HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: leem@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: Activist shot at Berkeley Chancellor's home
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:49:40 GMT

In article <64791@cup.portal.com> lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman) writes:
:actually, the filth shot three times.
:guess she didn't crumple fast enough for his taste.

[deleted unnecessary remark]


Actually, it's because that is the way they are trained, two shots the
torso, one the head.  In acutal encounters, one shot from a pistol
seldom stops anyone bent on attack.

Lee

"Nothing blasts forever" -- Keats on ammo.


|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/354-1163  FTS 792-1163     
|leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV

Xref: sparky ca.politics:7165 talk.politics.misc:42561 ba.politics:4844
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton and NAMBLA
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (Mike Batchelor)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 05:14:53 PDT
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> In article <HVuLPB2w165w@batpad.lgb.ca.us>, mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (Mike Batch
> # # the ready availability of
> # # NAMBLA's bulletin in gay bookstores throughout San Francisco (according
> # # to the reports on KRON-TV a few months back).
> # 
> # NAMBLA's bulletin is available by US Mail.  Is the Post Office
> # involved, too?  You've posted them to this newsgroup, so you share in
> # the responsibility for propagating NAMBLA's views.
> 
> You don't honestly understand that if gay bookstores are carrying
> it, it's because they expect to get some sales?  Do you honestly
> not realize that carrying NAMBLA's bulletin is equivalent to carrying
> a publication by Aryan Nations?  Do you know of any bookstores
> that carry neo-Nazi publications without some level of agreement?

Yup.  Crown Books carries all kinds of historical volumes.  So does
the library here in Long Beach.  Nazis, Fascists, Republicans -
information on all kinds of oppresive regimes and movements are
available to anyone with a buck or two.  I bought _Cyberpunk_ from the
Computer Book Club, which describes how Robert Morris and other Evil
Hackers perpetrated their crimes.  Does this mean that the Computer
Book Club advocates computer crime?

Walden Books carries _Guns & Ammo_.  Does this mean they have taken an
anti-gun control stance?  They also carry _The Whole Earth Review_.
Are they now environmental whackos?  Lastly, they also sell the monthly
issues of _Soldier of Fortune_, which contains advertisements for all
kinds of recipes for mayhem - booby traps, pipe bombs, zip guns.  Does
this mean that the Walden Books corporate honchos support and endorse
these activities?

Don't bother posting your "No, but..." reponse.  I already know what
you're going to say, and so does everybody else.



[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us
[] Long Beach, California
From: jlohrmann@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Date: 01 Sep 92 22:53 PDT
Subject: A Recall Campaign on Wilson
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1333300014:000:126
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!jlohrmann    Sep  1 22:53:00 1992


I heard somebody on the San Jose Mercury has started a recall
campaign on Wilson.  Is this true?  If so what do people think?
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Not gonna take it
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:48:47 GMT
Distribution: ca

In article <1992Sep3.001743.202@smartstar.com> george@smartstar.com (George Bush) writes:
>Not gonna take it, not gonna do it.  I'm so sick of all of you people
>making jokes about Dan Quayle.  Why don't you give him a break.  Sure,
>he isn't as good of a vice president as I was, but he's learning.

This should really be smartass...not smartstar!! ;^)
This just CAN'T be King George!!!! :^) :^) 
Georgie....is this REALLY YOU?!?!?! 

I CAN'T STAND IT!!!! I'M ROLLIN' IN THE AISLES!!!!! :^)
--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
From: howard@titan.hal.com (Howard Gayle)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Pushkin Dueling Libertarians
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:34:48 GMT
Reply-To: howard@hal.com (Howard Gayle)
Distribution: ca
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc., Campbell, California
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.hal.com
In-reply-to: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)

In article <1992Aug31.154541.27401@morrow.stanford.edu>, GA.JRG@forsythe (June Genis) writes:
>Well, I can't say it's a subject I've invested a lot of time
>thinking about, but on the surface since all parties agree to
>participate in a duel of their own free will I see no reason that
>libertarians would forbid such activity as long as it was
>conducted in a way which prevented innocent third parties from
>being endangered by the combatants.

Let's not be too hasty!  I suggest a transition period during
which dueling is limited to politicians and bureaucrats.  :-)
--
Howard Gayle
HAL Computer Systems, Inc.
1315 Dell Avenue
Campbell, California 95008
howard@hal.com
Phone: 408-379-7000 ext. 1080
FAX  : 408-379-5022
"Aaron Burr was my favorite vice president."
---libertarian history teacher
From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriages
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:50:55 GMT
            <1992Aug19.224330.352@aero.org>
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <1992Aug19.224330.352@aero.org>
 by foy@aero.org (Richard Foy):

: How did the state ever get involved in marriages? What possible 
: justification is there for the government laws on the subject?

Now, this is 100% from long-term memory, and totally hear-say, but there
WAS a reason.  Forgive me if I don't have the complete picture, but if
you want to research it, perhaps this will give you a direction.

As I understand it, before a certain time in British law, there was no
such thing as a "marriage contract."  Folks got married, of course, but
not with legal sanction.  If two people got together and said, "We're
married," that's all that was needed.

Sailors would come out of bars drunk.  Absolutely bombed out of their
minds.  Prostitutes would pick them up and claim to be the sailor's
wife.  Now, without any contract to deny it, who could say otherwise?

I don't recall what their motivation was.  Perhaps it was only because
they got caught "rolling" the drunk, and as the "wife" it was OK to pick
his pockets.  But, whatever it was, that's what got the govt involved
in setting up "marriage laws."

Of course, here in the US, we picked up a large portion of common
English law.  Corporations, for example, are an English invention.
Joint property ownership between spouses is a Spanish invention, which
naturally we picked up here in CA.

Of course, that was probably not the best solution to the "problem."
But, what's done is done, and we now live with the consequences of govt
sanctioned, recognized, and regulated marriage.

The tough part is now, how does one go about fixing things, with
roughly 80% of the population perfectly happy to leave things as they
are, no matter who gets hurt?

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
Due to circumstances beyond your control, you are master of your fate
and captain of your soul.
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 29 Aug 92 10:37:11 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <12002@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> It's rather nice that way.  They want privacy, great.  They don't
> make a point of being offensive about their private practices, and
> that means that I don't have any idea what they do in private.
> Fine with me.  Homosexuals want the right to be offensive about
> what they do in private, but then want people to forget about that
> when they are busy whipping each other naked in the middle of 
> Market Street.

Clayton, how many people have you seen whipping each other naked in the
middle of Market Street?  None?  I thought so.  Now, how many people have
you seen on news reports of Gay Pride Parades carrying, and perhaps using,
whips?  A dozen or so?  Maybe even 20 or 30?  So these dozen or so people
are necessarily representative of *all* homosexuals?  With logic like this,
it's no wonder that nobody's convinced by your arguments.

[re:  S&M bars in San Francisco]
> I don't search for either -- but they are rather hard to miss in
> S.F., what with men running back and forth through the entrances
> dressed in leather.

I see.  So, all people who dress in leather are into S&M?  Fascinating.
Clayton, get help.  You need it badly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Pushkin Dueling Libertarians
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:45:41 GMT

In article <17ro3fINNrvm@news.aero.org>,
foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>The other aspect of Pushkin raises a question for the libertarians.
>He was a libertine. However he objected to anyone paying too much
>attention to his wife. As a result he died of a dueling wound. My
>question is would libertarians allow dueling? If not why not?

Well, I can't say it's a subject I've invested a lot of time
thinking about, but on the surface since all parties agree to
participate in a duel of their own free will I see no reason that
libertarians would forbid such activity as long as it was
conducted in a way which prevented innocent third parties from
being endangered by the combatants.

/June
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:10:40 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <11838@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <omjuig4@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>> Now, clayton...  I engage in consensual S&M.  What is wrong with this?
> 
> Nothing's wrong with it -- it just illustrates my point -- that 
> homosexuality isn't just a different sexual preference, but a group
> of pathological problems, not all of which are shared by every
> homosexual.

Gad, what a feeble argument.  This is supposed to support your point?
Hmm, by this argument heterosexuality is a group of pathological problems,
not all of which are shared by every heterosexual.  After all, there are
any number of heterosexuals who practice S&M, transvestitism, foot fetishism,
leather fetishism, etc.

Was your posting actually supposed to prove something?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Clayton, You've missed an opportunity...
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:41:05 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: kane@buast7.bu.edu

Clayton, I'm surprised you haven't started railing on the Wuornos case
(Wuornos is the first women scheduled to be executed in Florida since
1840, after her female lover implicated her in the deaths of 7 men).

After all, this is the sort of tabloid story you thrive on trying to
make your desperate sick jabs at gay men and lesbians.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Prop. 13 and California's fiscal crisis
Date: Wed,  2 Sep 92 03:46:21 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: ca

: The following article appeared in the Perspective section of the
: San Jose Mercury News, Sunday August 30:
:
: "Blame Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann, not Wilson and Brown", by
: Lawrence E. Stone
:
...
: The State of California is bankrupt.  The two-month budget deadlock in
: Sacramento is only one vivid and critical symptom of Proposition 13.

Lawrence E Stone appears to be an idiot, since he can't tell the
difference between bankrupt and not having a budget. 

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7047 ba.politics:4766
From: joan@koala.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clayton, You've missed an opportunity...
Date: 28 Aug 1992 05:06:59 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: koala.berkeley.edu

In article <11927@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
]>In article <94616@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
]>> Clayton, I'm surprised you haven't started railing on the Wuornos case
]>> (Wuornos is the first women scheduled to be executed in Florida since
]>> 1840, after her female lover implicated her in the deaths of 7 men).
]>> 
]>> After all, this is the sort of tabloid story you thrive on trying to
]>> make your desperate sick jabs at gay men and lesbians.
]>> 
]>> kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
]>
]>I was aware of it.  I didn't raise it because it's a remarkably
]>rare sort of crime, and unlikely to be typical of anything.
]>
]>By the way, Wuornos was molested as a child.  She grows up to be
]>a lesbian and a murderer.  Is anyone surprised?

	As you mentioned, it is rare and not typical of anything.
Yes, I am a bit surprised.

Joan V
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7403 talk.politics.misc:43473
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
From: mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 20:12:39 PDT
Distribution: world               
Organization: The Batchelor Pad

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
> In article <1992Aug29.133624.20975@tc.cornell.edu>, shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:
> > In article <12002@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> # #Homosexuals want the right to be offensive about
> # #what they do in private, but then want people to forget about that
> # #when they are busy whipping each other naked in the middle of 
> # #Market Street.
> # 
> # I've never whipped anyone naked in the middle of Market
> # Street.  I've never been naked in the middle of Market Street.
> # I've never been with anyone who was naked in the middle
> # of Market Street.
> 
> But you identify with a group that does such.

WRONG.  You identify any gay man or lesbian woman as "one of them."

> Either stop identifying with
> them, or encourage them to behave like something other than
> confused and spoiled kids.

Hey June Genis!  Quit identifying yourself with Clayton - it's hurting
your reputation!

There's that tug again... I feel a logarithmic plunge into the abyss
coming on...





[] ---
[] Mike Batchelor -- mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us
[] Long Beach, California
From: megana@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Megan Adams)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:34:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Prop. 13 and California's fiscal crisis
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Newsgroups: ca.politics

Another effect of prop 13 is to drive young wage earners out of state. Why?
Because why buy a house here when you will pay ten times the property tax
of the rich old geezer down the street who bought his house back in the 
early 70's. 

Grossly unfair. 

(On a call-in radio show I heard several people who were planning to move 
make the above argument.)

megana.
Newsgroups: ca.politics
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Question about congressmen
Keywords: Are they the problem?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:32:23 GMT



I have seen many statistics concerning the change in the distribution
of wealth over the course of the Reagan/Bush presidency.  After seeing
that the top 1%(or whatever it was) got richer while some larger percent
got poorer, I started thinking "Does congress have a vested interest
in maintaining this system?"  Does anyone know (or are they willing to
figure out) the change in net worth in members of congress from 1980 to
1990?  I would be interested in seeing this divided across party lines
as well as the difference between the house and the senate (and so on
and so forth).

It would be interesting to see how much the average worth of a congressman
has risen (and I don't doubt that it has risen) has changed in this time
period...



Jeff
-FWA
From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton, You've missed an opportunity...
Date: 29 Aug 92 10:39:26 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <12004@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> A woman who was molested as a child (almost certainly by a man)
> grows up to become a prostitute (a job that involves low self-esteem
> and sex with complete strangers that she has no attraction to),
> a lesbian (so no man involved with her sexually), and then 
> murders men (thus dealing with a lot of anger from being
> molested), and you are surprised?
> 
> Why?  It seems pretty darn logical to me.  Incredibly sad, but
> perfectly logical.

If this was the sole factor involved in this, we'd have a hell of a lot 
more prostitutes, a hell of a lot more lesbians, and a hell of a lot more
murderers.  The fact that it seems logical to you is no surprise to the
rest of us, though.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Boxer - Why?
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:16:50 GMT
Followup-To: ca.politics
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

Okay, a new topic for all you Democrats out there.  I am wondering what, if
anything, Barbara Boxer has done in her 10+ years in Congress to merit the
move to the Senate.  What do you like about her?  

I must admit that being part of the DRIP movement for congress, I can't
find much in her record that I really like.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
My opinions are my own, thank you very much!
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ca.environment
From: dan@BofA.com (Dan Brockman)
Subject: Re: "Ecofascists" In Action
Keywords: Pollution, Volunteerism, Environment
Organization: Bank of America, Capital Products, RMTG #5906
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 18:01:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.130826@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
>|> Again, why a single group?  Why not parcel it out the way pieces of real
>|> estate has historically been parceled out to ranchers in the past?
>|> 
>Which has done what to the land that the cattle graze on?  Do you understand
>the traditional fight between cattle ranchers, and other ranchers?

Those who feel the land should be used for, say, a wildlife preserve, 
rather than a cattle ranch, can buy the land from the rancher and 
make of it a wildlife preserve.  And if they are not willing to pay
the price to acquire the land for wildlife, then who do they expect
to pay the price?  You in the market for any ranches, George?

-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
 Daniel Brockman             tel 415-953-0406, fax 415-622-2892
 Bank of America, Dept 5906, 555 Calif St
 San Francisco 94104 USA    email uunet!odinba!dan dan@BofA.COM
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Clayton Evading Again?
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:56:43 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <95223@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> After failing to admit his incorrect interpretation of the "overrepresented"
> nature of homosexuals who are child molesters, Cramer again fails to comment

Because my interpretation was correct.

> on these important issues about scriptural authority:
> 
> Clayton, you have three choices: Are you 1) going to sweep these under
> the rug, 2) admit you're wrong, or 3) argue further?

I did respond, fully, and completely.  Stop lying, if you know how.
I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as you.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
From: pms@swagman.Corp.Sun.COM (Patrick Stirling)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: An exhortation about State Taxes
Date: 2 Sep 1992 23:53:50 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: swagman.corp.sun.com

In article <19801@fritz.filenet.com> asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk) writes:
>Patrick, this is a joke, right?  I mean, you just forgot to sprinkle this
>with "smileys," right?  You know, those little  :-)  do-hickies that let
>folks know you're not serious.

Actually it wasn't intended as a joke, hence the lack of smileys. Last
year my wife and I paid about 0.25% CA tax. I'm self employed, she's
a student, and we own our home. We also have a good accountant. 0.25%
state tax is ridiculous. I believe that a significant number of CA
residents do the same as us - pay the minimum amount of tax we can
get away with. We did feel guilty, and we did send a check to Pete
Wilson, for the total amount of tax that we'd paid (i.e. we doubled
our payment - to a massive 0.5%).

If fewer people and all businesses stopped trying to get away with
fudging their tax returns, I believe that the CA budget problems would
be lessened.

Of course, if you, the reader of this and my original posting, have few
or no deductions and are employed (i.e. subject to withholdings), this
won't apply to you.

patrick
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Picking and Choosing our References
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:41:44 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <194145@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:

>In any case, since Brian Kane is homosexual, Clayton has, in effect, attacked
>him as well.

I'm bisexual, thanks. But for Clayton's purposes, this is the same as
homosexual.

>[Clayton said]
>"it's clear that at least with gay men, there's nothing more than
>animal sex involved"; and "promiscuity is a fundamental part of being
>homosexual"

Funny, he didn't mention how it was standard practice for men of Judaic
times to have not only a wife but several concubines, depending on their
wealth. Promiscuity was accepted in Judaic times.

Brian