HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: the debates
Summary: The case for venality and corruption in government
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:24:51 GMT
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<

In article <MS-C.718850250.1103527590.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> Mark Crispin <mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> writes:
[...]
>The big winner was Perot.  He was fantastic.  I don't think he's going to be
>able to win the election, but you can't feel guilty about voting for Perot
>after tonight.  Whether the Bush-man or the blow-dried JFK-wannabie win, the
>next four years are going to be nasty.  A Perot voter will have the
>satisfaction of knowing it isn't his fault.

I was thinking of voting for Frank Zappa, or maybe writing myself in, gaining
the satisfaction without getting contaminated with Perot-taint.
My SO, when queried, said she was going to vote for Clinton, believing that
that was the best chance to get somebody friendlier to women on the
(not-so-)Supreme Court, which has, over the long term, far, far greater impact
than the activities of one presidential election/crapshoot winner.  A telling
argument IMO.  I may very well vote for Clinton for that reason.

Another argument in favor of "liberals" rather than "conservatives" running
the country is that they are more squeamish and less likely to implement
Draconian, Buchanan-like solutions to the problems they create, like the WOD.
I mean, as long as I have to pay taxes anyway,  I'd rather see the money
pissed away in boondoggles, makework programs, corruption and graft rather
than guns, law enforcement and boot camps.  Of course, most of the latter
*is* *also* the former, but that's beside the point.  The point is that
conservatives tend to have their shit together more than liberals do, and
if I *have* to be governed, I'd just as soon it were done by people who
*weren't* good at it.  Actually, one could regard the S&L scandal as the
price we social deviants all paid for not winding up in concentration camps
during the Reagan era -- attention being diverted to the financial
feeding-frenzy instead.  Lord help us all if we ever get non-corrupt people
in government.  There is absolutely no more insufferable type of human being
made than the incorruptable authoritarian!
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
 Nostalgic conservatives will soon be referring to the Bush Era as
 "those Halcion days of yesteryear".
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan )
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: the debates
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:33:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct12.163346.9100
Organization: UW Computing

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.

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



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Monaghan: arithmetic-mean, melanin-deficient, gender-advantaged
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: davidb@zeus.ce.washington.edu (David W. Barts)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Bicycle rentals in PDX
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:24:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct7.182406.7205
Followup-To: poster
Distribution: pnw
Organization: University of Washington

Can anyone recommend a place that rents bicycles (preferably mountain
bikes) in the Portland area?  I'm going to be taking the train to
Portland later this month and it would be nice to have a bike while I'm
there.

Mail responses to me as I'm not sure I'll have enough time to follow
this group this week.  Thanks.

--
David Barts  N5JRN                      UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
davidb@ce.washington.edu                Seattle, WA  98195
From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Protest Vote '92  (Was: Don't waste your vote on Bush or Clinton)
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:52:22 GMT
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<

In article <1992Oct12.011304.286@kentrox.uucp> bud@kentrox.uucp (Bud Couch) writes:
[...]
>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. :-)

Well, if I were running one of these gun buy-back programs, I'd modify
the final step, destroying the accumulated weapons, to *sabotaging* said
weapons, then, reinserting them back into the black market.  Note that
people who acquired their weapons through non-black-market channels would
be unaffected; the latter can afford to have their weapons tested by a
gunsmith anyway.  This way, a black-market weapon stands a pretty good
chance of damaging the user when the trigger is pulled.  Over a period of
time, could the proportion of sabotaged or bogus weapons out there rise
to as high as 10 percent?  Would that change the incidence of violent crime?
Or would that have any impact at all on a pool of people, most of whom,
have nothing to lose anyway?  Would there be a shift to other kinds of weapons?
If more knives were used, say, rather than guns, I'd reluctantly have to
count that as a gain of some kind.

I know that if somebody were pointing a weapon at me, and it went off,
I'r rather take my chances with shrapnel rather than a correctly aimed
bullet.  If I survive that, and the assailant is standing (or laying)
there with a shattered hand or worse, I can just walk (or more likely, totter)
away, which is a better outcome than if the weapon had functioned correctly.

Such an operation would certainly have to be sub rosa, perhaps maintained
by a clandestine group of "hobbyists" who get their jollies from seeing
people hoist by their own petard :) .  The fact that no huge technological
base is required makes the project reachable and doable by anybody whose
mindwarps extend in that particular direction... :)
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
 Nostalgic conservatives will soon be referring to the Bush Era as
 "those Halcion days of yesteryear".
From: irving@Happy-Man.com (Irving_Wolfe)
Subject: Re: Protest Vote '92 (Was: Don't waste your vote on Bush or Clinton)
Reply-To: Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Distribution: pnw
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:53:02 GMT

Dave's article is very good, but let me add, as far as availability
is concerned, that guns are "low-tech" devices.  A intelligent and
handy person can learn to manufacture them in his garage workshop.
There is thus no way to eliminate guns from a society that wants
them, and Dave pointed out good reasons for wanting them, so they
will stay around no matter what the law says.
-- 
 Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com      Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x101
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399   fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.   NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20.  Send POSTAL addrs: Solid-Value@Happy-Man.com
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan )
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: VP debates
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:50:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct14.225031.21964
Organization: UW Computing

In article <1992Oct14.203206.3524@omen.UUCP> caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg) writes:
>
> [ some stuff delete ]  He didn't pull any Clintons.
>

Sorry, my system apparently dropped the smiley face from your comment,
implying that you actually believe Quayle's rhetoric that Bush is somehow 
more forthcoming (eg Iran-Contra) and consistent (eg Jim Baker's future)
than Clinton.

But, as I think about it, no one could possibly believe such nonsense ;^)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Monaghan: arithmetic-mean, melanin-deficient, gender-advantaged
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky pnw.general:2379 seattle.general:3348 uw.general:129
From: bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob)
Newsgroups: pnw.general,seattle.general,uw.general
Subject: Perot Information
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:28:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: gibdo.1992Oct16.205324.3589
Organization: University of Washington


  The Perot campaign is airing a half-hour show tonight (Friday) and
  a one hour show tomorrow:

        Friday: 7:30 - 8:00 pm  C-SPAN          (west coast times)
            or  10:30 - 11:00 pm  NBC

        Saturday: 5:00 - 6:00  C-SPAN
                  8:00 - 9:00  ABC
  ==

  The next and last presidential debate will be Monday at 4pm. 

  (I'd like to see Perot challenge the other two to more debates,
  this time covering specific topics.)
  ==

  To contact the Perot Headquarters in Seattle call (206) 223-0062.
  They are at 1920 Terry Ave, one block east of the Greyhound bus
  station, between Stewart and Virginia on 10th.

  In Oregon, the number is 1-800-888-6943.  The headquarters in downtown
  Portland is at 2nd and Salmon, across from the Trade Building.
   
  Please stop by to ask questions, pick up a bumper-sticker, button or 
  t-shirt, or if you want, to volunteer for the last two weeks.
  ==

  I have already e-mailed over forty copies of Perot's book "United We
  Stand," which has been on the New York Times best-sellers list, but
  I'll be happy to send out more to anyone who wants it.  Just send
  me some mail.
  ==

  Bob (bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu)
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Newsgroup Creation (Was Proposal for pnw.motss)
Date: 9 Oct 92 04:26:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Oct9.042621.20938
Reply-To: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <1992Oct08.223536.2085@ssc.com> markz@ssc.com (Mark Zenier) writes:
>merlyn@ora.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
>>I have half a mind to let loose a newgroup ctl just to stop the discussion!
>No. This stuff needs to be settled.

I have a feeling that Randal has confounded things a bit. There are
two separate issues being discussed here:

Does anyone object to pnw.motss being created? There is no policy for
creating groups in the pnw heirarchies, so we're just sort of making
sure no one is too upset and then we'll send a newgroup. (so far, no
one seems to have any objections..)

Should we come up with a policy for pnw group creation, and if so what
should that policy be? The person who originally framed this question
was very careful to put it out of the context of creating pnw.motss,
both because it is a new question and because any decision here should
not apply to pnw.motss creation. This is a seperate question.
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/                      When you expect flutes, it's whistles
Xref: sparky pnw.general:2300 seattle.admin:165
From: simnet@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Mark R Poulson)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Perot in the White House?
Summary: Having absolute power.
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:46:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: ssc-bee.5605
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle WA

In article <3115@voodoo.UUCP>, mnb@voodoo.boeing.com (Mike Burr) writes:
> I agree.  My impressions of Perot are that he is only comfortable in
> being the *sole* authority.  While this is possible in your own company,
> how is this going to work with congress getting in the way all the time?

True only for a private company (which I don't think EDS was). The CEO of
a public company is to the President of the US, as stockholders are to the
Congress. Perot had to deal with major stockholders didn't he?

		Mark
From: jp@fnx.uucp (Jack Pospyhala)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Protest Vote '92 (Was: Don't waste your vote on Bush or Clinton)
Date: 9 Oct 92 08:05:47 GMT
Organization: I/Ovations

In <43716@ogicse.ogi.edu> kimf@ogicse.ogi.edu (Kim Flowers) writes:

>Also (for the same reason that some people want to ban all guns), no
>one would have a legitimate reason for holding a firearm, and
>possession of one would automatically make them a "criminal". This
>would make it a bit easier for the authorities to determine whether
>someone had a legitimate reason for holding a firearm or not. (I
>won't go into whether it's any of the "authorities" business).

Been to East L.A. lately?  L.A. has maybe the strictest gun control
in the country: *nobody* in East L.A. is likely to have a permit.
Doesn't keep them from carrying, or even having large numbers of
automatic weapons.

>As for importing guns from other countries, it's my opinion (this is
>without proof, feel free to show me I'm wrong) that the majority of
>firearms are manufactured in industrialized countries like the United
>States, and of the civilized countries with large enough industrial
>bases, the United States has a much more liberal attitude about
>distributing these weapons to the general populace. Even Third World
>countries that are awash in military equipment usually received them
>from a "civilized" country.

That is only because they can get the highest quality for the least
money from an industrialized nation.  Wherever there is a demand,
and a buck to be made, someone will step in to fill the need.

-- 
Jack Pospyhala                                    uunet!pilchuck!fnx!jp
There is no gravity, the world sucks...
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan )
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: the debates
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:16:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct13.161600.6499
Organization: UW Computing

In article <3145@voodoo.UUCP> howie@voodoo.boeing.com (howie) writes:
>
>
>CNN is reporting that the debating experts from Oxford University rated the 
>three participants as follows:
>
>	Perot:   was the clear cut winner
>	Bush:  did "so so"
>	Clinton:  failed miserably
>
>
Now that's weird.  UPI reported that debate judges, scoring the debates
using the criteria for 'regular' debates, had Clinton the clear winner in
(if memory serves me) 8 out of 10 categories, Perot winning two categories,
and Bush zero.
From: jdt@voodoo.boeing.com (Jim Tomlinson)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: the debates
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:56:44 GMT
Reply-To: jdt@voodoo.boeing.com
Distribution: pnw
Organization: BoGART To You, Buddy

In article <1992Oct12.172451.13818@eskimo.celestial.com>, kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
...
> My SO, when queried, said she was going to vote for Clinton, believing that
> that was the best chance to get somebody friendlier to women on the
> (not-so-)Supreme Court, which has, over the long term, far, far greater impact
> than the activities of one presidential election/crapshoot winner.  A telling
> argument IMO.  I may very well vote for Clinton for that reason.

A good point.  It's been noted that the ages/illnesses/retirement plans
of the remaining pre-Reagan justices makes it entirely possible that
another Bush term will result in a Court composed entirely of
Reagan/Bush appointees.  Gives me the heebie-jeebies just thinking
about it.
-- 
Jim Tomlinson    BoGART Project    Boeing Computer Services    Bellevue, WA
jdt@voodoo.boeing.com       ...uunet!bcstec!voodoo!jdt        (206)865-6578
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan )
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: An election quiz
Summary: Humor
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:36:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct16.173609.9076
Distribution: pnw
Organization: UW Computing


PENCILS UP, YOU MAY BEGIN

Joel McNally, the Innocent Bystander -- The Milwaukee Journal 10/1/92

A midterm campaign examination on everything we have learned so far:

1. Which promise on taxes by George Bush do you find more persuasive?

   a.  His 1988 pledge:  "Read my lips.  No new taxes."
   b.  His new, improved 1992 pledge: "I am not going to do it again.
	Ever, ever."

2. Which action by a college student do you consider more important in
   determining how you will vote in 1992?

   a.  What Bill Clinton did to avoid getting drafted to fight in a
       war he opposed.
   b.  What Dan Quayle did to avoid getting drafted to fight in a war
       he supported.

3. In the Great Owl Debate of "jobs vs. environment" posed by the
   Bush campaign, which would you be more upset to wake up 
   tomorrow morning and find was gone?

   a.  Your job.
   b.  Your planet.

4. Which of the following would you be willing to bet your next
   paycheck that the vice president of the United States could 
   spell correctly?

   a.  Anti-disestablishmentarianism
   b.  Potato
   c.  Cat

5. What is your favorite family value?

   a.  The right to choose whether to have a family.
   b.  The right to enjoy "Murphy Brown."
   c.  The Grand Slam Special at Denny's

6. Which candidate has the most appeal among young voters?

   a.  Clinton, because he plays that hip musical instrument, 
       the saxophone.
   b.  Bush, because he talks in rap.
   c.  Al Gore, because he looks like Superman.
   d.  Quayle, because he looks like Jimmy Olsen.
   e.  Ross Perot, because he's an elf.

7. Bush says the election is about trust.  Which of the following
   would you trust Bush to do if elected to a second term?

   a.  Never to raise taxes again.  Ever.  Ever.
   b.  To select only the best-qualified Americans for important 
       jobs such as the vice presidency and the US Supreme Court.
   c.  Not to throw up on heads of state while visiting other
       nations.

8. During the sale of US missiles to Iran, the late Ronald Reagan 
   was napping through the presidency and Vice President Bush was 
   "out of the loop."  Write down your best guess as to who was 
   running the United States.

9. What is your primary concern about the US economy?

   a.  How to spend the big bonanza if Bush finally succeeds 
       in cutting capital gains taxes.
   b.  Whether US jobs are on a fast track or a slow track to 
       Mexico.
   c.  That there be one again.

10. What about Bush reminds you most of Harry Truman?

   a.  Nobody thinks he's going to win.
   b.  He likes to fish and recently rode on a train.
   c.  He's a dead man.
From: monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan )
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Clinton's economic proposal
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:30:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct12.223009.1629
Distribution: pnw
Organization: UW Computing

I have a copy of this, sent out via e-mail from Clinton forces in July.
E-mail me if you'd like to see it.

If Bush had a plan, we could post it also :)



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Monaghan: arithmetic-mean, melanin-deficient, gender-advantaged
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: new scare tactics
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:10:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: Tomobiki.MS-C.719003457.1103527590.mrc
Organization: University of Washington
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0

I'm starting to see a proliferation of the following signs:
	A Vote for Perot is a Vote for Bush

I see.  It seems that the argument offered by Clinton supporters is not that
their candidate is any good, but rather that he is not Bush.  There's no doubt
that Bush should not be re-elected.  But what is Clinton offering as an
alternate?  His vice president is Mr. Tipper (`sure, I like rock-and-roll
music, I even bought some Pat Boone albums') Gore.  He's the governor of a
state whose constitution forbids non-believers in `god' from public office,
from serving on a jury, and from testifying in court (even in one's own
defense), and has refused to answer repeated requests to state his position on
that.  He's demonstrated evasiveness and lack of frankness.

The only real winner of this election will be the real reactionaries, the Pat
Robertson and Pat Buchanan camp.  The Pats have been trying to torpedo the
amiable wishy-washy Nelson Rockefeller branch of Republicanism (Bush is the
latest manefestation) for decades.  They don't care how bad a Clinton
adminstration would be; in fact, the worse, the better from their perspective.

Perot at least offers another choice.  He's the only one who has a credible
agenda for what needs to be done.  If you think President Perot is a scarey
thought, consider President Robertson sometime...
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: jallred@spdg.com (John Allred)
Subject: Re: President and the economy
Organization: Stratos Product Development Group (Seattle)
Distribution: pnw
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:05:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.224049.2439@u.washington.edu> monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan ) writes:
>As much as I enjoy watching Bush squirm during this recession, the fact is
>there is little a president can do about the economy (and even less with
>the massive deficits. The Federal Reserve control interests rates, and
>indirectly inflation.)

If Bush had not been a spineless wimp and used his much ballyhooed 
"veto pen" on the appropriation bills, he could have done something
about the deficit.  Unfortunately, he is in the same business as the
Congresscritters -- providing the phantom Free Lunch.

Bush is the country's Chief Executive; it is his job to make things
happen.  Excuses (i.e., Congress, Japan) don't cut it.  He had four
years to stop his whining, get off his butt, and get it done.  He
failed miserably.

Unfortunately, our alternate choices are equally weak.  Clinton is
going to tax (excuse me, "invest") us into oblivion, and Perot strikes
me as an authoritarian.  You can count me in the "None of the Above" category. 

-- 
Newsgroups: pnw.general
From: gregs@polari.online.com
Subject: Re: Australian shepards (dogs)
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:13:18 GMT

ken@GTEtele.com (Ken Swapp) writes:

>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.

You may have seen a Blue Heeler.  I have a ten year old Heeler, and
I believe there are other varieties than the Blue.  They appear from
time to time in the Seattle Times/P.I. Classifies for ~$200-300.

As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't think about owning another dog.
They're certainly the smartest I've ever owned, and they're very
friendly.  Most are born fetchers, retrievers.  Unlike the Cocker
Spaniel I owned, who never learned in all of her 12 years...

They need lots of space though, because the like to run.

-- 
Gregory Sumner                        ::
gregs@polari.online.com               ::               Go Dawgs! 
Seattle, Wa                           :: 5-0