HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:05:02 GMT
Organization: UC Davis Dept of Applied Science at LLNL

>>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>>>In metro New York, the Bay Area, L.A. and most other well-developed areas
>>>>you can ring up US$200-300 in tolls a year; I rang up $5 over two days of
>>>>interviews between NYC and Westchester County just outside city limits.

Just a nit-pick:  Your memory of Los Angeles must be bad.  There are lots
of toll roads and bridges in the NYC area.  There are about a half-dozen,
heavily-traveled, toll bridges in the Bay Area.  But there is only one
toll road in the Los Angeles area, and that's the Vincent Thomas Bridge.
I doubt anyone who didn't work in the Los Angeles Harbor would have a need
to cross that bridge very often.  Certainly, I lived in L.A. for seven
years and never crossed it.

Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Originator: mda46419@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:46:58 GMT

cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes the following drivel:

>You ARE a group of freaks, as soc.motss demonstrates regularly.
>As the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade demonstrates regularly.  As
>the absurd promiscuity that caused AIDS to spread like wildfire 
>through the gay community demonstrates.  As the very high drug abuse
>rates among homosexuals demonstrates.

OK.... I've got to ask:

How do soc.motss, etc. demonstrate that homosexual folk are freaks?
One definition for freak is "something very queer or unusual."
Are you attempting to use "freak" in a pejorative sense?

I will admit that the "queer" part of the definiton does seem
to fit homosexuals...in one sense at least, and I don't necessarily
see anything wrong with being unusual.  For example, I have 
an extremely high IQ.  This makes me unusual.  Should I
become the victim of hate crimes, verbal slurs, housing or job
discrimination, etc. just because of my possessing an unusual
trait?

What absurd promiscuity?  Are you claiming homosexuals are in general
more promiscuous than heterosexuals?  If so, what is the basis for 
your claim?  Do you have evidence, or is this just a part of 
your bigoted delusions?

What very high drug abuse rate among homosexuals?  Do you have
any evidence to demonstrate that drug abuse is more prevalent
among homosexuals than among het-folk?  If so, does this 
source demonstrate that this supposed increased tendency is
not a result of more homosexuals being victimized by certain
intolerant segments of society, thereby increasing the incidence
of the drug abuser having a perceived need to anesthetize hir
from society's hostility?

Come on, Clayton, you know that if you're going to make
statements like these, you need to provide documentation,
otherwise you're just going to come off sounding more like
-- 
Michael D. Adams       (aka StarOwl)	| Of all sexual aberrations, chastity
StarOwl@uiuc.edu       (NeXT mail OK)	| is the strangest. -- Anatole France
anon.46@pax.tpa.com.au (anonymously)	|------------------------------------
an692@anon.penet.fi    (anonymously)	| NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv	     
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: No solid proof to support ( was: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:16:56 GMT

Daniel DuBois writes:
#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.  

False. The 4.1 percent was the number in the SURVEY, which is assumed
to be a valid estimate of the number in society. 

So adding the 4.1 percent of the survey, with the 7 percent of the
survey that refused to answer gives 11.1 percent.

Not that I claim that all that refused to answer are homosexual, I
just wanted to point out that Clayton can't even add numbers
correctly. 

#Clayton didnt really make this clear, but he was correct in his statement.

Clayton blew the math so badly it wasn't even funny. He was *TOTALLY*
wrong in his statement.

#Personal experience, be it yours, Clayton's or mine is worthless in
#determining statistical information.

The issue is that Clayton is accusing homosexuals of lying when they
said their experiance is about 10 percent. The study that Clayton
trumptes shows two major cities having percentages of 12 and 20
percent! So people who DO live in cities DO have personal experiances
of 10 percent.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64570 alt.rush-limbaugh:11776
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's bigoted remarks at the convention...
Keywords: hate
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:30:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac

In article <liqeotINNdai@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

>Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>|> Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>|> >
>|> >The Republican party has done everything they can, including endorsing
>|> >the democrat who ran against him.  What more do you want?  Anyone can
>|> >call themselves a Republican (or a Democrat for that matter -- in fact,
>|> >Duke used to be a Democrat and was when he was a wizard in the KKK).
>|> 
>|> Bingo. 
>|> 
>|> Hey, Ken, how come you support the Democrats, since by your apparant
>|> standards, they accept the support of Lyndon LaRouche?  I'm sure if we
>|> looked hard enough, we could probably find a Democrat even more odious
>|> than LaRouche to bludgeon the Democrats with, if "the worst creep who
>|> calls himself a member of the party" is going to be the standard.
>
>Because the D party has disavowed LaRouche, and the R party has said
>that Robertson and Buchannon represent the party.

I don't support the Democrats. I don't support any American political party
(or any Canadian political party, for that matter.)

I simply asked a question - were the remarks attributed to Robertson at the
R. convention correctly quoted? One reader said no, but also said he didn't
catch the speech in question - I did catch the speech, and believe the quote
correct, but wouldn't swear on it, because I wasn't paying close attention
at the time.

-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT 
 Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Just south of Tupperware Central...  
                 Information is power - get connected
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
From: dwells@fits.cv.nrao.edu (Don Wells)
Subject: Re: Stupendous Man, Stupendous Silence!
Organization: nrao
	<DWELLS.92Dec8225551@fits.cv.nrao.edu> <1g8268INNgsi@mozz.unh.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:03:08 GMT

In article <1g8268INNgsi@mozz.unh.edu> pas@anchor.unh.edu (Paul A
Sand) writes: ..for a refreshing change, a well-documented followup.
rather than just sarcastic attempts to refute, deny and disparage
sources that constradict the case he wants to defend. Now that Mr.
Sand and I have posted our sources the two sides of the debate are
fairly represented, and the net can judge for itself.

I quoted from p.205 of "Balanced Budgets & American Politics" (James
D.  Savage, 1988), in which an address by Ronald Reagan to the
Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, May 19, 1980 is partly paraphrased
and partly directly quoted.  Savage's text indicates that, on at least
one occasion, Reagan asserted that reflows from his big tax cut would
compensate for the revenue loss, without mentioning spending
reductions. Mr. Sand disagrees. It is time to leave this issue for
others to decide.

 PAS> Mr. Wells.. continues to ignore the actual evidence of Reagan's
 PAS> economic plan developed for his 1980 campaign, which (once
 PAS> again) predicted only a 17% reflow..  

Mr. Sand is now asserting that the 17% reflow estimate from Martin
Anderson's book was in a document from the 1980 campaign; previously
Mr.  Sand's wording appeared to imply that it was a post-election
estimate.  In either case, the 17% has nothing to do with the question
of what Ronald Reagan asserted in his May 1980 San Francisco speech.

I quoted extensively from David Stockman's book, in which Reagan and
his counselor Meese were depicted as having faith that the reflows
would save them from large deficits after the tax cut. Mr. Sand was
unwilling to accept Stockman as a reference on equal footing with the
references which support his side of the debate. It is time to leave
this issue for others to decide.

I cited a WSJ reference which demonstrates that on at least one
occasion Kemp made an extravagant assertion about the benefits of
reflows. Mr. Sand has supplied another WSJ reference in which Kemp
made an orthodox projection of reflows.  I have cited Reagan on both
sides of the issue, and Mr. Sand and I have cited Kemp on both sides
of the issue.  I say that the record indicates that, while (most?)
orthodox economists were consistent in their assertions about reflows,
two of the supply-side politicians slipped into exaggeration
occcasionally.  Again, it is time to leave this issue for others for
decide.
--

Donald C. Wells             Associate Scientist        dwells@nrao.edu
National Radio Astronomy Observatory                   +1-804-296-0277
520 Edgemont Road                                 Fax= +1-804-296-0278
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-2475 USA            78:31.1W, 38:02.2N 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:14:48 GMT

In article <dmeyers.724375108@mal-s2> dmeyers@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers) writes:
>In <92347.095544DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>>I am perfectly willing to be convicned.  It is just that I get tired of
>>people claiming that private charity could do the job and offering
>>no evidence to support that claim.  I've looked around and I've seen
>>private charities doing wonderful work.  I've yet to see any evidence that
>>they are more efficient than government in large scale operations, such as
>>feeding the poor, insuring the sick, or other such social service
>>operations.
>
>Would you accept a teensy bit of anecdotal evidence?
>In about an hour and a half, I need to get to an
>organizational meeting of a volunteer group I work
>with called the Mad Housers.  We build huts for
>homeless people to live in, help them get food,
>and are working on some other longer-term projects,
>like permanent low-cost housing.

This is similar to the experience of a friend of mine, who volunteers a
great deal of time building low income housing.  His philosophy is that he
works as much as he needs to in order to stay afloat, and spends the rest of
his time building.  He doesn't pay taxes on what he earns; he figures he'd
have to make more money, and that would take away from his ability to help
people.  Unfortunately, the IRS strongly disapproves of this, and has threatened
to send thugs out to make him give them his cut.

                                         James Parker
                                         jap@cb1focus.att.com
From: "tom betz" <tom.betz@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: "drugs" threaten democrac
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:30:47 EST
Reply-To: "tom betz" <tom.betz@execnet.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Executive Networks Information

Quoth James Douglas Del-vecchio regarding "DRUGS" THREATEN DEMOCRACY on 
12-17-92:

JD>billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
JD>>I personally feel that a convict should have to work, while in prison
JD>>all, they worked to get there - they should work to cover as much of 
JD>>$30-$40 thousand dollars/year it costs to keep them in prison.
JD>
JD>What is the incentive for the convict to work?  If they don't get paid
JD>enough to make them want to work, they just won't.

What's worse, convicts are usually paid 30-40 cents an hour, and they 
ain't just making license plates any more.  Prisons pretty much  have the 
auto wiring harness market cornered these days, and are getting into the 
furniture manufacturing business.

Legitimate for-profit manufacturers can not compete with these state-owned 
businesses, and so are going out of business, meaning more unemployed who 
might be driven to commit crimes, and staff further prison expansion.

If convicts are going to work, they should be paid 110% of the going rate 
for the industry... and anything over the 30-40 cents an hour they are now 
getting should be forwarded to the convicts' victims.  In this way, the 
state-owned prison businesses will not compete unfairly with legitimate 
businesses.




---
  WinQwk 2.0 a#299  I love my country.  I distrust its government.
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:23:15 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <104932@bu.edu>, kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> In article <13596@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #a homosexual is anyone who has sexual contact with members of
# #his/her own sex.  No requirement for exclusivity.
# 
# Hmmm. Kinsey would say that category describes 37% of the male population
# in his 1948 study.
# 
# You're trying to use a definition that implies one statistic, and using
# a completely DIFFERENT statistic (the famous 4%) to do your dirty work.
# Not very intellectually honest, as Mark Carroll has pointed out.

Kinsey's numbers have been suspect for a very long time.  The recent
surveys in France and Britain show 4.1% and 6.1% of males having EVER
had any homosexual contacts.  It is well-known that Kinsey's numbers
are skewed because of large numbers of current and former prisoners.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
C++ is to C, as lung cancer is to lung.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: Boycotts, Boycotts, Boycotts....
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 06:15:03 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Dec19.165326.7381@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>It is funny that you consider US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT to be conservative.
>Every since it was sold, it has been getting more and more liberal.

He's referring to John Leo's column.  John is US News' token conservative,
and he writes the best columns in the rag (but then, I suppose I'm baised!)

>However, since the Political Correctness Police are now boycotting
>on so many issues, the PC person may soon find it impossible to
>purchase anything or travel anywhere (except Santa Monica, CA). I
>think that would be great!

That was the bottom line on the issue.  It'll take you an hour to buy three
items in the store, when you have to stop and consider all the possible
boycotts and what your purchase will mean (assuming you're PC).  The real 
problem is that while I agree with anyone who wants to boycott the $60
million Babe (BaBa Striesand), I disagree with those who want to follow her
lead and boycott Colorado.  Seems we always like our boycotts and disagree
with the other side's.  Dumb.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: I WAS RIGHT!!! YOU ARE CLUELESS!!!!
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:52:57 GMT

In article <farenebt.724601258@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy) writes:
>Mr Ritter still hasnt answered the charges that he is making this up.
>At least two people have said they looked through old posts and couldnt
>find the flames he refered to in his original posting. A request to
>Mr Ritter, put up or shut up.

He responded to me by email.  It seems there were two posts, one
shortly before the election, the other about 4-1/2 weeks ago.  Some of
us seem to have higher expectations about newsreader expiration dates,
and the memory of Usenet participants.

The first article was supposed to be something accusing the Democrats
of being Communists bent on committing evil on American society.
Perhaps it was lost in the flurry of right-wing fire and brimstone in
that last week.  The latter article (I'm judging from the subject
lines Mr. Ritter gave me) was one of those "We Are the Opposition and
We Are Right" articles.  Perhaps that too was lost in the right-wing
thunder shortly after the election.




--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64716 soc.motss:52901 alt.sex:39832
From: pgr@crhc.uiuc.edu (Paul Ryan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: No solid proof to support ( was: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 17 Dec 1992 19:42:17 -0600
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: copland.crhc.uiuc.edu

># Of course you forgot to mention that the pollsters stated that there 
># figures may not be that accurate since many people might not or would not
># say they are gay.

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, you are missing the point.  Closeted gays do not tell 
strangers on the telephone that they are gay.  Think about what 
it means to be closeted.  What you've shown is that around 5% of
those phoned are OUT enough to tell a stranger.

Thus, your survey provides not an accurate estimate, but a lower
limit with an obvious basis for the conclusion that the accurate
number will be higher.

Kinsey, who did a much more thorough job of putting his participants
at ease, found that around 10% of his subjects experienced homosexuality
in a meaningful, lasting way.  

Clayton, stop for a moment and think about this: what fraction of
all homosexuals do you think are "out" to strangers?  

Another poster makes an excellent point: the child-molesting 
HIV assasin you are so proud of would definitely have answered NO
to that survey.

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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: howiegbk@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jr Howard Mea Turner)
Subject: Re: Space program necessary
Keywords: "We have the technology."  - St. Hera of the Incarnate Mind
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 04:06:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.012613.28186@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <17DEC199218251606@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott) writes:
>>In article <17DEC199215301538@zeus.tamu.edu> srf6200@zeus.tamu.edu (Steven Rush Fennell) writes...
>>>In article <1992Dec17.172656.27110@technology.com> judy@technology.com (Judy McMillin) writes...
>
>-- 
>David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?


CAN WE PLEASE GET THIS THREAD ONTO THE PROPER NEWSGROUP???

It is a very good thread, but please, take it over to misc.space 
or something.

Thanks,
H.
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:51:27 GMT

In article <13655@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <1992Dec15.053414.28605@mail.cornell.edu>, wcj1@cornell.edu (Bill Jenkins) writes:
>
># Does it really matter how many?
>
>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"?

Beats me.  Why don't you ask *them*?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: dmorse@igc.apc.org (Dorothy Morse)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Libertopia in Somalia
Date: 13 Dec 92 01:53:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1992Dec9.022933.25269@midway.uch:-670784935:cdp:1483600057:000:359
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmorse    Dec 12 17:53:00 1992


And are the marines free not to take orders from anybody?

Or do we have to have a group of militarily unliberated folks
sworn to die for libertarian society?  What will be the attraction?
Will people be drafted?  What kind of folks will volunteer to give
up a lot of civil rights to defend people who yell if they are taxed
to buy breakfast for hungry kids?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,ca.politics,ba.politics
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:24:31 GMT

In article <13642@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
#Nope.  As the recent surveys done in France and Britain demonstate,
#the percentage of males who have had ANY homosexual contacts during
#a lifetime is <10%.

Clayton shows that he can't even intrepret a paper correctly. 

The proper conclusion is that the number of French who admit to having
"homosexual intercourse" which was NOT defined, is at least 4 percent,
while the number of British who admit to "a male partner with whom
anal sex or orogenital sex or other forms of genital contact had
occured" was over 6 percent for Great Britain as a whole, and almost
12 percent for London.

These numbers are LOWER LIMITS not UPPER LIMITS as you are trying to
claim. 

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's bigoted remarks at the convention...
Keywords: hate
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:35:29 GMT

In article <1185@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>In article <1992Nov25.024005.7142@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>
>kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>
>|If I ever exercised my right to vote in Yankee elections again (I am a
>|dual citizen), I most certainly would  ask serious questions of any
>|candidate whose party accepted the support of David Duke, Bo Gritz, or
>|Mr. Robertson.
>
>The Republican party has done everything they can, including endorsing
>the democrat who ran against him.  What more do you want?  Anyone can
>call themselves a Republican (or a Democrat for that matter -- in fact,
>Duke used to be a Democrat and was when he was a wizard in the KKK).
>
>Who is Bo Gritz and what has he to do with this?
>
Bo Gritz is a true American patriot who is being denounced as a fascist by
the Free Shit Brigades (tm) before his message of personal responsibility
and self reliance can catch on.  I sincerely hopes he weathers the storm.
-- 
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,alt.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality