HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: the VP debate
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:23:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: dogear.iaZosB4w165w
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes:

> Did anyone catch Gore's denial to Quayle's charge that the Clinton/Gore
> program would raise taxes by 150 gigabucks?  Quayle is right; that is exactly
> the amount that Clinton/Gore propose to raise in additional taxes, albeit fro
> multiple sources.
> 
> Quayle misrepresented it by implying that 150 gigaclams was to come solely by
> the Democratic promise of `soak the rich', but Gore's denial is unbelievable.
> Don't the Democrats pay attentions to their own proposals?

Stockdale was the only one who (at least) tried to answer the queries put
to him. He would, however, stumble off into a void though, nullifying his
answers. But Gore and (especially) Quayle did a reprehensible job with
their questions. I don't know what all the fuss, oooohs and aaaahhhs are
about. I've seen more substantive debates in kindergarten playgrounds
over who gets to play with the dumptruck.

GORE: "I did not say that."

QUAYLE: "Did too! did too!"

GORE: "Did not."

QUAYLE: "did too! Press! Press! I'm gonna pass out MEMOS!"

STOCKDALE: "I think that... When I was... I ran a civilization, and...
            The War in Viet Nam..."

GORE: "You ruin everything."

QUAYLE: "Do not! Do Not!"

STOCKDALE: "I feel like I'm at a ping-pong match."

MODERATOR: "The audience shouldn't hiss like that..."

QUAYLE: "Neener! Neener!"

PUBLIC-1: "Quayle wins!"

PUBLIC-2: "Gore wins!"

PUBLIC-3: "Stockdale wins!"

This debate only offers us a choice of what level of mental incontinence
we'd like to have guiding our country. Let's hope that which-ever of the
choices makes the trip to Washington lays in a goodly supply of Brain
Pampers, a kind of Depends for the Mind.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan )
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: the VP debate
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:44:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct15.154434.23692
Organization: UW Computing

In article <MS-C.719109232.662824084.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> Mark Crispin <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:
>Did anyone catch Gore's denial to Quayle's charge that the Clinton/Gore
>program would raise taxes by 150 gigabucks?  Quayle is right; that is exactly
>the amount that Clinton/Gore propose to raise in additional taxes, albeit from
>multiple sources.
>
>Quayle misrepresented it by implying that 150 gigaclams was to come solely by
>the Democratic promise of `soak the rich', but Gore's denial is unbelievable.
>Don't the Democrats pay attentions to their own proposals?
>
Both campaigns are using *very* optimisic estimates for their projections.
I think in Clinton's proposal, they plan (hope) for economic growth of 4-5%.
Well, with that kind of growth, no other efforts would be required.  The
increase in jobs and taxes would take care of 'most' of the problems.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Monaghan: arithmetic-mean, melanin-deficient, gender-advantaged
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan )
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: VP debates
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:39:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct15.173908.28983
Organization: UW Computing

In article <1992Oct15.024658.5426@omen.UUCP> caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg) writes:
>
>No thanks to the liberal media, you are confusing the comments
>that the President was aware of "Iran arms-for-hostages", which
>he has called a mistake, with "Iran-Contra".
>
Bushes statements on the arms-for-hostage arrangement over the years have
been inconsistent, at best.

This week, when asked if he knew the arms were being traded for hostages,
he said "Yes, and I've said so all along, given speeches on it".

But in Dec 1986, Bush said Reagan was "absolutely convinced that he didn't
swap arms for hostages" and then in Feb 1987, Bush said he didn't realize
the transactions could be considered arms-for-hostages.

Bush testified, under oath, before the Walsh investigation, but that
testimony is now part of Reagan's presidential library and has not been
made public.

Bush gave testimony before the Tower investigation, not under oath.  In
the 1988 campaign, Bush promised he would make that testimony public, but
he hasn't yet.

This week, Bush said he wasn't at an important meeting on the
arms-for-hostage deal, where Weingerger and Schultz, opposing the plan,
according to Bush "...almost got into a shouting match, I'm told."

But in 1988, Bush said "records indicate I probably attended [that]
meeting, but I do not recall any strenuous objections" to the arms sales
to Iran.


Why can't George Bush just tell the truth?

C'mon Mr. President, just come clean!
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman)
Subject: Re: the debates
Organization: Tacoma Screw Products, Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:38:29 GMT

In article <klg.718992140@statsci> klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross) writes:

Deletions...
>
>Does anyone recall the Nixon era when government and big business worked
>hand-in-hand to destroy this country's ecology, civil-rights and
>individualism? 

I missed that era.  Was this the same Nixon that enacted wage and
price controls?  Took the dollar off the gold standard?  Championed
giving 18-year-olds the vote?  Underwrote a drug study whose findings
were that marijuana should be legalized?  No, the Nixon you mention
sounds more conservative than that...

More deletions...

>The next president will be able to choose three Supreme Court Justices. Do
>we want a court packed to the hilt by Reabush? And Perot's no better, he
>seems to have the compassion of a pit-bull. 

Now, this is a legitimate argument for voting for Clinton.  This
country would do pretty well if it had conservative lawmakers and
a liberal court.  Then the lawmakers would only pass those laws
that were absolutely necessary, and the court would knock them all
down for impinging on people's rights.  The opposite scenario would
indeed be dire - a liberal congress passing laws faster than they
could be read into the record, and a conservative court upholding
everything on the doctrine of "good faith".

>                                            Do we really want a country
>that doesn't care?

I dunno.

>                      Voting for Clinton would at least let the pendulum
>swing back the other way and provide the breathing room our country needs
>to get out from under the totalitarian regime that is now in power. Who
>needs a healthy economy if everyone is in jail? Can you say 1984?

Well, neighbor, (another Rogersism) 1984 was about a Socialist dystopia.
Much easier to achieve when the Presidency and the Congress are
controlled by the same party.  Personally, I think the Democrats are
just as intent as the Republicans on making just about every human
activity compulsory or unlawful.  They just part company on which
should be which.

(Sprinkle all my  above commentary lightly with smileys and
deposit in /dev/null)


-- 
David Breneman     Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. |  ____  ____  ____
dcb@tacoma.uucp           |   SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez-  |   /   /___  /___/ 
 ..!uunet!tacoma!dcb      |  "Nylok lock nuts lose their  |  /   ____/ / 
CompuServe: 75760,1232    | binding strength after 1 use!"|
From: wolffie@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: woodstove emission control device
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:57:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct15.165714.26475
Reply-To: wolffie@u.washington.edu
Distribution: pnw
Organization: University of Washington

A cheap, simple and effective modification of your woodstove can reduce its  
smoke emissions drastically.

Simply drill a pinhole in the smokestack or chimney large enough so that,  
say, 0.001% of the stack fumes are vented directly back into the house.

It works on the same principle as siting the sewer effluent pipes of  
factories or communities *upstream* of their water intake pipes, or making  
automobile horns that sound as loud *inside* the car as they do outside.

Once YOU are breathing as much of your smoke as you're asking your neighbors  
to breathe, you'll sson find ways to stop smoking (insulation?  
weatherization? natural gas? solar?).

In a 13-month study of Seattle air quality (9/89-9/90) during which  
particulate matter never exceeded 70% of national air quality standards for  
what is conidered unhealthful air, UW and EPA researchers Koenig and Larson  
directly linked asthma/respiratory emergency-room visits at 8 Seattle-area  
hospitals with exposure to particulate matter on the previous day.  Nearly  
half the 2,955 persons visiting hospitals were 20 years old or younger.

Levels of particulate matter matter are measured by averaging readings over  
24 hours in micrograms per cubic meter of air.  150 is considered unhealthy;  
a first-stage air quality alert is issued when it reaches 300.  During the  
study period, Seattle's highest reading was 103, and the mean was 29.6. 

Seattle air is actually considered pretty good (cough, cough) compared to  
many places, but apparently it's still bad enough to make our young people  
sick.

Source: University Week vol. 9 #30, 6/25/92 (UW Health Sciences circular).

John Wolff,    Los Angleles del Norte, WA
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed)
Subject: Re: the debates
Reply-To: robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP (Robert Reed)
Organization: Home Animation Ltd.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:13:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.192047.2007@kopachuk.uucp> dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman) writes:
    
    Just out of curiosity, what don't you like about Stockdale?  I didn't
    see the whole debate, but the part I saw didn't leave me with the
    impression that he was any worse than the others.  Just because
    someone isn't a polished (some would say slick :-)  ) orator
    doesn't mean they aren't gifted in other areas.  In fact, if all
    a person *can* do is look good in public, then they are probably
    lacking in other skills.  Stockdale is a respected member of a
    think-tank and the author of several books, so he can't be a
    doddering old fool.

What bothered me about Stockdale was the number of times that he either didn't
have an opinion on a subject and showed that he hadn't really thought about it,
or that his position comprised a rambling collection of unfocused thoughts.
From: ken@GTEtele.com (Ken Swapp)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Australian shepards (dogs)
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:28:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: GTEtele.1992Oct12.212851.5240
Organization: GTE Telecom, Inc.

Does anybody know about this breed?
I have searched through library books, but can find nothing.  
Of several dog-knowledgeable people, only one can even confirm
the existance of the breed.

I believe they are different than the short-haired Australian
cattle dogs; at least the medium-sized puppy I met on a hike
looked *very* different (more German-shepard-is).  My interest 
is sparked, but too late to ask the owner.

Thanks for any information.

Ken Swapp			
ken@gtetele.com
Disclaim, disclaim ...
-- 
Ken Swapp			
ken@gtetele.com
Disclaim, disclaim ...
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Newsgroup Creation (Was Proposal for pnw.motss)
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:43:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: dogear.eJqcsB5w165w
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

osiris@halcyon.com (David Ruggiero) writes:

> This discussion has been conducted, as far as I can see, in a relatively
> thoughtful and fairly low-key manner, and I fail to understand your
> objections to it.

Well, I think what he means is that the discussion is supposed to be
about pnw.motss. So much discussion has moved to the idea of Policy
and Procedure, that the initial topic has become lost.

I have no objection to pnw.motss, and figure that the proponents may
as well go ahead and issue the newgroup ctl message. 'Get the show 
on the road' for them --to coin a phrase. Then we can persue the 
discussions on P&P without leaving a valid issue hanging in the wind.

However, even though I think Ed Morin's suggestion was about right
for voting guidelines, I also feel a need to question whether or not
a formal policy is necessary. How many groups have been spawned in
the last year? I think it's been only a couple.


--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: billmcc@seanews.akita.com (Bill McCormick)
Subject: Re: the debates
Organization: SEANEWS - Seattle Public Access News & Mail
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:20:12 GMT

In article <3760@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:
>would stand for it. At best he'd be impeached on some trumped-up charge. At
>worst he'd be assinated.
	       ^^^^^^^^^

Some might argue this has already happened.  :-)

Bill
-- 
SEANEWS  []  Seattle News + Mail  []  Public Access  []  +1 206 937 9529
E-mail for PGP key.   MD5 (no sigs) is: 8e253e95133365a292261c7d0da58bcb
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: georgere@microsoft.com (George V. Reilly)
Subject: pnw.politics
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:00:33 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

Should there be a pnw.politics newsgroup?  If there were, most
of the discussions in pnw.general would be more appropriately
held there.
________________
George V. Reilly   <GeorgeRe@Microsoft.Com>
Xref: sparky pnw.general:2325 seattle.general:3326
From: john@tc.fluke.COM (John Hebert)
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general
Subject: IC Circuit/Layout Job Postings
Keywords: IC Circuit, IC Layout
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:32:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: tc.1992Oct13.013203.15993
Followup-To: john@fluke
Distribution: pnw
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

see: misc.jobs.offered or comp.lsi for more information.
From: wood@eisley.wa.com (Ken Wood)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: the debates
Summary: FEMA is not about natural disasters.
Keywords: Perot FEMA government martial law civil rights
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 08:55:36 PDT
Organization: Mos Eisley Spaceport BBS

monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan ) writes:

> FEMA, judging by their 'success' after hurricane Andrew, should not be any
> worry.
> 
     FEMA's job is not about hurricanes or other natural disasters.  That 
is a minor secondary point at best.  When such a disaster occures they 
usually just send a rep or two to hand over a check.  That's if they show 
up at all.  There real concern is act's of war and the like.  And yes 
they are something to worry about.

> BTW, before and during the civil war, Lincoln suspended the writ of
> habeous corpus, arresting some (most) of Maryland's legislature so they
> couldn't vote for secession, commadeered the telegraphs, preventing
> newspapers from sending/receiving information.  Several court challenges
> went against him, which he ignored and continued the suspend various
> constitutional rights.
> 
> Look waht Nixon did on the "Saturday night masscre", of course, he was
> eventually caught. :)
> 

     Like many of the great myths we were taught in school Lincoln was 
not all he was made out to be.  He certainly was not the great president 
he is made out to be.  President Lincoln started the great tradition of 
trampling on the constitution.  His administration changed the way the US 
was referenced to.  Prior to this it was the united states of America (
as a descriptive phrase ).  After the civil war it became United States 
of America ( as a proper name ).  
 
     As for Nixon look up Executive order 11490 some time for a real 
chill.  Nixon was the one who signed it.  It's really scarry to see the 
power he gave himself.  Luckily he didn't try to use it.

     Ken Wood



+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| wood@eisley.akita.com           :     Don't eat the rocks.              |
| eisley!wood@polari.online.com   : -The First Law of Bovine Cogitation.- |
| wood@seanews.akita.com          :                                       |
| wood@pismo.wa.com               :     Who let the pigs play poker?      |
| (In above order of preference.) :     Evo Shander was right!            |
| "Don't look back, someth'in might be gaining on ya."  -- Satchel Page   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: the debates
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:58:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: Celestia.1992Oct13.235823.10661
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA

In <3760@master.CNA.TEK.COM> mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:

:Granted, Perot made the most sense. But, just let him try to impose the subsidy
:reductions, tax increases, and changes to the status quo that he proposes.
:Neither the American power structure nor the American public
:would stand for it. At best he'd be impeached on some trumped-up charge. At
:worst he'd be assinated.

The main advantage to either Perot or Bush is that they'll
probably be at a continual stalemate with congress.  My fear is
that Clinton will get elected and he and congress will really
destroy the country.  No government is better than government
kow-towing to the lowest common denominator trying to buy
re-election by promising something for nothing!

:Kennedy also threatened the status quo, and see what happened to him.

If I were Dan Quayle and somebody told me ``You're no Jack Kennedy'',
my reply would be ``Thank God''.

Bill
-- 
INTERNET:  bill@Celestial.COM   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: David Ruggiero <osiris@halcyon.com>
Subject: Re: pnw.politics
Originator: osiris@halcyon.com
Reply-To: osiris@halcyon.halcyon.com (David Ruggiero)
Organization: [none - why fight entropy?]
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 07:59:25 GMT

georgere@microsoft.com (George V. Reilly) writes:

>Should there be a pnw.politics newsgroup?  If there were, most
>of the discussions in pnw.general would be more appropriately
>held there.

Lordy, you can set your clocks by how often this idea recurrs. :)

I think the last time this was discussed to death, the consensus was that
between the (relatively) low volume in pnw.general and the ease with which
a kill file can be put to use to screen out certain subjects (and posters),
any pnw.get-the-silly-arguing-people-out-of-pnw-general group was, in the 
main, a Bad Idea.

Other's recollections and opinions of this are likely to differ, of course.
We are talking about the net, after all.

-- 
David Ruggiero  (osiris@halcyon.com)      Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: craig@halcyon.com (Craig Suhadolnik)
Subject: Looking for Jacqueline Berry
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: wa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:27:50 GMT

Does anyone on the net know how to get in contact with Jacqueline, 
formerly of ISSI Data Products in Bothell?

Thanks for any information!


Craig Suhadolnik 455-4520  
-- 
Craig Suhadolnik                                craig@pmi.com 

PACIFIC MICROSYSTEMS, INC                       206-455-4520    
11012 NE 3rd Place                              FAX 455-4672 
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: bud@kentrox.uucp (Bud Couch)
Subject: Re: Protest Vote '92  (Was: Don't waste your vote on Bush or Clinton)
Organization: ADC Kentrox, Portland OR
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 01:13:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct09.152435.7133@microsoft.com> davidst@microsoft.com (David Steckler) writes:

>laws. If a criminal wants a gun, he can get one easily and even shutting down
>the manufacturing bases in the US isn't going to do a thing as other countries
>will just step in and fill the void (as I pointed out in my previous post).
>
You don't really need to show that any other countries will manufacture firearms.
The manufacture of a quite accurate and servicable firearm is a piece of cake to 
any jackleg machinist with access to a metal lathe. (BTW, _ANY_ decent automotive
machine shop has all the tools needed.) And with the level of profit to be made,
the need *will* be filled. Remember bathtub gin? 

The mistaken belief that it requires a huge technological base to make guns is
a consequence of the failures of our education system. Remember Clarke's Law,
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistguishable from magic"? In an 
otherwise educated forum such as the net, it's MNSHO that we've produced a 
surplus of software weenies. :-)
-- 
  Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox    | That which does not kill me makes me strong.  |
 If my employer only knew... |                              -Nietzsche       |
   standard BS applies	     | ... but why risk it?  - me                    |
From: ellis@daffodil.LABS.TEK.COM (Cynthia Ward)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: the debates
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:16:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: crl.4828
Organization: Computer Research Laboratory, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton OR

In article <1992Oct12.163346.9100@u.washington.edu> monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan ) writes:
>In article <MS-C.718850250.1103527590.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> Mark Crispin <mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> writes:
>>Bush spent most of his time bragging about his record in international affairs
>
>The irony being that Bush doesn't have *that* great of a foreign policy
>record.
>
>In Panama, we beat up a fourth rate "defense force" while levelling whole
>neighborhoods and killing hundreds (or thousands) of civilians, to capture
>our dictator whom we lost control of, to stop a drug trade which continues
>in Panama.
>
>We allow Iraq to divert grain credits for the purchase of arms and
>chemical and nuclear weapons technology, then spend millions to beat up on
>that third rate army.

... while levelling (sic) whole neighborhoods and killing thousands (and
thousands) of civilians, and we didn't capture the dictator this time.

>Bush ignored the Russian revolution until the reality slapped him in the
>face, while coddling China's dictators after they massacred they students.

I thought Bush REALLY blew this one by not supporting Gorbachev with $$$$
while he was still in power. If Bush had given him some money, just a
fraction of what was wasted on the Persian Gulf War, the Soviet Union 
might well still be united, and I think this would have cut down on the
bitter ethnic civil war that we're seeing all over Eastern Europe, IMHO.
Even if it had been decided that it would be better to not have Gorbachev
remain in power, the transition could have been managed better.

Back to the original topic ...

I saw an interesting profile of Bush just a couple of days ago (it was
either on PBS or CNN?). It demonstrated (with specific examples) how, time 
and time again, Bush's way to operate is totally reactive. He lets things
come to a crisis point, then takes decisive action. 

Bush does have a better foreign policy record than domestic policy record.
I guess this technique works better in the foreign arena. It sure isn't how 
a manager is _supposed_ to manage though (!! unless Bush has been reading a
whole different set of "how to manage" books than me).

I got a kick how Bush said that if he's re-elected, he'd have James Baker
take over domestic policy because Baker's been so effective on foreign policy.
I had two thoughts: 1) Let's get rid of the middle man; who needs Bush
when we can have James Baker!, and 2) Foreign policy requires a different 
skill set than domestic policy, and Bush has spent four years proving this 
point!


Cindy
Newsgroups: pnw.general