HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Reply-To: uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Organization: Montana State University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:03:35 GMT

In article <30DEC199216231034@morgul.carleton.edu.>, lambertn@morgul.carleton.edu. (Alas, my love, you do me wrong...) writes:
>In article <13722@optilink>
>Many male pedophiles are straight men who abuse young boys simply because it is
>much easier to get access to boys than to girls for a man who is not related to
>the child(ren) in question.  Most parents won't trust their young daughters to
>non-relative males, but feel that having adult friends will be good for their
>son(s).  Most of these men are abusing boys mainly because they are the only
>children available to them and childhood is more important than gender to the
>abuser.  (I can produce documentation on this if asked.)
>
>So, in many cases it is more a case of wanting sex with children and having one
>gender be *much* easier to "get a hold of", than it is of being oriented
>towards that gender in adult relations (many male abusers of boys find the
>thought of sex with a grown man horrifying because "I'm not GAY, or anything!")
>
>--Tam Lin
Thank you, Tam Lin! (Whatta lovely name! The ballad is my favorite!)>>~-------------
----------------------------------------------------------------~
>| Nikita "Kii" Lambert           |        LOVE IS THE LAW  --Queer Nation     |
>| major: Classical Studies       ~--------------------------------------------~
>~--------------------------------~   Gin I were a baron's heir,               |
>|lambertn@morgul.acc.carleton.edu|   And could I braid wi' gems your hair,    |
>~--------------------------------~   And make ye brauw as ye are fair,        |
>|"O I forbid ye, maidens a'      |   Lassie, would you lo'e me?               |
>| That wear gowd in your hair    ~--------------------------------------------~ 
>| To come or gae by Carterhaugh  |  Love and scandal are the best sweeteners  | 
>| For young Tam Lin is there..." |      of tea.                               |
>~--------------------------------~--------------------------------------------~

and such a cool bit at the end!!!!
   Unfortunately, seems that Clayton won't listen to anyone with proof that
he's wrong.  It's sad, so sad.  Anyone who says something he doesn't agree with
must be one of theose DAMNED HOMMASEXuals....and we know his views on Gay,
lesbian, and bi folks.
     Anyway, to my topic:  I'm trying to find some documentable early-middle
ages bawdy rhymes and ballads for a birthday party my chapter of the SCA is
having later this Jan.  Any takers?  I mean really bawdy-- I'm calligraphing
this up for a friend, whose birthday I've missed.  (I feel awful about it!
I just remembered today!  I'm slime! )
            
                                  La Mort.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Mandatory Organ Donation
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:45:11 EST
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Dec22.015659.1989@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu says:
>
>CNN reports this day that the 'Communitarian Party/coalition' wishes
>to make into law the requirement to donate organs upon death.

The actual law would make organ donation the default option, which
individuals and families could reject.  In fact, they would have
to be informed of their right to reject the organ donation.  It seems
to me that this retains the individual right to dispose of their
affairs.

>As with many so-called 'communitarian' initiatives, this proposal
>sounds good on the surface. However, it does raise significant
>questions about the traditional rights of persons or their
>relatives to control the disposition of their affairs after death.
>
>Suppose the 'communitarians' insist that it is reasonable for all
>assets of the deceased to be transferred into the care of charity
>organizations or a general government-controlled distribution

Why use such scare tactics?  The group hasn't proposed any such thing.


>scheme - to assist the needy for example ? Suppose the logic of
>community-over-the-individual is extended to cover not only dead
>persons, but instead to require blood and/or organ donations to
>needy persons from living individuals regardless of the wishes of
>those individuals.

>Somewhere there is a borderline between individual rights and the
>rights/needs of the community at large. I believe that the
>'communitarians' have placed that line much too far in favor of
>the collective. What say ye ?

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65766 alt.sex:40545
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bob Dole, Sore Loser
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:11:12 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:

>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>>Then you know nothing about politics, do you?  Dole has only to answer
>>to the people of Kansas.
>
>Senators have to get along with other senators, too. If being an obstructionist
>butthead is out of favor (as it will be under Clinton--that's a guarantee) and
>Dole persists in being one, he will lose power within the senate itself: quid
>pro quo and all that. You must have learned about politics from a 4th grade
>primer.

Bob Dole will still be as powerful under Clinton as he is now, and, given
the tendencies for the non-presidential party to gain in the House and
Senate, he may well be Majority leader.

Of course, when obstructionist idiots like Howard Metzenbaum get in the
way of Republican Presidents, that's ok.   Nice double standard.

Guess you learned about politics from your kindergarten teacher.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: drm@esl.com (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 3 Jan 93 19:05:09 GMT
Reply-To: drm@esl.com

In article <1993Jan3.123224.18007@Princeton.EDU>  
niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> 
>IOW, it wasn't that it was tainted, it was that Walsh couldn't prove that
> it wasn't.
> 
The appeals court was pretty heavy-handed in its hints that Walsh had used  
tainted evidence in the trial.  I recall them saying that if neccesary  
Walsh would need to go through the testimony "document by document, line  
by line" if he wanted a conviction.  Walsh chose to take the hint.

--
Don McGregor | Double your pleasure, double your fun.  Xerox
drm@esl.com  | your paycheck.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:17:46 GMT

Mike Best (best@anasazi.com) wrote:
: In article <C00z4x.8Ln@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: >Jay Denebeim P025 (denebeim@brtph254.bnr.ca) wrote:
: >: In article <1992Dec17.172656.27110@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes:
: >: > 	Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
: >: >	for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
: >: >	program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
: >: >	pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.
: >: 
: >: Yes I can.  How about these for instance:
: >:
: >
: >NOT quite as rosey as you make it out to be...
: 
: [mike's anti-space program stuff deleted with the rest]
: 
: Put it in a historical context:
: 
: The Portugese were among the first explorers during the age of discovery
: and yet they pulled back.  What has subsequently happened to their potential?
: Have they not been in decline since that time?  Space is the next frontier
: and if we (the US) do not actively compete in that arena we will likely be
: left behind much like Portugal.  Britain ruled the waves and their culture
: was successful.
: 

This is an utterly emotional argument that disregards the most obvious.
Space is not any kind of frontier.  It has been explored and what we know
is that it is not inhabited by life, uninhabitable by humans without adding
extraordinary cost to the proposition, and incredibly finite due to our
technical inability to go very far.  Exploration of space requires a huge
amount of costly technology, while exploration of the new world was possible
using existing technology - sailing ships, canoes, backpacks, sleeping bags,
and rifles.

That said, I repeat that unmanned space exploration makes a lot of sense,
is much cheaper, gets a lot more bang to the buck, allows us to look at
weather patterns, gather intelligence data, look out into space from beyond
the atmosphere, build maps of entire planets, and so on.  

I also repeat that Star Trek is a fantasy.  We have no ability to travel 
at 9x the speed of light, and all scientific evidence is that it is simply
impossible.

: Also, there will be poor always.  I see no reason why we must subordinate our
: need to achieve human excellence or our scientific curiousity to the plight
: of the poor.  First of all, utopianism is unrealistic (curing poverty) and,
: secondly, we have a right (and a duty to our children) to make our society
: succede.
: 

This is incredibly pessimistic.  Poor is a relative term, and the quality of
life for the "poor" is clearly something we can and have been continuously
are improving...

: Mike Best
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:20:01 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
: <In article <1992Dec22.211751.4626@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
: <   In article <1992Dec18.235046.3988@brtph560.bnr.ca> woodstock!chris@mcnc.org writes:
: <   >
: <   >  The Solid Liberals, on the other hand, are unfamiliar to most
: <   >Americans.  Gay rights, Funding of Obscene Art, Support of Flag
: <   >Burning, etc..., are all things which are fairly new, and as a
: <   >result are kinda scary.  
: <   >
: <   >Chris Fulmer                    Bell-Northern Research
: 
: <   Sounds like those "Solid Liberals" (tm) want to enforce the Bill of
: <   Rights, those scoundrels.
:  
: 	Can Viveiros show where in the Bill of Rights the "right"
: 	to receive taxpayers money for "art" is located?
: 
: 	HINT: The 9th doesn't count.        

Well, certainly the 9th counts; it just doesn't apply to this 
situation.  I think that hinging government funding of the arts
dependent on the political content of those arts is a violation
of the spirit (though perhaps not the letter) of the 1st 
amendment.  Of course there is no requirement that the gov't
provide money for the arts; but if it does so, it should do so
without regard to politics.  

Bill    
provide money for the arts; b.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65131 talk.politics.theory:5538 misc.headlines:7339 eunet.politics:1601 soc.culture.bulgaria:1989 soc.culture.turkish:13483
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:16:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.155307.9734@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> burkhardt@NEBULA.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM (Spike Burkhardt) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>
>Also, seeing what Japanese management is doing over here makes me wonder if
>they are all that good at manufacturing or just as good at browbeating American
>workers as they are their own.  Perhaps they are just sending management 
>trainees over here.
>

Japanese management doesn't have to browbeat their workers. In Japan,
people enter the workforce already prepared to sacrifice most aspects
of their personal well-being for the benefit of the company.


>Spike Burkhardt


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66081 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11307
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: An End to the Sanctity of Human Life Argument
Date: 3 Jan 93 13:35:03 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization

Mike Myke Schwartz (?) writes:
>If 100 murders per year are prevented by fear of ANY kind of
>retribution
>by the justice system, have we not saved more lives than we have
>taken?

How can you tell how many murders are "prevented" each year?  You're
counting events that _didn't_ happen.  

True, you can probably say that some one who has murdered ten people
already, say, would be likely to kill again if he were walking the
streets.  But you don't know that he would still be walking the
streets; he himself might be murdered, or be killed in a car crash, or
kill himself.  And you certainly can't tell exactly how many people he
would kill in a year.  And if we start to talk about people who killed
only one person, do we know for sure he'll kill again?

To put it another way: About a year ago we had a terrible wind storm
in this part of the country.  The brunt of it hit an area of coastline
where there are few large towns.  Only one person was killed by the
storm.  How many people would have died if the storm had hit a city
full force?  Answer: There's no way to know.

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:36:41 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Followup-To: misc.legal

In <bhayden.725731091@teal>, bhayden@teal.csn.org sez:
>eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

>>Which means that North is factually, but not legally, guilty.  If you
>>missed Al Thompson's attempt earlier this year to muddy this
>>distinction (and my repeated explanations of why his take on the law
>>was wrong), I will be more than happy to disabuse you of the erroneous
>>notion that North's conduct was not criminal.
>
>I don't understand how you can be exonerated from a crime, and
>yet you can be factually guilty. The judicial determination of
>the guilt was essentially overturned. Yet you can sit there and
>say that he was guilty anyway. 


Your terminology is defective.  North wasn't exonerated; his
conviction was merely vacated by application of the _Kastigar_
extension to the Fifth Amendment.  

If you know anything at all about habeas corpus jurisprudence, you
will immediately recognize the relevance of Justice Harlan's
distinction between "guilt-related" constitutional violations (e.g.,
denial of counsel) and non-guilt-related violations (illegal search).
The decision to vacate North's conviction, because based on a
non-guilt-related violation, casts no doubt on the validity of the
factfinding process.


>I do not believe that you sat through the entire trial. Therefore,
>you are acting as a jury probably based on newspaper accounts of
>the trial. This is exactly like the Rodney King trial, where
>a great number of peoplwho didn't sit through all ofhe
>testimony were sure that the 4 cops brutalized Mr. King. 

Strawman alert.  

You miss the point entirely.  The determination of North's guilt was
made by the *jury*, not by me.  The appellate court's reversal does
nothing to cast the *factual* (as opposed to legal) validity of that
verdict into question.


>It has been repeatedly said that with an unlimited budget, one
>can convict anyone of something. That is what happened here. 

So now who's claiming that his knowledge is superior to that of the
jury that heard all the evidence?  Hmm?



-- 
They told me you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 29 Dec 1992 18:48:47 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <72546@cup.portal.com> L-Bueno@cup.portal.com (Louis  
Alberto Bueno) writes:
> 	I will agree that it has yet to be proven that Weinberger is
> directly responsible for the Arms-For-Hostages deals that former
> president Reagan secretly approved (this would make Reagan a  
"traitor,"
> by the very definition in the above section).  

In fact, that is an understatement. Nobody I know of has
accused Weinberger of being responsible for the Arms-for-Hostages
deal. In fact, most of what I've seen says that he was 
opposed to it.  The charge Walsh brought against him was
for withholding information from Congress.

Also, unless you are defining "Iran" as the "enemy" (which,
perhaps in a general sense it was (is) but not in the specific
sense used by the consitution) your statement about Reagan
is nonsense.  

The Constitution made the definition of treason very specific 
to prevent such broadening and misuse of the term, such as that
being thrown about in this discussion.  The Framers were afraid
of the possibility of a governement using "treason" as an
excuse to arrest almost anyone for anything, and they made the
definition very strict to prevent this.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Macroeconomics 601
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 04:29:10 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 <1h7t6uINNlel@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:

>In a previous article, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) says:

>>
>>	The Commerce Dept. numbers show the GDP increasing
>>	by 3.4% in the 3rd quarter; July, August and September


>     The numbers are bogus.  This has been widely documented.

Broward, you are a fool.  The original number released by the Commerce
Department was between 1% and 2%.  All the looney left claimed that
the numbers were rigged and that the final numbers would be adjusted
downwards.  Then the final numbers were released after the election
and they were higher - 3.4%.  So far, none of the people claiming that
1%+ was too high have admitted they were wrong and now other
ignoramuses such as yourself are demonstrating that they can't even
keep their own lies straight.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: subbarao@phoenix.fc.hp.com (Kartik Subbarao)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: This week with David Brinkley -- third guest
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:05:42 GMT
Reply-To: subbarao@fc.hp.com (Kartik Subbarao)
Organization: putchar('I'); for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) putchar('E');
Originator: news@nimaster

I missed the third segment of Brinkley today. Can anyone tell me who the
guest was?

	-Kartik
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:32:19 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Dec24173327@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <1992Dec22.211751.4626@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
><   In article <1992Dec18.235046.3988@brtph560.bnr.ca> woodstock!chris@mcnc.org writes:
><   >
><   >  The Solid Liberals, on the other hand, are unfamiliar to most
><   >Americans.  Gay rights, Funding of Obscene Art, Support of Flag
><   >Burning, etc..., are all things which are fairly new, and as a
><   >result are kinda scary.  
><   >
><   >Chris Fulmer                    Bell-Northern Research
>
><   Sounds like those "Solid Liberals" (tm) want to enforce the Bill of
><   Rights, those scoundrels.
> 
>	Can Viveiros show where in the Bill of Rights the "right"
>	to receive taxpayers money for "art" is located?
>
>	HINT: The 9th doesn't count.


Hint: the Bill of Rights has nothing to say about how the government
spends its money.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
From: kaskubar@kirby.mayo.edu (Bruce Kaskubar)
Subject: House Voting Rights
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 00:34:54 GMT

According to George Wills' December 17 column, the House Democratic  
caucus (Tom Foley et al.) is attempting to give voting rights to  
the five delegates from American Samoa, Guam, the District of  
Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.  (OK, only when the  
House is acting as a Committee of the Whole but real work gets done  
then.)  Jesse Jackson and his four counterparts (all Democrats)  
will now join the fray with all the representatives of us taxpaying  
types.  American Samoa's representation will be about 17 times that  
of Montana, per capita.  If taxation without representation is  
tyranny, what's representation without taxes and statehood?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65262 alt.rush-limbaugh:12214
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Date: 2 Jan 93 04:33:34 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org

In article <C07A59.ABB@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>In article <ART.93Jan1120042@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>>
>>Enactment of the statute in and of itself does not criminalize policy
>>disputes.  The problem is that the purpose of the statute is to prevent
>>gov't employees from accepting bribes.  To chase North for accepting
>>something to defend himself and his family from harm, the treat of which
>>resulted from his performance of his official duties is a far different
>>thing than accepting a free trip to the Bahamas or a fur coat for his
>>wife.
>
>Imagine my relief, knowing that North had those snow tires to fend off
>Abu Nidal.  Or did you forget that inconvenient little fact too, Al?

No, no, Mark. The snow tires weren't anti-terrorist measures. They simply
reflected executive-branch disagreement with Congress about the proper
governmental response to snow-covered roadways.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc