HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bdsuba@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (PANDAMAN)
Subject: Re: Boycotts, Boycotts, Boycotts....
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Turner Ranch. Blood Butte, Texas
Date: 11 Dec 1992 13:38 EST  

In article <2194@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>, bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes...
>In article <1992Dec9.222222.10952@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> 
>>	Would you like it if someone called you soft on crime because
>>you didn't support (say) public executions, and agonizing public
>>executions at that?
>>
>>	Personally, I think we should televise executions just so
>>death-penalty enthusiasts can get a sight of what they hanker for so
> 
>I wouldn't mind supporting televised executions if they would also show 
>crime scene photographs of the victims along with a detailed description
>of what was done to them.  It is human nature to sympathize with suffering, 
>but there would undoubtedly be a lot less sympathy for criminals on death row
>if people could see in graphic detail the crimes that got them there.  
> 
>While we're at it, maybe it wouldn't hurt to televise a few second-trimester 
>abortions.  It could start a trend... public policy by gross-out...;)

Here's a vote for informed consent.  Video helped shape the discussion and 
policy on Vietnam, why not use video for these other issues as well?  One 
person's gross-out is another's reality.
From: ed@wente.llnl.gov (Ed Suranyi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Gary Trudeau
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:28:53 GMT
Organization: UC Davis Dept of Applied Science at LLNL

In article <1992Dec11.092033.5569@fasttech.com> zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk) writes:
<I unfortunately don't have the worst cartoon in front of me, so I'll recall it
<as best as I can. It was a Sunday cartoon. Trudeau was railing about some
<alleged criminal activity or other, I don't recall exactly what. He went on
<and on for panel after panel. Which was fine.
<
<The character saying this was the guy who does the radio shows. (Zonker?)
<Anyway, in the last few panels Zonker says something like this:
<
<	Of course only a court can determine guilt or innocence.
<
<	But, to this reporter at least, he's GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY.

Just a correction:  It was a daily, four-panel, strip, not a Sunday one.
It was from the days of Watergate, in the early years of the Doonesbury
cartoon.  It can be found in one of the first Doonesbury books, called,
appropriately enough, "Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!"  I believe the person
involved was John Mitchell.

Ed
ed@wente.llnl.gov

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,talk.bizarre,alt.peeves,alt.flame,alt.cascade
From: bur@ultisol.gsfc.nasa.gov (MAC)
Subject: Re: ***(NEW EDITION) JAPANYES;VERY POPULAR PAPER ON JAPANESE BUSINESS STRATEGY (1of2)
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,alt.peeves,alt.flame,alt.cascade
Organization: Yes.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:40:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.164324.6672@spock.UUCP> bane@spock.uucp (Cameron Huang) writes:
>In article <1992Dec6.100728.12784@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>What is this doing in talk.bizarre??
>>
>What is THIS doing on alt.peeves?
>
Hey, take this to alt.cascade.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64305 soc.motss:52355 alt.sex:39580
From: key@soda.berkeley.edu (peter li'ir key)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: 15 Dec 1992 05:40:56 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

gone gone gone and
vanishingly small
too few

I,
I am justified
and you,
you are less than I

I, no WE, I/WE will
you gone
thus I/WE with my words
and vast numbers
diminish you to
nothing

-----

the tyranny of the majority
is not justified by numbers

peter li'ir key
key@soda.berkeley.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Bleeding-Heart Libertarianism (was Legalizing drugs)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:54:04 GMT

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.
}
}This might work for theft, but it wouldn't work for murder.

Look, there's a whole discipline called "Law And Economics," the economic
analysis of law.  Do you really think that no one has considered your
questions in the entire body of literature of this field?

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.

>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.

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.
David Friedman's idea is that convicts would be subject to competing bids
for imprisonment, with time and intensity of labor and quality of treatment
being negotiable factors.  The sentence would be non-negotiable, but its
delivery would be.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64872 soc.motss:53070 alt.sex:39921
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: I made a mistake (Re: No solid proof to support ( was: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92)
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:51:10 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <13656@optilink.COM>, cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 20,055 people, aged 18-69 years.  The survey was done by phone, 
> covering all of France.  11.6% of the contacted refused to participate
> in the survey; 7% of the contacted refused to participate because of
> the sexual behavior questions.  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.

Actually, if EVERY one of the 7% were homosexuals, it would get the
number high enough.  Of course, this assumes that there are no 
heterosexuals is France so prudish that they would refuse to participate
in such a survey.

> Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!



-- 
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
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: "HIV-infected molest suspect outrages town"
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:28:14 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Dec15.153409.18579@seachg.uucp>, chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask) writes:
> In article <13596@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ## But there are two different definition of homosexuality in that "proof":
# ## 
# ##   Definition 1: A homosexual is anyone who has any sexual contact with
# ##      with his/her own sex. (Used to generate the supposed number of
# ##      homosexual molesters)
# ## 
# ##   Definition 2: A homosexual is anyone who has sexual contact 
# ##      *exclusively* with members of his/her own sex. (Used to generate
# ##      the supposed percentage of homosexual molesters.)
# #
# #No, a homosexual is anyone who has sexual contact with members of
# #his/her own sex.  No requirement for exclusivity.
# #
# #Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
# 
# Oh boy!  Thanks, Clay ol' Pal, let's see what conclusions we can  draw from
# that whopper.
# 
# One out of ten people are gay (popular stat, don't know what it is based
# on).

It's false.  See the December 3, 1992 _Nature_.

# One out of three children has their first sexual contact with the same sex
# ("doctor" games, before they know the difference)

Source?

# -chris blask


-- 
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
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Generalissimo Boycott)
Subject: Re:      Re: Muerte De America
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:38:00 GMT

In article <1gojceINNq0m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, 
an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes...

>     As the General Boycotts from a dank FBI dungeon.

No conozco Ingles Senor..... 
Que? Recuerde El Jefe Gordon Liddy?
No. No se. 
Mi tarjete verde? 
No es necessitar para un diplomatico, Senor!

-= Otra Libre Cuba =-

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations...NOT!)
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:12:27 GMT

lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

>In article <1992Dec15.223806.28846@rchland.ibm.com> Jared Dahl,
>jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com writes:
>>we couldn't go back to the moon right now if we wanted too.
>>Most of the plans were destroyed in a fire at Nasa.

>I'm sorry, but this is a myth. Although it would be impossible to do so
>right now due to lack of infrastructure, the plans were not destroyed in
>a fire. The Saturn V facilities were altered for shuttle. The
>lack of any heavy lift vehicle is the biggest problem.

>Norman

>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>Senior Engineer
>Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company

Well, I finally found something I can agree with Dr Norm on.  The thing
we're _really_ lacking, though, is the desire and the will to go.  If
those are present, the technology will follow, just as it did in the
60s.

John



>When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
>                               Hunter Thompson
-- 
John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Gary Trudeau
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:40:44 GMT

zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk) writes:

>In <bill.723844760@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:
>>zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk) writes:

>>>But they can't possibly compare to the many vicious, vitriolic attacks he has
>>>made

>>Give me one example where Trudeau went too far.

>I unfortunately don't have the worst cartoon in front of me, so I'll recall it
>as best as I can. It was a Sunday cartoon. Trudeau was railing about some
>alleged criminal activity or other, I don't recall exactly what. He went on
>and on for panel after panel. Which was fine.

>The character saying this was the guy who does the radio shows. (Zonker?)
>Anyway, in the last few panels Zonker says something like this:

>	Of course only a court can determine guilt or innocence.

>	But, to this reporter at least, he's GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY.

>There's nothing wrong with SUGGESTING things like this. In fact, doing it
>cleverly is what good political satire is all about. But this ending was
>way over the line.


I'm hardly convinced.  First, a fictional television reporter who's
supposedly in the position of impartial reporting belies that be
screaming Guilty Guilty Guilty.  This is slightly exaggerated from
the common everyday occurrence where the press does decide that 
someone is obviously guilty, and stories are carried accordingly,
with that not too hard to discern that slant (remember how obvious
the slant was against Saddam Hussein during the gulf war?).  This
in fact would be somewhat humorous.

If it has to do with countless covered-up charges against the
Reagan-Bush administration, Congressional corruption, etc, it
could reflect the frustration of a reporter over seeing good
investigative work trashed again and again.

And do you think Bush didn't pronounce Noriega guilty ahead of
time?  Wasn't it Manson who held up a paper at his trial, which
stated in bold letters "Nixon declares Manson guilty"?

Ahhh, but I'm arguing against a vague example.  Who was guilty?
What was the reference?  What seemed humorous about the
column, and what was over the line?

Get specific.  You made a pretty rash charge.

-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: I WAS RIGHT!!! YOU ARE CLUELESS!!!!
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:40:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.021039.7623@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.094044.94512@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> 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,
>
>Er, minor question: what posts?  I just did a search for "ritter" and
>didn't find anything for 500 articles.
>
So this means you've just covered the last 3 or 4 days on this group, perhaps
less.  The last 5000 articles might catch one or two, as that would cover an
entire month.  

Personally, I don't recall ever seeing the triumphant-boy ritter on the net
ever.  If he did post some things, I'd like to see them.
-- 
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.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:06:57 GMT

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, when you come down to it, there isn't really any moral or
philosophical justification for doing *anything*, at either the
individual level or at some institutional level. Sure, I eat to
survive, but why survive? What moral or philosophical principle
justifies my survival (or yours)?

There is no 'absolute' justification for the space program. Some say
that we need a space program in order to find places to support the
continued expansion of the human population, but of course we could
just figure out how to control the population instead. The fact is,
if enough people are willing to support the space program, it will
go forward. If people aren't willing, it won't.

Now, there is another issue here as well. That revolves around the
question: "Are there some important things that are worth doing
that the private sector won't do?". I happen to think that the
answer to this question is "yes". Is the space program one of those
things? Yes and no.

No, the government space program has no business whatsoever using
the space shuttle to put commercial satellites into orbit (or failing
to do so!). But, yes - there are some non-commercial projects that
are worth doing that simply won't get done by the private sector,
because they aren't the sort of profit-making enterprises that are
the proper business of the private sector. The space station, at
this point it time, falls into this category.

There may never be a commercial application for a space station.
However, unless the government builds and operates one, as sort of
a pilot program, we'll never find out. No private company has the
resources, or is willing to take the risk, that a space station
project requires. At the same time, the answer to whether or not
a space station is a good idea for the long run is one that we need
to have.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64402 soc.motss:52475 alt.sex:39643
From: Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex
Subject: Re: pounding the "10%" figure into the ground: Nature, 12/3/92
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 13:48:50 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Here's another one...

"The gay science of genes and brains" Economist Dec 5, 1992

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.

Don't give us the "that data can't possibly be valid" crap unless you're
willing to admit that the 10 percent figure is certainly baloney if
4 percent might be wrong. There are no surveys that show 10 percent, most
show much smaller numbers. If it's so darned unimportant, then why
keep repeating an obviously erronous and politically motivated 10 percent?

Why not just admit it's 2-4 percent, and get on with it?
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Hillary picks secretary of HHS
Date: 15 Dec 1992 01:10:22 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

ostrer@icbr.ufl.edu writes:
|> 
|> It comes as disapointment to many of us in the health care community that
|> Donna Shalala was named secretary of Health and Human Services in the
|> Clintons' Adminastration.  She is a member of Hillary Clinton's inner
|> circle of Baby Boomer activitist, known as one of the original founders
|> of the "POLITICAL CORCTNESS" movement.  She is a "rights" liberal who
|> believes in a pervasive securing OUTCOME for special interest groups.
|> The appointment of the assistant secretary of HHS, who oversees NIH, FDA,
|> and CDC, is now very precarious.
|> 
|> This reflect a strong role of Hillary Clinton in the White House.
|> Hillary appearently is also going to pick the Attorney General.
|> 
|> After Sen Mitchell picked Bentson, and DICK Gephart pick Penatta, we
|> are left wondering if Slick Willie will show any leadership.
|> 
I assume you have some data to suggest that President Elect Clinton
did not make these choices.  Your suppositions are cute but of
little interest.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne)
Subject:      Another 100 Billion?
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 19:44:38 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA08907; Tue, 15 Dec 92 18:45:58 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA02191; Tue, 15 Dec 92 18:45:53 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 0851; Tue, 15 Dec 92 19:48:13 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id
 1246; Tue, 15 Dec 92 19:48:13 MST
X-To: talk.politics.misc.usenet


     Last night, on public television, I watched a economic debate
  about the Federal deficit, betwixt Dr. Thurow and William Buckley.

     A  brief mention was made about the defict being "100 Billion"
  more than they thought ( whoever "they" is ).  It appeared to be
  common knowledge among the participants, but the reference was
  vague.

     Did I miss something here?   :)

     I think I would have noticed "an ADDITIONAL 100 Billion", if
  it had been reported.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Hillary picks secretary of HHS
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 02:29:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.160958.1@icbr.ufl.edu> ostrer@icbr.ufl.edu writes:
>She is a "rights" liberal who
>believes in a pervasive securing OUTCOME for special interest groups.

Some examples backing up your assertion would enlighten us all, and
educate us Canadian folk who has always had an obsession with the
social services sector. Thank you in advance.

(references to the literature will do ... no need to type them all in)
-- 
Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc