HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:44:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.192013.11974@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.172417.9705@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>}In article <1992Dec18.162102.4872@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>}>
>}>Out of curiosity, do you think there was a gun mounted on top of the
>}>bomb with wheels that took out the barracks in Beruit?
>}
>}Er, the thread so far seems to be one in which we're discussion
>}Pentagon weaseling about the truth ("disinformation" and "later
>}admitted" are clues to this), NOT whether the troops should have
>}fired.
>
>That's nice.  And?
>
>

...and your remark was, well, irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Happy?

--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: WAR IN BOSNIA!!!!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:16:30 GMT

gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg ) writes:

>harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:

>>That is, at minimum we would be enforcing the no-fly zone by
>>intercepting and possibly destroying Serbian fixed-wing aircraft
>>flying over Bosnia.  At maximum, we'd be using smart bombs and
>>anti-radiation missles to take out various targets.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>What the hell is an "anti-radiation missile!?!"  

Whoops.  I should have known that term was an eye-catcher.

An anti-radiation missle isn't what some of you may think.  That is,
it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons or dangerous radiation
(well, technically microwaves are dangerous).

An anti-radiation missle is a weapon designed to seek and destroy
radar systems, including and especially those used in surface-to-air
missle (SAM) batteries.  The word "radiation" is being used here in
its more technical form, referring to the emissions coming from a
radar antenna.  It's an important weapon to be used early on when a
force is trying to gain air-superiority.

Doesn't everybody watch the Discovery Channel? ;)
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton: Economic Miracle Worker
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: talk
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 13:53:54 GMT

In <ATAYLOR.92Dec8135851@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In <NEERI.92Dec6010433@iis.ethz.ch> neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher) writes:
><In <1992Dec4.213601.28879@Princeton.EDU> (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
><>In <ATAYLOR.92Dec2134720@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

><>>	According to the Associated Press, the latest report for
><>>	economic activity in the US showed the GDP grew at a 
><>>	rate of 3.9% in the third quarter of 1992. 

><>>	Furthermore, personal income rose by 1% in October alone;
><>>	a yearly rate of 12%.

><>>	President-to-be Clinton is certainly a miracle worker;
><>>	he's not even in office yet and already the economy has turned around.

><>>	In fact, so powerful is the Clinton program that its' 
><>>	magic started working last June.....

><>>	Funny how this news started to come up in the free and
><>>	unbiased media *after* the election was over, now isn't it?

><> Oh god.  It's not enough that they've been blaming the media for Bush's
><> ineptitude; now the Commerce Department was out to get Bush too.  

>	Recall that Nierporent claimed the earlier estimates
>	for the 3rd quarter of this year (July, August, September)
>	of an increase of 2.7% were "cooked to help  Bush".

>	Are these estimates still "cooked", Nierporent?

Why am I not surprised that someone who can't even copy my name without
misspelling it would make up facts?  I never claimed that.  Milton
Friedman did; maybe you're thinking of him.

><  Of course they were; he was going to replace them by James Baker, after 
><	all.

>	Come now, cheer up, both of you.
	
>	A year or two from now, Nierporent can and no doubt will claim 
>	that "the recession" lasted until well into 1993, when
>	Saint Bill came down from heaven and saved us all from
>	economic catastrophe.

>	Neeracher can and no doubt will perform the usual 
>	cheerleader duties.

>	A good time will be had by both.....and isn't that what
>	Internet is all about?

And maybe you can claim that the conservative media is really liberally
biased, and that they're being too easy on Clinton, and that Hillary is
really a Satan-worshipper, and that Chelsea is secretly a Marxist...

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Death of America
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:42:24 GMT

an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
>      Hmm.  I think the Golden Gate might be a toll.  I've never 
>      driven over it though.

There's a toll southbound, at least $3.00 ... a real bummer in an
otherwise glorious spin (being in Manhattan, I don't get to drive
often and it's nice to be back in the saddle ... whether out on Long
Island or in California).  SoCal sounds a little different from what I
read about in the Bay Area, since that's where the toll arguments come
from.  N.B. that I'm not against tolls, it's just the method of
collection.  Let me cruise, put it on my tab and keep the gas cheap
--- I don't have a problem with that, no matter what other problems
some writers care to project (wrongfully) upon me ...

gld

Canadian Conservative/American Communist (-;
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy)
Subject: Re: I WAS RIGHT!!! YOU ARE CLUELESS!!!!
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:18:00 GMT

pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:

>Well people, you have all proven to me that I WAS RIGHT!!! From the last two
>postings I've made, NONE OF YOU could come up with ANY recourse except for the
>fact that my grammmmmmmmer isn't by best feature. If all you can do is rip me
>for some technical misconfiguration of words, don't bother me. After all,
>LIBERALS use this type of tactic when they are proven WRONG (as opposed to
>admitting that you were WRONG)! THANK YOU, LEFTISTS! You prove ONCE AGAIN that
>Rush is the current leader in the mad race of providing POLITICALLY
>CORRECTNESS and defining people to their actions.

Absolutely. It is us, immoral, feminazi, tax and spend, commie loving,
anti-family values, eco freak, god-hating, baby killing, 
loony left liberals who engage in
name calling...but we all know that the innocent conservatives would NEVER
do anything like that...
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL				Hate is not a family value.
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU	Get involved (or shut up)
CLARKSON '95				 
A pro-life, PC-hating, liberal card-carrying member of the ACLU
===========================================================================
"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse
 to see it tried on him personally." 	---Abraham Lincoln
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Health insurance stuff
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:05:57
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<liqafbINNctd@spim.mti.sgi.com>
	<1992Dec18.230324.26591@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU's message of Fri, 18 Dec 92 23:03:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.230324.26591@leland.Stanford.EDU> miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard) writes:

> Supply and demand seems to work to bring down the price of most 
> commodities.  "We" could either lower the demand by restricting who
> could be eligible or "we" could increase the supply of health care.
> For example, "we" could stop kow towing to the guild known as the 
> AMA and demand that more bright individuals be admitted to medical
> school

Most, yes, but all?  Is there evidence which shows that increasing the
number of doctors lowers the price of medical care?  I can think of a
great many reasons why it might, in fact, do exactly the opposite.
After all, medical costs in America have been increasing far faster
than inflation during just the period when we've been getting more and
more doctors.

Now, I'm not claiming to be sure that having more doctors will make
medical care more costly---I just don't know, and I think we shouldn't
be too sure of ourselves in thinking that we can predict just what
will happen.

(Similarly: when the number of lawyers in the country goes up, do you
think that this will make the country spend less on legal services, or
do you think it will make the country spend more?)
--
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,soc.motss,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:27:05 GMT

In article <Bz4xqF.H3q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (REAL LIFE?!?!  HA!!) writes:

> BTW, while I have your attention, were you molested as a child?  
>   [...]
> Did you deny having been molested?  Hmmm.....
>   [...]
> Tell us a few other things, Clayton.  What do you look like?  Are you svelte
> and pretty?  Or are you a bit pudgy?  If so, I bet you have an eating disorder
> which must be a result of being molested.
>   [...]
> There you have it, folks.  I have proven, using Our Hero Clayton's OWN "LOGIC"
> that he was molested as a child.  Don't try to deny it Clayton, we know 
> better.

From your statements, it seems to me that you think that victims
of child molestation are somehow "less" of a person for having
been molested.  If you had said to a woman: "don't try to deny
it, we know you've been raped", I think most people would be
justifiably outraged, even if you had said it in jest.  But 
substitute "molested" for "raped", and you seem to think that 
the victim deserves scorn and ridicule.  While I believe 
that Cramer's ugly attacks on homosexuals should be strongly 
condemned, I don't think you should stoop to his (very low)
level.

 
>Michael T. Chaffee


Doug Holtsinger
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations...NOT!)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:14:00
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: usa, world
	<1655@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: libwca@emory.edu's message of 17 Dec 92 22:38:38 GMT

In article <1655@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:

> You're kidding, aren't you?  You should really get out more, Ted.
> *I'm* a loony left winger.  Jimmy was what we call a moderate. 
> Remember who was the last president to submit a balanced budget?
> Remember who began the arms build up?
> How old were you when JC was president, anyway?

Those of us who were old enough to have paid attention to the 1976
election will remember that Jimmy Carter was not the liberal candidate
in the Democratic primary; Jimmy Carter defeated Morris Udall, who
really was a liberal.

Those of us who were old enough to have paid attention to the 1980
election will remember that Jimmy Carter was not the liberal candidate
in that primary either; he was challenged by Ted Kennedy, who, again,
really was a liberal.  A great many people believed that Carter had
been an unacceptably conservative President, and that he had betrayed
the liberals who had voted for him in the 1976 general election.  And
in the 1980 general election, when Carter had defeated Kennedy in the
primary, there were a great many liberals who thought that there was
no reason to vote for Carter, that there was no difference between him
and Reagan.

These people were, of course, wrong: Carter was surely no liberal, but
a second Carter term would have been far preferable to the
disastrously reactionary Reagan years.  Liberals, I think, learned
their lesson, and, in the 1992 election, voted for Bill Clinton:
Clinton, again, isn't a liberal, but it doesn't take a genius to
figure out that liberal causes will fare far better under a Clinton
administration than they did under a Bush administration.

(Oh, and by the way: there's a difference between liberal and leftist.
"The Washington Monthly" is a liberal magazine, while "Z" is a Left
magazine.)
--
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,alt.sex
From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:01:20 GMT
Organization: QueerNet

In article <71739@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
>Why not just admit it's 2-4 percent, and get on with it?

I say it's broccoli, and I say the hell with it.

In other words: if there are only twelve of us, our points would be no less
valid.  Instead of anyone admitting anyone else's percentage is right, why
not just admit it's irrelevant?
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG              {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!sgiblab!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.somalia,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg )
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:31:23 GMT

jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

>I do plenty of press bashing. Right now, I'd rather bash people like
>you (?) who cry crocodile tears about how the press is endangering
>lives when really it's not endangered lives they're really concerned
>about, it's preserving their militaristic fervor and testosterone buzz.
>Their media bashing is a political smoke screen.

So, I suppose you support Dan Rather and his boyz for blinding the Marines
on the beachs with their camera lights.  Suppose there had been snipers
waiting for the USMC?  Nice to know that the media had properly illuminated
our boys, eh? (DEFINATELY POOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PART OF THE PRESS)  


*******************************************************************************
* Gregory Tao                      | E-mail to:  gt38091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu     * 
* Univ. of IL at Urbana-Champaign  |        OR      gtao@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* Department of Computer Science   |        OR      gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
*                                                                             *
*  	``Change, suddenly, is everywhere we look, sweeping empires and       *
*    ideologies before it, shaping a new era even as we watch. Such moments   *
*    are rare. Today we stand at such a moment.''                             * 
*                                                                             *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
* DISCLAIMER:  My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of CCSO or the    *
*              University of Illinois.					      *
*******************************************************************************

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64689 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10364 alt.rush-limbaugh:11828 alt.politics.bush:14677
From: srf6200@zeus.tamu.edu (Steven Rush Fennell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Space program necessary
Date: 17 Dec 1992 15:30 CST
Organization: Meltdown Productions, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

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.
> 
>		Judy
> 

Well, we can all sit here on Earth and stagnate I guess.  I would say that 
without some edge of society, or frontier, we will begin to wallow in our own 
filth (unless we turn to zero pop. growth).  How much more is there to learn 
on this planet?  Do we abandon technology and turn inwards as a species?  I 
prefer to stay with the cutting edge...even if it means paying a few dollars 
more in taxes.  And BTW, the space program consumes about 1% of the federal 
budget - it was around 4% I believe in the '60s.  Not exactly what I would 
call a huge amount of money relatively speaking, compared to welfare or 
defense. 

The space shuttle costs a little under 1 billion dollars per mission, and it 
takes up about half of NASA's budget.  NASA is already investigating the next 
generation launch vehicle, which should hopefully cost less per mission that 
the shuttle (or there's really no justification).  This is necessary in any 
event because the shuttle's are nearing their projected mission design life 
maximum.

Steve Fennell
srf6200@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: young@ipsd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
In-reply-to: denebeim@brtph254.bnr.ca's message of Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:56:44 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Dec15.223806.28846@rchland.ibm.com>
	<1992Dec17.172656.27110@technology.com>
	<1992Dec18.225644.3292@brtph560.bnr.ca>
Distribution: usa, world
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:01:12

In article <1992Dec18.225644.3292@brtph560.bnr.ca> denebeim@brtph254.bnr.ca (Jay Denebeim P025) writes:

> [	Interesting list of materials and other benefits of the space program deleted.]

I wonder about some of the predictions, though...

>   2) The end goal is potentially very good.  A fully developed space
>      program would enable several things:
>      a) Vastically reduced pollution.
>	 This would be achieved by moving polluting industries into
>	 orbit, and producing our energy needs on orbit.

Common sense can be so wrong, but it seems that the major polluters
tend to be heavy industry and chemicals, in addition to the power
industry.  I can't imagine producing steel, refrigerators or megatons
of fertilizer in orbit.  It would be too expensive, wouldn't it?

>     b) Very cheap power.

Probably, eventually.

>      c) Room for expansion of the human race.

Again, moving the billions of people away that would be necessary to
affect population on Earth would be pretty expensive.  And where would
you move them?  Mars?  Water, air and carbon would likely be among the
scarce necessities, wouldn't they?

>      d) Cheap materials. (gold etc)

How would prospecting for gold on another planet make it cheaper?  Why
would it be more abundant or easier to find anywhere else?


>   3) Unless we expand our horizons into space our technological culture
>      will almost certainly not last another hundered years.  Before you
>      say 'good' remember what effect this would have on people, imagine
>      the entire world in the same position as Somalia etc.  Not a pretty
>      site.  I doubt there will be much relief comming from non-existant
>      'little green men'.

Probably true.  But why is it so?  What is it about space exploration
that so fascinates the inquiring mind?  Why can't his same energy and
enthusiasm be spent in ways that would seem to be more clearly
beneficial?  I sure don't know.

>   Have a nice day

I'll try.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations...NOT!)
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa, world
Date: 13 Dec 92 17:32:19 GMT

In <1992Dec10.154158.14760@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>In article <1992Dec10.021802.13612@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>	Let's see from 1960 to 1992:

>>1960-64 JFK/LBJ
>>1964-68 LBJ
>>1968-76 Nixon/Ford
>>1976-80 Jimmy Carter
>>1980-88 Ronald Reagan
>>1988-92 George Bush

>>	If you think that JFK, LBJ, and Jimmy Carter are all "loony
>>left-wingers", then I've got the deed to the Golden Gate Bridge to
>>sell to you. But I've seen even Nixon called a "liberal", so I guess
>>the majority of those Presidents are flaming left-wingers.

>Do you honestly believe that JFK and LBJ would be considered Democrats 
>today?  I seem to remember JFK saying something like "Ask not what 
>your country can do for you..."  That sounds just a little to the 
>right of modern Republicans.  LBJ was a hawk without compare (IMO), 
>and yes, Jimmy Carter was a loony left-winger.  Or perhaps just loony.

Oh, brother.  JFK a conservative Republican?  LBJ?  Ted, you've made some
silly posts before, but this just about takes the cake.  JFK drew up the
Civil Rights Bill, which LBJ passed into law.  Social engineering.  Minorities.
Equal rights.  Hardly the provinces of the right, eh?  How about the Peace
Corps?  As far as JFK's rhetoric goes, that's about as flimsy a basis for
political ideology as I've ever heard.  Political rhetoric can always be
twisted to mean whatever you want it to mean, no matter who says it.  So
go ahead, say that the spirit of volunteerism isn't liberal.  Go ahead.
It doesn't matter.  It means nothing.  And wrt LBJ, here's a hint: one
need not be a dove to be a Democrat.  In fact, most every war in this century
that America has entered into occurred under the helm of a Democratic prez.
Chew on that.

>Ted


--
Yosha Bourgea                   "Newspapers screamed for blood...
grendel@camelot.bradley.edu     it was the best of times."
Squid Power                              --Sting

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush