm amazed that you actually stumbled onto a point.  You're right.  There
>>are a lot of programs that could save more lives. Most AIDS activists believe
>>that AIDS is going to run wild.  If they are right then we need to make
>>it a priority.  But I would much rather see all of the money spent on
>>condom adds spent in education in how having sex especially anal
>>sex spreads AIDS.  As for the other lifesaving issues, call your
>>congressmen and tell them to get off their asses and stop spending
>>money on stupid money-wasting programs.  Elect a Libertarian.  Do
>>something but stop posting spurious observations.

>Where is all of this leading??? Concentration camps for people who have
>anal sex? And why are views different from your libertarian ones spurious?

I don't see that anal sex is so much worse than anything else.  I think that
more than anything (and I hate to generalize), it seems that people who
practice anal sex (including heteros) usually seem to have more partners.  It's
not that anal sex itself causes AIDS.  Homosexual sex is more prone to AIDS
only because AIDS was first rampant in this country as a "gay disease."  Of
course, if a hetero was the first here to get AIDS, gay sex might be the
safest!


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
*****************************************************************************
"Take a breath, Al.  Lighten up." -- Dan Quayle to Al Gore, 10/12/92

Xref: sparky alt.politics.correct:5711 alt.sex:33211
From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.sex
Subject: Re: AIDS
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:15:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Armory

In article <1992Oct7.001205.2359@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Followups cut down somewhat.
>
>In article <1aqmlvINNnvd@gap.caltech.edu> anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje) writes:
>>Yes...ANYONE can get it. AIDS doesn't care if your balck, white, gay or 
>>straight. 
>
>Neither does a rampaging rhinocerous or a lightning bolt, but I don't
>let those low-probability events affect my life, either.
>-- 
>ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
>also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
>ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
--------------
Yeah, I know the odds on heterosexuals who are young and inexperienced
getting HIV, but remember, if you don't know whether her last partner
was lying when he said he didn't do IV drugs, then you're in danger
not only of fucking up your life, but of fucking up other people's
lives who thought it couldn't happen to them either. Just because they
aren't usually lying doesn't mean that they never do. Also, of you
don't get tested, you are making it all the more dangerous for all of
us out there, one fuck at a time. And it branches in likelyhood
geometrically if everyone is like you in thinking that they are so
sure without some testing and some latex until six months and the
test. I wonder how many men out there have said they were a virgin to
entice a girl to "take" them. It's a favorite gambit lately. I found
this out among a couple sets of my friends when I had them all
together at an all-night foodrun and the topic turned to who had been
with who. We worked it out on napkins, and several people went home
very annoyed and one was crying, because she had thought she had been
with three virgin guys and it turned out others at the table had beat
her to them. And the liars were very sullenly amazed that they all had
lied so blithely, when they thought that only they were lying about
such things and that it wouldn't matter. Now they are wondering about
their partners in the past who weren't there that night and who they
had been with. The liars were equally divided by sex, I might add.
- Steve

-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *
Xref: sparky alt.politics.correct:5703 alt.sex:33125 sci.skeptic:18018
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.sex,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: AIDS and high-risk behavior
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:29:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Oct16.032956.21574
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct13.200032.28641@sco.COM> erics@sco.COM (eric smith) writes:
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct08.222634.7486@sco.COM> erics@sco.COM (eric smith) writes:
>>>Near-zero odds are great until it happens to you. 

>>This is the well-known "100% if it happens to you" fallacy.  
>>Wonderful rhetoric.  Miserable way to determine public policy.
>>The odds of being killed by a falling potted rhododendron are
>>near-zero -- but it's 100% if it happens to you.

>Exactly right. And if we can save people from being killed by
>potted rhododendrons through education and prevention programs,
>and encouraging them to use safe floral design techniques,
>even if the odds are near-zero, then I think those people are
>worth saving. Do you?

Are they "worth" saving?  Of course.  But how much of societal
resources should we devote to this problem?  There are opportunity
costs.  Remember that every dollar spent on potted rhododendron 
prevention is a dollar that can't be spent on education, on nutrition, 
on cancer, on pre-natal care, on Alzheimer's, on drug treatment,
on seat-belt safety.  

You weren't serious, were you?
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Xref: sparky alt.politics.correct:5704 alt.sex:33136
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Legislation of morality
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:23:54 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <92289.28342.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>>That's also a 84% effective rate for condoms, and that's one hell of a lot
>>better than no condom at all.
>
>Agreed.  But the attitude among the condom-pushing crowd is that condoms are
>"safe sex."  If they said "safe sex 84% of the time," do you think it would
>give the same feeling of invincibility that some people who use condoms feel?

Given that the effective rate is so much higher than 84% this is really
irrelevant.

>>Where is all of this leading??? Concentration camps for people who have
>>anal sex? And why are views different from your libertarian ones spurious?
>
>I don't see that anal sex is so much worse than anything else.  

Depends on how you define "worse."  In terms of HIV transmission, anal sex
isn't "worse", it's "better."  Which is exactly the point.  The government
pamphlets sit and say "sex" and don't distinguish between sexual practices
that are dozens times more dangerous (and in which condoms aren't particularly
effective.)

>It's
>not that anal sex itself causes AIDS.  Homosexual sex is more prone to AIDS
>only because AIDS was first rampant in this country as a "gay disease."  

No.  That's simply not true.  Men are at least seventeen times more
effective at transmitting AIDS than women.  Anal sex is a much better 
conduit for HIV transmission than vaginal or oral sex.  Even if there
weren't pockets of the gay community that were hundreds of times more
promiscuous than the average heterosexual or homosexual (see Randy Shilts's 
early book on AIDS), AIDS would have spread much faster among gay men than 
among heterosexuals.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Xref: sparky alt.politics.correct:5680 alt.rush-limbaugh:7388
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Percent of people with medical insurance
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:11:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

About a week or so ago I posted a claim that 83% of american citizens 
have health care.  This was disputed by nearly everyone to the left 
of rush limbaugh.  Well, for any of you who watched the debates last 
night, I'm sure you heard this:

	Your candidate, Bill Clinton, said that 35 million people 
did not have health care.  Run the numbers please.

	~300million citizens -35 million without yields

		11.7% without health care and 
		88.3% with health care

How's that?

Ted

-- 
"How dare you call us [people] `you people'!"
	-Benjamin Hooks

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Tuesday, 29 Sep 1992 20:11:56 EDT
From: <F36SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,
Subject: Model UN

Anybody out there going to the MASSIVE Model UN conference in NY City in April
at the Hyatt on 42nd St. and Lexington Ave.?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.correct:5709 alt.sex:33194 sci.skeptic:18038
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.sex,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: AIDS and high-risk behavior
Date: 16 Oct 1992 18:35:29 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <schumach.719254992@convex.convex.com>, schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>Never mind highly-trained professionals. A simple, common-sense
>measure like getting the drunks off the road would save a third of 
>those lives.

Perhaps you can cite some evidence to support this claim?  Just a statistic
that says that 1/3 of highway deaths involve drunk drivers won't cut it, since
that analysis ignores the fact that someone who's willing to drive while drunk
may not be a very good driver even when sober.  Don't get the drunk drivers off
the highways;  get the drivers who are incompetent for whatever reason off the
highways.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Percent of people with medical insurance
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 14:51:54 GMT

In <Bw5CpK.4vz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>:

>In article <1992Oct12.151122.16836@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo
>>About a week or so ago I posted a claim that 83% of american citizens
>>have health care.  This was disputed by nearly everyone to the left
>>of rush limbaugh.  Well, for any of you who watched the debates last
>>night, I'm sure you heard this:
>>
>>  Your candidate, Bill Clinton, said that 35 million people
>>did not have health care.  Run the numbers please.
>>
>>  ~300million citizens -35 million without yields
>>
>>       11.7% without health care and
>>       88.3% with health care


>Your figures are a little faulty.  As I remember, at the population of the
>US is something over 200M.  Also, the 35 million that Clinton was talking
>about is employable adults. Figuring that there is about 1/2 of the population
>that is employable, you end up with nowhere near 85% coverage with health
>insurance.

Do you know that he meant *employable adults*?  I've never heard him say that.
And does he have any proof or unbiased statistics to back it up?

Oh, and our population is about 250M.


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
******************************************************************************
"Take a breath, Al.  Lighten up." -- Dan Quayle to Al Gore, 10/12/92.
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: What is a terrorist
Date: 7 Oct 92 08:48:46 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

In article <81217@ut-emx.uucp> wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester) writes:
>What about these categories:
>Military accidentaly hits civilians: ????

>Military mistakes civilian target for military one:????

>You might categorize these under "criminal neglect" or something. I don't
>know.

  You more or less answered your own question here:) I'd just like to add
that IMHO there should be some sort of line between 'accident' and 'criminal
neglect'. This would be dependent on a lot of factors, like if the attacker and
the attacked had taken resonable precausions, and what their capability is.

>Patrick Chester            |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."
		"Revive the Swedish-Madagascan Brigand Pact!"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.sex
From: erics@netcom.com (Eric Smith)
Subject: Re: AIDS and high-risk behavior
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:23:45 GMT

aberman@cs.washington.edu (Andrew Berman) writes:

>In article <1992Oct08.222634.7486@sco.COM> erics@sco.COM (eric smith) writes:

>>Near-zero odds are great until it happens to you. Or your sister, brother,
>>child, parent, or friend. That's when you realize that whatever the odds
>>were, it doesn't matter because it's a human tragedy. And in a larger,
>>and more caring, view than yours, Ted, it's a human tragedy if it's
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Uh, this is how a flame war gets started.

>I've been following this thread, and I've seen NOTHING from Ted's
>postings that suggest he is any less caring than anyone else on the
>net. I've seen NOTHING to suggest that Ted doesn't consider it to
>be a human tragedy if anyone dies of AIDS.

>And if you've read that into it, well, take a minute to consider
>that you might have made a mistake.

I have posted a response to this from my other account, but articles
posted from there seem to take a long time to get out to the net, if
they ever make it at all. I do want to respond, so I'll repeat my
response here, and I'm sorry if another one just like it shows up.

OK, I admit I might have made a mistake. But it sure seemed to me that
what Ted was saying can be paraphrased as "hey, all us heterosexuals
don't need to worry about AIDS because the odds that we'll get it are
near-zero, so we can do whatever we like", disregarding the fact that
even near-zero odds mean that somebody, somewhere is going to get it.
It was the disregard for those people who happen to get caught by the
odds that I saw as uncaring. If I've misread the intent of his articles,
then I apologize for my statement.

-----
Eric Smith
erics@sco.com
erics@infoserv.com
CI$: 70262,3610

Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.sex,sci.skeptic