HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,misc.legal,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Gay Child Molesters (Re: Youth Info Needed)
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:43:56 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Dec16.010907.5216@panix.com> roy@panix.com (Roy Radow) writes:
    >The name of our organization grew out of a historical
    >situation in 1978 which involved the persecution of men and
    >boys involved in concensual relationships.
    >
    >Our membership today, however, involves persons people of all
    >genders, ages and sexual orientations. So in effect one
    >should not take the name of our organization quite so
    >literally.
    >
    >As far as the legality of our organization and it's
    >activities: we have been investigated by the FBI, US Postal
    >Service, various police departments, and even a Special
    >Investigative Committee of the US Senate and all of them
    >concur that we do not engage in any illegal activities.
    >
    >Yours in Liberation,
    >
    >Roy

1. Even NAZIs have freedom of speech.

2. So does Mr. Radow.

3. Mr. Radow idea of "consent" includes sexual molestation of children.
   Mr. Radow seems to believe that consent can be gain by abuse of
   the trust of children -- i.e., "Hi little girl or little boy,
   want a lollipop?".

4. I normally would totally ignore such sick vermin, but, to be
   consistent (per the soc.motss & NAMBLA issues), I must add my
   two cents.


Tell me Mr. Radow, has NAMBLA ever disavowed it's slogan of
"sex before eight or it's too late"???

In any case Mr. Radow, obviously you need to steer well clear of any
children I know. Otherwise, you'll have a "consenual" relationship
with the end of my shotgun.

You have the right to SPEAK what you will. And to post and discuss.

But sex with children is inherently coercive, NO MATTER HOW MANY
LOLLIPOPS you offer. You are vile, your issues are vile, and I wish
a nasty death for you -- say, via rape by large Hell's Angels. Then maybe
you can get a whole new perspective in life.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:41:51 GMT

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>
>>Sure ... they and their colleagues that I've met are probably the 
>>last people that I can imagine to take off in a supposed "green card
>>stampede"
>
>well of course that's the case, because those who want to leave, leave!
>and given your obvious political preferences, why would they bring
>up such a subject with you anyway? seriously, i don't mean to be rude,
>but you have shown a particular way of thinking, which is fine, ...

Well, you're calling me a socialist but my friends back home in
business, medicine and high tech are always joking about me being 
"Mr. Wall Street" and not because I live in New York City ... it's 
all relative, 'cos I'm doing my best Canadian small "c" conservative 
act but I feel like I'm sitting around in a Mao jacket ... (-; (-;

I dunno how they'd react if I ever walked into the BNR or Mount Sinai
Hospital cafeteria with you ... but I'd put it on film! (-; (-; (-;

gld

PS: I'm just trying to inject some humour into this discussion,
 but it is true that I'm considered mildly right wing up north ...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64421 alt.rush-limbaugh:11722
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's bigoted remarks at the convention...
Date: 15 Dec 1992 22:54:33 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com
Keywords: hate

Mike Van Pelt) writes:
|> Mike Polen) writes:
|> >Mike Van Pelt) writes:
|> >|> Hey, Ken, how come you support the Democrats, since by your apparant
|> >|> standards, they accept the support of Lyndon LaRouche?
|> 
|> >Because the D party has disavowed LaRouche, and the R party has said
|> >that Robertson and Buchannon represent the party.
|> 
|> Yeah, but Ken was going on and on (and on and on and on) about David
|> Duke, who the Republican Party has gone to at least as great an extreme
|> to disavow as the Democrats have done to LaRouche.  Did the D's go so
|> far as to endorse the Republican opponent of LaRouchies in Illinois?
|> Or did they just advise Democrats to not vote?  The Republican Party
|> officially endorsed Duke's Democrat opponent in Louisiana.
|> 
The Democratic Party recommended the Republican candidate against Duke.

|> Duke is a very different case than Robertson and Buchanan.  At worst,
|> Rev. Robertson and Pat Buchanan are the Republicans' conservative
|> equivalents of the Democrats' Rev. Jackson and Ron Dellums.
|> 
Except that the Democratic Party did not embrace the policies of 
Jackson and Dellums in their platform.  The Democratic candidate did
not state that J & D represented his philosophies.

So far the best convention joke I have heard is about the reporter
that ran across one of Bush's grandson's after Barbara had the
family up on stage.  The kid was crying.  When the reporter asked
why he was crying, he said that he didn't want Clinton to be his
grandfather.  The reporter said the election was to decide who would
be president, not who would be his grandfather.  The kid stopped
crying and said "then why was I up there?"

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Those "nutty" Polls
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:27:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.072941.8509@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>On the eve of the election, CNN's final tracking poll came
>out with the following numbers:
>
>47% Clinton
>35% Bush
>18% Perot
>
>with a margin of errot of +/- 3%.
>

with a margin of error of +/- 3% 19 TIMES OUT OF 20 (with the sample
size usually used by pollsters)...rogue polls are possible.

>In other words, those "nutty" polls called the election dead
>on within the stated margin of error.
>
>The next time some idiot with what is apparently no background
>in statistics claims that polls are inaccurate, unscientific,
>bogus, etc--tell them to go away. Polls are actually VERY
>accurate, and are ignored at one's peril.
>

Gerald

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Re: Death of America
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: I just happened to find an abandoned thread and...
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:30:00 GMT

Let's see: Move all the manufacturing out, since it's cheaper to
produce overseas. Cut American incomes in tenths, since they're 
overpaid according to market principles. Ah yes I see, but...

  Who's going to buy the products produced abroad since the
  American Market is being destroyed??

And as a reminder, even Ross Perot never covered dealing with the
Federal *Debt*, only austerity measures for resolving the yearly
Federal Deficit -- which would have taken too long to accomplish to 
make any difference, anyhow. (As I was saying Charles.) And no one
is willing to bring state & local debt into the analysis for fear
that the lenders will all die of a heart attack.

The "simple sad fact" is... (as Broward Horne would put it)

   America is a corpse on life-support now. Rather than live
   with all the pain, let's pull the plug and get on with it.

The quicker it's dead, the quicker the new Phoenix will arise. Easiest
way to do that is use emergency powers to implement centralized universal 
health, universal education, right to food and shelter, infrastructure
programs, etc. -- you know, The Soviet Model. Congress will back it, no
problem. And we still have military dominance so no one will mess with
us in the process. Unless we wait. 

-= More reminders for those with Corporate Korsakoff's Syndrome =-
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (REACH OUT AND GREP SOMEONE)
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism 
Summary: finishing up
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:48:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.085404.27670@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)       writes...
>In article <1992Dec14.215349.18380@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (REACH OUT AND GREP SOMEONE) writes:
>}>Assuming that there would be no State intervention, criminal cases would be
>}>treated as intentional torts, with restitution to be made to the victims,
>}>plus court costs, plus a deterrent factor.  See Benson's Enterprise of Law
>}>and Friedman's Machinery of Freedom on this.
>}
>>If someone
>}murdered a member of my family there would be only one way to pay
>}restitution, with his/her life. How would the death penalty work under
>}this system?
> 
>The victims could sue for it.  See those words "deterrent factor," above?
>Retribution could fall into this category.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this means that the victim's family would have
to pay a lawyer to sue for death of their family's murderer. That doesn't
sound fair. It would make more sense for the family to just go out and kill,
or hire someone to kill, the bastard.
> 
>>Also, if the murder victim didn't have a family, how would
>}this work? Finally, how would imprisonment work under this system? 
> 
>Then any other heirs could pursue the claim.  If there weren't any others,
>then it could be auctioned off.

Who would pay for the right to sue to kill someone that murdered someone
you didn't know? And if no one took up the case then would he just go free
after murdering someone? That doesn't sound fair either.
> 
>I'm not too clear on all the details of imprisonment, and there's some
>debate in this area in the field, without any clearly superior alternative.

I have a few question about the court proceedings. Who would pay the arbitrator?
I can't imagine any one of the parties paying for him (obvious biasness then).
Also, what if the victim and/or family of the victim was dirt poor and 
couldn't afford a lawyer? Would they just have to do without a lawyer? That
doesn't sound fair either.
	Please don't just say "read this book." You offered new information
and offered to defend it. I want to hear your opinion.

>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu
> 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 08:33:11 GMT

dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>And if homosexuality is truly a genetic trait, do we see homosexuality in the
>same ratios in the animal kingdom?  If it is a genetic trait, the percentages
>of population with each sexual preference should be similar in both humans and
>animals.  Anybody have any figures?

Please provide some support for the proposition that if a trait is
genetic, its frequency must be the same in all species in which it
appears.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Bob Novak, Incompetent Pundit
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:50:31 GMT

nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>
>In short, Bob Novak is incompetent. Unfortunately, unlike
>incompetent presidents, there doesn't seem to be anything we can
>do about incompetent pundits except ignore them, which is what
>I've started to do and urge everyone else to do as well. Maybe
>the folks at CNN will finally wise up and get somebody in there
>to replace him that has at least a marginal grip on reality.

This is similiar to what a colleague showed me in the New York Post
sports pages once (i.e., the real world (-;).  Dick Shaap is wrong
on a lot of his basketball predictions, and someone asked him why
he bothered after Shaap himself admitted it.  Shaap's reply was,
"Hey, they keep paying me so I just keep writing ..."

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
From: pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HERE IT IS! (from ..YOU ARE CLUELESS...) 1 OF 3
Date: 21 Dec 92 04:30:15 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <merlyn.724871258@digibd>, merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) wr
ites:
>pnr0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (PAUL N. RITTER) writes:
>>Well I was wrong. I made 3 posts. The first dates 10/27/92...
>...
>>1. How many parents of 17+yr old children will welcome a man, who not only
>>dodged the draft, but demonstrated against his own country on COMMUNIST SOIL?
>
>England was COMMUNIST in the last Sixties!?  Boy, is my education lacking!
>I would have sworn that England was a constitutional monarchy at the time...
>
>Could it be that Clueless Boy is confusing Clinton's demonstrations against
>US involvement in Viet Nam while in college in England with Clinton's tourist
>trip to the USSR around the same time?  Naaa...
>

   Aw, come off it. He was demonstrating in the U.S.S.R. and it's DOCUMENTED.

>---
>Merlyn LeRoy
>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: From each, to each
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 04:47:44 GMT

In article <Bz0xxA.GGG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
writes:
>dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:

>>I have another method of helping others: giving them the freedom and
>>opportunity to help themselves.  In order to improve someone's lot in life,
>>you need not detract from someone else's standard of living or being.  Both
>>can be mutually improved through the free market mechanism if you only let it
>>work.  

>I accuse you of no ill will, but have observed that no free market ever truly
>exists (union existance and big business control of government are examples of
>non-free market mechanisms).  In addition, all the written 'proofs' of free 
>market economy being good for all have never been convincing to me, from Adam
>Smith on down.  I have also not seemn any empirical data that supports any 
>conclusion other than the rich get richer, the poor get poverty.
>
A true socialist state cannot exist as well.  Anything close to it must
collapse upon itself.  A simple Nash Equilibrium (see earlier post) explains
how and why.

It is also true that a free market economy is not good for all.  It is good
only for those who are willing to work in it.  Freeloaders do not exist to
drag down the economy, unless they are allowed to exist by private charities
(and they often are and generally have been throughout history by free market
style and other similar economic systems).

For an example of a socialist system that collapsed under its own weight, I
suggest you read about "The Farm" mentioned in _Walk Across America_ by Peter
Jenkins.  Absorb some empirical data showing the classic demise of a purely
socialist society.



-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  I have a trig midterm tomorrow and I'm
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  being chased by Guido the killer pimp.
This University is too Commie-	|  -Miles, from "Risky Business"
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: dmd39855@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel DuBois)
Subject: Re: No solid proof to support ( was: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:21:01 GMT

gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:

>In article <13656@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>#Even if every one of those 7% who
>#refused to participate were homosexuals, it doesn't get the number up
>#to 10% -- not even close.

>Clayton math. 4.1 percent plus 7 percent "doesn't get the number up to
>10 percent -- not even close".

>Clayton, whys is 11.1 percent not even close to 10 percent?

Well, 4.1% is an estimate of the percentage of the total population.
7% is just the percentage of people polled.  4.1% of total population +
7% of surveyed people is not equal to 11.1% of total population.  You
cannot extrapolate that, even if you assume all non-respondents to the 
survey had previous homosexual activity, that this means the total population
would also be non-respondents who possess previous homosexual behavior.
Clayton didnt really make this clear, but he was correct in his statement.

>#I see.  You want to believe it, it's an article of faith, surveys
>#that show otherwise are all wrong, etc.

>If a persons "personal experiance" is from a big city, you get big
>numbers. 

Personal experience, be it yours, Clayton's or mine is worthless in
determining statistical information.  Living in a big city doesn't give you
some magical ability to overlook the fact that you do not likely
assiociate with a representative sampling of people, and still doesn't
enable you to be familiar with the kinds of numbers (thousands) of
samples/people required to get valid data to extrapolate from.

-Dan

PS: That's a joke right?  C++ is great!

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: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:58:34 GMT

smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:

>According to the Thursday December 17, 1992 _Chicago Tribune_, George
>Bush and company has authorized United States involvement in Bosnia.

>This is probably the biggest foreign-policy mistake we could make. Bosnia
>is an extremely dangerous region and sending US troops can only result in
>a great deal of American bloodshed. 

This is true.  If we were to send ground forces into Bosnia, we would
stand to lose a great number of soldiers.  However, from what I heard
on CNN today (Dec. 17), the only military action that we've pledged to
the U.N. is airborne.

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.

>3) United States involvement in an area that has been historically explosive
>(remember World War One?) can only feed tensions in the region and stir Anti-
>American sentiment in the area. 

You'd rather let the tensions continue to build on their own?  You'd
rather let the fighting spread into neighboring countries?  Do you
really expect the Serbians to stop when they've killed off all the
Muslims in Bosnia?  Do you want to see what the flood of refugees will
do to the likes of already-tense Germany?

Leave the situation alone and you practically guarantee widespread
war.  This sort of non-involvement sentiment is what allowed WWI and
WWII to happen.

>In the meantime, we should all pray for peace in Bosnia before it becomes
>more of a mess than before.

President-Elect Clinton mentioned today Serbia's opportunity to avoid
U.S. action against them.  They must take advantage of their upcoming
elections to bring a non-agressive goverment to power.  The Bosnian
leaders are anxious for peace, or so they say.
-- 
-----------------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.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:58:40 GMT

In article <71739@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:

>Researchers in the field doubt the oft-repeated figure that one in
>ten men is gay; they think that people whose sex lives are
>exclusively homosexual make up about 4% of the adult men and less
>than 2% of adult women.

   That "exclusively", Arthur.  I'm *not* "exclusively" homosexual and
neither have most of my lovers been.  I don't think I've slept with a
Kinsey Six yet.  From my perspective, 10% is _too low_ a figure.

>Why not just admit it's 2-4 percent, and get on with it?

   Okay, so what if it *is* 2-4 percent?  It's still an observable
behavior pattern arising naturally from within the human population.
It is not inimical to either the individual or the population as a
whole.

   Regardless of how many people are homosexual, that doesn't give you
or Clayton sufficient impetus to rant 'n rave at us just because you
feel, without rationale, that we're 'icky.'

            Elf !!!
--
Elf Sternberg.   (elf@halcyon.com)
Due to a bureaucratic error, you are offered the job of county coroner.
You seriously consider accepting the job because it offers:          __
A. Unclaimed watches and wedding rings.                              \/
B. Gold fillings and bridges.
C. Free blood.
D. A constantly changing array of new friends who aren't at all stuffy
   about what happens to their genitalia.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64142 sci.econ:9374 alt.politics.clinton:18546
From: pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 17 Dec 1992 19:35:10 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: copland.crhc.uiuc.edu

Clayton Cramer writes:
>If it doesn't matter, why do homosexuals keep insisting on the 10%
>figure?  Why are homosexual clubs at universities frequently named
>"The 10% Society"?

The chief interest I have in the percentage debate is rebutting your
dishonest use of multi-definition based statistics to fake the 
conclusion that gays are more likely to molest children.

Gay clubs are often named "The 10% Society" as part of their efforts
to drive home a basic truth: we are everywhere, a randomly chosen
cross-section of society.  Everyone knows someone gay.  We are not
a negligible group of fringe wierdo freaks you can write off as
"other."  We are your brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, your
children.

I am quite disturbed by your (and other's) insistence that the number
is smaller than we say, mostly because I perceive it to be only part
of your agenda to marginalize me.  Shout all you like, Clayton - I'm
not going away. 

It's going to take a bigger man than you to pound me and the rest of
the 10% into the ground.

Paul

-- 
Paul Ryan                  (pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu)     1308 West Main St.
Center for Reliable High-Performance Computing     Urbana, IL 61801
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign         (217) 244-7179
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64287 ca.politics:10333 ba.politics:7722 soc.motss:52338