HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: In Denial About Being Victims of Heterosexuality
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:30:25 GMT

gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
] In article <1992Sep24.142230.17722@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
] }dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
] 
] }> I tend to believe that sex needs a deterent, and
] }> pregnancy seems to be a good one to me.
] 
] }This gets my nomination as the funniest, stoopidest
] }statement of the week.
] 
] I second that.  One of the Great Thoughts Of Western Man.  Sheeee.


Come On guys, Just Be HONEST with yourselves, that
you are victims of Heterosexuality and are NOT willing
to take the neccesary steps to seek TheCure!!!!!

Herr Meier has the Clear Understanding, the
Bright Light Of Truth!!!! We MUST outlaw
Heterosexuality or they will go on implying
death at people!!!!!

and as we all know that is a CLEAR INDICATION of Assault!

Which as we all know is clearly Illegal!!!!!

Hence it is Clear that Heterosexuality rests upon
a clearly Illegal Activity and MUST BE DETERRED!!!

OUTLAW HETRO NOW!!!!!!

ciao
drieux


ps: brought to by the committee for consistency in Laws....


-- 
Modern Day Problems

Does that 'answer' your question,
or should I be a little more vague.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.mideast
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: George Herbert Walker Bush, the "Environmental President"
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:12:46 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <MATT.92Sep28202727@physics16.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:

Typical left wing debating tactic - don't lie... just post a set of
misleading facts so that people draw conclusions that would be lies if
you said them outright.


>Today, at any rate, Bush did us all a service: he finally made it
>clear just what an "environmental extremist" is.  It turns out to be
>someone who opposes strip mining in National Parks.

Not quite...

It turns out to be someone who thinks that the people who spent good
money on buying mineral rights to land that was later incorporated
into National Parks should be stripped of those rights without any
compensation.  

>(And no, I'm not exaggerating.  The Bush administration really did
>approve a regulation today which would permit strip mining in National
>Forests and National Parks.)

Actually, you are exagerating.

The Bush administration brought the government into compliance with a
bunch of court decisions which said that if the government wants to
take away those mineral rights then the government has to pay for
them.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,soc.motss
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:36:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.172003.28523@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
    >/(phil) /You are one hell of a stupid motherfucker, to quote
    >Arnold.
    >
    >Ooooh! Such strong words. Here, lemme see if I can say them
    >also:
    >
    >Phil, you are a fucking irrational bastard who wants a legal
    >foundation to practice homophobia.
    >
    >There; how did I do?

As usual, pretty damn poor.

1. I do fuck. But you didnt mean it that way, so, you lose this one.

2. I'm very rational. You lose again.

3. Bastard? Nope, my birth certificate clearly shows my mother being married.

4. Wants a legal foundation? Nope, I'm in favor of adults doing anything
   consensual.

5. Practice homophobia? Nope, I have no fears on that.And no wish to
   practice any such thing.

So, you're zero out of five. Typical.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media Coverage for Marrou.... (Post 1-800 Talk-Show #'s)
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:40:00 GMT

{ talk.politics.misc, 5 Oct                            }
{ Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!) }

>From: Steve Givot <Steve.Givot@f418.n104.z1.fidonet.org>
>Date: 02 Oct 92  11:13:17
>
>To:    All Libertarians and anyone else who wants to see the media
>       cover the Marrou/Lord Campaign.
>
>Re:    What to do to make this happen

>WE ARE ASKING YOU TO INVEST MONEY IN YOUR TELEPHONE BILL. 

There's also another option (see below)

>It is crucial that ALL libertarians call the following
>news organizations, OVER AND OVER...

Please post those 1-800 numbers for the talk-radio and talk-tv 
programs from around the country.

For instance, there is a Libertarian-voting-for-BUSH who is a
host for a local program on KLIF radio from 3-6 pm cst. His name
is David Gold. At other times during the day there are other hosts
who are liberal, moderate and otherwise (so you take your chances
on getting hung up on). 

The station mostly takes local calls but gives preference to the 
long distance call-ins since it says something about their broadcast 
coverage. 

The number is 1-800-743-1570, and the station is AM 570 KLIF.

The afternoon schedule today is:
 
	3-4pm    open lines   "cheating in marriage."
	4-4:30   interview    "Martin Anderson, college depravity"
        4:30-5   open lines
        5-5:30   interview    "GG Meyers PI, checking on cheaters"
        5:30-6   open lines

David Gold is very, very political, and basically a social and
fiscal conservative. He's bounced between Libertarian and Republican
the past several months and eventually caved in to vote for Bush
when the prez did a call in interview for him.

This is how you get more coverage for the libs, pops and whoever.
Provide the toll-free numbers and the schedules and have fun.

-- Stephen     "Think About IT... Harder, Harder!"

PS. Tell David your a "1 percenter" he claims to being a "5 percenter"
and that all the socialist scum are "90%'s." 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
From: cea1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Carolyn E. Adams-Price)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:53:41 GMT

With regard to the young man who asked if women were rational when
they chose abortion, let me say, YES, YES, YES.
In my years as a female psychology professor, a number of female
students have come to me to talk about their options (my funding
can't be taken away for it!!!) and they have all been very rational,
no matter what they decided. Furthermore, research says that college females who
choose abortion are emotionally more stable and adjusted to their decision
two years later than those who kept the baby and those who gave it up
for adoption.  I'm not recommending abortion, good birth control or
waiting for a stable relationship is better, but I am arguing that
women who choose it know what they're doing.



Carolyn Adams-Price
Department of Psychology
Mississippi State University


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Decline of America: Health Care (III)
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:00:10 GMT

The Decline of America: Health Care (III)

"When pollsters asked U.S. citizens if they'd prefer Canadian health
    care over their own, 72 percent said yes. As for the number of
          Canadians who'd choose the U.S. system: 3 percent"

"`You've got to remember, you've got a waiting list as well, but it's
not as obvious. If you're poor and you don't have insurance, you don't
    go to a surgeon. In the States you ration by ability to pay.'"

    "In a 1988 Harris poll 90 percent of the public responded that everyone
    should be entitled to care "as good as a millionaire could get." Yet,
    health care in the U.S. is increasingly a privilege."

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Each $1 spent on prenatal care saves:
$3 during the first year of the child
$9 over the child's lifetime
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The cost of one day of intensive care for a premature baby equal the
entire cost of prenatal care. [Yet while in Canada prenatal care is
free to all, in the U.S., millions of Americans who are poor,
uninsured, or underinsured, go without prenatal care, at a staggering
human and economic cost.]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For tons more info and documentation [ie footnotes for cited
information], use the GET command on the file named HEALTH INSURANC
[sic]

    ======================================
    To get a file named FILE NAME from the
    archiver (files are two words  separa-
    ted by a space), send the 1-line message

    GET FILE NAME ACTIV-L

    to: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET
    [or: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU]
    ======================================

    Use GET with the file ACTIV-L ARCHIVE for a listing of
    files available with the GET command.

e.g., send GET ACTIV-L ARCHIVE ACTIV-L to LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET to be
emailed the index of archived files.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:27:46 GMT

>|> "For months, CompuServe Information Service has excluded
>|> Marrou from the list of candidates in their on-line
>|> poll," remarked Dasbach. "Finally, in late August, he
>|> was included. The most recent results (9/11/92); Bush
>|> 43%, Clinton 42%, Marrou 5%, Someone Else 3%, No One 1%,
>|> Undecided 5%."

lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com (Les Bartel) writes:
>Keep in mind that CompuServe users and computer users in general
>are different from those people who don't use computers in many
>subtle and not so subtle ways.  I would venture to guess that
>most CompuServe users are white-collar workers, and very few are
>blue-collar workers.  This could show up as a strong bias in the
>stats you quote as opposed to the true national opinion which
>is best interpreted at the polls.

>Stats are useful tools, but one must be very careful to understand
>any biases that may be present.

I think the bias is in how informed this group (Compuserve users) is
on the Libertarian Party.  It shows that where people know about LP,
they vote LP.

I have read that 25% of the country agrees with the LP philosophy
without any persuasion, and it's obvious that none of the other 3
candidates are libertarian (little-o).  Therefore, I don't think it
would be unreasonable to expect, if given the same exposure as the other
3 in national debates, for Marrou to garnish a significant showing.

And that 25% should go up as the socialist system continues to bring our
economy to its knees.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Latest Statistics
Originator: rja@redwood26
Keywords: This is from today's SF Chronicle:
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:59:38 CDT


In article <1992Oct2.004353.27919@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
> -Durable goods orders fell in August by .1%. Without the transportation
>  sector, they were down 1.3%.
> 
> -Sales for existing single family homes fell 3.2 %
> 
> -Total personal income fell sharply in August (no stats listed)
> 
> -Consumer confidence fell in September for the third consecutive month.
> 
> -The index of leading economic indictors fell .2% in August.
> 
> 	From an article by Robert Reno.

Don't forget that 200,000 jobs (net) were eliminated in the last 2 months,
yet the unemploment rate dropped 0.2%.  Go figure...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48651 alt.rush-limbaugh:6230 alt.politics.elections:14677 alt.politics.clinton:7845 alt.politics.bush:7218
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:35:28 GMT


varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:

>>In article <1992Sep25.232935.745@muddcs.claremont.edu> gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Manu) writes:

>>>	Oh give me a break.  A large percentage of anti-abortionists are 
>>>	women too.  Give it up.

>>This is not so.  In fact, the majority of people working against
>>abortion are male.  Publicly they make sure that all quotes come from
>>women, but this is just to make them look like anti-choice is the voice
>>of women.

>	Oh PLEASE!!!! Such blatently false statements are absolutely
>inexcusable.

Here, have a data point.

American Life League:

I have a magazine dated 1991.  It gives the ALL officers.
The president is female (Judie Brown).  Of the remainder, 7 are
male (including a Rev. and a Fr.), 3 are female.

And they list "Medical and Legal Writers and Advisors".  The
Chairman is male.  Of the other names 15 are male, 1 is female.

There are 12 articles in the issue.  3 were written by females,
9 by males (including Randall Terry preaching yet again why
Christians should not use contraception - any contraception).

Just a data point.

>			Bruce

                 -rocker
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48673 alt.politics.elections:14694 talk.abortion:39499
From: "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:22:54 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:20:39 GMT
>FROM:   Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

>Why?  Because they're not really interested in economically efficient
>transportation; they just hate cars.
>
>-andy

Let's try applying this principle to another topic:

"They aren't really interested in health; they just hate cancer."

Isn't hating cars (or cancer) really quite sensible? Or are you perhaps 
suggesting that car-hatred results from some obscure psychological 
motivation, rather than from the car's bad effect on environment, 
landscape, society, etc. ad infinitum? 

"Well, Doctor, it all started when they took me home from the hospital....
in a CAR...."

"I zee. I zee. Tell me more about ziss car...."

Turns out it was the tail fins. But I'll spare you the details.

--Michael Smith

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Perot Again?
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:30:44 GMT

From article <Bv5G77.F7H@apollo.hp.com>, by nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson):
> In article <1992Sep25.125958.15230@cbnews.cb.att.com> nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell) writes:
>>From article <Bv3ps1.KAq@apollo.hp.com>, by nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson):
>>>   My father died when I was in 
>>>   college and the SSA started sending us kids all checks.  We lived
>>>   in Wellesley Mass and were affluent.  I couldn't believe this was
>>>   due us and called the SS office to make sure.  Yep, all legal and
>>>   correct!   I bought a stereo, some camera equipment, a racing bike,
>>>   etc.  (I was a kid then, what did I know?).  But really, this 
>>>   is ridiculous and has to stop!
>> 
>>This from someone who dared me to prove that he'd benefited from deficit
>>spending just a day or two ago?  
> 
>   You obviously have no clue how old I am -- this was decades ago
>   and there have been several budget *surpluses* since then.

How old you are doesn't mean a thing.  If you and your "affluent"
family hadn't been on the dole we'd have had a budget surplus PLUS
the money that you saw fit to leech from the federal till.  The
downward spiral had to start somewhere and it sounds like like 
you're as guilty as anyone.

In another post you comment:

> "Why we are in this mess" is because some voters kept demanding
> more and more government services.  THOSE are the ones who should
> bear the costs of fixing it.  *I* was not among those.  *I* kept
> demanding balanced budgets.

It's not just the people who have demanded more government services,
it's also the people who have abused those that we already have.  It
sounds like you were in the vanguard of that movement.  Your self-
righteousness is laughable. 
 

"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: Sit down and shut up PEROT!!!!
In-reply-to: KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu's message of 30 Sep 92 11:32:54 GMT
Organization: pubs
Date: 30 Sep 92 10:34:06 CDT

KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

     Originally, I thought it was a great idea for a third candidate, I
   even signed a petition in Maryland, because Clinton and Bush are not 
   exactly the greatest candidates. ...

Although I'm hearing this sentiment less than I did a few months ago, I
never could figure why people were so negative about Clinton.  Is it
only because he had an affair?  Or what?  What I see (and have seen all
along) is a bright, energetic guy who wants to solve problems.  (Oh, and
he's a politician who wants to be president; somehow I think we can
expect that of people running for president.)  What am I failing to see?

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Kremlin_Gate: Bill Clinton in Moscow during Viet Nam.
Date: 6 Oct 92 10:58:14
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu's message of Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:03:00 GMT

In article <5OCT199219033406@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:

> But to find out while Bill Clinton was at Oxford in '69 that 
> he went to *Moscow* and eastern Europe in the dead of winter, 
> alone, and made efforts to change his citizenship to British,
> -- I'll be dead against him personally -- if all this is true.

I'm afraid I find this sentence very hard to parse.  There are two
very distinct claims about Clinton, one of which is completely
ordinary and the other of which is so absurd as to be completely
unbelievable.

Maybe Clinton did once go to Moscow as a tourist---fine.  Lots of
tourists have gone to Moscow, and I'd like to go to Moscow some day
too.  I've heard it's a very interesting city.

What on earth, though, does this have to do with the wild accusation
that Clinton wanted to renounce his citizenship?  The story just makes
no sense on its face: it is impossible for me to believe that Clinton
would want to renounce his citizenship, and it is also impossible for
me to understand why anyone would think there is any connection
between a tourist visit to Moscow and an application for British
citizenship.

It's like saying "George Bush read Lolita in 1975, and he tortures
small furry animals."  The first part of this claim may well be true
(and if it is, so what?), but has nothing at all to do with the
bizarre accusation of the second part.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Bush's China policy--what the hell is going on?
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:57:02 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <farenebt.718240223@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:

+>Bush vetoed a bill passed by congress that would have made China's
+>most favored nation trade status dependent on their human rights
+>record.

+>Is this the same Bush who condemned SAfrica's human rights record?
+>Is this the same Bush who has condemned Serbian atrocities in Bosnia and
+>	croatia?
+>Is this the same Bush who sent troops to the middle east to prevent
+>	the continuation of Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait?

+>I wonder how much oil China has.

	It has nothing to do with oil, it has to do with a veto in the
security council.

	Now if you go pick a fight with china, your not very likely to
get very far anyway.  The best you could hope for is to isolate china
which would probably end up helping the leadership.

	As bad as china is, they are not practicing apartied, systimatically
rounding up ethnic groups and killing them (Bosnia) or trying to take over
other countries (Iraq).

	Now if you want to talk about "human rights" violations, there is
a very long list as bad or worse than China including places like Burma
and Indonesia.

	But then again I have to wonder about the motives of people who
show such concern for poor Iraq and opposition to a policy that worked.


+>"Just say noe" to four more years of hypocrisy.

	Hypocrisy - People compaining about the Gulf war at the same
time they are talking about human rights in china.




Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc