HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: And Hence Abortion is NOT Murder
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:01:07 GMT

note followup

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes ...
>Why is it so hard for some people to realize that you are extremely 
>stupid if you jam a coathanger inside your body to abort a baby?  In 
>order to make abortions safe for those stupid people, we get a professional 
>to jam a coathanger inside your body?  Something here does not make sense.

Why are you being intentionally stupid?

>"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

Damn straight.  After 12 years of Republicans, finding a job is no
picnic.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:52504 sci.environment:12061 talk.environment:4243
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:30:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: gap.1bmqnrINNavn
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct16.031140.9034@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <JMC.92Oct14190838@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>>BART paying for 50 percent of operating costs and nothing on its
>>investment is not encouraging either for extending BART or building
>>similar systems elsewhere.  Appartently the newer MARTA system is
>>even worse.
>
>	Consider that maintenance has to be paid for, and personnel to
>perform various BART tasks have to be paid, electricity to run the
>trains, and other such things.

So?  That's supposed to be in favor of BART?  What sort of crazy accounting are
you attempting here?  An operating cost is an operating cost.  And BART's not
covering its operating costs with fares.  Period.  Out of ammo.

>>If the stuff about how long a BART car lasts were relevant, BART would
>>be paying its way.
>
>	Don't forget these other costs...

We're not.  But don't YOU try to dismiss them as somehow not counting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,soc.singles,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.bizarre
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Quayle's a liar!
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:03:10 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX

In article <1992Oct16.140548.3941@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> bwillems@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (Balam Willemsen) writes:
>
>Also, you misunderstood my last statement, it was not "Jeez! That's the
>last straw! I have to vote for Clinton now" My statement was simply that
>while I had been leaning towards Clinton, I was still open to Perot (and
>weakly Marrou) at the time of my previous post on the first debate.

I find it interesting/unusual that you are paritally leaning
towards the most pro-Government candidate and the most
small-Government candidate, namely Clinton and Marrou.
These guys are poles apart.

In fact, this whole election cycle has seen a series of "surprises"
based on the voters revulsion against Government and Washington -
Tsongas, Buchanan, Brown, Perot.

It is quite curious indeed that the the most pro-Government
candidate out there has managed to channel these attitudes
his way, and garner the most support.

Patrick
	Bill Clinton: The Status Quo Candidate
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51234 alt.politics.elections:16346
From: RAJA@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:08:52 GMT
 <1762@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM>
 <1992Oct12.213453.19967@news.acns.nwu.edu>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Oct12.213453.19967@news.acns.nwu.edu>, ssc@nwu.edu (Steven
Chung) says:
>
>In article <1762@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com
>writes:
>#
>#      Gore/Magaziner in 2000 (well, maybe not Ira.  Gore/Braun?)
>#
>#      Gore/Braun in 2004
>
>Oh right.  Braun's appeal might (_might_) be enough the first time, when
>everyone can feel virtuous about voting for a black woman, but she can't
>get along with such an obvious lack of character and intelligent ideas
>forever.
>
>--
>ssc@nwu.edu | Nam castum esse decet pium poetam (Catullus 16)

Hey give her a chance. Let her first get elected to the senate and probably get
 relected a couple of times and become a veep candidate. In my opinion good luc
k to her. Pray why do you say she lacks chracter. It is easy to make accusation
s. :)

regards......rajagopalan
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 3 of 4
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:41:05 GMT
	    <98012@bu.edu>
	    <1992Oct9.155407.1618@netcom.com>
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Oct9.155407.1618@netcom.com>
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>In article <98012@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>>In article <1992Oct8.164807.681@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com
>>(Phil Ronzone) writes:

>>>Dream on [There can't be as many as 30% of the general male population
who have had homosexual fantasies!].

>>Kinsey reported that 50% of the over 5,000 men in his study
>>had at least one homosexual fantasy in their lifetime.

>Sloppy. Very very sloppy. There is a WORLD of difference between a
>fantasy and [an] inclination.

Fantasy is the mother of inclination.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cramer@optilink.uucp (Clayton Cramer): Message-ID: <12133@optilink.UUCP>
I realize it's difficult for a person as depraved as [Brian Kane].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51255 sci.environment:11889 talk.environment:4178
From: bnolte@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Bill Nolte)
Subject: Re: New this fall on TV ...
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:13:09 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <1992Oct2.202020.679@netcom.com>, by ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer):
> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>>What is so upsetting about looking at a picture of an aborted
>>fetus?  If the pro-abortion people can say that a fetus is 
>>nothing more than a "clump of cells", then there should be
>>nothing wrong with allowing children to look at a "clump of 
>>cells", right?  Or is this another example of their stinking 
>>hypocrisy?
> 
> Coming soon on NBC ...
> 
> "The Death & Murder Hour" and "XXX Film Review"
> 
> No more need to speculate what goes on in back alleys and bedrooms, now you
> Can See For Yourself!  Educuate your kids (and yourself!) about all the 
> latest techniques of sex (and murder)!  See a woman bleed to death in agony!
> See threesomes having sex!  See a teenager blow his brains out!  Seee useful 
> sex positions demonstrated for you in the privacy of your own home.
> 
> Gather the kids around the TV, folks, and join together as we show you all
> about the beginnings AND endings of life!
> 
> -- 
> Ray Fischer

But everything you have mentioned, Ray, involves life forms that are
universally accepted as more than mere "clumps of cells", so this does
nothing to refute the original argument.  Try again, please.

Bill Nolte
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: All deficits are not created equal.
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:39:43 GMT

In article <7OCT199212213570@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>In article <4C4-DjA@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu writes...
>
>>A smaller economy will generate less tax revenue than a larger economy.  
>
>Not if that larger economy is based on expansion of the government.
>
>The "government sector" includes defense contractors and workers, 
>academics and researchers, and other suppliers to government, (in 
>addition to the direct employees of government in the military and
>other services.) Every tax dollar they pay comes out of their income
>which is already *government* provided money. 

What, you think government workers don't buy anything and provide
any income to non-government workers?
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Re: Presidential Leadership
Originator: news@kittyhawk.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:36:47 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords

In article <1992Oct16.212533.7140@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <1992Oct16.034050.24739@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>
>|> Of course that haven't done anything about it, you loon! It's very
>|> low! Did you hear that? The misery index is low! That's why the
>|> Republicans keep bringing up and the Democrats don't!
>
>	The misery index is only one of the many factors that people 
>consider when picking a president, and, unfortunately for George Bush,
>it's one of the (very) few positive ones.

True. I was replying to someone else's post (which you cut out) complaining
that "the republicans talk about the misery index but haven't done anything
about it." My post was an attempt to inform the original poster that the
republicans really shouldn't do anything about it, since it's in good
shape. He did not understand what the misery index is (IMHO).

Thanks for your input.

						- greg

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: Am I unpatriotic?
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
Date: 10 Oct 92 17:51:51

In article <1992Oct8.183558.8297@tamsun.tamu.edu>,
enbal@aeroj.tamu.edu (James L. Heilman) said:

> In 1969 and 1970, I attended anti war demonstrations.  Eight years
> ago, I visited the People's Republic of China, a communist country,
> and home to George Bush's buddies, the butchers of Tianeman Square.
> I do not remember most of the people I met during my visit. Am I
> unpatriotic?

Is every American who goes abroad, and ever mentions that he does not
support every policy of the US government, unpatriotic?

It seems to me that's the deeper question behind Bush's fuss over
Clinton's anti-war demonstrations in England - and the visit to Moscow
that he would like people to believe was for the purpose of anti-war
demonstrations.  Is anyone who goes abroad automatically supposed to
become a parrot for the policies of their own government, regardless
of their own beliefs and conscience?  I would hope that in a free
country the answer is no, but Bush seems to think the answer is yes.

So, all of you who ever went abroad and mentioned not supporting every
single law of your own country - you are not patriots.  At least
according to George Bush.  

It's depressing.

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Women as inventors
Followup-To: ba.politics
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:11:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.082523.28299@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
    >And yet, after I posted an article suggesting that women had
    >something to do with inventing the cotton gin, the reaper,
    >vacuum canning, Ronzone denied that and stated they were all
    >invented by men. In this day and time, to say that the past
    >accomplishments of women are denigrated is absurd?

To state that a false claim is, indeed, a false claim is not denigration.
My father worked as an engineer for Continenatl Can Company, which had a
company museum devoted to the technology of can making. As I mentioned,
it show an early black pioneer developing vacumm canning -- and this display
was in the late 1960's! Thus, in showing a black man developing
technology important to the company, especially in the 1960's, I don't
think any truth was being edited.

Too many of the "herstory" B.S. is like Soviet "history" -- lovely story,
little truth.


-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

If all the contributions of Dead White Males, a.k.a. Dead White Loathsome
Oppressors, were to vanish, you'd have the Politically Correct(tm) Loathsome
Oppressors using dull rocks to hunt and the Politically Correct Women of
Vision and Strength(tm) using leaves for tampons.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51085 ba.politics:6051
From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Presidents Debate II Poll Results
Date: 16 Oct 1992 18:22:41 GMT
Organization: Committee to Impeach H. Ross Perot's Barber
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: s27w007.pswfs.gov

Two polling results from Debate II, and one from same sample for Debate I
for comparison.

Poll                Debate   Clinton  Bush  Perot     Sample   EMargin
CBS                   II        54      25    20      1,394 rv    3
Dallas Morning News   II        49      21    17        212 rv    7
---ditto---            I        18      18    55        ---ditto---


Warning to Clinton Boosters: Tracking polls show Clinton losing ground
between Debate I and Debate II, mostly to Perot.

Warning to Bush Boosters: When Ed Rollins asked Jim Baker whether he
was going to stay in the White House or go back to the Dept. of State
he replied that he was going back to Wyoming.

Warning to Perot Boosters: For whatever reason, Stockdale is not
perceived as a credible candidate, even by many Perot supporters.
----
    --Brad Sherman

If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own.
    --Scoop Nisker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Perot Wins First Debate
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:04:35 GMT

It will be interesting to see which one (Bush or Clinton)
begins to take on Perot during the next two debates.
Given the positive response that Perot got last night,
neither candidate would probably want to bash Perot
too badly.  It might make Bush or Clinton look like a 
bully; or, if Perot successfully deflects the criticism,
it might make B. or C. look like a fool  (let's not
debate whether making Bush or Clinton look foolish
is very difficult!).

Clinton's spin people claimed that they like the idea
of Perot going after Bush last night.  Sooner or
later, I expect Bush to strike back.

The next two debates are bound to be more enlightening
and entertaining that the last one, hopefully.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: nrc@cbnews.cb.att.com (N. Richard Caldwell)
Subject: Perot Wins First Debate
Organization: AT&T Network Systems  -  Columbus, Ohio
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:16:44 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

According to USA Today, nearly half of those surveyed said Perot did 
the best job in last night's debate.   In addition, 62% of voters felt 
more favorably toward Perot following the debate.  This compared to 
only 24% for Clinton and 13% for Bush.

Perot clearly won the battle last night.  The question is whether it
will win him any territory in the election.  Bush and the Republicans
have to hope not because Bush's negative attacks have actually cost
him ground over the last few days and if another Perot rally starts
the Republicans could easily find themselves in the third place
position that the Democrats were in during the spring.   The
difference will be that any further negative attacks will by then 
only make matters worse for Bush. 

While I still don't think Perot can win the election outright,
continued good performances could make him more of a factor.  His
agenda might best be served if he could capture enough votes to win
enough large states to cause an electoral deadlock.  Perot could then
ask his electors to vote for whoever agrees adopt more of his economic
and government reform plans.


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 17:26:57 GMT

In article <1bdf7vINNnk2@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>and carbon?  Now you're talking things like molybdenum.  Now, of course you
>COULD use plain steel in many applications where we now use chrome-moly or
>stainless steel.  Of course, you'd have to use MORE of the plain steel, and in
>some applications, you'd have to use LOTS more of other resources in order to
>compensate for the inferior qualities of plain steel rather than some of the
>more exotic alloys.

Indeed. I've grown quite interested recently in collecting examples
that present tradeoffs between more complex, but more efficient technology
and simpler but less efficient precursors. The question of how to
choose between them seems like a very difficult one. This is another
good example.

>>and that such steel is useless as far as other industry goes, then fine, I'll
>>retract the suggestion that we avoid heavy metal use.
>
>I won't claim that simple steel is useless.  It's a question of just how much
>better steel incorporating heavy metals does the job, and how much of other
>resources you'd have to use to make up for the fact you're using inferior steel.
>Things just aren't nearly as black and white as you seem to want them to be.

I don't want things to be black & white Carl. I'm quite happy with
multichromatic situations, as long as people actually look at the
situation and ask questions about it. Its when this stops happening
that things become truly black & white.

-- paul
-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Ruskin
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Perot back in yo-yo mode
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:18:41 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

I now hear that the promised "solutions" from Perot are on
hold while he re-runs his "problem" spot.  I was really
looking forward to the solutions, but I guess I took him
at his word.  This has not been proven to be a wise thing
to do, but I got suckered again.

What scares me is that I am now so cynical that I think it
is possible he never planned to air segment 2 tonight.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:51123 ca.politics:8637 ba.politics:6053
From: dfpedro@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn F. Pedro)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:21:45 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: I don't speak for them anyway.

In article <1992Oct11.185947.27153@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

A bunch of stuff to Gene Smith that, in fact, applies to the very person
he is striving to protect -- Clayton Cramer.

:In article <1992Oct10.165306.20274@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
:
:No, I just think you are a rationalizer. You have a set of beliefs
:and you choose to ignore or belittle any factual knowledge that
:disagrees with your beliefs and preconceptions.

A very accurate description of Clayton's behavior.

:You assert that others are "wrong".

Another.

:1. You do have an interest, else why the several long posts?

Yes.  Why the several long posts?  

:If you were right, you would have no problem is telling it.

We are not here for you, Phil.  Clayton can make all the assertions (lies)
he wishes, and you can defend him all you want, but no one is obligated
to educate someone who will refuses to listen.

Clayton's 'culling' of soc.motss should be all the education he needs,
yet he only sees what he wants to see.




     Donn Pedro ....................................dfpedro@uswnvg.com

		     There are no ordinary moments.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Anti-war = Anti-country?!
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:53:45 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <farenebt.718559221@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>What is patriotism? It seems that conservatives are trying
>to equate anti-war protests with unpatriotic behavior.
>Not just with Clinton but do you remember the War for Oil?
>Anti-war protesters were basically told to shutup lest they
>undermine the confidence of the soldiers. Anti-war protesters
>were called unpatriotic. BULLSHIT!

BULLSHIT yourself.

Do you really think that calling the war to liberate Kuwait a War for
Oil was going to raise the morale of our soldiers?

What about the letters the anti-war protesters urged people to send to
soldiers?  What was the purpose if not to lower their morale?

>Let's face it. If they didn't love their country, why would
>they be protesting? 

Because they were afraid they might be drafted.  How else do you
explain how the anti-war movement disintegrated after Nixon ended the
draft but while fighting was still going on?

Why do you think Clinton is so eager to intervene in Bosnia now when
he is not at risk?  After all, can you name one atrocity the Serbs
have comitted that the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong did not also commit?

>They felt they were supporting the troops
>by saying that they shouldn't be there in the first place. 

Mind explaingin how this supports the troops?  Perhaps it makes them
happy so they do a better job and kill more of the enemy?  NOT!!!
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50663 alt.rush-limbaugh:7010 alt.politics.bush:8488 alt.politics.clinton:9489 alt.politics.elections:15937 talk.abortion:41746 alt.sex:32491